Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/09/1996 S (LDC Amendments) SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 9, 1996 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS RE: LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 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 5:15 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 Bettye J. Matthews ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager Mike HcNees, Assistant County Manager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Item #3A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - 2ND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD OCTOBER 23, 1996 CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call this meeting to order today. Mr. Dotrill, if you could give us an invocation and a pledge to the flag, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this evening on behalf of all the residents of our community for the opportunity to address and plan and have this board make decisions concerning community standards and the high emphasis and importance that are placed on community standards and development standards for Collier County and its people. We would ask and pray this evening, as always, that you would bless this time together, that it would be beneficial for all the people of Collier County as this board makes and gives important direction and decisions for our Land Development Code. And we pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hulhere. MR. HULHERE: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members. Before we get into the actual amendments, there are a couple of items that -- procedural items that I just wanted to get some direction from you on. And the first is, as you are all aware, the Planning Commission, in hearing these amendments, heard and made a motion on all of the amendments before you with the exception of the architectural standards and design standards. They continued the hearing on that issue until October the 24th, and you're -- currently you're scheduled to have your final LDC hearing on the 23rd. There are a couple of issues there. One is, I guess, the staff would like to know if you would like us to be prepared to bring forward to you on the 23rd the same final draft document that we will deliver to the Planning Commission on the 24th for your consideration possibly as a workshop item recognizing that you'll have to continue your meeting at least a week or -- or two to actually - _ because the Planning Commission will not hear it until the following day. So I was looking for some direction with that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions: One, what are the possibilities the Planning Commission meeting sometime prior to the 24th, or is -- the logistics of that just don't work? MR. HULHERE: That was the only time that they could get a quorum in their discussion, and you know, that was the date that they picked. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My thought then is perhaps it's premature for us to be doing too much on -- I'd rather have them go through their paces and -- before that comes to us. So if we need to continue that from that hearing, that portion to another date, I don't have any objection to that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a twofold concern. The first was just any delay in the architectural standards was -- was something I anticipated and was hoping we could head off since the delay is really being caused by the Planning Commission's need to review. What I didn't want is for new developments to slip through the cracks before we could get this thing implemented. And in that vein I contacted Fort Collins, Colorado, and got a copy of their commercial building moratorium and felt that if this thing was going to get delayed unduly, then we may wish to address that in the form of a moratorium to make sure nothing slips through. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I ask a question? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is the delay we're talking about extensive, or I thought we were just talking like a week? MR. HULHERE: A week or two depending on when you would continue your meeting on the 23rd. With regard to the projects in the pipeline, that was B, Item B. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. There's a second reason for bringing that up. So if we're just going to delay to, say, a week later to the 30th and schedule this for final review, I don't have a problem. And Mr. Hulhere's answered my concern through the county attorney's office in that we may be able to tag -- this process is in the pipeline already anyway. So I -- you know, if we have to delay for that one week, I think that's fine, but I'd like to make it as minimum -- minimal as possible. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The other question you asked is would the board want to bring this forward for a workshop and hear it on the 23rd -- MR. HULHERE: 23rd or -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- before the Planning Commission. I don't think that is a good use of our time, because we need to have the Planning Commission go through it and -- and make their recommendations, and then we hear it. So I think that would -- it would be an extra step that would just be redundant. We'd have to do it all over again when the Planning Commission hears it. So I personally would prefer not to do that. MR. HULHERE: I suspected that probably would be your desire, but I wanted to just bring it forward for your consideration. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think what I would like to schedule -- I don't particularly care to schedule a workshop for this item, because we'll go through the exact same thing and not take any action and do it again. So what I would like to do is to perhaps schedule an additional public hearing and go ahead and see if we're going to adopt it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My suggestion was poss -- one week after what is currently scheduled, instead of the 23rd meet on the 30th, hear it, and be done with it, if that's possible. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel's going to help us with this. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, that's just fine. If you go for that date, I think we're within our -- any advertising requirements that we have and that the notice that you provide tonight, and which will appear in printed agendas in the paper, etc., will be adequate for the continued date that you're looking at. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Did the -- does this require a -- a -- four-vote majority? MR. WEIGEL: For it to continue? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. For it -- for it to be adopted on the 30th. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. MR. WEIGEL: I -- I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's just an ordinance. MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so. I think that, yeah, it -- it's in the zoning area. Well -- MR. MULHERE: I can check. I have my Land Development Code, but I believe it does require a super majority. It's like a fezone instead of amendment to the Land Development Code, but I can check for sure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we need to -- are you saying now that we need to continue tonight the -- that portion of it? MR. MULHERE: Well, that was my question. Since we don't know how far we're going to get tonight with the other amendments and you may make some changes and want us to bring those back to you on the 23rd anyway, I was under the -- I was suggesting that on the 23rd you may -- you probably have to convene and then either continue the architectural standards or -- at that point in time. I think -- whether you can do that tonight without meeting on the 23rd or not is something I think the county attorney can tell us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why don't I suggest we get through everything except that portion of the agenda tonight and see how far we get, and then we'll know what's left and can schedule appropriately at that time. In the meantime, let's find out how many votes it takes and what's available on the schedule. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Mulhere, again, if you'd let the festivities begin. MR. MULHERE: There is just one other item. I'm sorry. With the projects in the pipeline -- we're getting a lot of pressure from a couple of projects that are in the pipeline. And Miss Student -- I don't know if she's here, but she will be here, I think -- she had done some research. We wanted to bring to the board's attention relative to our ability to apply these standards to projects in the pipeline, in other words, put them on hold until the board's action has occurred and apply those standards. And she has found some case law, she indicated to me, that would support -- if the board has given direction to staff, which this board did on May 8th, and if the projects came in after that direction was begun, then projects that came in after that direction was given could be held to the standards that the board is going to adopt. And I just -- I think we just need a little bit of direction on that, because I think Home Depot called me nine or ten times today. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we need to send a message to Home Depot and everyone else that we're going to follow case law, the staff was directed to develop them, and if we're allowed to put them on hold until the standards are adopted, I think that's what we need to do. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we need a formal motion to do that? MR. WEIGEL: I think that's sufficient right there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's begin then. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Some of these changes are based on legal review from Miss Student. I'll be handing out to you revised documents. The numbers are the same. We've handwritten the agenda page numbers on the bottom of those documents. As soon as I get them, I'll bring them up for you. On your -- in your agenda package page 8 starts the first amendment; this is Division 1.9. And basically this is just an amendment to clean up the existing language. There were several departments in the -- in the LDC that no longer exist, several titles that no longer exist. We've gone in and take -- struck through those departments that don't exist and -- and cleaned that up to reflect the division as it exists today. And if you have any questions -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have any questions on this. MR. MULHERE: The next change is on agenda item page 13, and at the direction of the board I believe there was a public hearing several weeks ago about a veterinary office without outdoor kennels to be added to the C(1)(T) district, and staff prepared this memo to add that doctor's office as a conditional use. (Commissioner Mac'Kie entered the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let me ask a question of Mr. Dotrill. Mr. Dotrill, you got, I see, a stack of public speaker slips there. Are they separated by code number? MR. DORRILL: To the extent that I can. The answer to your question is no, but it would appear by some comments that the vast majority of these deal with either the landscape code or the commercial vehicle ordinance, probably more on the commercial vehicle side. And I've already separated out one or two on the architectural code that will not be the subject of this evening's meeting. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. Go ahead. MR. HULHERE: Any questions on -- on that addition to the veterinary office with outdoor kennels? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. MR. HULHERE: On page 14 of your agenda -- and also the result of a public petition several months ago -- Attorney Dennis Cronin came to the board on a public petition and -- and asked that the staff be directed to take a look at the (C)(2) district to expand the neighborhood retail-type uses in that (C)(2) district. And we did -- we did do that. The board directed us to do that, and we did it. And as an aside I would let you know that the -- the comprehensive planning staff is looking through the EAR process at the whole issue of neighborhood commercial zoning. But on an interim we looked and found -- and in your packet on page 15 is a table, at the bottom of that table -- there are only 67.09 acres of (C)(2) land in Collier County. It's all located pretty -- in close proximity to neighborhoods or residential areas. Thirty-eight -- thirty-nine acres of it is developed. There's only 28 acres undeveloped, so what your staff did was go ahead and prepare a~ expanded (C)(2) district providing for several retail-type uses. And I have a revised -- this has gone through the legal review; so there's a slightly revised amendment here for distribution. I -- I do have copies of the SIC Code, the applicable SIC Code pages. If you have any specific questions on those uses that we've added -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do -- MR. HULHERE: We didn't take away any uses. You'll see some struck through, but that's only because they appear elsewhere in that section. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I was going to inquire, drug stores -- MR. HULHERE: In fact, that appears down under No. 17. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is under 16, miscellaneous repair services? MR. HULHERE: 76.29? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. HULHERE: Electrical and electronic repair shops, watch, clock, jewelry repair. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No transmission repair. MR. HULHERE: Let me just see if I -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sewing machine? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Where did you say drug stores were? MR. HULHERE: Drug stores were under No. 17, miscellaneous retail services. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sixteen. MR. HULHERE: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's operate off the new one. MR. HULHERE: Yes, I'm sorry. That's my fault. I'm operating off the old one, No. 16. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I was too. MR. HULHERE: Commissioner Constantine, your question was relative to electronic repair shops? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fifteen, miscellaneous repairs, 76.29. MR. HULHERE: Okay. 76.29 through 76.31, yes, it's just those two; electronic and electronic repair shops, hearing aid repair, office machine repair, medical equipment, telephone set repair, watch, clock, and jewelry repair. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. HULHERE: If the board has no further questions, the next amendment is on your agenda, page 19. And that is a very minor change to clarify the comprehensive plan. When it -- when it was adopted and -- and referred to ST areas, it referred to special treatment areas. And somehow in the Land Development Code in this section when it was approved it called it "sensitive treatment"; so we've added the term "special treatment." That's the minor change here. The next change is on page 20 of your agenda packet, and I do have some revised -- some revised language to hand out on that one as well. I'll give Wayne a minute to hand those out, because Wayne is the author of this, and I'm letting you know that the board also directed this change. We had an emergency amendment, if you recall, on transfer of development rights. MR. DORRILL: We do have one speaker on -- on this issue. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask an oversimplified question? And I think I know the answer, but I want -- want to make sure. What's the intent of having transfer of development rights? MR. HULHERE: Well, I think that the intent when this was originally approved was to allow for a transfer of development rights just on special treatment lands with the idea being that those special treatment lands could then be reserved. I think that the board's direction included expanding that to all lands possibly with the idea that -- in one example that I -- that I heard raised at the Planning Commission was, let's say there was a lot close to the beach that maybe could be used for beach parking and it made sense that the board might want to receive that in exchange for transferring that development rights. That was the example that was -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What if we just wanted to preserve it in perpetuity for green space? MR. MULHERE: Correct. The Development Services Advisory Committee -- first of all, let me -- let me -- let me kick back. The EPTAB board reviewed this, and they expressed some concern with the language changing to allow for a transfer of development rights on all properties. It was their -- their motion that it stay simply for ST properties because that was the original intent, and they felt that was the way it should remain and not allow for a unilateral transfer of development rights in the urban area. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's my preference. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would happen if we just didn't have transfer of development rights anymore? MR. MULHERE: Probably certain lands would not get developed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what would happen to the property values -- you're going on the issue I was going to go on; so go ahead. MR. MULHERE: I don't know under the new private property right laws whether or not that would be deemed to be a taking and then whether or not the county would be liable for payment or the state because there would be a jurisdictional agency which would be influencing whether or not that could be developed based on wetland jurisdiction or those types of things, and maybe the county attorney COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I saw Miss Student shaking her head no, when you said would that be deemed a taking. MS. STUDENT: Let me clarify that. Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney, for the record. As always, there's always an argument that somebody could possibly advance under it. But a TDR is really, as I see, an incentive whereby it gets us off the hook. If we want to preserve some property, we don't have to get out our checkbook because we say we've paid you because you can take your development rights on that parcel and put it on a -- from the sending to a receiving parcel. So if we just out and out wanted to prohibit something, we wouldn't have to pay for it, and it's somewhat of an incentive, but I don't know. But because it is that as opposed to a specific zoning district and as long as they would have the right to do something with their property, I don't think it would trip the private property rights act even though there's still an argument that could possibly be made. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'd like to see us explore -- I don't know what the rest of the board thinks, but in the next couple of weeks before we do our final hearing on this, I'd like to explore the answer to that question and have a thorough legal response, because it seems to me it's worth looking at. The very issue -- regardless of whether we agree with the taxes, the issue or not -- the very issue that seems to be on top of everyone and everything's agenda right now is preserving green space and -- and by not transferring, then you have that much less development and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- there may be a penalty to pay. I don't know. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- what this does, however, is -- though is give you another tool for preservation of green space without writing a check. It seems to me it's exactly the kind of program that you've been discussing as perhaps an alternative to taxing to -- to preserve green space, because what it allows you to do is -- so you can leave it. We don't have to pay you for it because we're going to let you transfer those rights somewhere else; thus it does get preserved in perpetuity without the public ever writing a check. That's a positive. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me give a practical application to this, if I may. If you own a 10-acre parcel and it's 9 1/2 acres or corps jurisdictional wetland, you can go out and get your corps permit, a nationwide permit for dredge and fill of that site, and develop on it. Now, it's an expensive process, but you can do it. Your other alternative under this is to take some if -- but not -- not necessarily all of those units, transfer them to an area that is better served by urban services. The net effect to the community on density remains the same; yet there is an area that is perceived as sensitive or wetland that is preserved. Arguably that's the benefit. So at Commissioner Constantine's request I don't have a problem with pulling this one out and saying if we want to talk about it later, in two or three weeks or whenever our next meeting is, that's fine. But I think that's an individual situation as we get to smaller and smaller parcels being developed, that we're going to run into more and more and -- and have the ability to maybe knock down the total density anyway but set some land aside. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that's necessarily what I want to do. I'd just like to be able to have a little more in-depth answer to the question. MS. STUDENT: What I would like to qualify on that is that there have not been to date any appellate cases on this. They're the ones that get reported. I got from some seminar materials I have that there are some working through the process. So we will provide as thorough an opinion to you given that scenario that we can; but because of what Commissioner Hancock mentioned, that the person is still left with some ability to develop that parcel after they jump through all the hoops, it's my opinion that it probably would not trip the private property rights act. The legislature when they drafted it did not define the term; and that is one of the problems, because you're dealing with reasonable investment expectations under the act, and the legislature, in its infinite wisdom, did not define that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as part of your research, maybe you'd put together an example of what hoops exactly they would have to jump through as Commissioner Hancock said. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's an issue here we're missing. It's not Collier County that is -- is denying them the right to develop because of environmental concerns. We don't do that. It's the corps or DEP or somebody else is going to do that and -- and to transfer development rights because someone else is telling them they can't develop their property, to transfer that to some other area within Collier County, I don't think, gains us anything. That's not beneficial to Collier County. We don't gain any loss of units by doing that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that was the purpose of my final question there, was if -- when I asked which hoops it is they're jumping through, if those hoops aren't being put up by us, that's exactly the point. MS. STUDENT: Yes. These would be hoops -- and I can do some research what generally -- what they would have to be with the corps and the state since we don't do those programs. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a speaker on this particular item? MR. HcNEES: Yes, we do, Nancy Payton. MR. HULHERE: Just to add while -- while Hiss Payton is coming up, that the Planning Commission also endorsed -- there was quite a bit of discussion at the Planning Commission. They supported limiting the transfer of development rights from ST lands. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: From ST lands only? MR. HULHERE: Yes. MS. PAYTON: Just a few points of clarification. Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. As I read this draft proposal that's before us this evening, my understanding was that ST land is not a consideration under this. ST land is now gone, and we've replaced it by sending and receiving lands so that my understanding, and maybe I need clarification of this, is that as this proposal is before us, this amendment, any land could be ascending land, not just ST land. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's the issue. Planning Commission says it ought to be just ST land. EPTAB says just ST land. Frankly, this board -- I mean, staff didn't make it up. We asked them at one point to draft it this way so -- MR. HULHERE: The EAB did not object to the language as __ MS. PAYTON: I think there does run into problems, if we're dealing with urban areas and there's no minimum acreage or size in here, that conceivably people can be purchasing a fraction of an acre to transfer that development right to -- to someplace else. And we're going to have these spotty little pieces that are green space or whatever they might be. I'm having trouble understanding what the purpose of this particular legislation is, and maybe you are too, and we have to explore that in the next two weeks, because I understood the original piece of legislation, and it was to purchase or get into the public domain lands that were in the eastern part of -- of the county. And the few times that this process has been used, that's where the land -- the sending land has been for receiving land in Marco, or I know of an instance here, fairly close to here, and that I understand. It allowed the -- you have to accept the concept of purchas -- purchasing, that as ecosystems, to buy pieces of property that were a little bit more than what the state was willing to pay and allowed that land to be purchased and to get into that bigger system. I don't understand the purpose if we're going to be looking at the whole county. Maybe we can explore that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you remember how it came up, Bob? MR. HULHERE: Maybe Mr. Arnold -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I do. I thought our last TDR that came before us, the density that was being transferred was dictated by the receiving land, and we -- and we said, no, we don't want to do that. We want to dictate the density by the sending land. So if someone goes out and buys ag land, the only thing they're going to transfer is one dwelling unit per 5 acres. And if they transfer it to urban area where they could do as many as -- I don't know how many, depending on the congestion and density bands and so forth, as many as that are per acre. MS. PAYTON: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And what we did was flip that, I thought. That was the intent, to make the sending land the determination of the density transferred. MS. PAYTON: But somehow we've also lost the ST land, and it's been opened up to land throughout the county. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, there's -- there's a lot of sensitive land that's not necessarily ST land, but it's wetlands. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, personally, I don't have a lot of interest in trying to acquire land that, you know, all likelihood can't be developed anyway in order to increase density within the urban area. I mean, that's just not appealing to me at all. MS. PAYTON: But the way this is written now, it could be any land. It could be good upland that conceivably could be purchased -- could -- could be the sending land for development rights. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I.e., good upland within two blocks of the beach they we need for beach parking. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we have Wayne -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Remember, this is something that comes back to the board for approval. It's not a given. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if it's in the code, it's granted; so the board has discretionary approval over each of these applications. My feeling is that this is, in essence, a broadening of TDRs, which is an incentive, and we still have discretion. So I '- I'm comfortable with what's presented here. You know, there are valid arguments on both sides. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we're going to hear more about it in two weeks then. MS. PAYTON: One last -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I also think this is one of the many strategies that should be available to this board for handling density and growth and -- and -- and construction throughout the county. I mean, it -- it would be great to take some 10- or 20- acre parcels and transfer four units to a downtown urban area and get 20 acres somewhere else. I mean, it's just a good idea. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a good deal. MS. PAYTON: But as this is written, it doesn't necessarily stay, as I understand it, in a natural area. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If you transfer the development rights, they're gone. MS. PAYTON: Well, we're talking about beach parking space, are we not? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Hiss Payton. MS. PAYTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold. I don't mean to belabor the point. I guess I would just remind the board that there were three significant changes that you directed to occur through an emergency amendment to our Land Development Code after one of the recent transfer development rights taking. One of those was to restrict the size and the density of what you could send. The other was the density you reduced by half of what you could receive. And the third significant change, at least in my opinion, was that all of these require board action to accept them. And I think that has -- all those conditions are still here, but it has broadened the application to include non-ST land, because part of your discussion at the time was for us to look at that -- that issue of nonurban-to- urban transfers, because the two that you recently accepted -- and one in a modified form other than to which it came to you -- was that these were areas that were designated conservation on our land use plan that had restricted development potential to begin with, which that in itself goes along with the whole concept originally designed for the use of transfer development rights. However, there was concern about bringing more density into the urban area from land that had very little development potential to begin with. So this was an attempt to address that. And I think we could certainly do more to address nonurban-to-urban transfers or urban-to-urban transfers if you'd like. We can go back and take a look at that to maybe bring something to you. One of the concerns we had was we hoped that people aren't trying to find, for instance, a Naples Park lot that they can buy at a reduced rate potentially as an in-fill lot to transfer that density somewhere else in the county, but by the same token, we would submit that the board may not accept that condition but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We could say no. MR. ARNOLD: But I guess my example would have been recently the county was expanding the library site on Marco Island. That site had potential -- rather than the county purchasing that, it could have come to us in the form of transfer development rights in the vein of public use and ownership. We could have then potentially developed that and accepted the transfer somewhere else in the county, and that would have been a small-scale application, but again, it was on a case-by-case basis. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I'm talk -- it even goes to road right-of-way acquisition. But, you know, we -- rather than debate, I think we've kind of floated the issues and -- MR. MULHERE: Take a look at it in conjunction with the attorney's office and bring it back with the others. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Next, please. MR. HULHERE: Page 25 -- and, Wayne, can you hand that right there -- this has also been slightly amended from the version you have in front of you. This amendment is -- is to -- as a result of by -- looking at the architectural standards basically generated this amendment, although it goes beyond that. And it is a proposal that developers of commercial projects located within commercial zoning districts, business park district, or commercial component of a PUD which require a minimum of 80 parking spaces, and that correlates to the 20,000 square feet that we're going to use for the architectural standards, 20,000 divided by 250, which is the retail parking ratio, equals 80 spaces, that if they want to provide parking in excess of 20 percent more than what the code requires, that is 120 percent of the code requirements, then they be required to go through a variance request to provide documentation as to why they need all that additional parking and that they be required -- and they're currently required -- already they're required to provide double the interior landscaping. The Development Services Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission both had a fairly lengthy discussion on this issue. They both felt as though that the requirement for -- simply the requirement for the additional landscaping was enough, and if somebody wanted to add that additional parking and pay the cost of putting the additional landscaping in, that should be sufficient. The staff felt that we would bring to the board our recommendation for a variance and -- and we hear from the community a lot of objections to these wide expanses of parking areas. Certain ones come to mind on the east Trail, north Trail. And, you know, the question is, does the community want to have to put up with, you know, sometimes -- in some cases two and three hundred extra parking spaces that may be used three or four or five days a year if you're lucky. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I, like I guess, the Planning Commission feel very strongly that this is a good idea. In addition, the one thing's that not in here that I think would add to it is that a part of that variance application must be a site plan showing the parking and landscaping, because if they're going to put an extensive sea of parking out there, how it impacts everyone who drives up and down that road and sees it every day is something I'm interested in. So I'm not just supportive of what's presented here; I'd like to add that the variance application must include a site plan showing the proposed landscaping plan for the parking areas. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I agree. That's fine. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's three. MR. HULHERE: Okay. CHAIRKLAN NORRIS: Next, please. MR. HULHERE: Thank you. The next amendment is the landscape code. And, again, based on legal review, we have some changes, and they're very minor. They're basically grammatical and underlines and strike-through-type changes, but I'll hand out this document. I just wanted to recognize just for a minute the committee that -- that met over a period of several months, probably close to four months, if not a little bit longer, and working on this -- this comprehensive review and revisions to the landscape code. And I just want to name them for the record: George Botner, who is a landscape architect; may not pronounce this right, but Beth Bolles, Collier County Extension Services; extension agent Gail Boorman, who is also a landscape architect, and I believe Gail Boorman is present tonight; George Fogg, who is a landscape architect, is also present tonight; Brian Nelson, who is a landscape architect; Linda Nelson is a landscape maintenance professional; Bob Petersen with Collier County Extension Services; Sid Showalker, who is present tonight, is a landscape contractor; James Square is a nurseryman; and Dr. Bob Reed who is a plant authority. Also a nun~ber of your staff fall within the development services and within other areas who had expertise, spent a lot of time, and met regularly to -- and that list is before you. Sorry, I won't recognize the staff but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was glad to hear contractors and maintenance in there. That's been a big absence in the past. MR. HULHERE: We wanted to get a full committee. As a matter of fact, it was a recommendation of the public professionals on that committee that we have representation from all those areas. We tried to get this information out. I know Nancy met several times with the landscape association with -- information was -- was given to the -- the nurserymen's association and other groups like that. I don't know if we succeeded in getting information out, but we certainly made an attempt. And what you have before you is a comprehensive review that I think speaks pretty well of the code because it really doesn't have that many substantive changes. It has been made more flexible in a nun~ber of areas. And I would just begin to go over it with you starting on page 27, and I'll just mention that the letters, the -- under the purpose and intent do need to be underlined; so there are some things we have to correct in there. We'll do that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Hulhere, I had a question. Since you've given us an additional -- a copy in addition to the one we have here, when was this made available to the people who are here to talk on this? MR. HULHERE: Tonight. But there are no substantive changes. It was just grammatical. There was some underlines. We had bullets instead of letters, and there was some format -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. HULHERE: There are no substantive changes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why the -- what's the difference between -- well, who is a person who would have qualified to do landscape plans who isn't qualified anymore? MR. HULHERE: That's a good question. This has been a very hotly-debated question. The state statutes, as far as we understand them, limit -- require that you have -- that you be a -- a licensed landscape architect to submit plans with the exception of single-family and two-family homes. Anything beyond that -- very similar to the fact that we require an engineer to submit water management plans during the STP process. And there has been some arguments back and forth on whether or not the state statutes were clear and whether, in fact, they did restrict that to a landscape architect or could an architect also submit it or could an engineer also submit it. And our experience is that when we have plans that are submitted by a landscape architect, they generally go through the process on the first review and maybe with some minor tweaking. When we have plans that are submitted by a nonprofessional, and I -- and I don't mean an engineer or an architect, but I mean maybe a property owner, they're usually very much more problematic. Our recommendation is that we adhere to the state statutes, not that we have any choice in the matter, but there is a question of it being a little bit gray, and I don't know whether Mr. Weigel or Hiss Student are able to speak on that issue. There was some review going on in the attorney's office as to what the statutes exactly required. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For a single-family home do you have to have a landscape architect? MR. HULHERE: No. Not for a single-family or two-family home. MS. STUDENT: It is somewhat of a gray area under the statute, and there are no cases to really explain what it meant. We have an analogous situation under review in the office addressing the question as to if we limit it just to landscape architects, is that inconsistent with state law. Because we're a noncharter county, our ordinances have to be consistent with state law. And as I said, in an analogous situation, we have that under review, and hopefully we'll have an answer for you by the next meeting. But it's been a bone of contention. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have a typo on page 4 under 2.4.3.6. It says "severely-pruned trees shall either be replaced by owner," period. MR. MULHERE: 3.4.6? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, it's a single sentence with an "either" thrown in there. So you may want to revise that. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So who is the "or"? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's saying severely tree -- pruned trees shall be replaced by owner, because it regulates not doing that, which I assume is the old lollipopping argument that we heard. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I hope so. MR. MULHERE: That is the issue. Thank you. There is one on page 3. There's -- I just wanted to let you know that the Development Services Advisory Committee -- this ordinance was presented to EPTAB, was presented to the EAB, was presented to the Development Services Advisory Committee, and it was presented to the Planning Commission and that all of those committees supported and wholly endorsed this with a few exceptions, and I'll highlight those for you. On page 3 about midway down the page there is a strike-through there, "affordable housing project shall be exempt from the irrigation requirements of this division. This exemption shall not apply to requirements for rain-sensing devices if irrigation is installed voluntarily by the applicant." That -- this committee, the landscape code task force, felt strongly that affordable housing projects should not be exempted from the requirement to put in irrigation, because irrigation is required for plants to grow, even xeriscape plants, in Florida. Otherwise they just don't make it. That was the feeling of the committee. That -- the Planning Commission and Development Services Advisory Committee did not support that motion and felt that the language should remain in as it is today exempting affordable housing, and their reason was that it's nonvalue-added cost to the project. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And the county commission says that it __ COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Leave it in. Look at Jasmine Cay. They did it, and that's a quality affordable housing project. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Leave the language in that exempts them? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean, leave it the way it is. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Take it out. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Remove the exemption. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do this (indicating), yeah. Leave -- leave it as a strike-through is my -- MR. MULHERE: Let me just make sure. Leave that as a strike-through so that affordable housing will put in irrigation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Correct. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. We've discussed the changes on page 4. Page 5 just clarifies that native trees and shrubs for Collier County list is available. Let's see, page 6, really it's just clarification language. You'll see the strike-throughs in that large paragraph on the page, and then below it that language is repeated but clarified so that it's easier to read dealing with palm trees and cjustering of palm trees. Throughout the document we've changed titles where it was appropriate, and that's the change on page 7. We get to page 8 and 9; we get to some areas where there are some revisions, noncode trees. And I, by the way, have Nancy Siemion here as the landscape architect to speak to technical or specific issues as they come up that I probably cannot speak to. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is how to pronounce these. MR. MULHERE: Right. That's the first one. My Latin is limited to my days as an altar boy. "Noncode trees, the following plant species may be planted but shall not count towards required code trees." It lists the trees. There are some additions, and they -- and some of those strike-throughs and additions are not actually additions but relocating them to place them appropriately in that list. About midway down at 2.4.4.11 is prohibited species. And awhile back the EAB asked staff to look at the city's list of prohibited species and exotic species. And we had some discussion at the board level, too, and the board directed us during this process to take a look at those two lists and see if we could not come up with a list that was more comprehensive or more compatible. There were some lists that were prohibited in the city and not prohibited in the county and vice versa. I'm not sure we completely got to that point, but there was one issue as it relates to these prohibited species, that it was endorsed by -- by all of those advisory boards that I referenced before with the exception that the EAB asked that -- that we consider placing a date on the prohibition which would allow existing nurseries to deplete their stock. And I bring that just for your consideration, because that was part of the EAB's motion so -- for example, where carrotwood was not prohibited before and is now, and it was fairly widely used as a landscape plant. However, there is quite a bit of scientific documentation that it's very invasive, and Dr. Bob Reed there was the expert on the task force on the committee. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a little tough to monitor whether -- you know, whether a year and a half from now they tell you, well, you know, we had a lot of them. You know, and the fact is the truck pulled up two weeks prior and delivered more carrotwood. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Had some on order. MR. MULHERE: There may be some other counties that don't regulate this out there in close proximity -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They may be able to sell some other places. I'm -- if there's a transition time, that's reasonable if we want to adopt it as a policy, but there's got to be a definitive end to it. That way we aren't in an impossible enforcement position. MR. MULHERE: Well, certainly any plants that are in house, you know, prior to this being approved -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Heads up, guys. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I have this letter here, and I assume the others got it as well, from Paul Polumski (phonetic) saying there's no scientific evidence that carrotwood is invasive. I'm wondering; do we have some imperical data? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ironically, I was in a meeting this morning with Bob and Wayne and Mr. Cautero. And we were in the Greentree Plaza, and there was these huge shade trees that do so much better than oaks do, and they were carrotwoods. And they looked great in the parking lot, and they're in islands all to themselves; so I don't know what they're going to invade. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But how do they seed? MR. MULHERE: This is one of those issues I'm not qualified to answer. MS. SIEMION: Good evening. I'm Nancy Siemion, Collier County landscape architect. And I do have some research on the invasive characteristics of carrotwood that I'd like to share with you. This exotic plant has been spreading through various wild fresh and saline habitats in south Florida. It is an attractive ornamental plant that produces numerous seeds. Abundant reproduction and tolerance for shade, sunlight, dry, wet, and brackish soil conditions result in significant rate of natural colonization. Based on its winter temperature tolerances, this plant is expected to extend its range northward through peninsular Florida and into the panhandle unless it is actively controlled. Although herbicides will control this plant, mechanical methods or habitat manipulation have not been evaluated. No appropriate biocontrols are known at this time. This plant poses a threat to natural systems where tolerance to inundation and cover could allow it to replace native plants, and the natural ecological balance might seriously be altered. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the source you're reading from? MR. HULHERE: I think he wants to know where that came from and what -- who the expert is. MS. SIEHION: Okay. It came from the 1992 summary of a review of a literature -- and this is a Latin word -- Cupaniopsis anacardiodies published by the Florida Department of Natural Resources. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It couldn't have been wrong. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: They don't exist. MS. SIEHION: It's important to note that carrotwood is prohibited in the City of Naples. MR. HULHERE: It is -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. What? MR. HULHERE: It is prohibited in the City of Naples. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that settles it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it sounds like at least we have a basis for putting them on the list. MS. SIEHION: And also in Dade, Lee, Sarasota, and Charlotte. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: All around us. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know, seems like conspiracy to me. I feel bad for the poor little carrotwood, and I'd like to see a safe carrotwood. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can't you hear them creeping -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Save the carrotwood. VOICE: Thank you. VOICE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Carrotwood fans. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's some landscape contractors in the back of the room with a stock of the carrotwoods. MR. VILLANI: Use your common sense. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I ask you to not -- not blurt out stuff from the audience, and that's my common-sense warning to you tonight, okay? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me read a couple of things here from this -- and if it can be -- Nancy, if this is wrong, maybe you can help me with the specifics. MS. SIEHION: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm going to read from Paul's letter. The carrotwood is one of the few shade trees available that stays green all around. And it's an important characteristic, especially during the winter when our visitors are here. Host of the native trees are words I can't pronounce and lose some or most of their leaves during the winter. Several major developments in the county that use the carrotwood widely, DiVosta, Emerald Lakes, Wyndemere, to name a few. Obviously some landscape architects see these trees as having value in the landscape, grows well in poor soils and is a good xeriscape tree not requiring supplemental water once established. A good point here: Isn't xeriscape what we're aiming for at this time? Is that accurate? Is this a good xeriscape tree, doesn't require a lot of attention after the fact? MS. SIEHION: That's correct, but the issue is invasiveness. It's a pretty tree; so it's very attractive to so many of us, but the problem is it's the potential of it to be the next - _ any of these invasive species can be the next melaleuca. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, but the melaleuca's not pretty. MS. SIEHION: It's an ornamental in California. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Your sensitivity is touching, however -- your save the carrotwood -- you know, most of what you read is true of the melaleuca also as far as its growing characteristics. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if I'd say it's a good xeriscape tree, though. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't think you're going to three -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's true. I think we'll hear from some public speakers later on this issue, so let's move along. MR. HULHERE: At page 37 -- I'm sorry, page -- agenda item -- pages 38 and 39 have some additional diagrams. We're trying to add more graphics. These are CAD drawings. We're doing some hand -- hand drawings for the architectural design guidelines later on, but these have been slightly amended and cleared up. They've been cleaned up a little bit, and we'll have those new ones for your final review, but they're similar to what you see here. They've just been cleaned up to be a little bit more legible. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bob, I may be getting slightly ahead -- I don't think I am -- but we were talking about how when we have our requirement of buffering, will we end up as linear landscaping. MR. HULHERE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it lacks the ability to be a little creative and do island landscaping with breaks and the cjuster and that kind of thing. Where in this is it allowing for that approach, because everything -- you know, with trees every 30 feet, I have yet to see trees grow 30 feet on center in nature. MR. HULHERE: We -- we did -- we did provide for greater flexibility in here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: There's nothing that requires that the trees be planted 30 feet on center. It's 30 on center on average. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: And they can be -- and they can be cjustered. And that language does occur in there. You can cjuster the trees. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that discretion was there so everything doesn't have to look the same. MR. HULHERE: We've done a couple things to make the code a little bit more flexible. That's one area. The second area is we are allowing for meandering sidewalks within landscape buffer areas. As long as you on average meet the width of the landscape buffer, you can meander the sidewalk in and out as they have done very successfully in other places. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Arbour Walk did that. MR. HULHERE: Yeah, and Pelican Bay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're just asking a general question. I've had several calls from people about -- in the City of Naples -- sorry -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're part of the county. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- street tree ordinance, that you're required to -- to install street areas in the City of Naples, and why doesn't the county have a program like that. Have you looked at it? MR. HULHERE: We did miss part of this. It is being looked at by Naplescape, and Nancy does sit on that -- that committee, and that is something that they're looking at. The problem, as I see it, one of the issues that has to be addressed is really, then, it becomes more of a corridor issue for the county, as large as the county is, and, for example, what type of common street tree planting treatment is appropriate for Marco and might not be appropriate for Golden Gate or might not be appropriate for East Naples. But it is being reviewed. It is being looked at. And I suspect it will come back with a comprehensive recommendation as it relates to right-of- way landscaping treatment street -- streetscape -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there a time line? MS. SIEHION: For Naplescape? We're working on it right now, end of the year. MR. HULHERE: It will -- I don't have a -- an accurate time on -- but it will probably be awhile. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bob, getting back to what's in front of us, on page 10 I notice we're reducing the tree credits. Is that because it's been wholly ineffective or -- MR. HULHERE: I think in part, yes. I'm going to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because what comes to mind is Sports Authority. Even though it's their water management design that caused them to, you know, tear everything out, even with the higher tree preservation credits, we couldn't -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Just before you answer, where are you? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On page 10 of the handout. I'm sorry, it's document page 10. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. SIEMION: Okay. The -- very few projects that come through apply for tree preservation credits. And we feel that the few that did come through, we feel that the tree credits were just too generous. MR. MULHERE: I'll tell you we will probably have more people taking advantage of this, because in a little while we'll get to another amendment that requires on-site vegetation of native retention for commercial and industrial projects. Now, it doesn't __ we still allow someone to take down all the vegetation, but the replanting requirements are fairly substantive from what we're proposing. So we believe people will plant a little bit more up front and be able to retain at least within their buffer areas the existing native vegetation. And if they do that, we're willing to give them tree credits for that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'd like to hold off on reducing those tree credits until I get a feel of how it all works together, because particularly in the over 30- and 40-foot category, those things take so long to grow. You know, I'd like to see those marked as high value. Got to give some incentive to keep those things in the buffers. MR. MULHERE: I think also some of the people that were on the committee may want to speak to the issue and give public comment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: We've -- there -- there are a couple of other issues. We've reduced the landscape requirement on industrial in the rear of the lot, and -- and hopefully we'll see that placed in the front or the sides. I'm on page 19 now. At the top the -- there's a change that I referred to regarding parallel meandering sidewalks and -- and the permitted reduction of a buffer anywhere along the length of the buffer for whatever reason provided on average that buffer still meets the intent. So if you have a 20-foot buffer and you got to jockey it in a little bit here or there, that's going to be acceptable. And on page -- on page 20 we've added two -- two -- two categories to your table. I'm sorry, your agenda packet -- package, page 46, columns 12 and 13, which are for golf course maintenance buildings and golf courses and -- and those were neglected in the table; they weren't referred to. And it kept coming up every time we did an STD what type of landscape buffer would be required. In Some cases there is no landscape buffer. In some cases it's a B buffer if it's adjacent to residential. And then the last -- the last change is that at the bottom there under those footnotes, Footnote No. 2, and I think that's the one I -- in addition, trees may be reduced to 50 feet on center, that's the industrial. That's the industrial buffer requirements. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The rear and the side? MR. MULHERE: Right. There are -- I'm -- I think, probably several members of the public that want to speak to this issue, and there may have been some specific issues that I cursorily dealt with. Again, I'll have Nancy -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And we're going to go to the public speakers now. MR. McNEES: Yes, we have four. The first would be Gail Boorman followed by Amiel Villani. MR. MULHERE: There is one other issue that Wayne just reminded me of. I'm sorry, page 14. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Forty. MR. MULHERE: Page 40. Remember, we had the variance for the berms along 1-75, and we were asked to take a look at that issue. We added language there that I have to tell you it's a maximum slope of 2 to 1. That one's not in your packet; it will be in the ordinance. We just added that probably about 20 minutes before this meeting so -- berms located adjacent to the 1-75 right-of-way shall be planted with ground cover, excluding grass, over an erosion-control fabric and trees located within a minimum 10-foot wide level planting area and placed 25 foot on center equal in height to the height of the berm. That's exactly what the board approved for the -- the berm that Dr. Kent came in for on the variance. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. McNEES: Mr. Boorman -- Ms. Boorman, excuse me. MS. BOORMAN: Thank you. I'll be brief. First, I'd like to say I think we have a pretty good ordinance. A lot of people have had a lot of input to this. We had a pretty good ordinance when we started out, in my opinion. And the changes that we strove to make were, on the practical end, to try to make it more workable in more widely-varying situations. A couple of specific points I'd like to make. One is that it's the feeling of the Florida Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects that Chapter 41 of Florida State law is pretty clear as far as who is licensed to practice landscape design and who is not. This is not the first time that this question has come up. What I've heard over the years is that repeatedly the board's attorney has supported Chapter 41's language as being clear that landscape architects are licensed to practice landscape design. So if Collier County comes to another conclusion, then there's a whole profession out there that will be very interested in that. As far as the exotics goes, we heard a lot of convincing statistics and testimony from environmental experts on these certain plants that have been added to the lists. Many of us on the committee did not feel that we have the technical expertise or firsthand knowledge to argue with these stats. Most of these plants that are on the list, with the few exceptions that have been discussed, are not regularly used or specified in landscape designs anyway for a lot of reasons. Invasiveness is probably one of the last things that a lot of people look at when they're evaluating a plant to be used, but those of us who are sensitive to those issues respect that. But there are other problems associated with a lot of these plants, too, and cultivation; so that's why they're on the list. The other thing with respect to the changes with respect to the buffering and the berming adjacent to 1-75, that's a gnarly problem, and I -- I think that the language that we have now is probably the -- the fairest solution trying to come up with something that's maintainable -- two to one is difficult to maintain -- and also reasonably aesthetic without eating up an inordinate amount of land. We're trying to be sensitive to everybody's concerns here and rights as well. So I would support that this new language which has very recently been added, I think it's -- it's a good addition. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. HcNEES: Mr. Villani will be followed by Bob Cook. MR. VILLANI: Good evening. My name is Amiel Villani. I represent Sunny Grove Landscaping. I apologize for my -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's all right. MR. VILLANI: -- outburst of excitement. I'm just a regular guy. I'm a landscape contractor. I employ 85 people, and Sunny Grove Landscaping is a major player in the landscape industry in Lee and Collier County. We are a nursery. We have 65 acres of plant material. We do not grow a carrotwood. We would like to see you save that tree. Again, I'm just -- I'm out in the trenches. I'm out -- I'm the guy out there digging the holes, and I -- I can't tell you the last time I saw a stand of carrotwoods like you see Brazilian pepper or melaleuca overtaking somebody's yard or a landscape median or a shopping mall. I would like to see you save that tree. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. HcNEES: Mr. Cook followed by George Fogg. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nancy, are there some examples where the carrotwood is running rampant in Collier County? MS. SIEHION: Yes. I have some people who helped me research this. I would like to invite them to speak as well -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With some photographs -- MS. SIEHION: -- that are more expert than I am. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we have some photographs too? Not right now. I just want a -- he was on his way up. I don't want to interrupt him but -- MS. SIHEON: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it would help me. Thanks. MR. COOK: Thank you. My name is Bob Cook. I'm the president of the Florida Nurseryman Growers' Association. Our local chapter is called the Royal Palm. We have 88 members comprised primarily of wholesale growers, also landscape architects, landscape contractors, and garden centers. We have read the entire code, and we applaud all the work that's been done putting that together making those changes except for the carrotwood. The carrotwood is a very desirable landscape plant. It's easy to grow, both for a nursery and for the homeowner. It is a low-maintenance plant too. It doesn't require a lot of water, a lot of fertilizer. And once it attains a mature height of about 30, 35 feet, there's practically no trimming required either. It makes an excellent street side tree. It's salt tolerant, drought tolerant, etc.; so it's fairly trouble-free. I think it's an unfair comparison to come up and say that carrotwood is like a melaleuca or Brazilian pepper. Our nurserymen will object to having the market cut off on this, because it takes about three years to Come up with an 8-foot tree. The melaleuca it takes about 11/2 years to grow from a seedling, I think, to 8 feet. Same thing with Brazilian pepper; we've seen that sometimes within about a year get up to 8 feet. So this is not an invasive plant, plain and simple. Because it's adaptable to our conditions, we think that's an asset to the - to the urban landscape. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question for you. MR. COOK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is the comparative price of an 8- to 10-foot live oak versus an 8- to -- or a laurel oak versus 8- to 10-foot carrotwood? MR. COOK: They're probably comparable. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are they? Because, again, these oaks are not growing and doing well in the parking areas, but I saw these carrotwoods in Greentree today that were just -- I mean, they were great. They did what we wanted them to do. And on a landscaped island, where are they going to go? MR. COOK: As has been mentioned, they're an evergreen. Live oaks, laurel oaks do have a slight dormant period. They're natives. And there's much to be said about preserving native vegetation and incorporating that in landscapes. This is an exotic, but many of us are exotics as well, but we're adapting very well. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said you had 88 growing __ MR. COOK: Members. Yes, uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- members. I've got to assume some of those 88 grow carrotwood at the facilities? MR. COOK: Certainly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- is there a problem that -- if you have a tree on your property for three years or more, I've got to assume if it is likely to drop seeds and sprout and blow around, you're going to see that problem pop up elsewhere on your nursery. MR. COOK: Sure, or -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have you had that, or have any of those members had that problem? MR. COOK: No. That is -- again, it's easy to propagate. The female tree is the only one that flowers and sets seed. But the seed don't travel, don't blow. Again, they can't get into the mangroves like some of these other invasives we're talking about. Another point is it does take 2 1/2 to 3 years from the time you plant the seed until you have a salable plant. So to shut the door or close a market, we have many local businesses who are hung with inventory. So we're asking at least, if not removing this from the list, giving growers a two-year period to sell out that stock and get rid of the inventory, plain and simple. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Commissioner Hancock's point is well made. I hope -- it's -- I can't say reconsider because we haven't made a decision yet, but it sounded as though we were leaning toward -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can I make a suggestion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hope we reconsider taking it up. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Mulhere, would it be possible to craft some language where carrotwoods could be used in an area where they would be contained? MR. MULHERE: We can certainly craft language to that effect. I don't -- I mean, I guess the question is whether or not they're deemed to be invasive or not. MS. SIEMION: Bob. MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. SIEMION: I have something that's important to share. The problem is that the seeds of the carrotwood are being carried by birds, and that's what's making them incredibly invasive. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's outlaw all the birds. Just kidding. Just kidding. Can't wait to see that one in the paper tomorrow. MR. COOK: But -- but for sure it seems like the crux of the issue is -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Put your foot in your mouth. MR. COOK: -- have they really invaded. We have seen the invasion of all of these other very aggressive sloriferous plants. Melaleuca blooms five times a year, and its seeds are cast by the wind so -- MS. SIEMION: I'd like to respond to words "invaded." Am I allowed to do that? It's invaded in Big Cypress National Preserve, Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, Collier Seminole State Park, Delnor-Wiggins State Recreation Area, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Rookery Bay, and the Conservancy. So it has invaded our natural areas, and that's the problem with it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, maybe we should get more information and get more specifics about the level of that invasion, how long it took. I mean, it sounds like there's some reasonable questions. MR. MULHERE: I think we could get some experts outside of the county, get some independent experts to come in and provide some information, but maybe not for this cycle. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That list was provided by whom, Nancy? MS. SIEMION: It was provided by staff. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, how did they compile it? How did -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did someone on our staff physically go to the Big Cypress and find, gosh, we're killing off everything else with carrotwood that day or -- MS. POLEN: I attended -- Kimberly Polen, environmental specialist. I attended an exotic plant workshop that was compiling all the managers in the natural areas in Collier County. And it was attended on January of this year, and that's how I collected all that information. And what we mean by it's invaded some of these areas is the species are present. We're not talking about a total invasion, but they have located them in those areas. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess for me that's a differentiation when they just happen to be present. I don't know if that's what I would call an invasion. But also I try to picture in my mind the literal sense of -- you mentioned Greentree and -- and do I see a seed falling and a bird picking that up and taking it to Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. I don't know. I mean '- MS. POLEN: Well, maybe not. I mean, we've got new plants that are being planted in the community, and many of them are not fruiting right now. We've got some at -- for example, on the county lands, Golden Gate Community Park. It's known as a pool- side plant. And they're all being planted there, but we've got a corridor of a canal where a lot of birds fly through, so good chance that they could disburse down the canal. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess what an interesting question would be is in any of those preserve areas are any of those carrotwoods 10 years old or 20 years old? Do they predate the decorative uses of it in our urban area? If they do, then it renders the question moot. I don't know that it's the cause in the urban area. But if they're all five-year-old trees, then maybe we have - _ COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're quickly approaching a Muscovy duck level of -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have spent a lot on this. I think the direction is clear to bring this up -- COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. I need you all to talk one at a time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, she does. And that was me talking first, so wait until I'm finished, please. The staff's direction is to bring us some more information with -- with something from some experts in this field for two weeks from now. We're not going to make a final decision on this tonight; so let's leave it at that and move on to the next item, please. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to see some pictures when you bring that back of where the plant has invaded and what it looks like. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'd like to have the answer to my question; if there are older trees in the preserve, because if that predates activity in the urban area, then it's not the urban area causing the problem. MR. COOK: Thank you, Commissioners. MR. McNEES: Mr. Fogg followed by Vera Fitz-Gerald. MR. FOGG: My name is George Fogg, landscape architect. I'll comment briefly on four items. One is the carrotwood and, again, that's been discussed quite considerably. And as a member of the committee that worked on this, we took our direction, as Ms. Boorman indicated, from the technical experts that were there, and we were convinced by them that this was an appropriate thing. And obviously you're going to be going through the same process, and we'll leave it to the experts to convince you. We were convinced. Secondly, for those who are perhaps questioning why we have these rows of trees, the current landscape code has in the past permitted flexibility. The people who have implemented it have not necessarily exercised that capability. I have for seven years been cjustering and adjusting and making this flexible, have always met with the county staff and found it extremely easy to have that flexibility to encourage others to do what I always thought was the norm. We had written that into the new code revisions. It says we encourage the flexibility, and I think that's suitable and -- and a~ appropriate way of trying to eliminate some of the soldiers that people complain about and the rigidity of some of the planting. Regarding the tree credits, since I was the one that suggested this reduction in tree credits, as Miss Siamion indicated, there are relatively few people who come in for tree credits, because basically what they do is they come in and destroy the site, as we've all seen frequently recently and, secondly, that frequently the trees that you would utilize for tree credits are not in the locations where you need them. And there's a little clause in the code that says they have to be where they're needed. But the most important reason is that frequently these larger trees, say a 18-inch diameter pine or a 20-inch diameter pine tree will be equivalent to four tree credits, and that means that we're losing basically three or four trees that we would normally have in the landscaping if we did not reduce that to some extent. We agree that credits are desirable, but the extent of them was prob -- perhaps -- and I have used -- taken advantage of those tree credits and finally decided that in my own practice that normally I only use them on a one-to-one basis, because it got to be the point where I could eliminate half of the trees that I needed, and we were ending up with a disaster. So that was just a minor reduction. Finally, a comment on the highway 75 corridor betms. Like all of us, I hate what I see of what's been done, especially with the grass with the row of bougainvillea on top of it. And I'm very pleased to see that the staff has come up with a viable alternative. I -- I would rather not see 2-to-1 slopes, but I understand the need for it and can support the direction the way it has been put. I congratulate them for -- for coming up with that direction. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Vera Fitz-Gerald. I just want to tell you quickly we put in a carrotwood, and unfortunately, we did. And as a result we have now given all our neighbors carrotwoods. They're always pulling them out. They are invasive. They're growing in our backyard, which is at least a hundred feet away, no problem, and the birds love them. They're in there eating the seeds all the time. And I guess they're carrying them all around, but they're growing a hundred, two hundred feet away from our home, and God knows how much further than that, but they are invasive. I just wanted to add my 2 cents to that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we can blame you. Everyone in Naples Park that's got a carrotwood, it's Vera's fault. MR. McNEES: That's your last speaker on this subject. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could I just ask when staff comes back with the, quote, expert opinion on the carrotwood, if we can get -- in addition to preservationists, if we can get someone who would qualify as an expert in the nursery field? MR. MULHERE: Absolutely. The next change is on page forty -- forty-eight. This -- this change was directed by staff also as a result of a public petition by Mr. Wayne Furfy (phonetic), and he had a client who wanted to install a boat lift in a canal that was less -- nattower -- nattower than 70 feet. And our code only allows a 5-foot dock facility in canals that are nattower than 70 feet in width. And the board said, go ahead, staff, and take a look at this issue. But subsequent to that I bring to your attention the fact that you've had a couple of appeals, both of which were approved by the Planning Commission in lots which were slightly larger than 70 feet but were fairly narrow. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to cut you off right here. This would disallow the same decision we made in Bonita Springs on the dock that had the -- the -- the pilings outboard of the vessel? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Joe DiMaggio's appeal. MR. MULHERE: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. This would not have allowed us to even review that. This would have actually said that that's okay to do, and when the character of that canal would have changed down the road so -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Dramatically, yeah. MR. MULHERE: Also you have since directed us to comprehensively look at how -- the criteria that we use for boat docks and that the Planning Commission uses for approval, and I think actually your direction was to look at potential for either a variance or conditional use or some other exception process that had more specific criteria. So we're doing that, but that's why I -- I mean, this was in the packet, and it seemed this would be appropriate to pull this into our next cycle and put it all together into one comprehensive review on boat docks. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. I think the direction, Mr. Mulhere, the board has been trying to move into is to get a little better control over boat docks, and this seems to be a backwards step so -- MR. MULHERE: I wrote that before that direction occurred. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. So we -- we are not in favor of that one, it appears, unless -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Next page, on 49, and I have a revised handout, single sheet, here. This -- this change is a result of some situations that have occurred most recently in some of the, I guess, slightly older subdivided neighborhoods that are on canals. And what has happened is that people have come in and constructed a -- a slab for a swimming pool equal in height to the principal structure. And, for example, if the flood elevation that's required is 13 -- 12 or 13 feet and your ground elevation is 6 foot, they've put in a 7- or 8-foot or sometimes 10-foot high slab, and the neighbors on either side, one side or the other, are now looking at a 10-foot slab running all the way out to within 10 foot of the water. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to clear this up for Commissioner Mac'Kie. Vanderbilt Beach, okay, the home was built in 1960 down here (indicating). Now the flood elevation puts the floor level up here (indicating); they want the pool at the same level. So when they push their pool out to within 10 feet of the property line on the side of their house, they have a wall sometimes 7, 8 feet in height along the entire property line. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's just so ugly it's hard to imagine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what this is saying is that if you're going to be more than 4 feet above that elevation, you've got to bring it 20 feet back. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Huh. MR. MULHERE: Well, I -- I just wanted to add that the Planning Commission when they heard that said that's fine, but this shouldn't apply to the tip lots, the corner tip lots on the end, because the waterway is expansive. It's several hundred feet wide. And so the staff reworked it and then said that it would apply on waterways equal to or less than 125 foot in width. None of the waterways were -- for the internal lots are greater than 125. So it would apply to all of those the way we've written it. It wouldn't apply to the tip lots, and that was the recommendation of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I disagree with that recommendation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because why? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I do too. For instance, in Longshore where I live, there's a lot of cul-de-sacs which all the lots on the cul-de-sac would be tip lots. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And I've got to tell you, if I built 12 feet high in my backyard, it would obstruct my neighbor on the one side, and my neighbors across the waterway would hate it. I MR. MULHERE: And -- and many other homes, just for your information -- as I'm sure you're aware, many other homes have been built with the single floor up here and the stairs leading down to the pool. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we have at least three to remove that exemption. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are others -- if you guys feel differently for any other particular reason, I'd love to hear it but -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, why not a variance procedure to -- MR. HULHERE: That's always available. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's always available. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. On page -- page 50 of your agenda item packet, I believe we have the amendment -- possibly why some of these people are in the audience tonight, the commercial vehicle -- proposed amendments with commercial vehicles and commercial equipment. Mr. Cautero is here and, I think, has a presentation to make for you, and I'll step back from the podium. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good evening. Several months ago, as you may recall, we discussed those changes to the section of the Land Development Code that deals with commercial equipment and commercial vehicles parked in residential areas, and some proposed language was submitted to you after review by various committees in the Planning Commission that we decided wasn't acceptable, and we'd go back to the drawing board and start over. From that point we have discussed this issue with various community groups and professional associations, as well as conduct two workshops in the community, one at Golden Gate Community Center and one at Veteran's Park in North Naples. Since then some language was crafted and reviewed by the Development Services Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, as well as members of the public. What I'd like to do is go over with you the language but talk a little bit about the framework and where this really comes from and where this stands and show you some slides briefly of some of the vehicles that we have taken pictures of and some of the equipment. First, let me state that it's important to realize that commercial equipment and commercial vehicles can be parked and stored in residential areas if certain criteria are met. Some people may not be aware of that, but that is what the Land Development Code says. There are criteria, though, that must be met. Outlining those criteria as contained in Section 2.6.7.3.1 for the official record, it is unlawful to park a commercial vehicle or store commercial equipment in a residential zoning district on any lot unless one of the following criteria are met. The first one deals with the construction service operation taking place on the lot. For example, if someone were to park their commercial vehicle or store commercial equipment on a lot where work was being conducted, it would be lawful as long as you parked it there or stored that equipment there for the duration of that work, and then it would have to be removed. That's the first criteria that -- that you could meet. The second one deals with storing it in a garage, carport, or fully-enclosed structure. This is very important. What it states is that if you have commercial equipment and you have and/or commercial vehicle and you store it in a garage, carport, or a fully enclosed structure, it is lawful regardless of the size of the vehicle, regardless of the size of the equipment, and regardless of the type of equipment that you have. If you meet that criteria, you can store those types of things on your lot. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I interrupt? MR. CAUTERO: Certainly. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that going to encourage, then, the building of oversized garages that are really Butler Buildings or -- MR. CAUTERO: I don't think that was the intent when this was written. Of course, I wasn't here, but I don't think so. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I can't help the intent. I'm asking if you believe that will encourage -- MR. CAUTERO: Oh, encourage. I'm sorry. No, I don't. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: And the reason I don't think that is because for the larger types of commercial vehicles, you're not seeing those parked in residential areas, at least in this community. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: Perhaps in rural communities, not in Naples. I think this is very prevalent in rural Florida, especially in central Florida where large vehicles are parked in residential lots, and they're allowed. And it's -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And a couple of streets in Naples Park. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But the rural areas are exempted from this new code? MR. CAUTERO: No. No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The rural areas? MR. CAUTERO: No, ma'am. We'll get into that. The Planning Commission recommended that to you. I -- we'll get into that in just a few moments. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought you said only residential zoning. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He -- MR. CAUTERO: I'm talking about zoning districts. I'm sorry. I'm thinking of communities -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: -- where residential districts could -- I understand what you mean, yes. The criteria I'm talking about is in residential zoning districts in the county. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: Another criteria states that if your vehicle or your equipment is parked or stored in the rear of the structure and it is screened from public view by vegetation, it's allowed. The fourth criteria is perhaps the one that's been most discussed and perhaps the most problematic, and that deals with the exemptions. The Land Development Code states that automobiles, passenger-type vans, and pickup trucks with a rated load capacity under 1 ton are exempt from this section of the ordinance unless they pertain to a special parking overlay district. What that means is if you have an automobile, a passenger-type van, or a pickup truck with a rated load capacity of under 1 ton, the 1-ton capacity only applying to the pickup trucks, you can park it in plain view in a residential area. The issue that has become very important or has become a focal point for us has been the equipment and the storage of the equipment. Let me go through some slides and show you what this means in accordance with your current ordinance right now and then talk to you about the language. If I can impose on Mr. McNees and Mr. Weigel to move just a moment. Kill the lights, David, partially. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You may need to kill more lights. MR. CAUTERO: Is there a way to kill some more lights? Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: These? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We should use proper screening. MR. CAUTERO: We go from large vehicles to smaller vehicles, and I think you'll see in some of these, it's fairly obvious. This is a semi truck. We're trying to show as many types of vehicles as we can and some equipment. Second slide is a dump truck. Again, these are the types of vehicles that would not be allowed unless they're screened from view, but the ordinance does not differentiate as to what can be and what can't be parked in a residential district. It states that you can park them if they're screened from view. We'll get into Some of the smaller vehicles in a moment and talk about exemptions. That's a larger-type vehicle too. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Constant violator in the gate, Coastal. MR. CAUTERO: Now we're getting into the box vans and cube vans and step vans. These are the ones that are contained in the definition of the commercial vehicle, and we've recommended that the type of vehicle that is defined in the ordinance doesn't necessarily need to be there. We'll get into that in a few minutes. We just care whether it's used in a commercial venture or not and whether you feel comfortable or not if that vehicle should be screened from view. These types of vehicles could not be parked in plain view in a residential area. They would have to be screened. Again, you're talking about more box vans and cube vans here. Same goes for a U.S. Mail truck. This meets the definition of a step van, and this would not be able to be parked in someone's driveway unless it was parked in their carport or screened. This would meet the definition as well. This one is a tough call. I would venture to say that people would argue that that is a passenger-type van. My argument would be that it is not primarily used to transport passengers. It is primarily used to transport pizza. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And modified to do so. MR. CAUTERO: UPS van, another example. This is an example of equipment. Again, this is not equipment that is -- is covered currently. In the ordinance right this would not be able to be stored lawfully in someone's driveway or on their property unless it was screened in the rear of the structure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So far nothing we have seen would be allowed; correct? MR. CAUTERO: Correct, without screening. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said "in rear," but you also mean "or side" as '- MR. CAUTERO: No. The proposal is "or side." The current language is "rear." COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. CAUTERO: Again, a piece of heavy equipment that would not be able to be placed in plain view. Some more heavy equipment. This is a typical pickup truck with a top on the back. This is a private vehicle that is not commercial, but we use it as a~ example because you do have a lot of people in the contracting community that drive vehicles like this that use it for commercial purposes. If equipment were stored in that vehicle, it would be legal, and it would be able to be stored in a driveway without screening in -- in the rear of the property. We just show it as an example of the type of vehicle. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, to repeat, that would be legal? MR. CAUTERO: That would be without screening. That would meet the exemption clause. This is a good example here. This is a pickup truck with a rated load capacity of under 1 ton, but it's been altered. It has some racks on it, which you may be able to see. They're dark colored -- they're black in color. You may not have a good angle it. I apologize for that. But it's a good example because nothing in the ordinance now or nothing that is proposed would prohibit that vehicle if used for commercial purposes from being parked in plain sight. The problem that we come into or the problem that we experience where people have told us on both sides, people in agreement and disagreement on the issue. As soon as a ladder or Some equipment is placed on those racks, that vehicle must be in your garage, it must be in your carport, or it must be fully screened from view in the rear of your property by doing that one thing or placing some equipment in there that could be seen. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's the current law? MR. CAUTERO: That's the current proposal, correct -- excuse me, the current language. Again, a pickup truck with the rated load capacity of under 1 ton, but you can see some equipment is visible. If that truck were parked in a residential district, that would have to be screened or enclosed in a carport or garage or in the back of the property. And it's because of the equipment, not the vehicle. Same issue here. You've got a service vehicle, utility vehicle, obviously someone making a service call. It's a gas company truck. If all of that equipment in the back is secured and screened, it would not have to be buffered or placed in a garage in a residential area. This is another type of vehicle that's been altered. Nothing in the regulation states that that vehicle as you see it could not be parked without screening. The question then becomes if equipment is -- is placed in there, what would happen. We show this as an example because it -- it's real, and it's one of the tough calls that would have to be made. We don't believe that if equipment were placed in that vehicle and you could see it, even though it was enclosed, that the intent of the ordinance was to allow that equipment to be seen. Again, I think that's an issue where we would probably be challenged if we said that equipment in that vehicle could be parked in plain view or if we required someone to -- to screen that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The empty that's -- that's out of the factory? MR. CAUTERO: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not moved? As long as it's empty, that's not modified; and, therefore, it would be permitted in the front yard without a screen? MR. CAUTERO: Modification is not an issue. The issue is the type of vehicle. It is a pickup truck with a rated load capacity of under 1 ton. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. CAUTERO: It is exempt from the commercial vehicle section -- parking section of the ordinance. The modification doesn't do anything to it. When you put equipment in there, that's when it becomes a tough call. If that was -- if you couldn't see the equipment in that vehicle, if that was not a see-through cage, it would not be an issue. That would be able to be parked in a residential district in view. When you put equipment in there and someone can see it, that's when you're in the gray area right now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: That is a tough one. We'll -- we'll get back to that. We call this our mystery vehicle. The reason is that you can't really tell whether that is someone's private vehicle and that's their equipment that they just keep in there or if that's equipment that's used in a commercial venture. Assumptions are dangerous, but let's assume for the moment that that vehicle is used as part of a commercial enterprise. If that individual parked that vehicle on their lot in a residential zoning district, it would be in violation of the Land Development Code because the equipment is in view. That would be my interpretation of the Land Development Code. If it is used for personal purposes, it's not a violation of the Land Development Code, again, some of the difficult issues that we're trying to deal with as we -- as we go through this section of the ordinance. Here you have a situation where, again, if that vehicle is used for commercial purposes -- we have a smaller truck here, probably a 4 by 2 that has a top put on it. There's some equipment inside. It is screened from view except for the back door, which you can see through. My interpretation on that would be that it meets the intent of the ordinance, and if it's used for commercial purposes, then it could be parked in the driveway. People would complain about it is my -- my guess, though. This is a passenger-type van that is used for commercial purposes or at least for advertising purposes we would assume. And that would meet the exemption test of the ordinance now because it is a passenger van, and if it were parked in a residential area, it would be allowed free from screening. It could be parked in a driveway. MR. WEIGEL: Does that have seats in the rear? MR. CAUTERO: I don't know if it has seats in the rear, but it is a passenger-type van. Even if it is used to transport materials or merchandise, it would meet that test and, therefore, could be parked in a driveway. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When you say "meet that test," how do you define a passenger-type van? MR. CAUTERO: What we've done is rely on how the vehicles are classified, and you are relying on how they are registered for the most part. The code enforcement staff has realized some serious problems in the past couple of years because they were operating under the -- the -- the premise that people who had box vans, cube vans, or step vans, as we gave some examples of before, had those classified on their registration cards as passenger-type Vans. I would draw the line at the vehicle you saw, because the other types of vehicles are primarily used to transport material and/or merchandise, not people. So we really have to rely on how the vehicles are registered, but I think you need to temper that with some common sense. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That leads to my next question, which is one of the issues that was raised several months ago when this issue first came up, was those vehicles that had been altered or modified and were titled as 1 ton or less but were clearly not 1 ton or less with that modification, and -- and our staff at the time was struggling with how you enforce that. And perhaps that's addressed in the proposed -- I didn't see it, and maybe you can point it out. MR. CAUTERO: I think it is, and I'll get to that in just a moment. But let me say that the staff and -- Mr. Ossorio is here, one of our staff members who has worked in this area, especially in Golden Gate over the last several years, I believe, and can attest to the fact that the way the ordinance was interpreted was -- it was not correct. And what they were told or what they were -- were doing out in the field were stating that anything under 1 ton, regardless of whether it was a cube van, a box van, a step van, even an automobile or a pickup -- excuse me, or a passenger-type van where the tonnage requirement wasn't even a factor, they were letting it go. Anything under 1 ton you modify it; we don't care. You show us a box van, but you've got a registration that calls it a passenger-type van, you're okay. Clearly that is not what the ordinance says. Clearly those are violations of the ordinance unless they're screened from view. That's one of the problems we experienced and why we brought it to your attention. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess if that is so clear now, I wonder why we require some of the changes we require. MR. CAUTERO: A couple of reasons why we're doing that. First of all, because you've got a lot of people out in the community that were relying on those interpretations, and I didn't want each of you to receive 250 phone calls from constituents when they called you after we went out and tagged them. Secondly, the definition we felt was a little weak, and we wanted to come back to you, and that gets me into the amendment. What we're stating in the amendment in your package is that the definition be changed and the examples be truncated from that sentence. And all we believe you need to state is any equipment commonly used in a commercial business. Don't give the examples. The reason is under the exemption Section No. 4; the recommendation is to keep in exemptions for automobiles, passenger-type vans, and pickup trucks with a rated load capacity unless they're prohibited by some kind of an overlay district and talk about size of the vehicles. The last slide I showed you, the Coppertone van, you're probably talking about those height, width, and length requirements on it. And I'm referring to the Section No. 4. I don't know what section it is in your packet. Maybe somebody from planning ca~ help me because I don't have the -- the -- my pages numbered. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fifty-one. MR. CAUTERO: Fifty-one. You'll see the changes. We're also adding some language to that we want you to consider, because we believe it makes the requirement, quite frankly, more restrictive. Not only would it have to fall into one of those categories, but it would mean a commercial vehicle does not exceed 7.5 feet in height, 7 feet in width, and 25 feet in length and is 1 ton or less in rated load capacity. What this is really tying in it is the alterations. You saw some vehicles up there that could meet that exemption, but if you alter them and make them bigger, that's where we believe we come into some problem areas. And we'd like to try to recommend to -- or your Planning Commission is recommending to you, as well as staff and Development Services Advisory Committee, that if you put some restrictions on the height, width, and the length, you get away from the issue of people modifying the vehicle, making them much bigger, and they end up with this huge box van after it was a passenger van, literally a passenger. We believe that makes the ordinance more restrictive in that regard for your consideration. Another component of the change -- going back to No. 1, we're just trying to clarify where it says construction service operation. We'd like to differentiate between the two. It can be construction or it can be service. It doesn't necessarily have to be engaged in a construction activity; so we've inserted the word "or." Number 2 is just grammatical; it doesn't change anything. We just flip-flopped the words "carport" and "garage." The reason is we didn't want the phrase "carport" to be associated with "or fully enclosed structure" where somebody might argue that point with us. So we wanted to differentiate it; a carport· garage· Cotriffle · or fully-enclosed enclosure. I don't want people coming in and saying, well, my carport's fully enclosed, and I don't want to have it impact another section of the ordinance. It's just a flip-flop of words. Section No. 3, I'm going to rely on Linda Sullivan for a little help here. This is where we talk about "or the side yard" as opposed to "the rear yard." Now, in our -- in our workshops we worked with the people there and handed out a survey to use as a guide. This issue was not touched· and I don't believe there were any questions that dealt with this one. But based on people that code enforcement staff has talked to and based on some information they have· and I'll defer to her, they felt that there was some compelling reason to put that criteria in for your consideration. I'll hold that in abeyance for a moment and then let you ask some more questions about that. Number 4 I talked about. Number 5 -- 5 deals with commercial equipment. We did get some good information from people who attended the workshops and from people we've talked to, and I've personally talked to at least a dozen people in the subcontracting fields who said we agree the larger vehicles should not be parked in plain view or you should have all this equipment all over the place. And I don't think a lot of the people that were at these workshops -- and our statistics show it - would disagree with that. But what we heard or what we believe we heard the majority of the people telling us, if not at the workshops· also through phone calls and discussions that we've had at meetings· is the smaller types of vehicles that we saw in the slides· they're saying to me if -- if we can put racks on it, why can't we put some PC pipe on the side? Why can't we have some ladders on the side? People were asking those questions of us, and we couldn't give them an answer other than to say the code did not allow it. I don't believe that's an adequate answer. So what we've heard people say or what we think the -- the majority of people have told us is some might be acceptable without screening or buffering or enclosed in a carport or garage· but some is clearly unacceptable. And what is unacceptable is a large type of equipment. We got into the issue of chemicals. That's an issue that you see that is -- is in writing here, and it's one, quite frankly, that we don't feel uncomfortable with if you delete. And the reasons for that are in discussions we've had since this language was written. We're not in the chemical regulation business; other agencies are. And it probably isn't prudent to have those types of things screened from view. But the issue of whether those chemicals are legal or not, legally stored or not, whether they can be on private property in residential zoning districts is one that we don't regulate. I've asked some staff members from my pollution control department to come here tonight. They're here to answer questions as well as some state representatives. It's administered through DOT, through the code of federal regulations, actually a law that pertains to U.S. Department of Transportation. And there's literally hundreds of thousands of types of chemicals. It's a very important issue, and I believe that it's one that was correctly brought up. But I don't think you should get in the business of regulating the type of chemical stored in an area. It's not in our Land Development Code now. To my knowledge, it's not in any of your codes. The issue is one of screening, what's from view. It's exactly what this entire section of the code's about: What are you comfortable with in residential zoning districts; what types of vehicles and equipment can be parked or stored there in plain view? The only thing this ordinance does, amendment, in our opinion, is it allows some equipment to be stored on vehicles in plain view; but we're anticipating that that would be in the larger type of vehicles. That's all it does. The language on the units on the chemicals and all that was added in there after discussion with some pool contractors. In researching the issue, the prudent thing is probably to eliminate that language. That's your consideration. I'll stop there and turn it over to you for questions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Vince, when this was originally brought to us by some civic groups and because our staff was having trouble enforcing the old code because it wasn't enforceable, my understanding was that our goal was to make this more enforceable, make it clear, make the wording clearer so our staff could go out and do -- do their job, not necessarily to make it more restrictive, certainly not to make it less restrictive. My concern is there are two or three items in here that are less restrictive than the old code, and I'm 99 percent sure -- and I'm sure we'll have speakers from the public, but I'm 99 percent sure that those folks who brought this forward did not bring it forward to try to make it less restrictive. I don't like -- and after I get through maybe someone wants to address these. I don't like the idea of adding to the side. We had the issue with screening and if -- in a carport, and so on you can put something behind. I think the argument that in some neighborhoods homes are too close together to comfortably get back behind is the very reason why we wouldn't want it beside. If homes are that close together, probably you don't want things stored in between them. And I think by allowing storage on the side of homes, it is becoming less restrictive. Under Item No. 4 we talked about -- and I realize what you're trying to do with the height and the width and the length, and I had raised questions with that when we first brought that issue forward six months ago. My recollection is it was actually 22 feet when we rejected that six months ago, and I see it's 25 feet in length now, and I'm wondering -- there may be a very good reason. I don't know. Chevy might have put out a new longer truck. I don't know. But I'm wondering why we have an extra 3 feet on there now than we did when this item first came to us. MR. CAUTERO: I believe the answer is -- and I'll defer to code enforcement staff. I believe the answer is grounded in the fact of common size of those types of vehicles that would normally meet the exemption, but I'll defer to them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And finally, I'm a little worried about No. 5 here. The whole reason our staff had trouble enforcing before was, we were told, because of the vagueness or the -- the nonclarity of the wording. This is pretty vague when it says exempted from this section: small commercial equipment such as ladders, pipes, containers, or other supplies which -- and this is the part that's, in my opinion, very vague -- which cannot be reasonably contained within the vehicle. That's going to be a pretty big judgment call there. I mean, we worry about whether or not we can make a valid argument to code enforcement -- to the Code Enforcement Board. If we couldn't tell what was 1 ton before now, I don't know how we're going to define "reasonably contained." Maybe there's an addendum that defines reasonably. I haven't seen it. And then the -- and I'm glad to hear you say you don't have any objection if we drop the 20 units, because that's of particular concern to me. I don't want to get into trying to deal with what chemicals are okay, what aren't. That's not this part -- that's not the Land Development Code's role. But when we get into 20 units, I don't know if that means pint containers or 55-gallon drums. I don't know. I just -- I'm not comfortable. If -- if something that our environmental agencies tell us is safe to be away in someone's garage or stored in a covered pickup truck or in the back of a van, that's fine. My concern is when I think of residential areas, I think of neighborhoods. I think of families, and I see a potential attractive nuisance. You have chemicals. You have some neat- looking thing on the back of a truck. Kids get playing. And while it may be perfectly safe for me to store in my closed garage and only use when it's appropriate, I don't know that some of those things are safe to be out. So I'm glad you said it, and I hope the board will opt to eliminate that part in particular, the 20 units of chemicals. I just think we would be better off not putting that in and worrying about that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If I could interrupt while you're on the chemical containers, this -- this says containers of chemicals. And I'm wondering if we happened to come across a vehicle at the end of the day that has containers that used to have chemical vehicles (sic) when the day start -- I mean used to have chemicals in them when the day started out, but they don't now at the end of the day. I mean, obviously the day started out with them -- MR. CAUTERO: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- that way, and now they don't. So I think there's a vagueness there, too, as to are the -- are the containers full, half empty, or totally empty. MR. CAUTERO: Again, points well-taken. I don't think you should fool with the language. I think those types of things are regulated by other agencies, and I think all we should be concerned about is whether they're screened or not, whether you feel comfortable whether they should be screened or not. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: An interesting thing, you mentioned you'd talked with some pool contractors about that, and I know the -- the idea for the ladders and those things came from AC contractors and others who do emergency runs at 2 a.m., but I'm reasonably sure that pool contractors aren't running out too, too often to do chemical balancing at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. on an emergency call. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My chlorine's out of whack. Get here now. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I don't know if maybe we can poll the board on that part before we get into the rest but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, just in my district alone I've heard adamant opinions on opposite ends of this, and I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. There are those that say that even the commercial lettering on a vehicle should prohibit it from your neighborhood, and I think that's going too far, and then those that say, you know, I should be able to put all kinds of pipes and whatever I want on the top, who cares, and that's going too far. You know, a truck -- and I asked this question when the language was last proposed. At that time I had a Jeep with a roof rack on it. If I put a ladder on it, would I be in violation, and the answer was yes. And I thought, you know, that's a little -- that's a little too much. And I think, you know, your air conditioning contractors have to have a ladder on the roof. Would you rather them not have it up there? Sure, but not every house has a garage or a carport or a place you can, you know, stick a ladder inside unless you put it in the living room. So, you know, I think there has to be a bend on both sides. I'm comfortable with leaving something in there that allows a ladder or, you know, a reasonable piece of equipment. But you're right; when we start talking number of bottles of chemicals, I think we just need to scrap that. That -- that's a little too -- I don't know -- too particular. MR. CAUTERO: One -- one issue I may add, Mr. Chairman, the Planning Commission recommended that you approve this language. Again, I believe staff is -- is comfortable with -- with changes to it. Certainly any change you make we'll -- we'll be able to craft language to your satisfaction. They also made another recommendation that I want to make you aware of, and that is they asked you to direct us to draft language to create some exemptions in the Immokalee community; so I wanted to state that on the record. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Can you say -- I didn't hear the last thing you said. MR. CAUTERO: They instructed -- excuse me. They recommended to you that you instruct staff to draft language that would create exemptions from this section of commercial vehicle and equipment storage in the Immokalee community. But they are not stating -- they were very explicit. They did not believe that the entire community should be exempt from this section of the ordinance but perhaps some sections should be; so, therefore, a study would need to be done and presented to you if you're amendable to that recommendation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you a question, Commissioner Matthews? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess on one hand I recognize there are a different set of rules, different way of life in Immokalee. On the other hand, I'm afraid if we set a lower hurdle, we never improve to the point where it is the same. And I think that's the goal with a lot of the civic leaders and all, and maybe you got more feedback on that than the rest of us. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I think in Immokalee there is a difference in that up in -- up until a couple of days ago I was under the assumption, and I think most of the people who live in Immokalee believed that they had been exempted through their master plan from vehicle restrictions like this. Mr. Cautero and his staff have diligently searched the master plan for Immokalee and found that that is not true. What I think that we would like to see is an overlay district in those areas that Immokalee believes that are close to ag areas that should be exempted from -- from this and that we should form a committee of -- of staff and employers in Immokalee to identify those identifiable areas where this code should not apply. And, you know, trust me; there are areas in Immokalee where they want this code to apply. There are others that -- that they don't, and it's really not appropriate in some areas. So I -- I would like this -- this board to consider directing staff to develop some -- some sort of overlay that -- that fits the needs of the community and -- and, of course, as -- as it changes, that -- that overlay can also change. I mean, it's -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's a living instrument. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- ask something stupid here? But, frankly -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It will be a first; right? Somebody had to say it. We don't enforce the housing codes in Immokalee. I don't want to be lowering the standards for Immokalee. I wish that we were raising them, and I don't think there needs to be any great level of fear in Immokalee when we continue to have a complaint-driven system that, you know, the zoning cops are going to descend on Immokalee and say, you know, park your truck somewhere else when we are already letting people live in squalor. I mean, you know, I don't think there -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, that's a good point. Let me see -- we're about ready to go to the public speakers, but let me make one little comment here on this. As I looked at No. 5, this is proposed? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It seems to me that someone could have a rack on the top, racks on the side, ladders on the top, pipes on the top, equipment in the back, all of this at once -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- the way this reads. MR. CAUTERO: That would be two ladders, but you could have them, yes -- the language. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It doesn't say anything about that. It just says that you could have ladders and pipes. MR. CAUTERO: Correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And containers of chemicals and equipment and racks on the side and racks on the top; that's, you know -- that -- if that pulled up next to my house, I would think somebody had a commercial vehicle in their driveway. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Amazing. MR. CAUTERO: Keep in mind the only difference between this language and what you see now, assuming the chemical language is -- is changed, is the pipe and the ladder. The racks can be on there now, and all of the equipment can be stored inside. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, I was just visualizing that. We're going to go to the public speakers now. How many do we have? MR. McNEES: We have eleven. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have 11. Okay. I'd like to remind the public speakers that we allow you 5 minutes to tell us what you think about this. Please try not to yell at us. We're not going to make a final decision today. We're just going to -- we just want to know what you think about this, and that's -- that's why you're here to tell us. MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, if I could beg one moment's indulgence. This is one of these typical governmental no-win situations that staff sometimes finds itself in. And staff's only motivation with something like this is to be able to create something that's clear, that's enforceable, and that is consistent with the wishes of the board. I just think it's appropriate to recognize before we go to the public speakers the incredible effort that Mr. Cautero and Miss Sullivan and their staffs have gone through to try to bring something forward here that works for everyone, which is impossible, and -- and that was consistent with your wishes. I just wanted to take a moment to recognize, because they've put a lot of effort and work into this trying to please everybody, which as I said, is really difficult. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you for that. Duly recognized. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's impossible. MR. HcNEES: Sheri Barnett followed by Tom Henning. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Speaking of something, I want to clarify something that got lost. I was talking about a ladder. The pipe thing, your comments are well taken. I mean, it gets a little __ COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Cautero, I had one other question, if you can put two pipes on the -- on the rack on the top of a truck. Now, I -- I've seen these plumbing trucks going down the road, and they have a pipe within a pipe within a pipe and a 6-inch pipe at the end. Now, if they have two 6-inch pipes and multiple pipes stored within that 6-inch pipe, what is that one? MR. CAUTERO: If it's enclosed, it would meet this criteria. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So you could literally carry a full set of pipes for plumbing within two 6-inch pipes? MR. CAUTERO: If it's enclosed, yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the vehicle would support it, you could have a couple of 36-inch pipes up there? MR. CAUTERO: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's an abuse. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's an abuse, and it doesn't cover it. Okay. MS. BARNETT: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Sheri Barnett. I am president of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association. I'm also a member of the code enforcement, which is a subsidy of the code -- of the civic association, and I live out in Golden Gate Estates. I've lived in Collier County since 1956, so I'm pretty aware that this has been a -- considered a working community. I am not opposed to someone parking a pickup truck that doesn't have a whole lot of equipment on it. I could contend with Mr. Hancock that your vehicle is not a commercial vehicle. Even though you had the ladder on there, I don't think it would have been objectionable because it is a personal passenger vehicle. I have a Jimmy, too, with a rack on it. I contend that I have some problems with the ordinance for a couple reasons. One, there has been some changes on this since I got my draft faxed to me that was not there originally in that was in Section 5 where they had in regards to the pipe. This copy that I got faxed to my office did not have the section here that says, "shall not extend more than 18 inches beyond the length, height, or width of the vehicle." That was completely -- it was not to extend beyond the vehicle, period. So there was not any extension of the pipes. I actually was one of the people that in some of the meetings that we had felt that "a ladder" was not a problem if it was placed on top of a vehicle or on a rack or to the side but not all of the above. It has been moved to two. I don't know if that's a plus or a minus. I can give or take there. I have a real hard problem with the containers because they do not specify, as Mr. Constantine stated, what is a unit. There is no definition as to what is a unit. Is it five gallons? Ten gallons? Fifteen gallons? Twenty? Fifty? As far as small equipment, there's really not a definition as to what that is. Could that be tires? Because we do have -- every one of those pictures that they have shown you, I have personally written up as part of the code enforcement that have been parked in residential areas, including the semi in Golden Gate Estates. The only ones that I can't say specifically have been written up have been the UPS van and the mail truck, but there have been vehicles like them. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even that Collier County dump truck. MS. BARNETT: Yes. I have written up -- not a Collier County dump truck, but there has been a dump truck. They will bring anything home. And since we've actually kind of stopped doing some of the enforcement on this unless it was an absolute definite problem, there's been more of it brought out. And as far as for Commissioner Matthews, I believe Golden Gate Estates has an exemption to this because of their agricultural zoning. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The -- zoning '- MS. BARNETT: The zoning of that. So I think maybe if that would apply to some of the areas of Immokalee I could also appreciate that concern, because Immokalee is a little bit of a different breed. I'm not saying in the areas that are all housing area in Immokalee -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MS. BARNETT: -- to not have this part of the ordinance, but I can -- understanding Immokalee as I do, because I've done a lot of work out there with some of the people, it is a little bit of a different breed, because it is a farming community out there, and they have some of the bigger trucks in some of the areas that are closer to the farms. So it might be something for you guys to consider. But I just -- when we first adopted this amendment and -- and tried to bring it forth, we were trying to get control of the area so that we didn't degrade our neighborhood and we could bring it back up to standards. You wouldn't accept half of the stuff that we have out in the estates and I believe some of the East Naples area and some of the North Naples area in the Moorings being parked next door to you. But for some reason it's enforced more in that areas than it is in ours, and we've taken the reactive measures instead of the proactive, and we're trying to turn that around. I will say that they have helped us immensely with trying to enforce any of our complaints. They have looked into them quickly, but there was problems with the interpretations, and we were not trying to ease up on the interpretations, but trying to make them more definitive. And that's pretty much what I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Miss Barnett, are you talking about estate zoning, or are you talking about sing -- single-family residential zoning? MS. BARNETT: I am -- in single-family residential I was talking about in the city area. The estates zoning is -- is not included in this as far as I understand. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. BARNETT: And I was just saying that for your purposes with Immokalee you might see if there are some areas that might also fall under that category. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would think the people in the estates who would want an overlay would come to us and ask for one. MR. HcNEES: Your next speaker would be Tom Henning followed by Maynard Wilson. MR. HENNING: For the record, Commissioners, my name is Tom Henning, concerned citizen of Golden Gate, and I've been known to work on a few cars now and then. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You'd make a good fire commissioner. MR. HENNING: I have some handouts here that I want to pass out, one for the county attorney too. There's two handouts. I -- I quickly this afternoon got a trader of trucks and did some clippings, and under Section 2-6731 paragraph 4, automobile passenger and pickups have -- excuse me -- load rate capacity of 1 ton or less shall be exempt from this. These vehicles that I -- that I cut out will be exempt from the screening. I'm not sure if this is what the board intent is. I know that Linda Sullivan has a -- a copy of those. On the upper left-hand corner of the one is not a vehicle. That's a unit. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. HENNING: So, you know, is that allowable in residential unit without being screening. The other one is various pickups. Some of these pickups under the zoning will be permitted without screening because they meet the criteria of 1 ton. Some of them are over. The boom you can lower down to meet the criteria of the height of 7.5 or whatever it is, 7.5 feet. I'm not sure if this is what the -- the board wants to see in their -- their neighborhoods. I'm not sure if you want to have it parked next to you. But I -- Commissioner Hancock, I appreciate your comments. I think you're right on track with this, and I hope your colleagues follow through. Thank you. MR. McNEES: Mr. Wilson followed by Vera Fitz-Gerald. MR. WILSON: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Maynard Wilson, live in Golden Gate City. I was up here before. We talked about these code enforcements. And I see the new revision here looks more in line with what I feel that should be done. One of the things I question here is on this paragraph 1. It says a vehicle. I assume that the vehicle we're talking about is the new criteria that they're using is a covered trailer. They take the trailer home at night and dump it in their yard and go on. I assume that that will be covered as not allowable? MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero. I'm not sure I understand your question, sir. MR. WILSON: Well, here, the lawn service, instead of -- like you showed a lawn service with a trailer and all the equipment on it. They're buying trailers now and putting all that equipment in the trailer. MR. CAUTERO: Yes. MR. WILSON: It's out of sight. They bring the trailer home and dump it in the driveway. Is that going to be considered a vehicle that's not going to be allowed? MR. CAUTERO: No. The trailer would be a piece of commercial equipment, and that would have to be stored in a carport. MR. WILSON: That's my question. If that's what it's going to be, fine. The next question I had was on this carport that you and I discussed several different times. Is the intent for this to say the carport garage or fully-enclosed structure, are they to mean the same thing, that they're enclosed? MR. CAUTERO: For purposes of this definition we're not stating that the carport is a fully-enclosed structure. We're stating that it is acceptable to place vehicles and/or equipment that meet the commercial test in them. And that's what the current ordinance says today as well. MR. WILSON: I beg to disagree with him because Commissioner Norris told me very explicitly the last time I was here, that if that's in a carport, it can not be seen from the street. If it's seen from the street, it's illegal. And that's the way the code was written. And that was -- well, Mr. Norris pointed out very -- and that was the same thing I made out in the letter I sent to you. If it's in a carport -- and a carport definition is just a structure with a shed over -- a top over it, so it's not screened. And there was a law, the previous accordance -- court decision had them take carport out of the ordinance at one time, and now that was put back in. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a question along those lines, because I think you're right, carport was allowed before, and I -- I agree with you. I have a question about it. But I'm wondering does anybody here know the history, know a reason why that was allowed? Because I think everything else in the ordinance is talking about screening or trying to prohibit it from view, and carport obviously doesn't, but I know carport was legal. And I'm just wondering what the reasoning was for that. MR. HULHERE: I don't -- I don't think anybody has a good explanation as to why. It's always been a problem as I know for code enforcement because, you know, obviously you can see that equipment if it's stored in -- likely you can see it if it's stored in a carport. I guess a carport where it was screened -- in other words, with vegetation or something like that -- that's a different story, and maybe that -- clarifying that, a carport what is screened and cannot be seen would be -- MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel. MR. WILSON: It was my -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Mr. Weigel's going to tell us something here. MR. WEIGEL: If I can respond to Mr. Constantine's question that you raised, sir, that was that -- looking at the Land Development Code, the ordinance that is in the code as printed right now, the language for that Paragraph No. 2 read in its entirety is the vehicle is parked in a garage, comma, carport, or fully-enclosed structure and cannot be seen from the street serving the lot. Now, that's earlier language in our -- in the LDC, and that was the language that was in the LDC, this provision, this section, when it came before the board in the previous cycle. And at that time -- and here's where I may need a little correction or either history or revision is history here -- but I believe the board gave some marching orders, of course, to staff at that time. I think the intent of the board was not to change the ordinance at that time. However, within the packet of materials that went to our -- to the secretary of state was included some of the language that was part of the proposed revisions to the code at that time. We noted that, brought it back to the board, and I believe the board's action, subsequent to the actions of the cycle, was to correct and -- and re -- return to the status quo the ordinance as it existed prior to the last cycle. So I think that -- and again, here's where I'm not absolutely sure, but I think that the language before you tonight in your agenda packet may more correctly show the rest of that sentence subject to paragraph 2 as I just stated and I think Mr. Norris remembered. And on a similar vein in paragraph 1 under that subsection where it says "the vehicle and/or equipment," to be safe we may need to check between now and the next meeting if the "and/or equipment" was, in fact, potentially added language at that last cycle but not actually added. MR. MULHERE: I -- I have that -- I -- in my Land Development Code I have the old language, and you're absolutely correct. It is slightly different from the language that is here in that it does say in Item No. 2. And the board's direction was to return to that -- to that previous existing language in the code. In Item No. 2 it says, "fully screened from view from the street." CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The issue is that a carport would be allowed as long as there's screening provided as well; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. CAUTERO: Well, the way that the ordinance reads is "cannot be seen from the street serving the lot." COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we clarify -- MR. CAUTERO: So -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the wording here? Would there be any objection from the board if we clarified so that a carport is allowed, assuming that it's still not visible. I mean, the same rules apply as any other cover. It's not visible from the street or from neighboring property. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's the way I think it used to be a long time ago, at least, was that you could use a carport as long as there was some screening provided. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How do you screen the open -- MR. WILSON: In other words, I'm done? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Your five minutes have expired. MR. WILSON: Well, I understand, sir, but I had a couple other points I wanted to make, and my time was all taken up by receiving answers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll allow you a quick -- MR. WILSON: Well, I only have just a couple quick points. The carport we had the discussion previously. I'm not too much in favor of allowing the stuff to be parked in the side yard because of how do you screen it. You know, you got to have a screen there, and the guy's got to go through the screen. And the other thing I wanted to say was on chemicals. I personally called the EPA and tried to find out about the toxicity of the lawn chemicals, and I was told, yes, it is but in a certain quantity. My objections I always had with lawn -- not lawn but chemicals was are they child proof. When they're sitting out here in the yard with 8, 10, or 15 gallons of chemicals there, what's to stop a kid from going over there, open that up, and taking a drink out of it? Now, if they're in containers that are enclosed, you know, I mean sealed and child proofed, I wouldn't have any objection to this. My objection was to children getting into them. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Vera -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me save some time and ask, does the board have any interest in keeping the chemical thing in there? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald. I read this over, and I was kind of upset because, as Commissioner Constantine has already said, we wanted -- we got together in the first place because we wanted tighter regulations, not looser; and this is looser. It says at the -- at the -- this original sheet that to ease the financial burden on small businessmen. But I have to ask you about the financial burden when our properties are decreased from - _ because these ugly commercial vehicles that you're suggesting are going to be allowed would be parked in driveways next door. I think that would have a very negative effect if you were trying to sell your property, so that should be taken into consideration. And these ladders hanging out on the side, on the top, two pipes in the whole thing, absolutely not. My neighbor across the street was a painter, and he used to come home with his van, and he had a ladder on the top. And I never found that very objectionable. I -- I thought, well, he's in business, and he -- and he was always very careful about maintaining the area and everything, and that's all he had was a ladder. And I -- I thought that was fine. But you'll notice I'm saying "a ladder." COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is what I was saying, "a ladder." MS. FITZ-GERALD: Yeah. Exactly. I sure don't want to see something hanging on the side. Carports, absolutely, they should be screened. I don't know how you screen the opening to a carport but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good question. MS. FITZ-GERALD: -- the fact is that you shouldn't be allowed to park these things out where they're seen in carports. Let's see, I have a problem with this 25 feet in length. As Commissioner Constantine said, it started out somewhat shorter, and I think my van is about 15 feet long. I'm not sure. I never went out and measured it, but this is going to be 10 feet longer, and this is entirely too long. And I would rather this back where it was originally at 20 feet when we started this out. The whole of -- of Section 5 I -- it upsets me. Now, you said you're not going to talk about chemicals so that's good, because they could have been 50 gallons. I don't like the idea that they can extend 18 inches. Now, all of a sudden it can be 8 1/2 feet in width or I think they could hang over on the width or on the length. You can add another __ so now we got 26 1/2 feet. That -- I don't like anything in Item 5. I would like to see you just take the whole thing and scratch it. There's also -- you know, there's just some commercial activity, some businesses that just shouldn't be run out of a home. And a pool company is one of those. I said we wanted tighter regulations. Well, Commissioner Hancock was at our property owners' of Naples Park meeting -- a person we all put our hand up and said we wanted this stuff tighter. Let me see what else I wanted to say here. Another thing is that in Naples Park a lot of -- most of our homes, actually, are built on 50-foot lots. So that -- that simply makes it too close to even discuss parking things on sides or in the back. The thing is that what we're trying to get rid of is the step vans and the box vans. These are -- are just so ugly, and they're unnecessary. And so if this thing could be enforced as it is now written, couldn't we just -- just fine tune it just a tad bit by size and eliminate step -- step vans and box vans and not get too carried away here with this -- with these items in No. 57 I think that's about all I wanted to say, but I don't like the new regulation as it's written. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. McNEES: Ann Amen followed by Lucy Veccia. MS. AMEN: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Ann Amen. I live in Naples Park. I've lived there for 15 years. I am reading this letter for Florence Mortensen, who is unable to attend this meeting. She is a resident of Naples Park for more than 20 years. These are her remarks. There is an ongoing emphasis on the beautification of Naples area even in the industrial parks. It would appear, therefore, that a suggestion to downgrade Naples Park by permitting trucks to park in driveways is in direct conflict with the goals of the community we live in. Naples Park will turn into a junkyard. People who work in offices drive to work in their cars. Why isn't it possible for those who drive trucks to drive to their home -- to their workplace in their own cars? Commissioners who may not have to contend with trucks parked in their neighborhoods may not fully understand the impact in a community where most home sites are on 50 foot wide. Please, therefore, consider this scenario. Many homeowners use their garages for storage or have made their -- have made them into extra rooms, which mean one or two cars are always parked in the driveway. An extra truck, therefore, would be (sic) need to be parked on the lawn or in the swale. And in cases where there are three or four young people occupy a home, there would be -- there could be as many as eight vehicles parked on the property. In these latter instances, occupants are most likely to be tenters and the aesthetics are of no interest to them. Please let's strive for beautification. Those who can't do not wish to look out of their windows at trucks. Presently there is a van parked in a driveway on 91st Avenue in large letters, and it says Hessler's Carpets. Hesslet does not live in Naples Park. Therefore, he has no personal reason, no personal interest in the zoning laws. Perhaps his employee saves gas expense for his own vehicle. That should not be a good enough reason to permit parking space for a Hesslet van. That's it. I agree with this letter. Thank you. MR. McNEES: Lucy Veccia followed by Redmond Jones. MS. VECCIA: My name is Lucy Veccia, and I live on 92nd Avenue. And all I have to say is I agree with some of the past remarks. I don't think even one ladder should be allowed, because the one ladder will turn into two ladders, and one pipe will turn into two pipes, and abuses always occur as we all know. The integrity of county ordinances should not be compromised to allow residential areas without deed restrictions to be manipulated and exploited. Areas depending on the integrity of county ordinances and the dedication of their commissioners for the preservation of their neighborhood should enjoy the same confidence of protection to the quality of standards as deed restrictions since they both strive to uphold or improve quality. This is definitely not an improvement. This -- any change would be lowering of quality. I implore you to preserve the integrity of county ordinances and the definition and most important, the quality of residential living, by rejecting the request before you. Thank you. MR. McNEES: Redmond Jones followed by Bill Kerrigan. MR. JONES: Hi, Commissioners. My name is Redmond Jones. I've lived in Naples Park for almost 20 years. The only reason I'm up here to -- today is to say that I hoped that you would tighten the restrictions instead of making -- making them less restrictive. The more trucks you can keep out of Naples Park, the better it will be, because if you came out there in the evening when you see these wild Indians coming home from work in their pickup trucks -- we have a gang of kids out there. And, boy, I've seen many a teen -- many a kid getting run over by one of these Indians coming in with their pickup truck. So I can imagine what would happen if we had cement trucks and dump trucks and panel trucks and all kinds of other ugly looking things. So I think that -- is that our zoning director now? Is he? Oh, good. He sounds like he knows what he's talking about. Let's tighten them up, not loosen them. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks, Red. MR. McNEES: Mr. Kerrigan followed by Glenn Wilt. MR. KERRIGAN: My name is Bill Kerrigan. I live in Poinciana Village. I am the president of the Poinciana Village Civic Association, and I am treasurer of the Second District Association also known as the Property Owners Association of North Collier County. I am a little bit disappointed in the incredible effort on county staff. Mr. Cautero, you've been to some of our meetings, and you never told the Second District Association about any meetings on code and/or whatever. I mean, I think we could have been a part of that. And I was here at the last meeting and spoke, and nobody got in touch with me. So I'm a little disappointed in that. What I'd like to say is that -- last time our codes are here to protect our communities and property values. And putting chlorine, muriatic acid, weed killer, pipes, ladders -- that just devalues our property. Working people save by buying homes and hoping they appreciate in value. I'm sure there's a lot of people in here that have sold a home and made some money on it. And that's what generates our taxes. I mean, instead of putting a ladder up there, why don't we get rid of the rack? I mean, you know -- I think our public supports code enforcement. I think Mr. Constantine's election with 70 percent of the vote -- and it's no secret that he hasn't -- that he's helped, you know, code enforcement go along. I think the public's spoken. And that's been the real hot bed of this is in Golden Gate so, you know, there. A lot of people are saying that private deed restrictions are the answer. They're not. If you don't enforce your private deed restrictions to the T, they're not enforceable. In Poinciana Village we got a deed restriction that says you can't have any kind of building unless it's right next to your house. Do you know how many Ted's Sheds are not next to the house? So how are we going to do our nuisance deed restrictions, and they're not cheap to enforce. Maybe Mrs. Hac'Kie could tell you how much it costs to send a threatening letter or go into court to defend one of these things or prosecute one of these. I think a possible compromise would be to have these vehicles in the backyard, not the side yard, but the compromise would be to get the vegetative barrier down to maybe a 8- to a 10-foot fence, whatever you could get at Home Depot or whatever, you know, some standard. I'm sure there's one we could find. But we want to continue to be a blue-chip community. We don't want to be Newark, New Jersey. And from what I'm seeing here with what the staff does -- I mean, they're saying it's a tightening. But when I hear the staff say, well, the state will enforce these chemical restrictions and all, why don't we tell the sheriff to, you know, concentrate on traffic control, forget drugs, and the FBI and the DEA can do that. I mean, come on. County government is the front line of state government. We're their local arm, and I believe that's a quote from Mr. Dotrill. So -- and the other thing is if we do any weakening of codes or anything, which it seems to me this is kind of what it is, why don't we put this to a vote. Cape Coral did it with their trucks. And if -- people are getting their oxes gored. I don't see a bunch of businesses in here complaining. Don't we have now regular __ a policy where you can bring 10 percent of registered voters and you do put an ordinance on there? Well, if they don't like the codes now or they want to weaken them, let them do it that way. So if anybody has any questions, I'll answer them. VOICE: Gil, why did you pick on Newark, New Jersey, sir? MR. JONES: I used to live in New Jersey but it was south Jersey. It wasn't Newark. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: While Mr. Wilt is coming up, we do need to make one correction to Mr. Kerrigan's comments that -- Commissioner Constantine got nowhere near 70 percent of the vote. It was a paltry 69. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was very kindly rounding up. WILT: For the record my name's Glenn Wilt. I live in Golden Gate. I appreciate you keeping track of the math that close. 69.7 was it, something like that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It wasn't 70. MR. WILT: It wasn't 70? Anyway, good evening, Commissioners. It's been a long, trying year and a half, two years working on the commercial vehicle ordinance. Hopefully one of these days we can get to a solution on this. We're getting close on it. The members in Golden Gate, the civic association, and the volunteer code enforcement, were ready to start working with community development some time ago, because there was some vagueness on the step vans and what have you and so forth. And we fully support the issue of putting in the vehicle size, the specific heights, specific widths, and specific lengths. And while I'm on that, I heard people questioning that 25 foot. In fact, myself and one of the code enforcement officers traveled around one day, and we went to some of the truck lots and measured them. And I think I put the statement on the record the last time, when they had limited it at 22 feet, that they required a change because when we measured the new four-door pickup that Chevy came out with, when you measured bumper to bumper, it's 23 feet 4 inches, and that vehicle starts at $36,000. And I think if I bought a $36,000 pickup and no commercial equipment in it and you tell me I can't park it in my driveway -- so that's why the length is what it is. The other thing is in regard to the equipment. Now that you've taken the discussion of any chemicals out of it, then that issue's done. I still have to come back to the one plain, simple fact. That is if you're in business and you have a commercial vehicle, you're providing service to the community. You're charging the members of the community. That vehicle belongs, because it's a commercial activity, in a commercial-zoned area, not next door to my residence. It does not benefit me one bit. Now, when you say that we're going to put them on the side of the house, that's all well and good. It's not going to work. The setback won't even cover it. Okay. The current ordinance says you can have them in the rear of the house or the rear of the main structure if you can get it back there without encroaching on your neighbor's property. But then you have a 6-foot-fence ordinance limitation. And how do you hide an 8- to 10-foot high truck in your backyard? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A high hedge. MR. WILT: And then you tell the guy you're going to plant vegetation. How many of these small commercial business people that say they have to operate out of their structure because they can't afford a resident -- or commercial site. They cannot afford to go out and purchase vegetation that's high enough to screen that vehicle, so they buy 18-inch vegetation, and it takes 8 years to get 8 feet tall. I mean, that's the point. I like some of the things done in the vehicle -- in the provision, and don't get me wrong, I'm not picking on the people from community development. They've got a tough job to do. My only concern is we have an ordinance in place; let's make it tougher, not less restrictive. We've done a tremendous amount of work out in Golden Gate when you come -- code enforcement people and community development people supporting us, getting rid of abandoned vehicles, getting rid of unlicensed vehicles, getting rid of exotics. We've made a lot of progress. We've made a lot of progress of getting rid of commercial-type vehicles out there until we sort of called a moratorium while we're in this process. And it's really getting bad again out there. I want to get this issue settled. I want to get back on the attack and get those commercial vehicles out of there. I ask for your support in this. We don't need these type of vehicles in a residential area. If it's commercial, put it in a commercial-zoned area. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Wilt, just a quick question. You're comfortable if we just -- if we left it as simple as the measurement that's in here, you're comfortable with that? MR. WILT: Yes, I am. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. HcNEES: Lawrence Pistori, and then your last speaker would be Theresa Walker. MR. PISTORI: Good evening, Commissioners. Well, pretty much what I wanted said has been said except that I want to add a couple of things. You know, some people have the idea that, well, Golden Gate, Naples Park, East Naples, well, they're working-class communities so, you know, why bother. So you got commercial vehicles, so what. But in the last few years people have built homes that are over a hundred thousand dollars. Naples Park has had a reputation of being sort of an inexpensive community, but this has come up a lot. People care about not necessarily making a profit on their home, but maintaining their value. We don't want to all of a sudden have a blighted area and lose all the value of our homes and have to move someplace else. Now, anybody that's lived in the city -- I'm familiar with New York, New Jersey. Now, they had beautiful neighborhoods with beautiful, expensive homes, and in just a few year's time they became blighted. People just abandoned everything because they didn't care. Now, you allow one van with one ladder, another van with two pipes on the top. Why can't these people cooperate and take these ladders and put them in their garage at night? The last meeting we had we had a woman complaining that she couldn't put her vehicles in the garage because it was loaded with chemicals. Well, isn't that rough. I mean, we are living in a residential -- a commercial vehicle should not be in residential areas. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, Larry, it's because her stock car was in the garage. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what she said. MR. PISTORI: Could be. Maybe it was a Rolls Royce. I don't know. Putting it on the side of the houses could be a partial solution. But even seeing that people have boats. They have -- they're not screened. They have them in carports. They're not screened. It's not being enforcement. They're not screened. You ca~ see them. Now, if anybody wants to see some real commercial community, come down to Naples Park with the infrared camera after seven o'clock at night, and then you can see. I mean, you got everything from A to Z that's commercial. A very good idea these people that bought the system. You leave at seven, eight o'clock in the morning, you come in at seven, eight o'clock at night; nobody see's it. Where's the investigator seven, eight o'clock at night? There ain't nobody there. But if you loosen up the strings and you start allowing this, not just going to be one van here and another pickup truck there, it's going to be vans all over the place, all over the community. And then it's not going to be just Naples Park, Golden Gate. Itws going to be in Marco Island. Itws going to be downtown Naples, Olde Naples, East Naples, all over the entire county. Once you allow -- some of these people, they just donwt want to cooperate. They think that they are working people so, therefore, they -- they canwt drive a car back and forth to work. Theywre entitled to drive the companyws car -- the companyws vans or pickup truck. But this is not a residential area. You allowed these things. You give them one inch, pretty soon they take the whole arm, and pretty soon youwve got a blighted area, and now properties are not going to be worth anything. So I say you got to enforce it not only in the zoning, written zoning, but you also have to find some money to get enough investigators to go out there day, night, and weekends. If you want to find the trouble spots, if you want to really look for them, theywre there. Thatws it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. McNEES: Theresa Walker. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, how many more speakers do we have? MR. McNEES: This is your last one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MS. WALKER: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Theresa Walker. Approximately three years ago I observed an increased number of large, unsightly commercial trucks parking in driveways, front yards, and side yards in Golden Gate. Because I was familiar with the LDC restrictions on commercial vehicle parking, I wondered what had changed within the code to allow these trucks to remain parked in full view. After repeatedly calling code enforcement, researching the public records, and obtaining a copy of an interpretation from the county attorneyws office, I concluded the LDC had not changed. In fact, the language regarding commercial vehicle parking has remained virtually unchanged since its adoption in Ordinance ninety -- in Ordinance 74-42, 22 years ago. But tonight this board has the opportunity to rectify a problem which has plagued our neighborhoods for far too long, illegally parked commercial vehicles. However, if the LDC is amended as proposed, will we see only automobiles, passenger-type vans, and pickup trucks as the current code allows, or will we see any commercial vehicle 7.5 feet in height, 7 feet in width, and 25 feet in length? Some commercial vehicles fall within the proposed dimensions. However, they are not automobiles, passenger-type Vans, or pickup trucks. Small tow trucks are an example of that type of vehicle. So you see, the distinction between a vehicle's description and a vehicle's dimensions will greatly influence which vehicles can or cannot park within the residential areas of Collier County. But do the residents of Collier County really want a change in the ordinance? I'm not sure. The results of the '97 surveys collected at the two workshops speak for themselves. The residents of Collier County want only automobiles, passenger-type vans, and pickup trucks parking in plain view, and they may or may not want to see a limited amount of commercial equipment. So why did county staff include in the proposed amendment which will allow commercial vehicles to park in side yards? Side yards are far more visible to neighbors than rear yards. It is illegal to park a boat or a camper in a driveway or front yard. They must be parked in the rear yard. Why would we allow commercial vehicles in the side yard even though they're screened? The proposed amendment also includes a height, length, and width -- width provision. Vehicle dimension language was part of the proposed LDC amendment language rejected by this board in April. And of those surveyed only 3 people of the 97 who took the survey mentioned inclusion of this height, length, and width language. From the slide portion of the same survey, 93 percent said they do not want semi trucks; 87 percent do not want dump trucks; and 67 percent do not want flatbed trucks parking in view in their residential neighborhoods. Regarding the two box vans presented in the survey, 64 percent and 71 percent do not want box vans parking in view in residential neighborhoods. The three step vans included in the survey, 52 percent, 53 percent, and 74 percent do not want step vans parking in plain view in residential neighborhoods. Seventy - seventy percent and eighty-two percent do not want commercial landscaping or lawn equipment in plain view in residential neighborhoods. 90 percent, 86 percent, 68 percent, and 62 percent agree pickup trucks should be permitted to park anywhere in a residential area. Seventeen percent of those surveyed suggested ladders, containers, or other small equipment should be exempted from the commercial equipment restriction. The results of the survey send a message. Automobiles, passenger-type vans, and pickup trucks should be allowed to park in driveways, rear yards, side yards, and front yards. All other commercial vehicles and most, if not all, commercial equipment should remain in garages or rear yards fully screened from the neighbor's view. Commissioner Constantine, at the public hearing in April, you said we have an ordinance that was backed by the board. We have an opinion by the attorney that says it is enforceable, and if that's the case, I'm not sure why we want to change it. Commissioner, I agree with you, and from the results of the survey, it appears most residents also agree with you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cautero, I got a question for you. Let me ask a couple things just to make sure I'm clear. I thought I heard the board say we'll take the -- at the very least take the chemicals out of this picture, and we're taking the side yard out of this picture before we even go on with the debate? Is that the general agreement? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's going to be my vote. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cautero, the question I have has to do with Item 4; automobiles, passenger-type vans, and pickup trucks, only those three types. I mean, if it's a step van, if it's cube truck, if it's anything else, it doesn't fall under that; correct? MR. CAUTERO: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Including flatbed, because that was a lot of what Mr. Henning had presented, a lot of those would be flatbeds, and I asked specifically. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that brings me to where I'm going with the question. It says the particular size requirements here. And it has some of these trucks here appear to be flatbeds. Some of them are questionable as to whether they'd be considered flatbed. I'm looking -- do you have those with you? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- let's start out with the '96 Sierra 3500, second row, third one over. Cab looks like it would be titled as a standard pickup. It appears that it has been modified. In my opinion, it's clearly not a standard neighborhood-friendly passenger pickup truck. However, would it fall -- it falls within the confines of these sizes so -- MR. CAUTERO: No. It falls within the confines of the sizes, however, it doesn't meet the definition of the nomenclature because it says 2, 3 yard mini dump. That would not classify it as pickup truck that is traditionally used as a passenger-type vehicle, which is what the intent of that section is. Therefore, that vehicle would not meet the intent of that section. It would be illegal if it was not screened from view. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. How about the '77 F350 up on top? MR. CAUTERO: Same. That's a flatbed. That would be defined as a flatbed for purposes of this ordinance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I modified that and put little walls on the side of that -- MR. CAUTERO: Same. It would have to be screened from view in accordance with the ordinance provisions. Now, I don't think it would meet the test under Section No. 4. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there anything on either one of these pages that would be allowed under the proposed ordinance Section 47 MR. CAUTERO: I've looked these over briefly, and the only one that I would say that would potentially meet it is on page 2 on top middle it says utility truck. It's the only one that potentially would meet it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. But that is not a pickup truck. It's not a passenger type, nor an automobile. It's not a pickup truck. MR. CAUTERO: Well, from the view it's hard to tell. I'd have to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When you go to the dealer and say show me your pickup truck, do they ever pull out a utility truck? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well -- but it's rated as a 350 and that may be what the problem is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's where we got in trouble the last time was trying to do too much interpretation. It's not a pickup truck. I mean -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think your point is that the question -- that's the only one that is arguably allowed -- hopefully our staff would not argue that that was allowed, but if someone wanted to take that to the code enforcement, that's the only one you think that they might have an opportunity to win? MR. CAUTERO: Potentially. Keep in mind also the height, length, and distance -- excuse me, the height, length, width requirements do not pertain to the types of vehicles that are currently in the definition, flatbed, cube van, box van, step van. The test is a two-part test. It states automobiles, passenger-type vans, pickup trucks, etc., etc. And -- and the word "and" is new - _ the commercial vehicle does not exceed 7.5 in height, 7 feet in width, and 25 feet in length. It is one ton or less in rated load capacity. It's a two-part test. It's not an or. So the arguments that you just heard from the last speaker are not correct. Those types of vehicles would not be allowed; the cube van, the box van, the step van that meets those dimensions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And as long as it's clear, it's not an or. Because I think that was what raised the question initially with the old one is -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it was interpreted as an or. MR. CAUTERO: It was anything under 1 ton, whether it was a flatbed, a box van, a cube van, a step van. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, I think, has something he wants to -- he's been trying to jump in here. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. In regard to paragraph 4 there, just to advise you, the -- the current paragraph 4 ended after the word "district" at the bottom of the third line. There was a period after that. And so clearly, yes, the part that's underlined is -- is additional. I think, though, looking from the prosecution standpoint for the Code Enforcement Board, we need to be wary that we have a clause in there before we get to the end, which is "unless otherwise prohibited by a special parking overlay district." And I would suggest that the "and" is linked to that clause and not linked to the initial clause of the paragraph, and I think the order there creates a little bit of a problem because -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We ought to move that. MR. WEIGEL: -- it could have a definite linkage to a special overlay district which is separate from the distinction to the place beforehand. Also in regard -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, before you leave that point, are you saying that if we rearrange those phrases, we'll make it perfectly clear that it's a two-part test, because that's -- MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- what I want to see. MR. WEIGEL: You'll make it -- you'll make it perfectly clear that it's a two-part test, but it doesn't in the order that it's written right now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree. MR. WEIGEL: Now, Mr. Cautero just mentioned a minute ago that the box vans, step vans, and some of the other definitions that we currently have are there. They are currently in our definitions, and I'd remind you and anyone that our definitions section, of course, does not appear neatly adjacent to or a part of this particular code section in our Land Development Code, but it's in the rear of the code. And so if a person, whether it's county staff or potential violator, is looking at our code, they'll see the term, you know, "the vehicle" or "commercial vehicle" or "equipment, commercial equipment," and they will go to the definition to see what that is and I, frankly, again, this is maybe more of a lay expression than a legal expression, but I found rather convenient and helpful some of the examples that were placed there of what is the prohibited or the defined commercial equipment or commercial vehicles as opposed to removing it for simplicity at this point in time. I just thought I'd offer that. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: The path Commissioner Constantine's on, I think, I agree with, is really toward the elimination of the -- all the size elements, because the one example Mr. Wilt brought forward is already exempted because it's a passenger-type vehicle. So, you know, the size element to me is almost irrelevant. I mean, if it's -- it's either passenger-type pickup or automobile or it's commercial. I don't see why the size requirement is necessary. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It doesn't -- it doesn't currently, though, say passenger-type pickup trucks. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If -- if it's just an extra catch, that's fine, as long as they're separate and we can leave them -- I understand your point, and I think you're not going to find that it doesn't fit one and does fit the other. But if we have a safety net there for the pickups, that's -- that's helpful. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's closing down more abuse opportunities by leaving that -- I think, by leaving the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One final question on that. Passenger-type vans, do we have a definition somewhere for that? MR. CAUTERO: There is no written definition of it, no. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps we can create one for that, because I can foresee that becoming a problem. Somebody has o~e -- has the driver's seat -- no other seat in the van but has room for it. They could claim, well, I took it out this weekend to work on something. I don't know how you define that, but perhaps we can work on that in the next two weeks. I just -- that may help solve problems down the road. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The other thing I'd like to suggest for the board is complete elimination of No. 5. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought we already agreed to that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't think we did quite yet. I think we were talking about it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're close. We haven't yet talked about ladders and pipes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well. Okay. I don't have any problem eliminating 5 completely. I don't like the chemicals. I don't like the idea that you can put a 12-, 24-, 36-inch PVC pipe and fill it up with other pipe and have it -- have it meet the intent of the law. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I find myself in agreement with most of the survey participants, that limiting it to "a ladder," and no one -- I have yet to see a 36-inch PVC pipe on the top of a truck. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. But I've seen 6-inch PVC pipe sleeved with other pipes. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think I'm going to go ahead and agree to strike 5. There are -- I was at one of the workshops and have certainly had a lot of input on this. And I understand some of the reasons for trying to do that. But, again, if you're in a residential area, one would hope that the neighbors have some protection there. And I don't think the general vehicle is offensive. But when you start getting into equipment, I think, when you start it's tough to draw that line. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, there's two. I agree with that. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one other question. I mean, if we're going to eliminate 5 completely, fine. I guess it doesn't matter, but I was questioning, too, what is the 18 inches? Can you extend it in height plus from the front plus from the back? You wind up with a 28-foot vehicle. MR. CAUTERO: It was really the extent of the rack. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It doesn't matter now. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It doesn't matter now. But, I mean, that's where I was headed next, was -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me -- let me just give you an example. I recently had a fella buy the house across the house from my house. And I live in an area where we have deed restrictions, so we don't have commercial vehicles, period. He's in a contracting business, and he's got a small van, passenger type, but he uses it for his business. He -- he has a ladder that he sometimes has on the top, and he's got equipment inside there in his van. But he knew when he came to this house, when he bought this house, that he had the restrictions on it. So he takes his ladder off, and he has his commercial signs, which aren't allowed in my neighborhood either, and he -- he has magnetic signs, and he just pulls them off when he comes home, takes them inside with him. So really what you see is a plain white van, and it's closed up so you can't see that it's got equipment inside of it. And if he can do it, there's no reason why anybody else can't do that. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, in an effort to bring this to closure, let me see if I understand what the majority of the board has said. Under Item 3 we will strike "or side." Under Item 4 we've asked for a definition of passenger-type vans for two weeks from now, and we've struck 5. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And -- and one other thing, too, to clarify No. 2, "carport if screened." COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, yeah. You're correct. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. CAUTERO: Would you like the -- and I apologize for that error, but the current language talks about "cannot be seen from the street." Would you like that language or alternative language? You just mentioned street. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Street or neighboring properties? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Street or adjoining properties, isn't that the way it should be? MR. CAUTERO: We'll come up with some alternatives. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I like adjoining properties that you can see from the street, but not from the neighbors. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Moving right along, Mr. Hulhere, we're not going to do architectural standards, are we? MR. HULHERE: No. We're going to skip through that. And the next change begins on agenda item -- agenda page 103. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One hundred three. Oh, we turned a lot of pages there then. The court reporter needs a short break. We'll recess just for a second. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We will reconvene, Mr. Hulhere. MR. HULHERE: We're on page 103 of your agenda packet. The next three changes that we'll discuss are amendments to the Land Development Code proposed by the HPO's traffic management task force in -- in coordination with staff. As you're aware, the board approved a neighborhood traffic management program recently, and these -- these changes are to allow for a little bit more flexibility in the subdivision and site development plan process to accommodate the recommendations of the -- the task force and to allow for the -- the implementation of neighborhood traffic calming methodologies. On page 104 -- and, by the way, on -- this document reflects the recommendations of the task force in its entirety. We __ we didn't make any changes to this document because we -- we didn't feel like staff had the -- you know, the right to do that since it was submitted by this task force. However, by footnoting we've reflected the comments of the Development Services Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. And I'll -- I'll go over those -- those issues where the -- either the DSAC or the Planning Commission had an objection. And Anita Jenkins -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's Jenkins. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Congratulations. MR. MULHERE: Anita Jenkins is here and Reed Jarvey, Anita on your staff and Reed Jarvey on the task force. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Reed's name stayed the same? MR. MULHERE: Stayed the same, right. They're here really to speak to the issues better than I can to the specific issues. On page 2 there is a minor change regarding topography or compliance with the county's access management policy prohibits that the number of access points to public roads shall ensure that there are no more than 400 dwelling units per access point, and the total number of access points need not exceed six. The Development Services Advisory Committee and the Collier County Planning Commission did not necessarily find that problematic. I think they -- they were looking for maybe a little bit more flexibility in that regulation and -- and that's -- that's what they proposed, is that we take a look at that language, that -- that limitation on 400 units and maybe provide some more flexibility. And I'll turn it over to Anita. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I kind of like the idea, because you start looking at communities like DiVosta, you know, and you look at the number of units and number of accesses; it's dumping a lot of traffic at one single point rather than spreading it out geographically. So we've got to do something to change that mindset. I'm not sure the best way to do it, but it's a start. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're talking about gate-guarded communities? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just keep going, Mr. Mulhere, and if the board has any questions, we'll jump in. MR. MULHERE: Okay. At the top of page 3 there's some -- some minor changes to promote the use of alleys where it would be appropriate for secondary traffic. Under 3.2.8.3.4, buffer areas, there is language there that just says "buffer areas shall not inhibit pedestrian circulation between adjacent uses." And both the Development Service Advisory Committee and the DSAC asked to have that language stricken. I would say that their reason was they felt as though, you know, people in certain neighborhoods really don't want to allow easy access from one to the other. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You think? MR. MULHERE: So -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In this town? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good point. MR. MULHERE: Moving along. MS. JENKINS: One thing that we will bring up on the buffer issue is the idea came about when the task force was discussing this is that when you're in Burger King and you want to go to the paint store next door, there's a nice buffer in between and you can't get between the two. And that was really where we'd like to see Some of this language stay in there is between specifically adjacent commercial uses. And, you know, we'll compromise, and we understand the -- the residential uses, and we'd like to see -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, why don't -- why don't we ask you then before next time to bring this back with -- with it specifically addressed towards commercial uses not -- and specifically not as well to residential. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Between adjacent commercial land uses. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, you know, where there's interconnection, but, you know, buffering may not be required. MR. MULHERE: It -- and to tell you the truth, when we get to the architectural standards, we're asking for the same thing there. To adhere to ADA requirements, you've got to provide connection from the street to the structure, and we're going to suggest that there's no reason why two adjacent commercial properties couldn't share the same access point and that it would be supported by this language. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: At the top of page 4, sidewalks, "bike lanes and bike paths shall be provided for public and private roadways in conformance with the following criteria," and then the criteria says that bike lanes shall be provided on both sides of any street classified as a local street higher -- excuse me, higher than a local street, so a collector or arterial. And then Item 2 says sidewalks 6 foot in width shall be provided on both sides of collector and arterials and 5 foot in width on both sides of local streets. And the Development Services Advisory Committee, first of all, both -- both review boards wanted the sidewalks to be consistent at a maximum or excuse me, at a minimum width of 5 feet everywhere where we deal with sidewalks. So where you'll see that it's proposed at 6 foot, the comment was consistent they want to be, you know, a minimum of 5 foot consistently throughout the -- the county subdivision requirements. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But there seems to be -- maybe I'm not getting this one correct here. Number 1 says bike lanes shall be provided on both sides of any street classified higher than a local street, and No. 3 says sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of local streets. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bike lanes and sidewalks are different. MR. MULHERE: Bike lanes and sidewalks are different. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, different, uh-huh. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. That explains it then. MR. MULHERE: But -- and I -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A 6-foot sidewalk will become a bike path. MR. MULHERE: Your committee was going to look at that as a compromise is dropping down to 5 feet, so we'll bring that back with those changes noted. We didn't want to do that before we spoke to the board. There is some language there that -- from George Archibald, having reviewed this once -- language added that would allow the county to acquire sidewalk easements through impact fee credits. I guess we're going to take a look at that. MS. JENKINS: He suggested that at the technical advisory committee meeting. They did review these as well, and he suggested that might be an easy way to get an easement through impact fee agreements. And he suggested that he might provide some of that language if the board wanted to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Meaning where we don't have a sidewalk because we don't have control of the property to do so, in order to get an easement for a sidewalk, we will give impact fee credits equal to the value of land? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, I don't think so. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our survey says no. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was going to say our long-term capital project budget is using every impact fee we can get ahold of, and to be giving it away doesn't make sense right now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I would ask Mr. Archibald to give me a specific example of where that was absolutely necessary, because I'm having a tough time grasping the, you know -- making that a policy. What are we fixing? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. MULHERE: As I understand it, currently if we require sidewalks they're constructed at the cost of the contractor. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like that idea. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next. MR. MULHERE: Moving over to page 6, there are just some -- some minor changes, that we refer to traffic signals as "traffic control devices" because obviously there are more than just stoplights when we talk about traffic control devices. Page 7, there is some language there that talks about distance separations for street connections to major collectors and suggests that they be a minimum of 400 feet apart, local or minor collector street connections to arterial streets shall be a minimum of 660 feet apart. Local or minor collector street connections to arterial streets may be 330 feet apart if the connection provides right turns only. And the -- the -- Development Services Advisory Committee did not really have a problem with that, but the Planning Commission felt as though that language could be made a little bit clearer. I'm not -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur with the Planning Commission. MR. MULHERE: I think just -- they didn't have a problem with what it says, but just that it could be changed to read a little bit more easily, if I'm not mistaken. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The reason I would ask it to read more clearly is because I'm going to need you to explain it to me. MR. MULHERE: Okay. And I'm going to ask Anita if she'll do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got to go through three levels -- MS. JENKINS: Basically it just says if a local is connecting to a minor collector or a major collector, the local streets have to be 400 feet apart. If the local or minor collector is connecting to an arterial street, it has to be 660 feet apart. And these follow the manual on uniform traffic control or the green book that DOT does. What might make it clearer is maybe we can add a graphic to show or a matrix or something like that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What did they used to be, or this was nothing for local and minor? MS. JENKINS: There wasn't -- there wasn't anything in there, or 660 feet apart, I'm sorry. It -- it just had arterial streets shall be a -- and that was stricken. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So -- so collectors -- MS. JENKINS: To add -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. Collectors and minor collectors were not addressed at all then -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- prior. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Local and minor were not addressed at all. Arterials were 660 before. I don't see the word "arterial" in the new wording. What does that mean? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Arterial is in the new wording, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I told you I didn't see it. I didn't say it wasn't there. MR. JARVEY: If I could add something to this -- my name is Reed Jarvey. I'm with the traffic management task force. We get in this later. Our traffic calming devices are spaced at recommended spacing of about 400 feet. A intersection of a local to a local or local to a minor collector can act as a traffic-calming device. To be consistent with that, we kept -- we did the local to minor as 400 feet. The arterial stays the same basically. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I get it. MR. MULHERE: Also this is consistent with the county's access management plan, so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does this element of the access management plan allow us to promote, you know, doing things different than say Foxfire was done where you provide a binary road and put all the driveways on it? Are we trying to channel people in that direction with these types of changes? MR. HULHERE: There -- we deal with that in -- in here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because those create their own problems down the road for us. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What's a binary road? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A binary road -- typically when you do a development you have a single road that is your main access and then everything stems off of that, and that binary road shouldn't have homes fronting on it because we then create the Foxfire problem. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So the binary road is the main road going through it? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. HULHERE: Plus the fact that it's -- MR. HULHERE: It's also a straight shot in that circumstance too. It doesn't break up the speed. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: In my parlance binary means something else. MR. HULHERE: On page 8, Item No. 10, again, is a comment by George Archibald that we add language that states that access road shall be subject acc -- access capacity analysis to confirm access capacity exceeds traffic generation. Again, I think that is language that -- that we find in our access management policy, but maybe it would not be bad to place it also in here since it's another location. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Paraphrased it says make sure we have room? MR. HULHERE: Capacity, right. On the next section, alleys; industrial, commercial, and residential alleys shall coincide with rear lot lines with an alley tract at least 24 foot wide containing particular pavement width of __ commercial and residential alleys, tracts, shall coincide with the rear lot lines with an alley tract at least 24 feet wide containing a vehicular pavement width of at least 10 feet, and that's less than what we currently require in terms of the pavement. Comments are, insure that the new language does not have a negative impact on industrial alleyways from Chuck Hohlke, past CAC chairman; and to change "tracts" to "easement" was the Development Services Advisory Committee. I think that's a very good recommendation, because when we measure setbacks, you know, we're going to measure them from the property line, except in the case of a right-of-way easement. And in many cases they could still provide a~ alley that is an easement. So I think that the term of "tract" connotates it being a dedicated alley right-of-way, and it could still be an easement if we used the word "tract" or "easement" -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is this in any way going to compromise the alleyway project currently underway in Golden Gate? MR. HULHERE: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: On the next page, page 13 -- COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. On Mr. Archibald's statement, can we put that in English language? MR. HULHERE: Absolutely. I had trouble reading it. Page 9, at the top where topographical -- special topographical conditions exist, block links greater than 660 feet may be approved by the administrator. And if the suggestion is to add some traffic-calming criteria as it relates to traffic volume of a thousand trips ADT or greater which is, I guess, suggested as a -- as one of the criteria for whether or not you would allow that. And they're going to look at that issue. MR. JARVEY: This is Reed Jarvey again. I think our committee will look at the thousand ADT or more. I think our point would probably be that the development is a thousand ADT or more, not the particular street you're talking about, because a thousand ADT would be a hundred homes and not many streets would qualify for that, and I think we're looking at development. So depending on where we put our words, that would be our intent from our previous discussions. MR. HULHERE: The next minor change is at the bottom of agenda page 111, page 9. This is to require sidewalks on both sides of a bridge. And there was a lot of discussion on this, and the footnotes on the next page reflect that the Development Services Advisory Committee wished that the number of sidewalks on the bridge be consistent with the number of sidewalks approaching the bridge. And I certainly thought that that made a lot of sense certainly at first glance. But then it was explained in the Planning Commission that one of the reasons to require sidewalks on both sides of the bridge are that cost of the construction of a bridge is very significant, and it's very difficult to retrofit that bridge 10 or 15 years down the road to put two sidewalks on it once you've already built it with one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sold. Next item. MR. HULHERE: Okay. Let's see, on page 11, Item 16, the last sent -- or, excuse me, footnote 16 in the second paragraph, the last sentence, all lots must front on a right-of-way. MR. JARVEY: You need -- you skipped a page. MR. HULHERE: I'm sorry. MS. JENKINS: Page 10 at the bottom, last paragraph. MR. HULHERE: I'm sorry. Page 10, the last paragraph, "collector and arterial streets within a residential development shall not have individual single-family residential driveway connections." COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bingo. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, that's your binary road; right? MR. JARVEY: I should add, from our standpoint collector and arterial streets are defined in the Land Development Code as greater than 2,000 cars per day or vehicles per day, so you have -- it can be determined from a traffic analysis which ones would qualify for this -- the binary road idea. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Should we say collector and arterial level streets so that someone can't make an argument that we're -- it has to be a public right-of-way? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Street's defined. I mean -- MR. JARVEY: The definition's in there, but I mean that's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. If you're comfortable with it, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that we didn't get into that argument. MR. HULHERE: Definition of street would cover public or private. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would think 2,000 cars a day isn't going to be a private road. MR. JARVEY: It could be in a gated community very likely. Monterey probably is over -- I'm pretty sure that's over that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: Top of page 11, again, footnote on the second paragraph, is delete the last sentence, all lots must front on a -- on a right-of-way, George Archibald. And this says all lots must front on a right-of-way. I guess that's -- it doesn't need to be there. That already is the case, so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we just leave -- the next item you're going to go to, local streets, can we just leave that the way it was, shall be discouraged? I get scared every time we replace two lines with four lines or six lines. MR. HULHERE: I -- I -- I just assume the intent was to cite traffic-calming methodology that -- you know, that -- that's what we're doing anyway here. So I suppose it's not really necessary to have that there. That's -- you know, maybe we can just at local streets shall be arranged so that they're use by street traffic will be discouraged utilizing traffic-calming methodology or s that -- only a couple words? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hey, we're replacing three lines with two on the next page -- no, with three. MR. HULHERE: Just on page 12. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Just with three. MR. HULHERE: Changing some right-of-way widths. And this -- these changes here are -- are reflected -- we'll get into it in just a little bit, typical cross-sections which are included in your packet, and there's some discussion on those. So we can talk about that when we look at the cross-sections. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I just take a risk here and say I admit to being -- you know, getting tired of this, but I looked through this. I don't have any marks that I need more discussion on. I understand them. Do we need to go through line by line or could we go through like we have sometimes in the past and -- and just discuss items that commissioners have questions about or that there are differences of opinion in the recommending bodies? MR. HULHERE: Yeah. That's what I'm trying to do is just do the ones -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I'm saying, the footnoted areas are those that I think we need to give staff direction on. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We need to talk about those. MR. HULHERE: There's only, I think, one more. And that's what I was trying to do is focus just on those. Number '- on page 13 there's a footnote -- second paragraph, second line, "cul-de-sac shall have a minimum 40-foot pavement radius to the back of the valley gutter." Sixty foot roadway radius. And No. 17, the comment is 50 -- that the -- the Development Services Advisory Committee would like to see that 40 foot amended to 50 foot. And that's something we're going to discuss in just a minute when we look at the typical cross-sections. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But you'll remind us that that's something where there's a difference of opinion? MR. HULHERE: Right. And in No. 8, intersection radii, the comment is maintain a 30 foot radius for trucks. And we're reducing it to 25, and the comment is maintain -- we'll take a look at that. That's really all -- all of the issues in that section that __ where there was any kind of conflict. The next section is very, very minor. All we've done in here -- it's the site development plan section, starts on page 117. And all we've done is added traffic calming -- the term "traffic-calming devices" in various places within the section where it's appropriate. There is one other minor change that has to do with -- on page 118 -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Buildings. MR. MULHERE: The second paragraph, commercial buildings and projects having a gross building area of less than 20,000 square feet. This is the -- a reference to Division 2.8, and we're going to get to that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we just strike everything after the word "building"? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my suggestion. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Maybe not. I'll withdraw the suggestion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like it. MR. HULHERE: We don't need to talk about that, because it's related to the architectural standards, but I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Cross-sections, which are at the back of your packet, the last four pages. I'm going to ask Reed Jarvey to speak to this issue. On agenda page 170 it starts with the text and then the cross-sections follow it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we done after these four pages? Will we have completed our task after we look at these four pages? MR. HULHERE: No. There's one more -- there's one more. MR. JARVEY: The committee had -- we came up with basically two cross-sections. We -- our intent was to minimize the road pavement to help aid in the traffic-calming issue in going down to national standard minimums, which is 10 foot for local and 11 foot for collector streets. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Narrower roads. MR. JARVEY: Narrower roads. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: More green space. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're for that? COHMISSIONER JARVEY: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm all for that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. JARVEY: With -- yes. We've also highlight -- put trees, street trees in them or at least allow for them. They're not a mandatory, but if you are putting them, this is where they go. And both sections, the things to note here is on a local street the street trees are within the sidewalk, and on the collector street they're outside of the sidewalk. Those are for setback safety reasons. You also notice the 4-foot bicycle lane on the collector street we talked about earlier. Four foot is an FDOT minimum bicycle lane. And the last thing, I think, is the location of the utilities. We had a discussion at lo -- at length within the committee about whether or not we could put mains, utility mains, under the sidewalk. We've recently got a memorandum from them a couple weeks ago that they have agreed to put them under the sidewalk as long as they're 7 1/2 foot from the valley gutter -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. MR. JARVEY: -- so that would change from 5 to 7 1/2 in a couple of these. MR. MULHERE: There was one minor area of contention and that is we currently have a cross-section for cul-de-sacs. The proposal was to take that out, because we were going to require that the cross-section be the same as for a local street. But the Development Services Advisory Committee wanted to retain that cross-section at 50 feet. MR. McNEES: If I could ask one question, who are the "they" that agreed to the utility lines under the sidewalk? Are they or someone else they? MR. JARVEY: Your utilities department through Tom Kuck. They had a utility code subcommittee meeting dated September 30th, and they put out a memo from Tom Kuck to Vince Cautero. MR. HcNEES: Yeah. We might want to talk to our other "they", utilities, because they may not -- actual water and sewer people may have another -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think they don't actually, but we should. We should get their opinion, but I've asked them about that one already, and I think they were okay about it. MR. JARVEY: I'm told Hike Newman was at that meeting. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. It's getting much more practical. MR. JARVEY: I wasn't there, but that's what I'm told. MR. HULHERE: Anyway the only issue is whether or not -- the only issue remaining is whether or not we want to retain the cul-de-sac at a 50 foot -- MR. JARVEY: Yes. The committee said from a practical standpoint if you have all the pieces, being the road's 10 foot wide, you've got sidewalks on both sides, when you add up all the pieces, you can't put it in 50 feet. Therefore, a cul-de-sac -- the road part of it, not the bulb part, should be the same as a local street from our standpoint. If all the pieces are the same, why should the minimums be any different? That was our -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That makes sense. MR. JARVEY: -- philosophy. Now, when you go to the bulb part, there is one section in here that they want to reduce it to 50 feet. Our contention would be if you put -- then they take -- say the radius of the pavement, valley gutters shall be 40 feet. If the radius of the right-of-way for the bulb or the radius of the cul-de-sac is 50 feet, you'd only have 5 feet on each side outside of the valley gutter. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks for clarifying that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Whew. MR. JARVEY: We -- we would say it should be -- remain 60 feet. MR. HULHERE: So -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Surprise. I think we all agree, don't we? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know I'm going to give it to people to look at between now and the next several days. MR. HULHERE: We'll bring back all of -- all of these changes with all of your recommendations for your meeting on the 23rd. The last -- well, there's actually two, but they're very quick. On page 123 of your agenda packet -- I wanted to bring this one up because Barbara Burgeson who is going above and beyond the call of duty by being here on vacation -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh my gosh. MR. HULHERE: -- sat here through the evening. This is the Barbara Burgeson amendment. This is vegetation removal protection and preservation standards, and it starts at the top of page 124, and our code, while it -- it -- it talked to retaining native vegetation, it didn't actually require it. And we had a lot of inquiries. One time -- the most recently when the Sports Authority took down all the pine trees. This proposal would require a commercial or industrial property to retain if under 5 acres, 10 percent of the native vegetation; over 5 acres, 15 percent. Still doesn't mean -- if written in here it doesn't mean they can't take all the vegetation off. If for some reason the site constraints absolutely preclude them from being able to retain any native vegetation, they can take it off. But when they revegetate they're required to utilize a higher level of planting to revegetate where they took the native -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That makes a lot of sense. MR. HULHERE: And that percentage is only of the native vegetation existing on site. It is not the entire site. So, for an example, if you had a 20,000-square-foot lot, commercial lot, and you would only -- you only have to retain 10 percent of the existing native vegetation on site, not 2,000 square feet, but whatever you had in native vegetation -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Native, not the total. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just explain one thing to me. When we say native vegetation, we're not talking about the grass. I mean -- MR. HULHERE: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- if you have a zip site that's been just grass on weeds, there is no native vegetation. MR. HULHERE: This does not apply. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would carrotwood apply? MR. HULHERE: Carrotwood? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Moving on. MR. MULHERE: We're going to find out next -- in two weeks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're going to get expert testimony. MR. MULHERE: Barbara has a -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll be lining up carrotwood experts from all over the country. MR. MULHERE: Barbara has a graphic here, and we'll just show it to you just to -- of a bunch of developments where they retained and a bunch where they haven't retained. You can just walk by and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is the nuke list versus the no-nuke list. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to see that one exploded. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And to think, Barbara, you came in on vacation to hold that up for us. MS. BURGESON: My pleasure. MR. MULHERE: She's dedicated. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Big difference. MR. MULHERE: So if the commission has no further committees on that amendment, the last one is on your agenda item - agenda page 126. And this is very simply adopting into the Land Development Code changes the adequate public facilities ordinance which you have already adopted as a freestanding ordinance, so it merely reflects the ordinance that you've already adopted. And that is all of the proposed amendments with the exception of the architectural standards. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, it's been a pleasure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have to hear the architectural -- let -- can we get an answer to this, because we might be able to save ourselves a meeting. We have to hear each of these items twice, is that correct, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct, but we have a solution to the potential problem and that is -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: -- if you go forward with your October 23rd meeting, you can address, even however briefly, all of the items at that meeting without going into any detail, if you wish, of the architectural standards part. And then that one, which may be heard again obviously at a later time, would be heard at a second meeting that you would -- that you would hopefully determine tonight at a later time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, could we just tell staff thank you for what's in our packet here, keep working on architectural standards, and it will thus be addressed this evening? MR. WEIGEL: You might want to add another sentence about opening a public hearing and closing a public hearing in that regard, but that's about all it would take. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would save us having to meet on the 23rd, wouldn't it? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll open a public hearing and hear these architectural review standards. MR. MULHERE: Architectural review standards are -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are outlined on what pages? MR. MULHERE: Are outlined on page -- I'm right there. I am right there. Agenda item page 52. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to continue -- staff to continue working with the community on these standards and look forward to hearing them at our next advertised public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: For final adoption. MR. WEIGEL: Do you want to set that -- pardon me, Commissioner, do you want to set that hearing tonight? We know that the 23rd is the advertised hearing for the rest of these elements that are before you tonight. Do you wish to set tonight for the record the hearing that -- the date of the hearing that you will have for the architectural review standard? MR. HULHERE: And do we need to meet on the 23rd, I'm sorry, to bring these other issues back to you? Do we need to meet? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we readvertise all of them and hear all of them on one hearing? MR. WEIGEL: You may. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would rather see us do one meeting potentially on the 30th instead of the 23rd, which is one week later, and that way we can cover it all in two total meetings. MR. HULHERE: And we don't need to readvertise because we can continue them; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: If it was in our five-week period, we don't have to. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we need to continue them tonight to whatever date. MR. WEIGEL: You can continue everything tonight -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there adequate notice about the architectural stuff? I mean, everybody is sort of waiting with baited breath to get those. I wouldn't want -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, it's out there. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. We'll be distributing them a week before the Planning Commission to dozens of people. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So then we will set the second public hearing in -- the 30th of October, and we will continue the 23rd to that same date, the 30th of October; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. And that is the date, and what is the time? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 5:05. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. MR. HULHERE: You know, maybe we'll take a look at -- we can get with Mr. Weigel. Maybe we'll just run -- run some sort of a notice or ad that it's been continued for the 23rd. We'll talk to you about it. MR. WEIGEL: We sometimes do things like that just for the courtesy of the public. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good enough. Do we have any further business then, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Not that I'm aware. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:40 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 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: Barbara A. Donovan