BCC Minutes 12/02/1997 S (LDC Amendments)SPECIAL MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 1997
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners
in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of
Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law, and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in
Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Timothy L. Hancock
Barbara B. Berry
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Robert Fernandez, County Manager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3A
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER
COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON
DECEMBER
17, 1997
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
everybody
in
Good evening. I'd like to welcome
to the December 2nd specially advertised meeting of the Board of
County Commissioners.
We, this morning, to kick off the festivities, we have Tom
Olliff, our Parks and Recreation guru, here to bless us with an
invocation and we'll follow that with the Pledge of Allegiance.
MR. OLLIFF: Heavenly Father, we thank you so much for the
opportunity that we have to gather today and conduct your business
an open public meeting. Father, in this season we are especially
mindful of all the blessings that you've bestowed on this
community.
Father, tonight we'd pray that you have your hand on this
meeting
and that the decisions made here will reflect your will for our
community. These things we pray in your Son's Holy name.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff, thank you for pulling double
duty
as clergy and staff this evening.
We have before us this evening, so everyone understands the
purpose of tonight's meeting, it's one of two scheduled and
advertised
meetings of the Board of County Commissioners to entertain
amendments
to our Collier County Land Development Code. Tonight's meeting is
the
first of two that the board will have, the planning commission has
already had its two advertised hearings.
No official action will be taken tonight other than possibly
staff direction on any of the items presented tonight. In
addition,
new items, new amendments will not be entertained here. This is a
lengthy process you need to enter on one end and come out on the
other. We're not going to start anything this evening.
So the purpose is to hear the items before us, to take public
comment on those items, to give appropriate staff direction based
on
the input we receive and any other input that the board members
have
received on these, and then we will adjourn for the evening and
we'll
have our next hearing scheduled on -- Mr. Hulhere? I'm sorry.
That
date is --
MR. HULHERE: December 17th.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. December 17th.
With that, Mr. Fernandez, I understand you already have -- for
those who have never been involved in this before, there are
speaker
slips out in the hallway on a table. If you are here to address a
certain item and you wish to address the board, you'll need to fill
out one of those speaker slips prior to that item being heard. We
will then call you in order. Mr. Fernandez will take care of that.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have registered speakers? I assume there
is
probably one or two items that are the predominant of registrants.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, because of the form of our
agenda
tonight, it's kind of hard to tell. But it appears that all the
speakers that I have who handed me forms all wish to speak on the
same
item. There are eight on the landscape issue.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We don't have that many items this evening
to
one
go through. Mr. Mulhere, I don't see any reason why we can't just
ahead and begin in order on the agenda. It's not going to take us
that long to get to that particular item, anyway. Unless there is
in particular that needs to be pulled out for any particular
reason.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Particularly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Particularly.
MR. HULHERE: The only issue I would bring up is that Mr. Kuch
is
here relative to some of the minor issues that are at the tail end
the agenda under the subdivision section. It probably could be
dispensed pretty quickly, versus, otherwise, I think he'll be here
through the landscape issues. And you may want to have him here
through that. So that's certainly up to you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I also understand that some people work
right
up until 5 o'clock. It probably wouldn't hurt to flip those, and
go
ahead and hear Mr. Kuch's issues and give anyone who is still
trying
to get here or maybe running a little late, time to be here for
that
other issue.
Is there any objection to that?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Mr. Hulhere, let's go ahead
and
All
move to Mr. Kuch's items first.
MR. MULHERE: Commencing on page 45 of your agenda packet.
of these -- I'll just let you know up front, that all of these
amendments were approved as they were submitted to you or
recommended
for approval as they were submitted to you by both the development
services advisory committee and the planning commission.
And with that, if you have any questions, Mr. Kuch will step
up
to the podium.
MR. KUCH: Yes. For the record my name is Tom Kuch,
engineering
plan review and inspection manager.
The first amendment I have is on page 45, and it is adding
language that would require the developer to provide core samples
of
the finished pavement to assure that we're getting the proper
thickness of the base course and the asphalt.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I assume we've had a problem in the past?
MR. KUCH: We've had some problems in the past, and this is
just
an assurance that we'll get the full design thickness.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It beats having somebody out there watching
them paving every day, doesn't it?
MR. KUCH: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions on that item? Moving along.
MR. KUCH: On page 46, and this is to clear up, there was a
sentence in the section 3.2.8.422, which was somewhat ambiguous,
that
we're recommending to delete, which states: "A typical lot
drainage
detail may be used for repetitive cases."
And it was somewhat misleading to the engineers and we weren't
getting the lot drainage plan that we wanted and by eliminating
that
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I think that's much clearer. Any
questions? Next item.
MR. KUCH: The next three have to do with the blasting
ordinance.
On page 47, we're recommending changing the comprehensive general
liability insurance and personal injury associated with blasting
from
$500,000 to one million dollars for each occurrence. Most of the
blasting contractors that are working in the county, most of them
do
the
carry in excess of a million dollars. But it's again, to provide
protection we think we need at the county.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We already have something there as a 40-
page
blasting ordinance. As I read the balance of the changes to that,
they are getting more strict --
MR. KUCH: More strict, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- more strict and more cautious on the
side
of damage to residential properties.
MR. KUCH: That's true.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I can't really argue that because I've seen
lot of discussion and complaints in that area.
Any questions on -- that would take us through page 50.
Let's go to 51, Mr. Kuch.
MR. KUCH: Thank you.
Okay.
on
we
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have any registered speakers
those items, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Again, it's hard to tell because they weren't
specific in filling out the forms. I think the only speakers that
have relate to the landscape issue.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we're getting to something you want to
talk
about folks and you haven't registered, at least raise your hand
and
let me know you're out there, and we'll do it as we need to.
Okay, Mr. Mulhere?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question before we go on.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm terribly sorry I didn't do that
while Tom was still up, but the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Tom has already left. Tom, if you're in
the
hallway hang on a sec.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: "Pre-blast notification.
Notification
shall be distributed to all properties containing structures within
radius calculated for a scale to distance of 150 feet."
Realistically, considering our setbacks and so forth, that's
almost always going to be nobody. And it just seems to me the
blasting itself will certainly be felt beyond 150 feet. But 150
feet,
how often are we going to have people there?
MR. KUCH: That's a formula and the 150 is kind of a constant.
What it is, the actual distance you'll take the surveys, which we
call
D, would equal 150 times the square root of the charge. In most
cases, they use 25 to 50 pounds. If they're using 25 pounds you'd
be
taking -- requiring pre-blasting surveys within, I think, 760 feet.
If they're using pounds it would be like 1,100 feet.
So as they increase the amount of charge you increase the
distance that you'd require the pre-blast survey.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. Sorry to drag
you back.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm glad he was still here.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. It's important that I did
that.
Just a little slow.
MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to give you a little bit of
overview
of the Planning Commission's findings at their final hearing, and
then
I'll go into the very first amendment.
As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, they had two public hearings.
Their final one was November 25th. The first hearing functions
almost
as yours does. It's sort of a workshop and at the first hearing
they
recommended approval of all of the amendments submitted by staff
with
the exception of the Landscape Code Amendment, which we'll get
into.
They suggested some changes to that language.
At the second meeting, they again recommended approval of all
of
the staff amendments, except they took some further action on the
landscape code amendment which I will get into briefly, in just a
moment.
I did want to let you know for the record that they took
actually
four motions to allow several of the Planning Commission members to
abstain from specific amendment. In particular, Mr. Davis
abstained
from the Sign Code Amendments, since he's a principal of a sign
company; Mr. Priddy abstained from the blasting amendments because
his
the
and
family has interest in a rock quarry.
And they took the landscape amendment out of the package with
rest of the amendments, because it was a fairly contentious issue
there were some issues that the Planning Commission wanted to
discuss
in direction that they gave us.
The final vote on that was four to three, but I'll get into
that
as we go through.
On page 5 of your agenda packet, the first amendment is to
Section 1.6, which is the interpretation section of the Land
Development Code. This was in part directed by the board over the
period of several interpretations that came through. The section
needed some clarification and the staff has revised the language,
basically starting on page, agenda page 8, by adding effective time
limits for interpretations, more clear language with regard to the
advertising requirements and a definition of an affected property
owner or aggrieved or adversely affected party.
This was reviewed by the development service advisory
committee
and the planning commission. Both recommended approval.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions on 16527
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not until he leaves.
MR. MULHERE: On page 10, the next amendment is really very
minor
in nature. The C-1 district allows professional offices and the
SIC
Code 0781 for the offices of landscape architects, only appears in
our
Land Development Code under agricultural zoning. However, it
functions much the same as any other professional office for an
architect or an engineer.
And so this amendment would provide for including the
architectural -- landscape architectural offices in the C-iT
district.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
discussion
I take it that's not the issue of
tonight.
MR. HULHERE: No, that's not a problem.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Darn.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is simply for the office space?
MR. HULHERE: That's correct. No equipment storage or
anything.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Even though it says horticultural services,
again --
MR. HULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- it's still the professional services
associated with landscape architecture and similarly related
things.
Not -- you know, we're not going to see 10 gallon pots sitting
outside
the C-iT zoning by doing this, are we?
MR. HULHERE: That's correct. No outside storage.
On page 12 of your agenda packet, we are deleting SIC code
7261,
which is funeral services and crematories in C-1. It appears to
have
been an error that it was included. It only shows up as a
permitted
use in C-4 district. Fortunately, we have had no one request that
use.
And we're just doing some housekeeping with respect to the SIC
code numbers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: On page 15 of your agenda packet, we are
deleting
certain personal services, personal service uses from the C-4
district, as they are already permissible in the C-3 district.
And because we have a pyramid type of approval process, if you
are permitted in a lower district, C-i, C-2, C-3, then you are
automatically approved for that use in the higher districts. Again
the
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is just cleaning up?
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Housekeeping.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's the word I was looking for.
MR. HULHERE: On page 19, over the years, we have had several
requests for antique stores in the C-3 district. And the way that
code read, antique stores fell under secondhand merchandise or pawn
shops. And with an effort to preclude a proliferation of pawn shop
type uses from that district, we also did not allow antique shops.
But the staff felt that over the years, that we've seen many
examples where antique stores are not necessarily an undesirable
use,
and so we endeavored to define antique shops, as well as secondhand
stores and pawn shops, and to allow antique stores in the C-3
district, where we do not otherwise allow pawn shops or secondhand
stores.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay I just wanted to make sure you had the
age in there, because I've seen some antique stores selling lava
lamps. It's not exactly --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Collectibles.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, my kids think those are antiques.
me.
in
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To you and me, that's antiques.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Stop thinking it's an antique to you and
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Oh, you kid.
MR. MULHERE: The next amendment is on page 21, and this is,
again, basically housekeeping to bring the airport overlay district
the Land Development Code into conformance with current statutes,
state statutes.
I don't see Mr. Drury here in attendance, but this was
initiated
by the airport authority. He was at the final Planning Commission
meeting and did endorse the language as it appears in front of you.
There was one change through the process which was brought up
by
attorney George Varnadoe on behalf of --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Fiddler's Creek.
MR. MULHERE: Right.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: And that exemption, because they have an
agreement
with the Federal Aviation Administration, and they have their own
standards, separate and apart from the county's overlay. That's
the
only exception that we're aware of and Mr. Drury, in reviewing
that,
did not have a problem with that exemption.
And we've updated the maps as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: I think that brings us to the issue which brings
out all of the public this evening, on page 29. Starts on page 29.
But I do have a revision and a handout, which I will explain to you
and let you know what the Planning Commission's action was at their
final hearing. Their final hearing occurred after I needed to get
your
executive summary package prepared.
I wanted to give you an overview of this issue, and I'll
basically cover what's in that memorandum that I just handed out
for
ad
you.
As you're aware, in October of 1996, based on the work of an
hoc committee that was developed for a comprehensive review of the
landscape code, certain amendments were brought forward to the
board.
Those amendments were recommended by that ad hoc committee and
supported by the development services advisory committee and the
Planning Commission and ultimately approved by the board.
One of those amendments was a change in Section 2.4.3.1,
which,
prior to October of 1996, required the signature and seal of a
landscape architect for landscape plans submitted in conjunction
with
a site development plan, but also had language that referred to
others
who might be authorized to prepare such plans under state statutes.
The 19 -- the October 1996 amendment struck through the second
half of that sentence and simply read that in conjunction with the
site development plan, landscape plans would be signed and sealed -
would be required to be signed and sealed by a landscape architect.
Now, that does not include -- just for a little perspective --
that does not include one and two family landscape plans, nor
mobile
home landscape plans. So it only applies to those plans that are
submitted in conjunction with either a plat or a site development
plan
for commercial or multi-family projects.
The staff supported that amendment for a number of reasons, at
that time, and continues to support it. For one thing, we believe
that the landscape plan that is required by our code is
significantly
different than the plan thatws referenced in the statutes. Which,
for
example, in the case of a nurseryman, provides an exemption for him
to
design landscape plans in conjunction with the marketing of his
products; his or her products.
This amendment has been in place for a year. And several
months
ago, Mr. Pelletier came to my office or wrote me a letter and
indicated that he believed it was not consistent with the statutes,
and I referred him to the County Attorneyws Office. And
subsequently
through some workings, we prepared an amendment that we thought
addressed the issue.
Obviously, there are several people that want to speak. I
just
want to give you a little bit of overview as to why the staff feels
that this plan is different and why we did support that higher
level
of design element, and the seal and signature of a landscape
architect.
For one thing, the landscape plans that are submitted in
conjunction with commercial development, industrial development,
and
multi-family are considerably more complicated and they require an
ability on onews part to address such things as micro climates, a
wide
variety of vegetation, irrigation specifications and design
elements,
interaction with the engineer and architect, building architect on
the
job, to come up with a unified plan thatws safe, that meets the
minimum standards for public health, safety and welfare.
They may have to have some knowledge of drainage relative to
planting and slopes and topography. They are required to provide
detailed methods of preservation, as well as construction for
planting
areas.
Itws been the collective experience of the two landscape
architects that have worked for the county since 1989, when we
adopted
the Land Development Code, that the time necessary to review a plan
is
significantly reduced when one is submitted with the signature and
seal of a landscape architect, and the quality of that plan is
equally
somewhat higher in general. That's not to say that specific
individuals may not have the ability to design a plan that, you
know,
meets the code.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mulhere, we've had the opportunity to
review both the staff information and the most recent submittal
from
the County Attorney. I know we have individuals here to speak on
this
item that are both in the two professions that are affected or have
been affected by this, could be affected.
I'd like to ask if it's the board's pleasure, I would like to
go
ahead and go to those speakers, move through all of them that have
registered to speak, try to avoid having mid-discussion debates
among
all the board members on this until we have all the input the folks
are here to offer this evening.
And at that point, if we have questions of staff, that may be
most appropriate. Is that acceptable to the balance of the board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you -- you'd rather -- I had a
question for staff, but if you want to hold that for later? Is
that
what you're saying?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to do that, because I think we're
going to -- the reason is, there needs to be some ground rules.
This
isn't dueling professions this evening. What we're looking for is
input regarding the language that is proposed by our staff, the
recommendation by the Planning Commission, why you, as a
professional,
whatever your area may be, either support or do not support that
language and why. And we really need to confine it to that. That
seems to be most appropriate.
I would like the opportunity to hear all of that before we
really
have any discussion with staff on this matter.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we have questions, should we
just
jot them down and have them all at the end?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that would allow us to go much
smoother. How many speakers do we have, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Eight.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have eight speakers? Okay. Let's go
ahead
and go to the speakers that have registered, please.
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, may I just add also, that I do
have
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No.
MR. MULHERE: -- a little bit later on --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just kidding.
MR. MULHERE: I just want to let you know I do have some
information relative to the time frames for review, the number of
reviews. I have some specific information. So f there's a need
to
look at that later, I can let you have that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you have any one who s proficient with
the
operation of that clock doo-hickey?
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. Our resident cop.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, all right. I thought you were getting
away light today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thirty training hours.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You had to come back, didn't you?
THE BAILIFF: That wasn't a volunteer. Yes, I can operate it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you would be so kind, for each speaker,
to
give them five minutes. And the difference is, when it beeps, the
guy
who's controlling it has a gun.
(Laughter).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So let's go ahead and call the speakers.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. The first speaker is Gail Boorman, and
then George Fogg.
THE BAILIFF: Five minutes?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You get extra pay for that, don't you? We
ought to send a note over to Don.
THE BAILIFF: Definitely.
MS. BOORMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Administrator.
I'll
try not to get shot.
(Laughter)
MS. BOORMAN: My name is Gail Boorman. I'm a landscape
architect. I'm a small business person here in Collier County.
With respect to the language of the ordinance my personal
feeling
is that the way it currently reads is appropriate to the proper
conduct of the business of Collier County, which is protecting the
health, safety and welfare of its citizens.
When new developments come in for review, the onus is on the
governmental agency to safeguard the things that are being
proposed,
that they are technically well prepared by competent professionals.
And the fact is, that landscape design is in the purview of
landscape
architects only in our statues, in the state law. There is no
other
profession which has state statutes which provide for minimum
competency in the area of landscape design.
So that is why I feel, generally speaking, that the existing
language of the ordinance is proper and appropriate.
I've also heard it said that having to hire a landscape
architect
to prepare SDP plans is onerous to small property owners.
I researched our records on that, and my other colleagues may
have some comments on this. But on very small sites, say 7-Eleven
type things, our fees range from five to eight hundred dollars for
the
12
preparation of these plans. For larger tracts -- we recently
completed some SDP plans for projects like Pelican Strand, Regatta
Condominiums, for Signature, things like that. Our fees are in the
to 15 hundred dollar range.
The actual cost of improvements is 10 to 100 times greater
than
that. So I don't think that you can construe a landscape
architectural
plan prepared for minimum code requirements to ensure to the public
that what's being proposed is competent and in the best interests
of
both the people who live there in the future, and those of us who
live
here now, is onerous to property owners.
To give you a fuller view of how the whole landscape cost
process
works, generally, landscape architectural fees can run from a low,
low
of 5 percent to generally 10 percent is about the top of the
percentage scale, if you want to go by rules of thumb. So if
you're
doing a small commercial project, for instance, and you're going to
spend maybe 10 or 15 thousand dollars on landscape improvements,
the
percentage of what is paid to the landscape architect is relatively
small.
And normally, what we do in our budget process when we're
developing a plan, is we incorporate our fees into the overall
plant
budget. So he understands that he's getting a package that not
only
includes our estimate of costs for the actual construction, but
also
includes our time, as well.
I think that it's clear from -- from anybody that you would
talk
to that the benchmark of Collier County is the quality of its
environment, and that is due in no small part to landscape design,
to
assuring that minimum competency and appropriate designs are
prepared
by the right professionals. Our county is a real beacon in that
respect.
I was hired to be Village Landscape Architect for the Village
of
saw
to
Key Biscayne, partly on the strength of the work that we have done
here in Collier County. Their village manager came over here and
what we had done, went to some effort to be sure that I was invited
respond to their RFP, and ultimately their group of people over
there
hired us. Because the work that landscape architects are doing in
Collier County is among the best in the state and the results are
there to prove that.
So from a quality of life standpoint, I think it's important
that
we maintain those kinds of standards. Clearly, our citizens value
those, from their support of revisions to the codes in the past, to
the widespread support for upgrading our public landscapes.
And I encourage you to maintain the existing language in the
code
as it stands now. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mrs. Boorman.
MR. FERNANDEZ: George E. Fogg.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You just avoided it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And then Albert O'Donnell.
MR. FOGG: Good evening. My name is George Fogg, landscape
architect, and also a small business person. My wife and myself
run
our little business.
I have prepared here, taking some of the information that the
staff has given you, and I'll just leave copies here. I have
enough
copies for everybody. But in essence, I worked here in the county
for
six weeks when one of the landscape architects was overseas, had an
opportunity to see what plans, what kinds of plans were being
submitted.
It is clear to me, both -- from both sides of the aisle, both
as
sitting in here and reviewing the plans, and subsequently preparing
plans for submission to the county, that there is a great deal of
difference between what a landscape architect would do and what
someone who is not appropriately trained and experienced. And I
think
most of the board members are quite familiar with this. We have a
sample of a landscape plan that Christian Andtea will be showing
you
was
one
by
in just a few minutes.
It is my belief that doing a nursery plan, which is what this
all about, for merchandising a product, i.e., plant material, is
level of work; preparing the necessary code plans is an entirely
different one.
If, in fact, anybody wishes to become a landscape architect,
the way, you do not have to have a four year degree in landscape
architecture. Mr. Hook, who I believe will also speak briefly
today,
is a landscape architect who recently passed the landscape exam.
He
one
has no degree in landscape architecture. He came up the hard way,
learned what was necessary, took some review courses, which by the
way, are offered here in Collier County, and has passed the exam.
He's a landscape contractor, as well as now a landscape architect.
I simply can say that I believe very strongly that the code
should be left as it is. I was on the review team ad hoc committee
that did, in fact, make these recommendations. I was on the prior
before these recommendations were made.
working.
do
and
It does seem to be
And as your review shows, only nine -- pardon me -- only 6 to 7
percent of the plans that are submitted require code plans to be
included. And it is substantially more efficient and substantially
better quality when they are submitted by people who are trained to
the work.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Fogg.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Albert O'Donnell and then Alan Viets.
MR. O'DONNELL: Hello. Hi, my name's A10'Donnell. I'm
landscape contractor, irrigation contractor and nurseryman in Lee
Collier Counties.
doing
few
I'm not a landscape architect. I have been
landscape contracting in Lee and Collier since about 1985. My firm
has about 90 employees currently.
I'm speaking in support of the staff recommendation language.
Mostly because it's not really much of a burden and it's not really
much of a big deal. Requiring stamped and sealed plans would only
wouldn't really matter to my company. It would be -- we have very
requests for my company to produce plans on commercial
developments.
Most of the times when we are requested to produce plans, it's for
builders or individual homeowners. So that's usually when we get
involved.
The other issue is that, on single family plans, of course,
wouldn't be affected. When you -- if we were requested to prepare
one
to
commercial plan, I could sill sort of rough out the plan myself and
then get a landscape architect to review it. Very few, less than
percent of the commercial developments we install are actually done
the minimum plan. So all we'd be talking about was hiring a
landscape
architect for a few hours, and they work by hours. So if you
drafted
up the plan yourself, for a few hundred dollars, you could get them
to
review it and stamp it and submit it.
And then in terms of a sales tool with the client, I could
draw
up my own plan above and beyond that, which, of course, wouldn't be
affected by the statute.
So it's really not much of an issue. There's plenty of
landscape
architects available to hire, as you can see in the room here. And
then they could review it for it's buffers, site lines, the types
of
plants, or whatever.
Let's see. For sales purposes, yes, you can do your own
upgraded
plans and that's not much of an issue.
yOU
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Alan Viets and Wayne Hook.
MR. VIETS: Hello. My name is Alan Viets.
I want to thank
very much for allowing me to speak this evening.
I am a landscape architect who is fairly new to Collier
County.
I've been here about five years in the profession. I have a
background of over 25 years in the profession.
What I'd like to address this evening isn't the staff
recommendation so much as our unique training. I had the
opportunity,
like many of my colleagues, to work all over the United States and
some of us have even worked in Europe and beyond. I was one of
those
lucky people.
The reason I was drawn to the profession was because it was,
for
a profession, the profession of landscape architecture. At the
time I
was taking it, it was either a four or five-year degree. I
happened
to go through a five-year program and then beyond.
The interesting part of the profession and the uniqueness of
the
profession, I thought, was one of the architectural aspects of it.
The history of the profession, and I'm sure some of you already
know
that, was the beginning of Olmsted and many of the other greats in
architecture, gave me the impetus to go on with the training.
The training was very specific in terms of the communities
that
we were to work on and the themes and architectural forms that we
were
to create to support our communities that were going to be built in
the future. Collier County happens to be one of those unique
places
in the country and has done a great deal with the profession here,
as
and
a matter of fact.
And many of our colleagues tonight have been involved in very
unique planned unit development work, boulevards, community spaces
things that really create the impressions which are so important to
the long range development of our county, and eventually, larger
spaces, as well.
I want to thank the commissioners for letting me speak this
evening.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Viets.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Wayne Hook and then Bruce Tyson.
MR. HOOK: Commissioners, my name is Wayne Hook, a resident of
Collier County since 1969, been a landscape contractor in this
county
for almost 20 years, and in the last two years have gone on and hit
the books again and managed to pass the test to become a landscape
architect.
I'd like to speak to you briefly from the point of a
nurseryman
and a landscape contractor, because I've got quite a bit of time in
that field.
The process of surviving and producing a good product in this
community can be done in a lot of different ways. We haven't
closed
any doors with the codes that the county has put in effect. I
think
the county must have taken a long hard look up the road at Lee
County
and decided consciously to not go that route. And we have --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We've been doing that for years.
MR. HOOK: Okay. Well, and what we have seems to be working.
Now the reason I came up with and got involved a little bit, was I
was
the
our
concerned about if we make a language change, does it jeopardize
people that put them in jeopardy with the state codes?
We are scrutinized by the state and if the language is changed
and we start following a different procedure than what the state
guidelines are, and start okaying things and signing and sealing
things that aren't done in a certain manner, then we stand to lose
license very quickly and very easily.
And I just was very concerned that we didn't -- we were
changing
codes and language that wasn't consistent with the state language.
The
process Mr. Fogg alluded to, if people wish to make the transition
from contracting into pure landscape architecture, or do both, the
state has provided the vehicle so that you can do that.
Most landscape architects now go through their Haster's
degree,
six years, intern for a year, and then start the testing process
which
usually takes about two years, before they can practice landscape
architecture.
One of the topics earlier was that they now put architects,
engineers and landscape architects in the same office complex.
There's a reason why they are in the same office complex, and they
aren't out in the contracting end of things or the growing end of
things. It's a whole different program, as most of you have heard
and
will hear, and are aware of.
Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Hook.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Bruce Tyson, and then Christian Andtea.
MR. TYSON: Good evening. I'm Bruce Tyson. I'm a landscape
architect registered in the State of Florida and work with Wilson
Miller. I would like to direct -- this comment goes directly to
what
Mr. Hancock had requested. And the changes that are recommended in
the landscape plan by the staff strikes the words, "be prepared
by."
And let me just read the code directly from our state statutes
as
landscape architects; it's a very brief paragraph.
"No registered landscape architect shall affix or permit to be
affixed his seal or name to any plan, specification, drawing or
other
document which was not prepared by him or under his responsible
supervising control, or which was not reviewed, approved, modified
and
adopted by him as his own work with full responsibility as a
landscape
architect for such documents."
What I think you heard Mr. O'Donnell say was we don't care
about
the law, we'll just go ahead and allow something to happen. And by
implementing the change that is requested here, to be striking out
the
words, "prepared by," simply means that you're going to create
another
level of landscape architect.
We don't know whether we are a state landscape architect or a
county landscape architect. It would be somebody in between,
because
the statutes would then be inconsistent. Right now, they are
directly
consistent. And therefore, I don't see any need to change
anything,
in terms of relation, the way in which the code reads and see no
benefit to doing that.
I think in addition, from the research that we've done, we
found
that the nurserymen do not have any method by which they have
established any design certification for their industry, have no
tests
for minimal competency, and have no requirement to carry
professional
liability insurance.
I think the other people that will speak and the speakers
before
me have given you specifics about our requirements for education.
I
would like to leave you with a letter that was sent to me by Joe
Dalate, who, for six years, between 1989 and 1995, was the county
landscape architect. And while it doesn't give specific numbers, it
will substantiate all of the numbers that you have in front of you,
from the standpoint of the way in which the plans were received and
what their quality was. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Christian Andtea and then Joanne Smallwood.
MR. ANDREA: Good evening. My name is Christian Andtea; I'm a
landscape architect practicing in Naples.
We are talking a lot about planting plans. But the issue from
my
if
vantage point is the fact of the SDP planting plan, the information
that we have to put together to provide the county.
I've brought along some samples of some typical SDP plans and
I can present them to you, we can take a look.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you could just hand them to your left
there, and Mr. Weigel, if you would be so kind as to pass those
out.
MR. ANDREA: Much of what's required with the submittal is a
lot
of site information. Over the years the county's developed a very
extensive code that involves a lot of calculations as it relates to
interior green space, which helps encourage the quantity of trees
and
ground cover and shrub material that occurs within the sites;
buffering requirements that happen around the perimeter of the
site;
street requirements that determine what our streets look like, as
far
as the quantity of trees, the type of trees, the type of hedge, the
type of screening.
Issues as far as grading and drainage, and how we overlap with
swales and stormwater retention areas have all played a role in the
development process of the SDP plan.
As you can see on those plans, the planting plan ends up
playing
a relatively minor role in the amount of information that gets
presented there as far as the calculations, to assure that adequate
green space is maintained throughout Collier County.
I think it is true that people can open up a book and read the
code and come up with a plan and do things, but I don't think
they're
doing the county justice or themselves justice, if they don't take
into account all the information that is supposed to be put
together
for these plans, so that way, the county can maintain its
consistency.
Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Joanne Smallwood, then Ray Pelletier.
MS. SHALLWOOD: I'm Joanne Smallwood, president of Smallwood
Design Group and Smallwood Landscape.
Our firm has been practicing here in Collier County for 25
years
and we have approximately 70 employees. We are landscape
architects,
which is Smallwood Design Group. We're landscape contractors and
we're horticultural managers.
I've always believed that what we do as a profession and one
of
the challenges we have is presenting ourselves as a profession, and
that's why this issue is here today.
Approximately 19 years ago, professional regulation became a
standard and we started hiring landscape architects. I'm here
today
to support the staff language to present to you that our firm is
unique in the fact that we are landscape architects, we are
landscape
contractors and we are horticultural managers, and that because of
believing in professionalism, as I personally do, we hired
landscape
architects 19 years ago when landscape architecture became an issue
of
professional regulation.
Approximately 11 years ago, I envisioned a process of
partnering
with the city and the county and the development community, which
became Project Naplesgate. Collier Naplesgate now, as of this
year,
as you're aware, adopted the Streetscape Master Plan. And I stood
behind that and volunteered my time 11 years because I believe in
this
community and the standard which we have set.
And it is a most unique standard, as has been presented to you
today. And I think it's really important that you understand,
because
we provide all three services, and I also had a wholesale nursery
practice for 10 years.
So I can speak to the fact of all of the different entities'
professionalism is always something that we believe strongly in,
and
is
higher professionals in each of those professions, because each one
a distinctly different profession.
When I went into the wholesale business, I found that very,
very
clearly; how different growing a plant was than providing landscape
architecture or construction or horticulture. As landscape
architects, our goal --to carry the mantle, so to speak -- for this
community is to put together a team of professionals; your
architects,
your landscape architects, your engineers, simultaneously, and to
value each entity of equal importance.
Landscape architects married the natural environment with the
built environment; the architecture with the site. What we do is
an
extension of architecture on the site, and that is an aesthetic
function; grading and drainage, as has been spoken about. You take
the engineer's requirements and you create an aesthetic solution to
that drainage. And those things are all aesthetic issues that
we've
talked about.
And I think here as to me professionally, each one is so
different there is no way that we would think of doing -- going
backwards, as I see it, today, and sort of lowering the standard of
what has been created in this special community. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mrs. Smallwood.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Ray Pelletier and then Ellin Goetz.
MR. PELLETIER: That's a really tough act to follow. Joanne
Smallwood, I mean, she's an icon to all of us in the industry and
she
has set the standard for the industry as we know it today. And
it's
kind of -- like I say, a tough act to follow.
Just a clarification, if I may, on Mr. Mulhere's statement
where
he said the old code that we're trying to get passed now where it
says
persons may be authorized, there is no statement to that effect.
It
says be prepared by persons authorized to prepare.
So there is no question not in the old code whether
authorization
was an issue here.
Excuse me. My name for the record is Ray Pelletier. I'm a third
generation landscape contractor, representing myself, my family and
my
15
business. I hold an associate's degree in plant science from the
State University of New York. I have two years' working experience
with the largest landscape company in the United States, and I have
years local experience running my own full service landscape
company
here in Naples and I've been a certified pest control operator for
Terrapin Ornamentals since 1998 -- or 1988, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a jump.
MR. PELLETIER: In 1993, my brother John joined my company,
and
has a four-year degree in landscape development.
Several months ago, I met with you all to inform you of the
problem I was having doing business in Collier County, in
particular,
the submission of a landscape plan for my own nursery on my own
property, due to a change in my building code.
Before you today is my request that Collier County Landscape
Code
Section 2431 be returned to its prior form that reflects full
compliance with Florida State law and the exemptions therein, many
of
which, several of the landscape architects, prior to becoming
landscape architects, worked under, as approved by your Collier
County
Planning Commission.
I'm going to go through this pretty fast because I've already
used up three of my five minutes. But at any rate, they had two
task
force meetings and there is a document that I need to read in full
with regards to those task force meetings, because I think that's
been
a bone of contention between the landscape architects having the
impression that this is a dueling -- as Mr. Hancock, I guess, said
a dueling thing between occupations.
I have a lot of your documents and I'm going to skip past them
because like I said, I don't have an awful lot of time here. I
should
take the time, but I don't have it. So you have the documents in
front of you, and you've had them for a while, and I'm sure you've
all
for
seen them.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that this?
MR. PELLETIER: Yes, ma'am. I want to thank you particularly
at least asking the question on October 9th: "Well, what's the
difference between who is a person who is qualified to do landscape
plans, and who isn't qualified." Thank you very much.
Before we get into the actual law, a statement for the record
is
needed here for clarification for anyone that may happen upon this
in
the future. It is my opinion that even though the effective
results
of the task force would be elimination of all competition for
landscape architects with respect to commercial work in Collier
County, that was not their intention. The integrity and honesty of
all the individuals involved, in my opinion, is beyond reproach.
The
to
only reason that I differentiate between architects and others, is
validate that we, the nurserymen, do not have adequate
representation,
as indicated in the record of October 30, 1996.
It is important that the record today clearly indicate, as do
my
previous statements on record, that I neither imply or accuse any
landscape architect or staff member for unethical behavior with
regards to this matter. The issue of statutory exemption in this
matter is not common knowledge. My dispute is not with the
landscape
architects or the staff. I am sure that we all agree that we
should
obey the law as it is written.
The same law, Florida Statute 481, part 2, that protects the
landscape architects, protects me. For any landscape architect to
stand up here and hold up the Florida Statute that empowers them
and
the State of Florida and ask you to eliminate the exemptions
granted
me would be a violation of trust given them by the citizens of the
State of Florida.
I respect the landscape architects in Collier County for their
many contributions and we should all be grateful for their time and
effort spent to better the community. Again, my dispute is not
with
the landscape architects.
You have the county code; you know what the change is. It's
important to note that this was a code that was in Collier County
and
served the community well for many, many years. My exemption is
quite
clear and you've all read it.
And there is some different opinions regarding the plans. And
if
you look at item 4 in your packet, and it's in the exemptions from
licensure, part four, where it is dealing with the property owner -
and this is a property owner rights issue here -- it says: Any
plans,
drawings or specifications. So that to me means any plans.
May I?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. PELLETIER: On part five, it says -- this is the main
issue
to
in
by
of contention here -- it says that: This part shall not be deemed
prohibit any nurseryman, nursery stock dealer or agent as defined
Chapter 581 was required under 581 to hold a valid license issued
the Division of Plant Industry of the Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, who does hold a valid license to engage in the
business of selling nursery stock in the state, insofar as he
engages
in the preparation of plans or drawings as an adjunct to
merchandising
his material, his product, so long as he does not use the title
term
designation landscape architect.
Later in the package, I'm in agreement wholeheartedly, with
the
was
I'm
do
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Ray.
MR. PELLETIER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We've all had the opportunity to review the
packet, and thank you for providing and highlighting it. What I
asking was if you have individual comments outside of what you've
already provided us, to wrap those up.
MR. PELLETIER: Okay. I'm sorry. What I do need to take
exception with is a memorandum by the Collier County staff. And
going to give you their own document, if I may.
On the first page there, you'll see basically the issue that's
before you today: Are they or are they not the only people who can
this work. And I've given you the Attorney General's matter
regarding
that.
I don't like to speak for anybody else but myself, but I will
in
is
this case. This lowest common denominator, I just have to take
exception to that. And in response to that, I have this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you have anything else to hand out, Ray?
Let's go ahead and do that. We've got to ask you to wrap up your
comments, please.
MR. PELLETIER: What you have is basically before you -- I'll
just end with this final statement.
Landscape design, by everyone's admission, is an art form.
Landscape design done correctly is most like poetry in that it will
effect emotions. As with all art forms, there is a medium. One's
expertise is not gained entirely through education one's expertise
gained through experience with the medium, God-given talent,
creativity, as well as education.
In reviewing the enclosed material, please consider our
academic
degrees and experience, as compared to landscape architects, with
regards to the medium, or in this case, plant material, and then in
using these parameters, reflect on your decision today.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ray.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: May I ask this gentleman a question?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Ray.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Pelletier.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You need to come back.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: May I ask you something?
MR. PELLETIER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You provided this document to us here.
believe that your point is that this shows your educational
background, your personal educational background?
MR. PELLETIER: It shows exactly the transcripts from our
college, sir, a four year degree.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: For you?
MR. PELLETIER: With the exception where it says colleges,
that
is what is required of a landscape architect. And I wanted to put
that in front of you. So you're looking at the medium as I alluded
to
as
in my final statement, and what their background is in the medium.
There is a great deal of things that landscape architects do, and
indicated by Mr. Tyson at a previous Planning Commission, only 10
percent of their exam deals with plant material.
What I'm saying --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But that wasn't my question.
MR. PELLETIER: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My question is, is this a synopsis or a
transcript of your personal educational background? Is that what
your
point is?
MR. PELLETIER: The first two pages, sir, are basically the
requirements to becoming a landscape architect and I've highlighted
the two areas that deal exactly with plant material.
Following that is my company credentials, my personal
credentials, my college transcripts, where you can see that every -
practically every course, except for the ones they make you take
for
Phys. Ed. and other things, deal directly with plant material.
And there are people in the State of Florida that have four
year
degrees. My brother John has a four year degree and his
transcripts
are here.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My question is relating to your personal
educational background in this field, and it appears that you are
quite educated and quite qualified in this field.
MR. PELLETIER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that a fair statement?
MR. PELLETIER: That's correct, sir, you have all the
information.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then the follow-up question to that is,
why
don't you just go take the test?
MR. PELLETIER: Because we love the plant material; we want to
deal with the plant material. We don't want to do the other 90
percent of things that landscape architects do.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then why are you here? Why are you
making
such a fuss if you don't want to do the work?
MR. PELLETIER: We don't want to be prohibited from marketing
our
own product, as provided for us under law.
We don't want to practice landscape architecture, sir.
Landscape
architecture, as what all the landscape architects will tell you
here,
there's a lot to it, and as indicated, 90 percent of what they do
doesn't deal with plant material. We eat, sleep and live plant
material.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I? Do you want to be able to
submit
an SDP plan?
MR. PELLETIER: See, that's the sticking point. A lot of the
concerns that you have as commissioners and I have, is community
standards. And we do not do any designs that we cannot, as a
landscape contractor, build. We do a design, build.
So if we want to do a 7-Eleven or a bank or a small office
building, we should be allowed to do that, as long as we are doing
it
as an adjunct to merchandising our own material.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would that include sealing and SDP
submittal?
MR. PELLETIER: We don't want to seal, and we --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Do you want to be able to
submit an SDP for a commercial project?
MR. PELLETIER: Yes, ma'am, we do. And it's important to
differentiate between the scale.
MR. PELLETIER: Commissioner Hancock and the Board of Collier
County Commissioners has done an excellent job in upgrading the
standards here in Collier County, and they have the code that does
that. I think they became a little bit more restrictive, in that
they
are requiring this work as going to certain individuals in a
certain
field. And we're saying that we were authorized prior under your
code, we're still under -- the architects even admit that we have
this
exemption.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just may be ignorant, but I think it
was
the point that Commissioner Norris was driving at was, if 90
percent
of what landscape architects do does not have to do with plant
material, I'm thinking that that 90 percent is all those blue lines
that have to do with drainage and a lot of other stuff. MR. PELLETIER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if you don't want to do that 90
percent, isn't there someplace where we could solve this problem?
Because if you don't want to do this, and this is the 90 percent
that
I understand the 10 percent is green, I'm worried about blue lines
on
the paper. Maybe that's a good way to differentiate.
MR. PELLETIER: And that's a very accurate and very good
statement. And if you look at the plan I gave -- and I didn't have
six
copies, and I apologize -- but all the drainage is clearly
indicated
by my engineer, and SDP plans are required to go through
engineering.
They tell me where all the drainage goes, and where -- they do all
the
calculations for hard service, water retention, and they do that.
At that point, the plan that's in front of you is ready for a
plant design by my firm.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This you got from the engineer and now,
you would --
MR. PELLETIER: Yes. That piece of paper cost me $5,000.
It's
hard to believe, but for a small businessman like myself -- and it
may
of
I
be in excess of $5,000. But at this point, that document in front
you is ready for plants, and you have given me the code under which
can put those plants in.
You're very concerned about community standards; we are all
very
concerned about community standards. But the benchmark -- the
architects are trying to say they are the benchmark. They are not
the
benchmark. The benchmark is your Collier County Code. You're
directing us on how to do these plans.
And that's my -- basically I've covered everything, I believe.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Pelletier, when we met in my office,
and I
need to say publicly, as you have said, you have not chosen to pick
a
no
fight with the landscape architects. I understand that. Likewise,
one is criticizing any of the work you have done in Collier County.
It's quite obvious by some of your projects that you do good work.
I asked you then if there was recognized in state statutes an
industry somewhere a level of, you know, minimal landscape
architecture, if you will, that a nurseryman could not only be
recognized as being possible to do but that the consumer could
recognize it as a standard.
And I was looking for some thresholds. I've gone through
everything you have provided us and haven't found any of those
thresholds. Were you able to identify any of those or suggest
them?
MR. PELLETIER: One of the documents that you have before you
that I didn't allude to and didn't have time to, was the Florida
House
of Representatives Committee on Professional Regulation, and this
is
exactly what the Florida landscape designers tried to do underneath
the Florida architectural rule. If you go to the last page of that
document, sir --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which I read.
MR. PELLETIER: What they do here is, they work for
approximately
two years is my understanding, and at the very end of it, they use
Section B, here: "Each local jurisdiction may determine whether
persons operating pursuant to this exemption comply with their
codes
or other requirements."
And what I'm saying now is, that we could be back here again
at
some later date discussing what the benchmark is. Is it an
architect
or is it a designer? So you know, we could be back here again.
We have tried to make these standards underneath -- I can't
say
we. This work was done by other people. But they have tried to
work
within the parameters of this document. They are currently working
under a different scope of work at this time, which you'll have
those
credentials.
But you have to realize, sir, that although we don't have the
license, so to speak, we do have the degrees among us, you know,
and
Mr.
too .
those are documents.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're going exactly where I was hoping
that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before the specific questions for
Pelletier, can we hear the rest of our public speakers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I think I'll have some,
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. PELLETIER: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Pelletier.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Ellin Goetz and then John Ribes.
MS. GOETZ: Hi. Ellin Goetz. I have been living in Collier
County since 1984 and practicing landscape architecture since then.
am here not to duel with anyone, but to just perhaps give you my
opinion on this situation.
And mine is that what has happened in Collier County over the
years has been lots of change, which we've all, of course, been
very
aware of. But I think the codes have changed along with that
change.
And I look upon the language that is proposed by the staff today as
a
tightening of what was -- something that was produced to sort of
hold
a standard of excellence in Collier County. And I think that's
important when you're looking at a place that's changing very
rapidly;
more rapidly, probably, than any of us have ever experienced. What
perhaps was appropriate in the past is not necessarily appropriate
today.
The code is merely a minimum standard. It is not something
that
should be used for the design of a place such as Collier County.
And
I think the language that is in the current code which was
developed,
as you know, over time, with lots of volunteer hours from all kinds
of
people in the community, to produce a code like that, that language
is
in
and
important because it does keep a standard of excellence.
And I just quantity to urge you not to take a step backwards
this case and to -- you know, we are all fortunate that we live and
work in Collier County, which is a great place to do business in,
a great place to live in.
And I'd just like to lend my support to keeping it as good a
place in the future as it is today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Goetz.
MR. FERNANDEZ: John Ribes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many speakers after Mr. Ribes?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's the last one.
MR. RIBES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm the lucky one; I get to
go
last.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Clean-up.
MR. RIBES: I have a few notes of what everyone has said
today.
What I'd like to tell you is that, first of all, my name is John
Ribes. I have been practicing landscape architecture for 35 years,
most of which has been in the State of Florida, and I have served
as a
professor of landscape architecture at accredited universities for
about 10 years.
There is a difference between the degrees in landscape
architecture. And when you get a degree in landscape architect from
an
accredited school, you are trained in many of the issues that
everyone
has spoken of today.
I'm not here to oppose Mr. Pelletier personally. I am here
concerned that Collier County continues to represent all of the
public
interest as best it can. Over my years of practice, I've had the
opportunity of helping write many, many landscape codes.
In all cases where landscape architects -- licensed landscape
architects -- are involved, the environment ends up being much
better,
and I think our county is a good example of that.
I also go back long enough to have participated in the first
preparation of the exam for landscape architects in the State of
Florida. And it is quite a comprehensive exam, and those who
practice
landscape architecture or any part of it should be required to have
that exam, in my estimation.
o~lr
in
It was mentioned that plant materials are not a great part of
profession. I'm here to argue that. In my 35 years, 90 percent of
our work has been involved in plant materials themselves, but not
the selection of plant materials just for aesthetic purposes.
Plant
materials for aesthetic purposes is just a rubber stamp, and we
should
avoid that at all costs.
The selection of landscape plant materials impacts drainage;
it
to
impacts utilities; it has something to do with emergency escape
routes, systems of utilities, water preservation, and it also has
do with passive energy conservation systems.
when
All of those items,
plant materials are selected by a landscape architect, are being
looked at with those things in mind, which is much different than
selecting plants after all the other work has been done.
So I'm here to support the County Attorney's position and the
staff position on maintaining the code as it is today.
Thank you very much.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Ribes. That was the last
speaker for the evening?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay. I guess at this point, Mr. Hulhere,
this is the last item we have to consider on our agenda tonight.
MR. HULHERE: There are several minor amendments of signage.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay. I guess, again, since we don't take
formal motion or vote tonight it would probably be at least
important
at the conclusion of any discussion we have on this item, that we
take
some type of a straw vote on where the board sits on this matter.
So
with the idea of working toward that, I know everyone's got a
little
something to say, so lead off.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not shy. I think that we have to
keep
the code essentially like it is, is the short answer. My concern
is
that I don't want to regulate an industry out of business and I am
looking for some definition of what kinds of plans can be, not only
in
compliance with state law, but adequately prepared by noncertified
landscape architects.
The only thing I have in front of me so far is what Mr. Fogg
turned in about merchandising plans versus code plans. And I'm
looking for some direction from staff about whether or not that is
good place to draw the line. I don't want to cut people out of
being
able to do their own plans for their own businesses.
But my higher concern, my higher priority is that we enforce,
have adequately trained landscape architects to do, sign and seal
the
plans that are required by code. Our code -- simply stated, our
code
is just too complicated. We have already regulated to the point
that
we have to have competent professionals to sign and seal those
plans.
Ours is not your average landscape code; thatws the good news.
The bad news is, it requires competent professionals to sign and
seal
the plans. That's all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've had the fortune of working in an
office
where there were engineers and landscape architects and planners,
and
so I have seen how the mix works on a given project and who's
involved. And the plant nurserymen often, you know, if they were
hired, would come in and meet with a landscape architect regarding
installation placement, plant materials and whatnot, and it was a
very
collaborative process.
I think the problem is there's a general perception out there
that landscape architecture is the choosing and placing of plants -
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which it's not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- which is actually the opposite when it
comes to landscape design. That is the bulk of landscape design,
when
you're just simply doing the design on a sight specific area.
The problem I have is there are people like Mr. Pelletier that
are more than competent that can point to examples in the community
where they have done not just a sufficient job, but a good job.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wonderful.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The problem is, for every Ray Pelletier,
there's a Joe Smith out there who is waiting to take advantage of
someone who is not familiar with the local climate, who is not
familiar with the local process. And I'm very uncomfortable with
that
possibility or potential out there.
And after looking at Mr. Pelletier's transcripts -- by the
way,
nice grades, Ray -- I'm confident that you're not too far away, if
you
chose to, from an ASLA certification.
My position on this quite simply is that we have the
opportunity
to let the State statutes stand and let them govern solely, or we
have
the opportunity, as we do on every state statute, to raise the bar,
raise the standard that meets what our citizens expect of Collier
County. And I think this is one of those cases, as in many other
areas that we've chosen to do that. Unfortunately, there is some
fallout from that. There are some good people that are going to
being
affected by that. But more importantly to me, is that when we
chose
to raise that standard on architectural, one of the things we did
is
we looked at what is this going to cost; what is the fiscal impact?
Well, we heard some of that tonight on landscape architecture,
and I think it at least helped me understand a little bit of the
fiscal impact side.
I just think it would be inappropriate and inconsistent for
US,
when you read through our plan, not to require the level of
expertise
that a landscape architect possesses, through their ASLA
certification, in the preparation and submittal of plans.
The difference to me -- and Ray pointed it out perfectly -- is
the preparation of plans or drawings as an adjunct to
merchandising.
When I went to a local nurseryman and asked about landscaping
my
house, he did just that. He prepared a plan and let me look at it.
And any business can do that; they can hire a landscape architect
to
do the minimum code requirements, and hire a nurseryman to do
anything
on top of that, if they are choosing to.
But it is -- you know, I understand it's not a solve-all.
But
it
prepared by and bear the seal of a landscape architect." I
disagree a
little bit in that our wording alone does not preclude or allow a
landscape architect to violate state statute.
However, if a landscape architect works closely with a
nurseryman
and that nurseryman does the preparation of the plans and the
landscape architect reviews it, puts their seal and their name on
one
to
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that's okay. It's no different than
having
a draftsman in an engineering firm. So I don't think that we are
necessarily stating that way and I think Mr. O'Donnell described
the
relationship that he has with landscape architects works very well,
and I don't see any reason why that can't continue and I don't
think
Mr. O'Donnell was advocating that someone sell their seal to him on
weekly basis so he can get business.
So with that being said, I'm supportive of the language, with
question of our legal staff before we do anything finally, which is
make sure that we are consistent with state statutes in the
proposed
my
"be
question lies in what Mr. Tyson's comments were in the language of
wording by our staff by striking "be prepared by". And not looking
for an answer necessarily right away, but that is the only concern
have in that area. Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to make a comment one
way or the other tonight because of those two weeks. But I don't
think this -- with all due respect -- I don't think this is about
raising the bar at all. Frankly, I think the bar is set by the
level
of the code we set and then whomever submits the plans has to meet
that code. And regardless of what their background is, either they
meet the code or they don't meet the code.
So I understand the argument and Mr. Hulhere's summary that
says
the number of people who have met that bar, percentage-wise has
gone
up. I don't know if that's thanks to Mr. Cautero arriving on the
scene and changing some things on Horseshoe Drive; some management
changes and, as well as, the landscape architects. But I don't
think
that's solely due to this change, that that percentage has gone up.
I think we do want to have a higher bar than the state is for
other communities, as far as what we expect for landscape plans and
architecture. But I think we achieve that by setting what is
required
for minimal code for site development plans and all, and not by
deciding who can and can't submit the plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, did you have anything?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. I have wrestled over this. I guess
share a little bit of Commissioner Hac'Kie's concern about, you
know,
not wanting to put somebody out of business. And Ray apparently
has
been a person who has been out front on this, and obviously, has
done
a good job here in Collier County.
I agree with the Chairman in saying for every Ray there is
probably one person out there who may submit something that is less
than wonderful and require a great deal of staff time to try and
get
Mr.
the thing straightened out.
I believe I had asked our County Administrator to talk with
Mulhere or Vince or somebody in regard to what were the number of
cases. In other words, how many submittals have there been where
staff
has had to take an inordinate amount of time to review them? I was
just curious about this, if this has become something that is a
real
burdensome affair over in the planning area.
Maybe you can give us that information now. I don't want to
belabor it, but I would like to have that information.
MR. HULHERE: I did -- staff did do some research, and I guess
there are a couple of issues. But getting specifically to what you
60
by
requested Commissioner Berry, we're looking at 1996, approximately
percent of the landscape plans submitted were not signed and sealed
landscape architects.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry, Bob. 60?
MR. HULHERE: Sixty percent were not.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. Okay.
MR. HULHERE: During that year, 29 percent of those plans were
approved on the first submittal. In 1997, after we changed the
code
and required a landscape architect's seal, 43 percent of the plans
were submitted on the first -- were approved on the first
submittal.
So there is an increase.
I agree with Commissioner Constantine that there are many
variables. Sometimes plans are submitted that aren't sufficient to
get
in
are
approved on the first round because an individual wants to get that
for review and wants to get some comments back. So I mean, there
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Typically those are out of town people,
though, you know.
(Laughter)
MR. HULHERE: There is one other thing that Commissioner
Hac'Kie
brought up, and that is, that I just think it bears -- it's
important
to note that again, this doesn't apply to one and two family mobile
homes, nor does it apply to site improvement plans. Site
improvement
plans are redevelopment on an existing site, and we do require
landscape improvements, but we don't require those to be signed and
sealed by a landscape architect.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That is interesting.
MR. HULHERE: But to give you some numbers, in 1996, we
reviewed
and approved 2,705 single family, duplex, mobile home and site
improvement plans. The great majority of those were single family.
That same year, we reviewed and approved 201 site development plans
which do require the signature and seal of a landscape architect.
So
so
we're talking about 7 percent of the total applications that were
submitted that have some element of landscape design, requiring the
seal and signature of a landscape architect.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Hulhere, if, say a shopping center
wanted to redo their landscaping, what's required of them?
MR. HULHERE: It could be that they would not have to submit a
signed and sealed landscape plan, depending on the level of
redevelopment. There is -- a site improvement plan you can only go
far. If you are going to be required to add a considerable amount
additional impervious space, if you're going to have a reengineered
plan come in with water management, then we're going to ask for an
updated and upgraded landscape plan.
Also, obviously, if there is a signed and sealed landscape
plan
on record with that site plan, then we're going to want a landscape
architect to revise that landscape plan.
But if we're talking about minor revisions, it should fall
under
the purview of the site improvement plan. We've done many without
that requirement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which many times consists of basically
taking
out parking spaces and installing landscaped islands, and drawing
them
in, which doesn't require a landscape architect to prepare those
plans.
MR. MULHERE: What happens is, through the zoning certificate
process, individuals come in to the front desk and they want to put
a
and
the
new business into a shopping center or to an existing structure,
one of the things that we do is we review the site.
We go out, we do a site visit, and we say, you know, you need to
upgrade your parking for disabled or you need to upgrade your
landscaping. And then they'll go out and they'll accomplish that
prior to us giving them the zoning certificate. That's the site
improvement process that I'm speaking of.
The other thing I just wanted to mention is conversely -- and
again, I recognize there are a lot of variables -- but conversely,
number of third, fourth and fifth -- requirements for third, fourth
and fifth reviews of landscape plans -- we haven't had any,
fortunately, go beyond the fifth review, but we have had third,
fourth
and fifth reviews -- those have decreased, as well, in 1997 versus
1996.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On the basis I think we kind of need to get
to
a point where at least the folks that have taken time to be here
tonight understand where the board sits, I'm going to err on the
side
of protecting and preserving what we have and promoting those
things
that are existing in our code today that I think are much more
complex
than they were a few years ago. The state statutes have to apply
from
Putnam County to Dade County, so they are really minimum standards
in
areas.
We always remain and retain the authority to exceed minimum
state
standards. And in this area, I don't think what we're doing
conflicts
with state statutes. I'm going to -- unless I hear from legal that
we
are violating state statutes with the proposed language, I'm going
to
support that language.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like the language, too. I'm just a
little troubled by -- Harjorie, maybe you want to comment, answer
this
question. I think that we have to be careful -- I think that the
language as proposed is legally satisfactory, but that we have to
be
careful that we aren't imposing a higher regulatory burden than the
state otherwise does on nurserymen.
Am I right about that? We don't have that authority.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you get the opinion on your desk?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
MS. STUDENT: That's detailed in the memo. But -- Harjorie
Student, Assistant County Attorney for the record. It is our
opinion
that the proposed amendment is consistent and does not run afoul of
state law. And you have my memo concerning the differentiation
between
a plan not submitted but made as part or as an adjunct to marketing
one's product, and our landscape plan as provided in our code.
And based on the information given to me by staff and others,
it's our position that those are two entirely different types of
plans
and that our code, as written and as proposed to be amended, can
coexist with state law pursuant to the case law I cite in my memo.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize you're trying to
establish
some sort of direction so the folks who've taken the time to come
out
to
up
know what's going on in two weeks. But I also just think we need
be careful about making steadfast commitments today, because it can
really render a second public hearing moot, if we've already made
our minds.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I reserve the right to change my mind.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm leaning strongly towards not
changing
the code. But I will tell you that I'm looking for a definition of
what plans can be drawn by non-landscape architects. What plans
can
but
be done? Because obviously, merchandising plans, as Mr. Fogg's
described them, can be.
I just need an understanding between now and the next meeting
about what exactly can they do.
MR. HULHERE: Obviously, one and two family and mobile homes,
we'll put that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's it? Just that; nothing
commercial?
MR. MULHERE: Nothing commercial. I can put something
together.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, you've answered it, actually.
And
that complies with state law?
the
MR. WEIGEL: That is the state law.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anyone else?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, there you go.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: As I said, I think I have kind of felt
same way that Pam did. In other words, what could they do, and if
that is the state law I think it pretty much speaks. And I know I
spoke with, I don't know, maybe Ms. Smallwood in regard to state
regulations.
I really would prefer -- you're like a lot of professions. I
happen to live with a gentleman who is involved in a profession
that's
regulated by the state.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that the same guy you're married to?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Same guy I'm married to. My boyfriend of
30-some years.
(Laughter)
COMMISSIONER BERRY: At any rate, there's a level, there's a
licensing. And it's one, you know, you can be an accountant or you
can be a CPA, and there is a level there. Not to say that an
accountant, you know, is any less, you know, that kind of -- it
isn't
that. But it's that state requirement that makes you -- you have
to
go -- if you're going to be that CPA and be able to render an
opinion,
you've got to go on and take that test that says that you can do
this
kind of thing.
And it's regulated by the state. It's just one of those
things.
And I see this as the same kind of a situation here.
And I really think that somewhere along the line, you all need
to
address this at the state level. You need to do a better job in
this
whole area here and I was told that y'all don't lobby very well in
Tallahassee. We can give you some quick lessons. But you need to
get
on the stick and I think address this situation at the Tallahassee
level.
And I agree. I am all for raising the bar, but I do agree
that
our code probably dictates a good bit about what happens in Collier
County.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Will the Secretary of State have any
control
over this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it might be good to know the
Secretary of State.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Good to know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we can explore that later.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We may have a direct line to the
Secretary
of State, possibly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It might be good to be friends with the
Secretary of State.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't know. But if we don't do
something
here he's probably going to say there is no direct line.
(Laughter).
COHMISSIONER BERRY: At any rate, I guess -- and this is a
very,
very difficult decision for me, but I have to go in the direction
of
language that has been put before us.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does anyone have any further comment on
this?
Obviously, we have another public hearing. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And any input between now and then
certainly
will be considered on the questions and concerns that have been
raised.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bang that gavel.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Mr. Hulhere, let's wrap this
up
with the final items this evening.
HR. HULHERE: On page 39, there are several minor, I think
really
minor in nature, amendments to the sign code. In part, we
tenumbered
the section. There was some incorrect numbering.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I was noticing that as I was reading
it.
MR. HULHERE: These are just amendments that really provide
Some
consistency, except one amendment that has some substance, and that
is, we had a maximum height in commercial districts of 80 feet for
flag poles. And fortunately, we don't have too many of that
height.
It seemed exceptionally high to us; 50 feet seemed much more
reasonable. For example, there are several out there that are 50
feet
in height.
And at the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission
recommended that we add an additional regulation that limits the
width
of the flag to no more than 30 percent of the height. So we did
put
bit
that on it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The only thing I was disappointed in, I
didn't see anything regarding political signs in here, Bob.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're going to take care of that in '99.
(Laughter).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What about size of flags? Is that covered
elsewhere in the code?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, it is covered elsewhere.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's what I thought.
MR. MULHERE: And the other amendments -- the only other
amendment of any substance is we've tried to define, on page 41, a
little more clearly what would constitute a roof sign. We had a
of a discussion with an applicant for a site development plan
approval
on a wall that was going to extend beyond the roof from the middle
of
the building, a total of 20 feet higher than the building. The
building was 15 feet high, the wall was going to be 35 feet high,
and
then they were going to put the sign of the business on that wall.
And the argument was that that was not a roof sign. And we
think
we made that certainly clear for any future such requests. By the
way, that building is not going to be constructed with that sign on
it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was going to say unless it's between two
story buildings, and goes for a similar roof line and that kind of
business. But do we have the flexibility that they're doing of the
matching of the fascia of adjacent buildings?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right.
MR. MULHERE: On page 42 is just an amendment to use
consistent
language. And the same thing on page 43, just making the language
more consistent. They really are not substantive changes.
And on page 44, I apologize, there is one other minor change
that
I almost forgot.
We neglected to add business park to section 2.6.35 for
communication towers. We added the zoning districts, but we
neglected
to add that to that district that allows a tower between 75 and 185
feet, which otherwise is permitted in commercial and industrial
zoning
districts. There are many other restrictions on it, but that
section
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to flag that one. I want to take
a
and
look at that, because business parks are kind of a new deal for us
what we talked about is quality and so many other things associated
with them.
I'm not so sure that a hundred 25 foot tower in the center of
business park has to do a lot with quality. So I'm going to flag
that. I want to review that a little bit more.
So Brian, if you'd, you know --
MR. MILK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- make an appointment, let's sit down and
talk about that a little more. I'm not so sure I'm supportive of
that
one.
cycle.
MR. MILK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's only one, but what the heck.
MR. MULHERE: That's the extent of the amendments in this
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, in order to adjourn is there
anything significant I need to do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pound the gavel.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Pound the gavel.
MR. WEIGEL: I think you've done it already. You've already
expressed when the next meeting is, the time, place, the date.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you
very much.
the
There being no further business for the good of the County,
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:35 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented or as corrected
as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Kaye
Gray, RPR