Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/26/1999 S (LDC Amendments) May 26, 1999 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, May 26, 1999 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Pamela S. Mac'Kie John C. Norris Barbara B. Berry James D. Carter Timothy J. Constantine ALSO PRESENT: Mike McNees, Assistant County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Wednesday, May 26, 1999 5505 p.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER ~PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRWOMAN. ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: ARTICLE 2, ZONING DIVISION 2.2. ZONING ] May26~]999 DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES, CONDITIONAL USES, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, DIVISION 2.3 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING; DIVISION 2.4 LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING; DIVISION 2.5. SIGN DIVISION 2.6. SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS; DIVISION 2.7. ZONING ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES; DIVISION 2.8 ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND PROJECTS; ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 3.2, SUBDIVISIONS; DIVISION 3.3 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS; DIVISION 3.4 EXPLOSIVES; DIVISION 3.5. EXCAVATIONS; DIVISION 3.9. VEGETATION REMOVAL PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION; ARTICLE 6, DIVISION 6.3. DEFINITIONS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DEFINITIONS OF NON- CONFORMING LOTS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTIONSIX, EFFECTIVEDATE. 3. ADJOURN 2 May 26, 1999 May 26, 1999 Item #2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD JUNE 16, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good evening. We'll call the Board of County Commissioner's meeting for May 26, 1999 at 5:05 p.m., we'll call to order. If everyone would stand, please, for the Pledge of Allegiance, we'll start with our agenda after that. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Let's pass some laws. MR. McNEES: One quick housekeeping chore, Madam Chairwoman -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. McNEES: -- before we start. I understand we have run out of registration slips for our public speakers. I'll run down and get some as soon as I finish speaking here. You have some speakers who have registered on specific items tonight, and I know that in the past what you've done is, as we've gotten through each segment of this presentation, you've called for speakers on that. You have either that option or to wait and hear all speakers until the end. I'll leave that to your discretion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My train of thought can't usually hold out and wait until the end. I have to hear them while we're on the topic, so we'll do it that way. MR. McNEES: We can call them at the end then? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, no, no. I mean, we'll do it -- MR. McNEES: As we go. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- by topic. MR. McNEES: And I'll go get some more forms. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Ron, you'll get us started? MR. NINO: Yes. For the record, my name is Ron Nino, Planning Services. Let me make some introductory remarks to the effect that much of the material that's before you really represents the reformatting of current provisions of the Land Development Code, such as relocating the landscape and sign provisions from the architectural section, and sign -- and sign section from the landscape -- the -- relocating the landscape and sign requirements that are now in the architectural and gasoline station section to the landscape and sign section. Additionally, a major part of these amendments has to do with the leading -- all of the provisions that refer to Marco Island. Since Marco Island is now a city, those provisions are no longer appropriate in our code, which we're not able to enforce them insofar as we don't deal with Marco Island petitions or land ~- or land development applications. Other -- I think it's important to suggest to you that other amendments to the code are really not of a substantial nature with the exception of a couple, and I think that's who the majority of the people are here today to address. You have a summary chart that indicates the disposition of the Development Services Advisory Committee, the EAC, Environmental Advisory Committee, and the Collier County Planning Commission in Page 2 May 26, 1999 terms of their recommendations on each and every one of these amendments. You would note that the planning commission -- the whole three bodies did not object to any of the amendments that are before you-all with the exception of one, and that has to do with the provision of allowing certified landscape designers to prepare, sign and seal landscape plans. There was some representations made by the Village of Goodland, and I believe their recommendations are reflected in the amendment package before you. I also understand that there are some concerns about the sign amendments and representations will be made to you this evening. So, if it's your wish, we can start at the beginning or we can go to those issues. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ron, what are -- as best I can tell, there's, like you said, three real issues on the table. One has to do with the sign issue that Mr. Carter is bringing out. MR. NINO: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: One has to do with Goodland's overlay, and the other with the landscapers. MR. NINO: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are there other -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just want something clarified -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- and that's -- very quickly. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And then we'll go to -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: And it happens to be the very first item that's on the list. MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And it has to do with farming practices. MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is this addressing.the issue that I've called, I'm sure, your office many times about out in the estates? MR. NINO: No, it doesn't. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, it doesn't. MR. NINO: But what it does -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. MR. NINO: What it does is it adds more uses to the requirement for 20 acres and it requires that all exotic animals be a conditional use irrespective of the size of property they occupy. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: But may I just add that -- for the record, Bob Mulhere, Planning Director. You remember we had a complaint about feed lots, et cetera -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- et cetera, so we made certain agricultural uses on property less than 20 acres in size a conditional use and this simply expands those restrictions. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: All right. So, then it -- it does in effect MR. NINO: I thought your concern had to do with a specific -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. MR. NINO: -- hog farm that -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. Well, that's, I guess, probably what -- Page 3 May 26, 1999 what started it. MR. NINO: We haven't taken care of that problem. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. I understand, but I -- this does deal with that. MR. MULHERE: It does address that, for the record. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, we could start, I guess, with Goodland then since that's -- MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN ~LAC'KIE: Yes, Margie? MS. STUDENT: I just need to make a prefatory statement and I have reviewed the ordinance and there are some minor wording changes and maybe some reconfiguration of some portions of it for clarity's purpose and so forth. That would be in the ordinance that you finally adopt and I just need to state that for the record. CHAIRWOMAN ~AC'KIE: I appreciate that. Now, Mr. Nino, Goodland. MR. NINO: Yes. The Goodland -- Goodland amendment, there's two things that we did to the Goodland amendment. One, we amended the statement of purpose to refortify the fact that the village residential district was meant to be a low profile, relatively low density type of development that had a certain ambience that we associate traditionally with that fishing village kind of character. And to limit the height of buildings to the current regulations simply says that the height is 30 -- the maximum height is 35 feet in the VR district The amendment that is proposed would say that within that 35-foot envelop, you cannot have more than three habitable floors except in the Village of Goodland -- Goodland, where the number of habitable floors shall be two over one floor, one-story parking. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that exception -- when that was discussed with the Planning Commission, the exception was because you also had VR in Immokalee and VR in Chokoloskee. Nobody from those communities had come forward on that request -- MR. NINO: Exactly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and we were just singling out -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I was going to -- but -- but the VR, if that raises the question about Chokoloskee, the -- the amendments do apply to Chokoloskee, just not the two-story -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- limitation. MR. NINO: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN ~AC'KIE: All right. Because I want to be sure we're covering them, too, particularly with this whole fishing village look. I mean, I want to protect that stuff. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The reason the question has come up is when you read the purpose and intent, we talked about maintaining the old wording, the village residential character, in some of the new developments that would have been allowed without making these changes clearly work within that intent. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, is the question here two stories or are we talking density? Are we talking aesthetics as long as you don't exceed 35 feet? MR. NINO: We're talking aesthetics, not density. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: May I add that in our discussion with the -- again, Page 4 May 26, 1999 Bob Mulhere, Planning Services Director. In our discussions with the residents or some of the residents of Goodland, particularly the civic association, they requested that we address this issue through developing an overlay, and this was discussed at the Planning Commission as well, and in fact the Planning Commission, as you note from your packets, recommended that we do create an overlay for Goodland. Some of the residents, I'm sure, are here to speak on that issue. So, there really is two parts to this for board consideration and the reason that we went forward with the amendment prior to completing the overlay process, if the board should direct us to do that, is we thought it was appropriate of and by itself and that there is undeveloped village residential property down there that might be -- potentially be developed prior to the completion of the overlay and that's why we submitted it at this point in time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But then that just -- that will only address Goodland and not Chokoloskee in the -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- and that's something I want to keep watching. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You know, Everglades City has their own and can take care of themselves. Chokoloskee doesn't. I don't -- and I'm confused about one general comment; that is, I think there's a -- this all got started because there was a perception in the Goodland community, and I know in Chokoloskee, too, that we're going to lose the character of our village if we don't protect it. If I'm reading this right, you guys are telling us the only thing we need to change in the VR district has to do something with height and the statement and purpose? That's all it's going to take to fix this? MR. MULHERE: No. What we're saying is at this point in time that's really all we can do. But if you direct us to look at other issues of character and development in Goodland through an overlay, we will go ahead and do that but that will take more time. And we have not been directed to do that, so we have not allocated any resources, staff resources to that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is the first step and it's a protective mechanism for the short term, the overlay as the long-term fix for this. But if we waited and did nothing until there was an overlay, you could potentially have some problems crop up in the interim. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I got you. MR. NINO: We have indicated that we could accomplish that in the next amendment cycle if you so direct us, and we're only talking about, you know, December. It isn't that far off. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, what kind of -- what do we need to do to give you direction that the overlay that you are working on for Goodland should also be for Chokoloskee? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Be for Chokoloskee. MR. NINO: Just say so. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, there's two people that are saying something. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I get three. I'll just make sure we include some folks from Chokoloskee. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Consider it said. Page 5 May 26, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please consider it said. Okay. So, maybe we should go to speakers. MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It appears that there's some folks here on that particular subject. If you've registered on that subject in particular, we'll call you that way. If you haven't, we'll call your name. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We never got any registration forms. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We've got some new registration slips -- MR. McNEES: They're in the hallway on the table. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Go right out there now -- MR. McNEES: Right outside the door. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- if you don't mind, please. Sir, we have to have that for the court reporter's records. We're not trying to hassle you. It's just something we've got to do. COMMISSIONER CARTER: We want to remind everyone, Madam Chair, anyone that wants to speak tonight needs to get that form and sign in. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please. And they're out there now. So, if you'll start, Mike. MR. McNEES: And I'll call the speakers two at a time so the next one can be prepared. The first speaker would be Rich Yovanovich, who will be followed by Connie Stegal~Fullmer. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Guys, if you do want to speak on this topic, please go ahead and get those forms and get them'turned in right away. MR. McNEES: Mr. Yovanovich has another speaker. I guess they want to follow each other at the Chairwoman's -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No problem. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I represent Aqua Circle, Inc., the owner of the Dolphin Cove property, as well as Goodland, LLC, which owns another piece of property on Goodland. The Dolphin Cove project, I would guess, is the catalyst for today's discussion. It is an already approved 76-unit condominium project. The STP has been pulled and two of the five residential buildings are already permitted, so I believe that people in Goodland, as well as county staff, acknowledge that we're not here to discuss Dolphin Cove and that project will go forward. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, we're stuck with that one. Can't do anything about it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Basically that's the one that you're stuck with. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's the bad news. MR. YOVANOVICH: I wanted to point out that the issue on Goodland is not as big an issue as, I believe, people are making it out to be. There are only three vacant parcels that are currently zoned VR on Goodland and I'll point them out to you. It's this piece, which is immediately as you come in off the main road. There's a long narrow piece about two acres that's owned by Goodland, LLC. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that the one that it's too late to do anything about? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. That's right here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: This piece right here is too late to do anything about. Page 6 May 26, 1999 There's another piece. It's a little over an acre immediately adjacent to Dolphin Cove, which I do not represent, and another piece that may be an acre over here on another portion of the island. So, we're only talking about three vacant pieces on Goodland Island that these regulations will apply to. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I ask you, Rich -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't know. How much of the island is VR though for redevelopment purposes? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, quite a bit of the island is zoned VR -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- but it's already developed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And it would -- it would take someone going out and acquiring large parcels -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It could happen. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to go ahead and do that. It could happen. That is absolutely correct, but at this point -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's been known to happen in Collier. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if that does happen on the island, I imagine the people who are selling those lots would like to -- to take the profit from selling the piece and have it developed for something else. Basically, we are here. We were not provided an opportunity to sit down and discuss the civic association's proposal with the civic association. I have contacted them and have asked for a meeting. We couldn't get together this week, but we will be getting together next week to discuss what I'm going to tell you about today and what Wayne Arnold is going to tell you about today. And I've already told them what I was going to say so they would be prepared for my comments. The survey that was sent out to the residents of Goodland was mailed to us, so I know they knew how to get ahold of us and they did send us the survey. The survey included all of the highlighted areas on Goodland Island that had already been developed, so I believe the survey gave the impression to those people who signed the survey that maybe there was more land out there that could be developed as VR, which I think may affect the results of what the survey says. I want it to be noted that county staff originally proposed three residential over one, which makes sense, because within 35 feet you can build the more modern type of condominium units with your ten-foot ceilings and -- and the more aesthetically pleasing condominiums, which I believe the people of Goodland said was the goal of their amendment is to make sure that there were sufficiently sized units, that density would be reduced and that their traffic concerns would all be addressed by this proposed revision to the -- to the code. They're not asking for a change to the overall height. So, you're still going to be looking at a 35-foot building. What's basically going to happen, and Wayne will show you this through graphics, is instead of having building footprints, which are smaller and still 35 feet in height, you're going to have a building footprint, which is longer, and still 35 feet in height. The height is not going to change. The number of units will not change. The only thing that will change is that the site will have less open space and will have less views of the water. You will still Page 7 May 26, 1999 get the same number of units on the site. You will still get the same size of units. What we're showing you is based on basically 1500 square foot units. So, the regulation that is being proposed by the Goodland people of two over one does not address the concerns they're discussing, which is a reduction of density, a reduction of traffic, and assurance that there's going to be a certain size unit. We heard one of the concerns was that the units would be so small that they would become basically investment type properties and more transient people would live on the island. I don't believe the regulation of the proposing will get them to their ultimate goal. We're in favor of sitting down, discussing this at a meeting with an overlay committee, coming up with reasonable regulations that would address maybe the architecture, the fishing village theme, an opportunity to show them that you could still have a fishing village with three residential floors over one parking and maybe a better look than they could get with two residential units over one parking. So, our goal would be to have no change in the regulation today, but if you need an interim protection, we would recommend three residential units over one level of parking. And Wayne will go into the details of how that works. If you have any questions, then -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Questions anybody? Thank you, Rich. MR. McNEES: Oh, I guess we'll have Wayne Arnold and then will be Connie Stegall-Fullmer. MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, Wilson-Miller. I'm also representing Goodland, LLC. I have a couple of graphics that I would like to present to you to try to demonstrate what it is that Rich tried to express orally to you, which is that by going to a restriction on two living floors over one-story parking, you really do increase the building mass within the same 35 feet as opposed to reducing the building footprint. The first view that I'll take you to is over here on the bulletin board, the elevation drawings. The top view shows you a three-story unit over parking. The bottom picture is demonstrating a two-story unit over parking. I think the most dramatic image here is that you can do a three story over parking building that looks nice that can be in a character that's in a theme type concept. You'll notice that these are true to scale, which means that the separation between buildings is almost five fold larger with the separation on three-story units over one-story parking as opposed to the two-story units. This is something you end up with smaller footprints of buildings within the same 35 feet of height, the same number of units, the same size of unit, but you actually increase open spaces by somewhere between 13 and 15 percent. You've increased the separation between buildings, which is the minimum standard today, 35 feet to approximately 200 feet on the three story. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I mean, you could also make the one underneath, you know, at the bottom, the two floors pretty -- MR. ARNOLD: You could, and what I was trying to iljustrate is -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- but -- MR. ARNOLD: -- there's no guarantee that a two-story unit is Page 8 May 26, 1999 going to be any more attractive or any more in the character of what is desired in Goodland. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You could make that two-story one much uglier. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. And -- but even -- it could make it much uglier. But if it were -- even if it were prettier, the open space issue is still the same and that -- that's pretty significant. MR. ARNOLD: It's pretty dramatic. The other smaller exhibit that I've presented up here shows you the actual footprints and a planned view of these two diagrams. And what it shows you is, for instance, in the two-story configuration, you occupy -- still meeting all minimum codes, you occupy now 40 percent -- exactly 40 percent of the site for building coverage and parking. When you go to the -- the second plan, you still end up -- you can see this separation between the -- the typical buildings and what you end up with is approximately 27 percent building coverage on the site. It's a pretty dramatic increase. And when you look at the waterfront property you have on Goodland, for instance, you're preserving not only open space but you're also increasing view corridors. You're also keeping more open space and you end up with design flexibility really, which allows you to arrange buildings in a manner that might be more compatible and consistent with your neighboring properties. That's pretty significant. Architecture aside, I mean, that's one issue. What we're trying to really demonstrate is the changing of the standard to two building floors over one-story parking. It really ends up creating a larger building mass than it does by going to the three-story configuration. You still have the same units, same unit size. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry. MR. ARNOLD: And I think that's important. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. The question I have, when you have it laid out there, Wayne, that looks great, that -- I'm not looking at the pictures now, but the layout itself. But how can we guarantee that you would have that much space like you have shown there? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I don't think that -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: How would you do that? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think the -- the contemplated change tonight, whether it's two stories over one or three stories over one COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. MR. ARNOLD: -- necessarily guarantees that, but what it does offer you is the ability to do that. With the two over one, not many people are going to walk away from their entitled density or, you know, that forces them to utilize as much of the site as possible just to physically put their building in there that they need to get their investment back, expectation out of the land, and I think that, you know, any time we can encourage people -- still, again, we're talking the same 35 feet. That 35 feet isn't changing. You're just making somebody build higher floors within their units to achieve those 35 feet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But why wouldn't the person under the second scenario build more than that? I mean, you know, have a larger footprint -- Page 9 May 26, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They don't have the units. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, but he could have bigger units then. I mean, from a market perspective -- MR. ARNOLD: You could, and what I was trying to do was play the apples to apples game of if I could get the same number of units on the same site, that is the actual footprint change that occurs by doing that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But the flip side is that my -- if what I'm looking for is some protection, if -- if we do what you're suggesting, then somebody who wants to maximize their site could have the same footprint as you show on the two-story exhibit but have three-story density. MR. ARNOLD: Well, if you -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that right? MR. ARNOLD: Each one of the -- no, not necessarily, because each one of those sites, if you split it down the middle, is a stand alone, one acre site. And each one of those sites has to have 60 percent open space by the county's code. You would not be able to achieve -- you would not be able to achieve any greater standard than that under that scenario. You could still obviously build larger buildings and occupy more of a site to that 60 percent -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: John? MR. ARNOLD: -- but obviously you have the flexibility. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think what Wayne has pointed out is that if you go to the two stories over parking, you're guaranteed that you're going to use up this much -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: -- floor space or area. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ground. MR. ARNOLD: Footprint area, I should say, and if you go with three over parking within 35 feet, same number of units, the -- the most likely thing is that you're going to use less open space and have more open space retained. I think that's the point you're trying to make. MR. ARNOLD: That is the point I'm trying to make. It was used on Marco Island recently and a very controversial project, but the fact that they traded -- in that case, they increased heights. This one we're not talking about increasing the actual height of the building. The 35 feet is the same. It's really the number of stories that you're building within that. And I think the point of the architectural exhibit was really to show you that you can design a decent looking three-story building within this 35 feet. You don't have to just do a two-story type of unit to get a decent looking building, because two stories doesn't have to be attractive. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This is sort of, I guess, the same thing, too, John, as the Naples Cay discussion, you know, the City of Naples just dealt with where they decided one tall skinny one is better than a lot of short, fat buildings. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In this case though the height's the same. You're just talking about a smaller footprint of a building. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. ARNOLD: I just reinforce, as Mr. Yovanovich indicated, I think it's probably -- we would advocate, certainly not changing the Page 10 May 26, 1999 standard. It works fine the way it is. But if you're going to look at an overlay district, we think that three over one certainly gives people enough design flexibility to continue doing whatever they might do. And, again, as Rich pointed out, there's probably four acres of undeveloped property that's VR zoned on Goodland today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wayne, I've got to tell you I'm with you all the way until you just said what you said, which frightens me, and that is that the standard, the way it is, works fine the way it is. And for my money, I don't like it. So -- so, now I think I've got to change something. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think in the case of this, you know, today, you can, as was already done, get four-story units in 35 feet. It doesn't -- it's not necessarily a great architectural look, but it's functional. It meets building code and it can be done. You can put four living floors within that 35 feet. And it's been done. We have active building permits that indicate that. So, the lessening to a three to one standard, I think, is certainly something that is acceptable throughout the county. It's a typical kind of building that you see three stories and you can easily do it within the 35 feet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. My next speaker? MR. ARNOLD: Thanks. MR. McNEES: The next speaker would be Connie Stegall-Fullmer followed by Edward Fullmet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If we could ask the following speaker to go ahead and come, standby, then we kind of save a little time. MR. MULHERE: She's got some visuals. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Great. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are these the same ones that are in the book, Connie? MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: No. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No? MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: No. My name is Connie Stegall-Fullmer, S-t-e-g-a-l-1 hyphen F-u-l-l-m-e-r. Again, we're -- I'm here representing the Goodland Civic Association. Our reason for requesting this amendment is to reduce the density though we don't address the number of units specifically, addressing the number of floors does address the density, the density of the village for the future in order to reduce the impact on our roadways, utilities, cost of services for fire and police protection, impact on our ecological environment, and most importantly, the impact to the way of our life that exists now in the village. I'd like to show you what the typical VR, what our VR zoning, what units in that zoning look like today in Goodland. These are -- these are representations of homes today in VRo You can just put that up. Most of them are -- uses currently found in the areas are low rise, primarily single family, made up of mobile home single family units. The look of the controversial -- well, I'm getting a little ahead of myself here. These are representations again of what is currently in VR. The controversial Dolphin Cove look is this transparency. 76 units, this is what that Palm Point would look like if Dolphin Cove in fact does Page 11 May 26, 1999 go in as it's received a permit to do so. It's our opinion that Dolphin Cove in no way fits into the purpose or intent or the creation of a category of zoning called Village Residential. Again, the purpose and intent is to maintain the village residential character of the VR district. Our request for this amendment is to be certain we do not face any more Dolphin Coves. The Dolphin Cove project has many problems of its own as it is planned for a piece of ground that's primarily fill. The task of putting a four or five-story building made of concrete on that kind of ground has become an engineering task and one that will likely be too expensive. We're on record that we're still opposed to that development. As all of Collier County is being reviewed about growth, we're not unlike the other areas. We do not want to be consumed by large development. Your decision on this amendment will decide the future look of the village. It is the responsibility, of course, that you will give much consideration to. I have a couple more. This is the same map that -- that Wayne was showing you, I believe, of the layout of Goodland. Those areas that are highlighted are the VR districts in Goodland. The area that is right here with the X, here and here -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: -- are the areas that are currently owned by the Fisk family and are proposed developments for condominiums. Those are the areas that we have -- or me, that I have a concern for. However, this map also shows that the impact -- the amendment will impact what is done with redevelopment of VR properties that currently have mobile homes, trailers and low rise buildings. As you see on this map, the outlined areas are significant. And also as Wayne indicated, they're focusing primarily on the undeveloped areas of Goodland that are VR. We have a very big concern for these areas because they're primarily mobile homes and if we see two or three-story developments going up on those two streets, the impact is going to be tremendous to our little village. Let me see. To make this quick, I was looking at the layout that Wayne made from Wilson-Miller, his representations of the -- what you would get if you have three stories versus what you would get if you have two stories. Of course, he's -- I hope Wilson-Miller will be more creative than what they're showing there if they need to come up with a two story over one level of parking. Our concern and I think their -- the developer's concern is whether or not they will be able to make their profit margin. We have done some figures. I have them here. Perhaps in the interest of time, do you want me to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'd love to hear that because it was one of the points I jotted down when Wayne had said investment expectations. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A very important question. MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's okay. MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: I'll read it. Do I have time? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Go right ahead. MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: The projected development cost, what we've Page 12 May 26, 1999 looked at here are statistics on the property. It's a five plus acre piece of ground. It's -- approximately two acres is VR. Three acres is residential single family plus three lots of commercial C4 property. They bought all of that ground for 1.1 million. They closed that transaction on April the 9th, 1999. Their concern here now is that even though they knew that we had these issues before the Planning Commission regarding the two over one level parking, they went ahead with the closure on that piece of ground with the anticipation of being able to do development there. We -- we show that with the land purchase cost of a million one and projected sewer and road costs of 200,000, architectural engineering costs of 100,000, they probably -- we can look at a fairly factual figure of a million one for hard land cost. Two acres of VR, two floors, would be 16 units. We're talking four floors for four buildings on two acres. I think we can still have some open land in that -- with that kind of scenario. Three acres of RSL4 or 16 units -- excuse me -- 12 units -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: -- to that, so we've got a total of 28 units. I've used 1800 square foot. Wayne was using 1400 or 1500. So, we're even allowing for more square footage in our calculations than he was. If we look at that average square foot per unit, 1800 times 28 units, we've got 50,400 square feet, construction costs per square feet. And I got these statistics from condo developers on Marco, anywhere from 50 to $75 per square foot. So, I've used a middle frame. $65 a square foot at 50,400 square feet. We've got costs of $3,276,000 or a total cost, projected cost, for the development of $4,676,000. The VR properties at 16 units at an average sale price of 230,000 and the purpose here by reducing number of units is by creating better quality development, upper price point to be a better product, 16 units at 230,000 is $3,680,000. Residential property is at 12 at an average of 275,000 for three -- a total income of 3,300,000. So, your total sales price, 6,980,000, realty commission, 419,000 at six percent for a total income of 6,561,000. Still we have sale proceeds, 6,561,000, cost, 4,676,000, showing us a profit of 29 percent return. Again, that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not bad. MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: Again, that -- those numbers, and I -- I checked in a number of places for industry standards on what a condo developer would look for for their profit margin. 20 percent is a number that's thrown out. It depends on the -- the price points, of course. So, 29 percent return and, again, if we reduce the number of square feet per unit, I -- Wilson-Miller is saying 1500, I'm saying 1800. There again you're going to reduce your costs. You'll probably have to bring your retail costs out, too, or your retail price. Again, even with this scenario, we've not addressed the C4 property. They have three units of C4. If they do a nice development there with a restaurant, a tiki hut, whatever, to make -- lease that property, they can maximize their return there. Let's see what else I have. Some people may think that those Page 13 May 26, 1999 price points are kind of high for Goodland. MLS taken today and also results taken from property appraisers' listings as of 5/19/99 showed that we have homes listed currently 275,000, 259,900, 109,000. We have home sales. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think -- I think the point -- MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: You have the general idea? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. Pretty well may. MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: Okay. Again, we're -- we are looking at protecting the Village of Goodland. We're looking at the future of Goodland and we look to you for your guidance. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We appreciate that. MR. McNEES: Edward Fullmer will be followed by Ray Bozicnik. MR. FULLMER: Edward J. Fullmer, vice-president of the Goodland Civic Association. I'm glad to see Rich and Wayne here today with a drawing of a -- I guess this is a brown roof instead of a red roof motel for a change. We had a Days Inn when we first started. Eighteen months ago when they started this project down there, we asked to meet with these people. It took them 18 months and this meeting to get to them. We're willing to sit down. We do not want Goodland changed to Marco Island, Naples or any high rises down there. And anything over 35 foot is a high rise in our estimation. We represent the Goodland Civic Association. We've been taking polls of the Goodland residents. The first one we had back in June of 1998, I've submitted to the Planning Board with 206 signatures against Dolphin Cove. There's 231 voters in Goodland. There's 312 property owners and there's 437 properties. In our association we have a membership of 165. It grew quite '- by ten people last week, because all of a sudden the business owners in Goodland decided to come and sit at our meetings when they heard that we're in here for a zoning change. Also, we have members -- people come to our meetings and speak that are not residents or owners on Goodland, but we entertain anybody that comes and wants to sit down and talk to us. We're ready to meet with Rich and Wayne, or whoever they bring, at 8:30 Tuesday morning at our fire hall. We would appreciate it if you pass this to two over one at this time and then during the overlay, we can address all the rest of the concerns. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. MR. McNEES: Your next speaker is Ray Bozicnik, if I'm pronouncing that correctly, and would be followed by Elhanon Combs. MR. BOZICNIK: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Who is the speaker following him? MR. McNEES: Elhanon Combs. MR. BOZICNIK: I have a couple of concerns -- THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, would you identify yourself, please, for the record? MR. BOZICNIK: My name is Ray Bozicnik, B-o-z-i-c-n-i-k. I have a commercial property in Goodland and I'm a little concerned that when we have certain zonings that should offer a little continuity to our area, and when we change zoning that had been in effect for years, that that might change people's plans, that they Page 14 May 26, 1999 have been dealing with for quite awhile. And though I'm not concerned about what you would do so much with your VR overlay today, I am concerned of what you -- precedence you would set as changing commercial zoning that I have had plans with for a long time. And if somebody would like to come and not approve of what I would plan or what sales proceeds I could generate by selling the commercial property that I have, how would I -- how do I know -- how can I plan without any continuity in zoning? And that is all I'm looking for is a continuity, because I'm -- I have my retirement figured into the property that I've owned for 20 years and I'm very concerned. I don't want to work anymore. I'm tired. I'm ready to go. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. MR. McNEES: Mr. Combs will be followed by Tara O'Neill. MR. COMBS: My name is Elhanon Combs. I live in Naples but I own property in Goodland. I think that the county should follow their comprehensive plan and leave Goodland alone. Let Goodland take care of itself and it will take care of itself. If we start doing this, it's about like another comprehensive plan just for Goodland. All at once everybody gets scared and they're going to leave Goodland. They'll leave their business and lose their business. They'll get together and sell something that really builds something. So, I think we ought to leave Goodland alone. MR. McNEES: Tara O'Neill will be followed by Kare Kirk DeMartino. MS. O'NEILL: This is when you get off the cuff. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you would, identify yourself for the record. MS. O'NEILL: Tara O'Neill, N-e-i-l-1. Not everyone in Goodland is -- is backing the civic association's intentions here and some of us are not just business owners as Ray is. I'm a property owner. I don't own a business. As much as I would like to not be surrounded by those threatening buildings, nice threat, I still have to say a voice for believing in people with property rights. I find it one thing to have my own selfish agenda, my own personal agenda, as opposed to what I actually believe in my heart is right. I believe there's a woman back there, a family back there that's been in Goodland for generations. And if they had fought hard enough to keep it the way they had it, my family would not have moved there 35 years ago. I do find it kind of ironic that a lot of the people who are for this change had lived in Goodland for a relatively short period of time. I think it's interesting that the people with their eye on progress and a life looking ahead, you know, earning livings there are the people who have actually been there the longest. We don't really see ourselves as quaint and colorful. We see ourselves as living in the 20th century, planning on earning a living. My property, interesting enough, is not in the village residential area, but as Ray said, there's dangerous precedence to be set. I don't have one of the $250,000 houses in Goodland. I bought mine less than a year ago for 40 grand. It was the last dump in down. And some day I'm going to put a second story on that and some day I'm Page 15 May 26, 1999 going to put a rooftop veranda on top of that. But it fears me. It gives me fear to think that people can own property for that long and have such foresight into turning this into a viable economic community only to have it taken from them and from those of us who earn our living off of those businesses. My -- sorry. I just -- that probably summarizes it. I've never done this before. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You're doing a great job. MS. O'NEILL: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. McNEES: Next would be Kare Kirk DeMartino, who will be followed by Ken Moss. MS. DeMartino: Hello. My name is Kate Kirk DeMartino and I'm one of the original families of Goodland. My daughter is a fifth generation Marco Islander, who's been -- we've been there exclusively since we started since our family came to the island in the 1890's. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wow. MS. DeMartino: I have several things that I would like to just -- just go over very quickly. I'm not an authority on density and acreage but just with my guestimates. The density issue was that with 75 units in the condominium, that comes out to approximately 13 units per acre, give or take a little bit. I'm sure someone can make it more a comprehensive an idea, that's well under what we have in the trailer parks. The trailer parks, the ones that are in our association have 23 units per acre. The individual sites have -- let's see, approximately -- I'm sorry -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's okay. MS. DeMartino: -- 20 to an acre. So, the density problem in Goodland is a mute point. The condominiums would help us. It would help the economy. It would help us go into the twenty-first century. A stagnant community is a very unviable community. We have to be part of the future, otherwise it just -- you -- you get all kinds of problems. Let's see. The second thing is someone mentioned the aesthetics of Goodland. The aesthetics of Goodland is a ludicrous phrase. There are no aesthetics in Goodland. It is a hodgepodge. We have trailers, we have substandard housing, we have lovely homes and we have trailer parks, and they're all interspersed within each other. How anybody could possibly be against a condominium of this -- the scope of what this is with the attractiveness? And I'd like to point something out to -- I don't know if you commissioners have ever been to Goodland. This does not interfere with a single person that lives in Goodland's view of the water. It's on a peninsula way down at the end. And it has nothing. It's almost like a separate part. You have to go down a separate little road just to get to this condo area. So, you're not taking up anybody's space. You're not taking up anybody's view. So, let's be honest about aesthetics. The aesthetics are that you get rid of trailers like they're doing all over the United States of America when they're interspersed with family units. You put them in a designated area. They're usually on the outskirts of town. This is what I'm -- the point I'm -- that's why the word, the ambience and the aesthetics, Goodland is really a misnomer. The final thing is we already have a set of condos in Goodland and they were fought vehemently about, oh, I don't remember, ten or 12 Page 16 May 26, 1999 years ago, and the county prevailed with a sounder reason and they allowed it to happen. They have not impacted Goodland in a negative way in any way, shape or form. They have brought good people to our community. They have brought people that spend money in the community and I, for one, think that they're an important part of our community. And then we have Dolphin Cove, which already has an approval. Now, someone was thinking clearly there. They're thinking places have to grow. They must. Nothing can stay the same. And if the -- the thing is that it's just a matter of if there are going to be 35 feet in height, what is the problem? I don't understand. Why would Goodland Civic Association, who does not speak for everybody in Goodland, let me assure you. I joined the civic association simply because I would be able to speak at their meetings, but I am adamantly opposed to what they're proposing here. If we have 35-foot structure heights, a cap '- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MS. DeMartino: -- I would prefer to see them made a little bit -- three over -- over parking as opposed to two -- as opposed to four over parking because it's going to give you more room to see the -- to get to the earth -- I mean, to the water. And one final thing. There ~- the lady, Connie, pointed out that there are only three other sites that would be excluded if you change your zoning, if you do a zoning change for the village residential. And that's the draw bridge mentality. These new people, they're good people. There's nothing wrong. And they want to be a part of the community, but they come in and they're steamrolling over people that have been there and especially people that have a great deal -- my family has been there a long time. We have a great deal at stake here. We have C4 and C5 property. We have village use property, village residential property, and we have the Goodland Heights, which was the original property. So, we're impacted on every area. But if you suddenly take -- if you take this draw bridge mentality, and you say, well, the newcomers here, we've been here two years, so let's change everything because now that we're here, we're just going to close up the draw bridge and the new people or the people that own things here can't suddenly disturb what we have created. Well, in two years or five years or ten years, you don't create Goodland. Goodland has been created over a long process of time. And I said this at the Goodland Civic Association meeting. In 1960 when Ted Cursey came here, the Village of Goodland did not turn Ted Cursey away when he proposed all these trailer sites. We knew that they were not in the best interest, but we also knew that they would bring good people to a community that would impact the area in a positive way. They would have children that would go to school. They would be a part of the community. They would spend money here. They would bring tax dollars in. So, nobody in Goodland, nobody, fought against Ted Cursey coming in and making his development. But now, in retrospect, maybe we should have, because now the people that they've gotten with their 206 signatures, I would say that 90 percent of them are trailer people who have, of course, a big stake in this because, as I said, all over the Page 17 May 26, 1999 United States you're finding that trailer parks or trailer -- individual trailer lots are being phased out because they're a visual as well as an economic blight to a community. So, if we had suddenly said to Ted Cursey, no, you can't come in, these people would not be here now because they wouldn't -- the Goodland association would not be as strong as they are. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. McNEES: Mr. Moss followed by Katherine Kirk. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's some articulate thinking folks out there, some important points of view. MR. MOSS: Good evening. My name is Kenneth Moss. I live on 1220 North Collier Boulevard, Marco Island. I've worked and lived in Goodland since 1965. I married into the Kirk family. Okay. So, I'm one of those Kirks. And for the record, I'd like to start out -- I keep hearing the -- the term village, the quaint little fishing village. All right. Goodland was a hard working commercial fishing village. No quaintness about it. What happened was when a few of our newcomers came in and voted out the fishing, they eliminated our commercial fishermen. Then it became a quaint little nonfishing village. All right. So, to use that term to -- for leverage for zoning and for getting a weak spot when somebody who came down from up north and using that like, oh, isn't this a wonderful little place. That's not the real deal. And it offends me to a certain degree, but that passed. I let it go past. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're saying it's not a wonderful little place? MR. MOSS: That's a wonderful little place, but it's not the same wonderful little place it was before. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the lady said before, we don't consider ourselves quaint and colorful. MR. MOSS: Yeah. Well, that's right. Because it wasn't quaint. It was a hard working commercial fishing people. Okay. Quaint and colorful is what people want to call it when they moved down here and they've already left their other places where the rivers catch on fire and now this is a quaint and wonderful little place. All right. This whole -- the whole -- we're building right now is I call it a massive stereo situation because of Dolphin Cove, which a lot of people decided they didn't care for. So, they had people argue back and forth, but as I -- as I try to tell them, it's a done deal. Okay. I don't necessarily agree with four floors like they did on top of -- on top of parking, but it's done. Now, on -- they -- the people concerned and the few -- and all the good people of the Goodland Civic Association decided on their own we're really not in this little, you know, little group of building associates because they haven't, as they say, I quote, in the matter of time we couldn't really contact people, we had to make our decision, present theirself to the planning board with their plans of what they wanted to change without the representation of most people at Goodland. At first they -- they always specified -- they always specified that they were -- they were representing Goodland. They don't. They represent the Goodland Civic Association, okay, which is not the Page 18 May 26, 1999 majority of Goodland, and they don't even represent the majority of all of their own organization. They have good intentions. But because of the stereo with Dolphin Cove, the county proposed a three over one rezoning, which was a sensible way to eliminate four over one, they decided on their own, okay, that they would rather have a two over one. On their own again, the little group, they went and met with the Planning Boards and proposed their little proposal that they wanted this change to occur and that was what the people of Goodland wanted. Not necessarily. It might be what the people of Goodland wanted but we have to look into a crystal ball because they -- they weren't -- they were never -- the people of Goodland were never really asked. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to correct one item. It was actually the Goodland Civic Association that brought the item forward in the first place. Staff didn't just randomly make the change to suggest a change to three over parking. That was actually the civic association when they brought it to their attention, staff then made that suggestion and then Goodland Civic Association said, well, we'd like to see two. But just so you know, it wasn't staff that initiated the -- MR. MOSS: That's correct. And I agree with staff on the three. Okay. I just disagree with this Goodland Civic Association over -- they're over two for one reason. Right now, there's very, very few people in Goodland. I guess they couldn't get enough people to ask, so they took it on their own to decide what's what was best for Goodland. And that offends me, because I think that everybody in Goodland should have the chance to discuss the ~- discuss the validity of whatever they're discussing, whatever change they want to go to without having a ten-person committee decide that they became the king in his court and going to run the show. That's -- that upsets me. So -- and then they talk about Goodland voters. I live on Marco. I don't vote in Goodland. So, they'll say, well, you don't vote in Goodland. Well, no, I don't. But we -- the family owns property in Goodland. So, does that mean that we don't count? What's the deal, you know? So, a lot of the property owners, and I know with commercial everybody I know in the whole commercial were never notified of any Goodland ~- any zoning changes until we went to the meeting and brought it up. And then we got a little attention. I'm just -- I'm really against the two over one. I'm really -- I really prefer the three over one that the county first suggested and I -- in the future, if two over one would be acceptable, I could even go along with that if I felt that all the people in Goodland really agreed with what they're saying. And right now they can't get an agreement over what they're -- you know, they don't have enough people to say -- to represent Goodland. They just do not represent Goodland at the moment. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. MR. McNEES: Your final speaker on this item is Katherine Kirk. MS. KIRK: Good evening. For the record, my name is Katherine Kirk. I live at Goodland. I've lived there -- I was born on Marco Island 82 years ago. I live -- I've lived at Goodland for 50 of those years. I'm not against what the civic association is saying. I am a Page 19 May 26, 1999 member. I am a member of the board of the civic association. I'm a member and I attend the meetings, I attend the board meetings and I attend their meetings. So, I'm not -- but I don't approve of the civic association coming in and telling the people of Goodland what we can do with our village. I -- I trust my Board of County Commissioners. They've done a good job. I think that we -- for this point, I think it should be left exactly as it is, and if you'll come down and have a town meeting with us and let us talk to you, all of us, not just the civic association, but the -- but the Village of Goodland who have lived there and who have made their living there and who have -- who have put their money into it and their life and their -- and their energies into it. I think that you should hear from those people. So, I would -- I would ask you to table this until -- until the next meeting comes up. It's in about six months? Is that correct until you -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Actually -- MS. KIRK: After you close it now, it's about six. I think it should be -- it should be tabled until you hear from all of the people of Goodland, until you know what the people of Goodland want. I thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, ma'am. If there's somebody else who was -- who wanted to speak on this topic and hadn't had their name called, would you come up and fill out a slip? If you've already spoken, I can't allow you to speak again. Did everybody who was intending to speak get their opportunity? They don't want you to drive that far and not get your turn. Is there discussion among the board? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Just some comment. I guess I -- there's some irony to me for the folks who have said they're long timers there and they don't want to change and yet by not changing the code, they are virtually ensuring a change in the community. So, either you want the community to stay the way it is, which the code currently does not encourage, or you want it to change and you want to see more commercial development or taller buildings or something. And you can define it as quaint. You can define it as whatever way you want, but there is a distinctively different feel when you go to Goodland. You drive through the little wooded street and you come into Goodland. It is a very, very different feel than when you are in urban Collier County. And I think -- I met with the Goodland Civic Association. It wasn't ten people who decided. There was about 70 people at the meeting I was at, including some of the folks who have some questions tonight about it as well. But it isn't as though this question or this issue has come out of a vacuum. This has been discussed publicly there, publicly in our Planning Commission hearings and now will be here. But the one gentleman was saying he'd like continuity. He'd like to be assured of some continuity in this community. And I think the way we do that, the way we ensure continuity and the way we meet with the purpose and intent, as it is already defined in our Land Development Code of maintaining the village residential character, is by putting limitations on the -- on the property. Page 20 May 26, 1999 I don't think, if you encourage four stories or anything of that size there, that you are assuring continuity or prohibiting change and you're certainly not maintaining the village residential character. So, I don't know which adjective you use, if it's quaint or not, you know, aesthetically pleasing, it is different. And what we're trying to do is protect that and maintain it as different and as unique. And there are only a couple of areas. You mentioned Chokoloskee. There are only a couple of areas in Collier County that have that feel to them, and they are rapidly disappearing. And we have the opportunity to do this, and there has been a pile of people that are concerned about it, and I think Dolphin Cove was a wake-up call for a lot of the folks down there. So, I'd like to see us go ahead and make that limitation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Which one? COMMISSIONER CARTER: To -- to height? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Which one? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To -- well, the height will be 35, but the two stories over, and we're not going to vote for two weeks anyway. I'm just sharing my opinion right now. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Well, frankly, I'm persuaded by the argument that you see up there on the board. If the height is the same, why not go for a building with a smaller footprint? I can't see that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think I have an answer to that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Because on the surface, that looks very reasonable, but what we're looking at is the long-term picture here and we're talking about having an overlay there and having some specific restrictions and specific requirements for future development there. And by allowing the third story, you already limit yourself on what some of that overlay can be. If you go with the two stories over parking, it sets up what I know what the civic association anyway has talked about is where they envision that overlay going for the entire island. So, I think there's a legitimate argument there when you look at the bigger picture. This by itself, if you just look at those drawings, I agree completely that makes sense, but I think when you plug that into the bigger picture going hand in hand with what they're proposing for the overlay, which we're not going to be able to see for six months in its completed form, but I think it does make sense. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we still have to deal with what's going to happen in the interim before the overlay, if there is an overlay ever come about, and it seems to me that to encourage smaller footprints of a building does make sense. And if -- if the overlay process determines that we want to do something even more limiting, fine, you can still do it at that point. But the problem is not the height of the building. The problem is density. I mean, you've got 14.52 units for gross acre. That's the problem, not the height. But why in the world would you want to have the same number of units, the same density, the same building height with a bigger footprint than you would with a smaller footprint? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm inclined, Commissioner Norris, to follow your line of thinking, is that I think it's going to get down to design standards, the community standards ultimately here. And the Page 21 May 26, 1999 more green space you can have and the more that you could create in this process, I'm wondering if you really want to ask for two over parking and be limited and end up with something you really don't want downstream. And that bothers me in this conversation that I've heard from the audience tonight. So, I hope we can find some way to develop community standards here, which would have the flexibility of no higher than 35 feet, but to do two or three, whatever fits into a master plan. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A quick question if we can just poll the board. The current LDC allows four or it really doesn't have a limit in your 35 feet. I assume there's no objection to limiting it to less than that, so you don't end up with -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No objection. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't have any problem with that, but I like the smaller footprint. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I like the smaller footprint, and the other thing, too, is, you know, we've got to be careful over here, and I know you guys are already thinking this, but I just want to acknowledge that, you know, we're not smarter than them. You know, how dare we come in and tell them what to do with their land that they've owned for, you know, 50 years or whatever number of generations within some limits. We -- we have to respect their reasonable expectation about what -- what would they -- you know, they've been holding on to this land for a long time. If given three floors and the same amount of height gives a little more marketability, a little more, you know, positive return for folks who have owned property for a long time, that's -- that's a factor to me, too. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is certainly an improvement over the current ordinance, but I would suggest that, you know, like anybody bought in Goodland 50 years, envisioning that they were going to sell three or four-story condos, I mean that certainly wasn't the intent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whether you look at where Collier County was in 1950, I don't think that was a reasonable expectation. So, I think we need to be a little careful there. But also when you say, you know, who are we to go tell them, this wasn't a move initiated by staff. This wasn't a move initiated by this board. We're just being asked. We've heard both sides of the argument. We're being asked to weigh that. And that's our job. So, when you say, who are we, well, we're five elected people who are hired specifically to do this job. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But to factor in both sides. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's what I'm asking that we need to do. So, it sounds like there's not a real clear direction for the board at this point, or is there? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it sounds pretty clear that we want to change it from its current -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're going down. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll go down and we'll know in two weeks whether that will be three stories or if there's an argument beyond what we've heard today to go any less than that. Page 22 May 26, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I'd like -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I like 35 feet and smaller footprint. Now, whatever it takes to get to that point, that's what you need to do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And what I'd like to do is hear in the meantime from the civic association about what their fear is about the -- if it's -- if it's three floors in the same height, I need to be educated about what the fear is there. And I hope I could hear from people about what else -- you know, this design is one potential outcome from that change, but there are other designs, and I want to see sort of what's the worst case scenario, too, if we went to three over parking within 35 feet. They've shown us the best case scenario. I'd like to see what's the worst thing. And if it's Dolphin Cove, you know, I'm sorry, but I don't want to go there. COMMISSIONER BERRY: They have -- don't they have four? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They have four. COMMISSIONER BERRY: They have four. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But I mean, if it's a project that looks like that -- well, Commissioner Carter, you waited on this, so I guess we're just going to keep this one open and we'll see what happens in two weeks. MR. NINO: June 16th you'll be meeting again. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does everybody know that June 16 is when the actual decision gets made? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three weeks. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, so it's more than two weeks. It's three weeks then. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good point. Okay. If you'll take us to the next one then, Mr. Nino? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to love you guys that week. We've got an LDC meeting and we've got three budget hearings. MR. NINO: I think there's a -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's going to be nice. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Should we bring our sleeping bags? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think so. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. ***MR. NINO: There's a large representation here on the certified landscape designer issue. You might want to start public debate. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That would be fine. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Page, please? Page? Do you have that? MR. NINO: Two four -- two four three one. COMMISSIONER CARTER: He's talking to himself. He'll be all right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just don't answer. MR. NINO: It's Page 68. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. MR. NINO: This amendment simply adds the words that the staff of a -- for a Florida certified landscape designer is considered co-equal for all practical purposes for the preparation of landscaped plans as a registered landscape architect. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I'd -~ I've just got to come right out and tell you I don't understand that. And as a lawyer, it sounds to me like saying that parallels have the same status as lawyers. But Page 23 May 26, 1999 accountants and CPA's, there's no distinction. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a good analogy. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To the accountants and CPA though, if I run a business, I can choose to go to a CPA and be pretty clear or for certain things I can choose just to go to an accountant. I recognize that they're not certified, but I can let them do my books. I can let them do a number of things. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But they can't give you an opinion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And lawyers have just been better protecting our turf because you can't -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Lawyers will always give you an opinion, right? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Damn right, and charge you for it, too, big bucks. But it just -- nevertheless the distinction exists for a reason. What's the -- I guess that's enough of an introduction. Maybe we'll just go straight to public speakers. MR. McNEES: You have seven speakers, Madam Chairwoman. Your first would be Abby Williams to be followed by Signey Showalter. MR. NINO: If I might remind you that you did receive some correspondence that went directly to you-all, I believe. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Quite a bit. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thanks. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Quite a bit. Quite, quite a bit. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Killed a few trees. MS. WILLIAMS: Hi. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Hi. MS. WILLIAMS: My name's Abby Williams and I'm actually here on behalf of my family's business, where the family I was raised in the landscape working nursery, my father was one of the first landscapers in Collier County in Naples. We own the Tree Wizzard Corporation on North Airport Road. I -- I really kind of feel like the rug is being pulled out from underneath us. If -- I wish Tom was here to speak more openly on this, but we've been doing this type of work for 30 years in Naples, and this is what I was raised to do. And I really feel that at a point when I was graduating high school, I think that if we knew something of this would be coming along, school would have been forced at me other than being thrown into the working environment and maybe getting a little bit more on site knowledge than, you know, paper knowledge. As it is now, I work 60 hours a week, draw at nights, work during the days in the field. And to take away about 50 percent of what we do and eliminating other than doing just small gardens and not being able to -- being -- being put in the process of working with onsite plans and doing commercial properties, I think this is really a -- a setback for the local designers. I also feel that landscape architecture is only about 20 years old. It's fairly new; 20, 25 years old. And I think that with my father, he's about got all the degrees he can get other than architecture, but I am in support of the local landscape designers here in Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Did you have a question? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could I ask you a question, please? Could Page 24 May 26, 1999 you help me on this? Are you saying that the proposed change will take something away from you that you currently have? MS. WILLIAMS: We -- we do a lot of commercial properties and -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well -- according to my -- the reason I'm asking is, according to my material here, it says that the code today, and I assume it's been in place for sometime, says the landscape plan shall bear the seal of a landscape architect registered in the State of Florida. That's what it says today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, the change being proposed today by staff would support your position. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but you don't have that privilege today. MS. WILLIAMS: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: According to what -- MS. WILLIAMS: Our company does not have an architect at this time and we would not be able to do designs. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, so I was just confused because you seem -- seemed to be saying that we were going to take something away from you that you currently have, but according to this, you don't. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You can't legally be doing STP's today. MS. WILLIAMS: It would also restrict us turning in irrigation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you already -- you can't do that today. MS. WILLIAMS: We -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Am I right? MS. WILLIAMS: No. We have that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They can do irrigation plans today? MS. WILLIAMS: As of today, yes. MR. NINO: They cannot prepare landscape plans that have as a compliment to them irrigation plans. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: See, I thought that you could design things that grow and that you couldn't do designs for anything that doesn't grow. I thought that was basically the limitation. MS. WILLIAMS: The hardscapes we cannot do. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The other point that I'll just make in response to what you're saying is -- is even if it were true that it's going to cut out 50 percent or some percentage of what you're able to do, a point was made to me that really struck me is landscape architects can't sell trees. I mean, they -- they only can draw plans. So, if we take away -- if we share that with somebody else, they don't have anything left to sell but plans to draw. That's all they do. It's just a thought. But thank you -- MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- very much. MR. McNEES: Mr. Showalter followed by Wayne Arnold. MR. SHOWALTER: My name is Sidney Showalter. I'm a landscape contractor here in Naples. I was talking to Wayne Hook today and Wayne has been on both sides of the fences as you probably well know. And I think that the saddest thing about this is it's kind of made a division in the landscape community. I think there's a lot of hard feelings and I hope that we can get past this. Last night I was working on the new animal shelter plan that was drawn up by a landscape architect. You know, thinking about all of Page 25 May 26, 1999 this stuff, why would anybody want to go through all this stuff anyway because when you do a landscape code for the county, it's like doing it by the numbers. I think that you could take a fifth grader and show them how to do it. If they can add, subtract, multiply and divide, they can do the basic things that is required in the county code. I've got some things here. I don't know whether you've seen any of these specifications that when you draw -- when you have to draw it CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. Like what our code says. I mean, it basically says fill in the blank. MR. SHOWALTER: Yeah. So, that's it. You know, I'm not trying to put anybody down, but anybody that's had any experience in designing, this is the low end of our ability curve there. And, you know, landscape architects have five years of school and I'm sure that they don't do five years just to learn how to do these things. So, you know, they're basically overqualified to do that and, you know, I'm not trying to put them down, but that's just -- I'm trying to look at it as a fair situation. I think that the landscape design is something that is new. Up until the code a few years ago, when they said you could only be a landscape architect to present plans, there was no need for any kind of landscape design certification. That's probably the reason that's come about because different counties and different people have said that. That's where we are now. Last summer, the state legislature did pass where they recognized landscape designers and the Florida Landscape Design Certificate -- certification program is a means of taking these people, who either have practical experience or have gone to college to learn how to do this to give them a position, because there's -- landscape architecture covers so much areas and this here is just one small area of it. And, you know, they're very competent in what they do, but that's basically what we're looking at and, you know, I don't know what the answer is, but it's just something that's a problem for everybody, and we hope that we can come to some kind of thing where everybody's happy. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Appreciate that. Thank you. MR. NINO: Madam Chairman, may I -- and commissioners, may I divert your attention to our staff report and me on Page 68 that identifies that we were directed by the Board of Commissioners on January 27th, 1999 to prepare this amendment. MR. McNEES: Your next speaker is Mr. Arnold followed by Ray Pelletier. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Wayne Arnold. I'm here representing for my work for Wilson-Miller. I've been on both sides of this issue as a county employee, who was charged with the responsibility of having staff that looked at these site plans and the landscape plans that came with them, to now being responsible for staff that prepares them. I think I've seen both sides of this issue, and one thing is very clear. The 600 plus pages of our Collier County Land Development Code are not an easy thing to interpret or understand. It really takes people who have training in that area to really understand what's there and what we have to do, Page 26 May 26, 1999 and support, too, that these landscape plans are not simple as putting plans on a piece of paper. It really requires a lot of thought and detail because we're dealing with berms, we're dealing with irrigation, we're dealing with engineering details. Those all have to be complimenting that detailed site plan. I think it's also important to note that the standard we're talking about has been one that's been in existence since we really came into the 20th century in terms of Collier County codes and we threw out a lot of the old things that have been in there for 20 years and we tried to make these progressive. We have a lot of communities that are looking to us as the leader. We have Lee County that tried so hard to adopt architectural standards. Lee County is just now trying to adopt a standard that requires landscape architects to prepare those plans. Sarasota County has done the same thing. I think clearly what -- all that we're trying to do with our streetscape master plan with the GNCA select committee and all the emphasis we have on design now is not the time to reduce that standard. We need to keep the professionals who have been trained to do that in doing their job. Thank you. MR. McNEES: Mr. Pelletier followed by Wayne Hook. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Pelletier. MR. PELLETIER: For the record, my name is Ray Pelletier. I'm here today to ask that you recognize certified landscape designers as qualified individuals and enable them to submit landscape planting plans as part of the STP process. Our request today represents over five years of work on the state level and three years here locally. Landscape design has been recognized in state law and is a compromise agreement between landscape designers and landscape architects. A copy of the law is in your packet. I'm not here today to promote that you allow any landscape designer to submit plans as allowed by law. Our request is that you only allow certified landscaped designers to submit landscape planting plans. This request represents an increase in qualifications from what the state law allows and it also represents an increase in the qualifications included in our original request for a state license, a request for a license that the majority of the board support in House Bill 3523. This request for a license was denied as the communities -- committees reviewing this bill indicated that there were no health, safely and welfare issues relating to the scope of work requested. They recommended that we pursue self-certification and regulation. That's what we have done and that's why -- that's what we're asking you to recognize here today. Included in your packet is a diagram iljustrating our proposal. As you can see, the scope of work for landscape architecture overlaps with building architects, engineers, as well as landscape designers. The set of landscape plans that are included in your packet clearly show the differences between landscaped architecture and a landscaped planting plan. They are clearly and appropriately labeled by the landscape architect as planting plans and as hardscape plans in details. We clearly understand and recognize the landscapes architect's Page 27 May 26, 1999 expertise in superior building with regards to hardscape plans and details. We are not looking to do their work. We are planting plans specialists. Engineering and architecture shown in our plans would be done by and specified by engineers and architects. We're not here to put the landscape architects out of work. We are merely offering an alternative to the community, an alternative denied them by the code change in 1996. By allowing only certified landscape designers back into the landscape code, you are still keeping out the property owners, building architects, engineers and nurserymen without certification, people that the landscape architects work very hard to keep out of this work. Landscape architects also recognize that exceptions to the rules do exist, but without qualifications to differentiate them, they were the unfortunate casualties of progress. The landscape certification admittedly is in its infancy as was landscaped architecture in this state some 25 years ago. Now, I can see that landscape architecture in the country is almost a hundred years old, but in the state it's about 20 years old. But it is a legitimate process, landscape design, administered by distinguished professionals recognized in their various disciplines. Landscape designers, landscape architects and nurserymen have worked together for many years to give Collier County the beauty that you see every day. The state recognition reopens the door for the continued participation by all professionals in this field. I would hope that you would extend us the same courtesy. Thank you. And I'd like to bring to your attention, Pam, to -- Commissioner Mac'Kie, to a plan that I put in here. The plan that I put in here was submitted and accepted by the county and it clearly shows the difference between the hardscape plans, which is clearly architectural work. I mean, we're not trying to do architectural work, but if you go through here, you'll see that the planting plans that are highlighted are plants. It's all related to plant material and specifications for plant material. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And if our code were divided that way, then there might be some way to do it, but I can't say you can do STP's that only involve planting material, but you can't do STP's if it involves any kind of a hardscape. It doesn't break down that way. MR. PELLETIER: Well, I think that's the confusion because landscape architects cannot do a complete STP. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, I'm -- MR. PELLETIER: They need architects and engineers and our plans would have architects and engineers also in regards to that hardscaping. All we would do is what we were permitted to do by law; install the plant material as an overlay on to an engineer plan. So, we're not -- we're not saying that, you know, we can do a whole STP plan, nor can landscape architects do that. We're just offering the community an alternative to the location of plant material on that plan. And just a correction. Landscape architects can sell trees. I mean -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, but, I mean, they don't. MR. PELLETIER: A lot of them do. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Some do. Some have separate businesses. MR. PELLETIER: Most -- well, larger companies -- you know, I'm not going to name them by name -- have a complete landscape Page 28 May 26, 1999 installation division and so we're not prohibiting them from doing anything. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thanks, Ray. MR. McNEES: Wayne Hook will be followed by Bruce Rankin. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And, Wayne, since we're friends, I'm going to ask you something on the way up before you even get to talk, and that is what's wrong with what Ray was just saying, that if all they're going to do is overlay plans on to an engineered hardscape, what's missing from this picture? MR. HOOK: Well, I'm one of those landscape architects that occasionally gets to plant a tree. There are four or five -- three or four companies in town that landscape architects are design build people. The landscape architect's task is to meld what the engineer and the architect on the site require along with the customer. We do take into account all the things that the architect is preparing and try to make it work and fit with what the -- the water use permits or requirements on the property, whether or not all the land is going to be used to retain surface water or do we come in and handle the water underneath and cisterns or -- and -- and dedicate X amount of square footage to landscaping. We also have to deal whether the plants are blocking division counts and causing wrecks. We also have to do, along with certain requirements in the county, certain types of structures like gas stations and so forth. We have to design in berming structures, which by state law only that can be done or cannot be done by outsiders other than a registered licensed person. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: An engineer can't do that? MR. HOOK: An engineer could do that perhaps. I don't know for sure. Irrigation plans are supposed to be prepared by a design professional. So, there's a lot of things in our code. I mean, it's a book about so thick, as you're well aware of, that's -- it's little bit -- quite a bit more involved than just taking a few numbers and sticking them down and putting in soldiers of trees and plants. I -- I did want to make a couple of clarification points. One, yes, landscape architecture has been around for a hundred years. We've having the hundredth year anniversary of landscape architecture in the state in Naples this summer. So, it has been around for quite sometime. We really are not talking about eliminating any work that the landscape designers have been doing to this point. I mean, it's already in the code that these few plans that are done, which is less than ten percent of all the plans in the county, the landscape design community can still do. So, we're not really cutting anybody out of any work unless they're doing something that is in violation of state law, as you brought up, Commissioner Norris. I would like to point out that another landscape design individual in our community has now passed the landscape architecture exam and there's another individual in the landscape design community who is applying to take the test. I keep saying the vehicle is there. Okay. The last point, whether or not we could split this up and have certain people do it and certain people not do it. Other counties have been trying to do this. They're following by patterning Page 29 May 26, 1999 their -- their codes very similar to ours since it seems to be working. This -- we need to make a determination. Is this a legal document that because we sign and seal this, we have professional liability insurance that's required for this process just like an attorney like you mentioned before or some profession in that nature. I don't know if -- if we open this part of it up to people that are not licensed by the state or can get professional design liability insurance, maybe some of them can. You've all received a letter from one particular company stating that they probably -- that one company won't and they probably would not be able to get that type of insurance. Again, it's -- it's an issue for you, folks, to determine the aesthetic control of this community. And there is a liability issue, I believe. But it's -- a lot of people have been looking at the success rate that you, folks, have had with your code and patterning other counties after us, calling our county staff up and asking them, what are you doing, and here's what we're doing because they haven't had the success. And, again, I don't think the landscape design folks are out anything. They're still doing over 90 percent of the work. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would you identify yourself for the -- MR. HOOK: I'm sorry. Wayne Hook, H double o-k. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thanks. MR. HOOK: Sorry about that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. It's my fault. MR. McNEES: Bruce Rankin followed by George Fogg. MR. RANKIN: Good evening. I'm Bruce Rankin. I'm vice-president for Landscape Architecture, Wilson-Miller. And my responsibilities are for design throughout our practice area. I'm a registered landscape architect and I'm registered in Florida as well as other states, and I've worked throughout the eastern half of the United States and Caribbean for about 28 years. I want to hit three issues that I think are important in this discussion. You've been getting pieces of them. One that hasn't really come up yet, is value, property value. We represent, by and large, clients who are going to be retaining a landscape architect to do STP work and their other work regardless of -- of what position you take on this issue. And they're doing that because they're trying to create maximum value to be competitive in the marketplace for the dollars that they have to spend on construction. And I'll get into the integration a little bit later but that's the part of the process is the landscape architect. Talk about what has to go into an STP, in order to pass the registration exam, I had to be able to do everything that is required to produce an STP, including sizing and designing storm systems, roadways and so forth. There's an overlap and the engineers generally do most of that work, but a landscape architect to be registered has to understand it and be able to integrate with it. Getting back to the property values, I've had discussions with our clients. It's one of the reasons I'm here. And they're concerned about their surroundings. You invest a substantial amount of money; two, three, $5 a square Page 30 May 26, 1999 foot in creating the image of your community, your building, whatever it is, you would like the assurance which many feel that we now have in Collier County that the surrounding property will be built to a level that will not detract from your investment. The second item is, and Wayne referred to it as the quality of the landscaping in Collier County. I serve on the Roadway Landscape Advisory Committee for Lee County. I've been in Lee County for a number of years, and while many won't admit it, Lee County is a Collier County want-to-be. Staff up there has worked very hard to upgrade the quality of the environment, and this is -- this is not just purely an aesthetic issue. It's a value issue. The mercenary part of it is from the county's standpoint is we'd like to increase our tax base and they see what Collier County has done as a good example, and two reasons for adopting a lot of the Collier County standards, including requiring the landscape architect to sign and seal the -- the STP -- Lee County's equivalent of the STP. One of those reasons, and Wayne Arnold referred to it, is Lee County was having trouble getting all the work through. If you -- if you're submitting a plan that doesn't really meet what the staff is looking for, it's going to get submitted two or three times. It's taking time. There are delays that get complaints. And the other is that it takes more staff time, costs more money. So, Lee County -- Lee County's evaluation was that's -- that's a good thing for the people of Lee County. The last item is really -- it relates to what I've said before. The quality of the submittals, I've spent -- I've spent probably 20 years in a review role as a consultant for state agency reviewing development proposals submitted for financing. This was in Michigan. Michigan does not have a practice of law. So, the state housing authority initiated its own ruling to require registered landscape architects. We were rejecting too many submittals and it was taking too long to review. And now I will say there are some people out there who are not registered landscaped architects who can do a quality job. You just don't have the assurance without the standard. Two more points. The STP is a legal document and it's an integrated document. It is not just a landscape plan. It's not just an engineering plan. And that's where the training of the landscape architect is critical. Nancy will tell you -- I've been in and talked to her a number of times -- strictly a cookie cutter approach. This is the last point. Two, the code minimum landscape plan doesn't achieve the quality that you see in Naples right now. I'll show you some examples. And I have a project under construction right now that is a code minimum plan. That's all that's being built. It takes an understanding of how you create value through a total landscape design to interpret the code properly, stay within the law, but get the most value for your client and that's, I think, a very important part of this whole discussion and what we're trying to do to protect the public. There is a role for the landscape designer. I have been in that role, started my career there, and there's a scale of project that they're allowed to design right now. Frankly, it may be the -- they may be the best people to do that work on the smaller scale projects Page 31 May 26, 1999 in a lot of situations. But for -- but for the STP's, I think it's very important to maintain a professional qualification. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask you a question. MR. RANKIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Earlier the point was brought out that landscape architects don't sell plants. And I guess some of them have another separate business where they do sell plants, but clearly there's a -- there's a separation between the landscape architect and business of selling plants. Can you tell me what that separation meant to achieve? MR. RANKIN: I -- there is in our code of ethics and -- and the responsibility you take on as a registered landscape architect, there's some specific language about your professional responsibility to your client if you have -- if you're involved in the sale of plant material as well as the design. And I wish I could quote that to you more specifically, but going back to the years when I was making that transition, because I worked in design-build. As a professional, as a registered landscape architect, you -- there's an ethical question regarding if you're specifying only material that you sell -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's the bottom line. MR. RANKIN: -- you could be brought in to challenge that. The same thing with irrigation design or anything else. You're -- you're not fully representing yourself as a professional the way the licensure law anticipates or demands if you're in the sale situation. You have to separate them so that when you specify a plan, that it's -- it goes beyond just a self-serving documentation of what you sell. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. McNEES: George Fogg followed by Christian Andrea. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not that this isn't riveting, but how many other speakers do we have on this topic? MR. McNEES: You have two more after Mr. Fogg. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FOGG: Good evening. My name is George Fogg, F-o-g-g. I live at 623 Woodshire Lane here in Naples. And as the board knows, I have appeared before the Planning Board and I have appeared before the county commissioners on a number of occasions on this same subject. I believe Mr. Hook and the other speakers have presented sufficient new information that supports the -- keeping the code the way it is. Rather than bore you with my presentation, I'll simply say two things. One, and I will reiterate an offer I made before, that I have had the pleasure of being able to work with these people who have recently got their landscape license who were not trained as landscape architects in school. And it would be my pleasure and I will offer again, as I did at the last go around on this, that I would offer my help to anybody who wishes to study to become a landscape architect. It can be done. We have living proof in this room and others that are in this county who have made that transition. And, in fact, there are more of those currently in Collier County than there are certified landscape contractors. They're either one -- Page 32 May 26, 1999 I mean, landscape designers. There are either one or two here in the county. I've had two different stories. So, it's doable. Secondly, I would offer that since, as has been presented by several others, that other counties are now following what Collier County has been doing for good reason. We do have probably one of the most beautiful counties anywhere, and I've been in a lot of the world and seen a lot of things. I strongly urge that the commissioners follow the old adage if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Thank you. MR. McNEES: Mr. Andrea, and your last speaker will be David Nam. MR. ANDREA: Good evening. My name is Christian Andrea. I'm a landscape architect. I brought along some plans, the fill in the blank STP planting plans that we're calling them. If I could present those and probably walk you through the process of what we typically do when we do a plan, if that would be appropriate? The first thing we do when we begin a project is do an effective site analysis, which means visiting the site, analyzing existing vegetation, determining what exotic vegetation may exist, what vegetation may need to be removed and which vegetation we can save on site. The second item we begin is assembling the base information, which means the architectural plans, the engineering plans, deciphering where drainage issues occur, utility easements, drainage easements. Next we begin an assessment of the adjacent properties so we can determine the type of buffers that need to be established around the perimeters so that we ensure privacy and provide appropriate screenings between the different land uses. Oftentimes we are challenged due to the density of development is the overlap of landscape buffer areas with these drainage easements. So, a lot of the cross-sections that are required to be understood are oftentimes quite challenging to understand as you try to determine what your maximum overlap can be with these areas. Preservation also. Most of the sites that we work on have to have the grade elevated, which in turn hurts the viability of preservation. We often have to have assessments of when we think an area can be preserved. The code currently requires a percentage of preservation to occur or to be mitigated, so if there are areas that we are unable to preserve, we've created eco systems so we have to have an understanding of the type of plant material that will exist and the type of plant material that should be recreated to recreate the existing habitat that was there. Finally, we look at the calculations that are required, both from an interior green space, building permit or landscape buffer areas, and from that information we assemble what we determine to be an effective design that also compliments the county's direction and goals as well as the -- the overall look of the project to provide a look that is consistent with the community. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. NAM: Madam Chair, members of the committee, my name is David Nam, and I am an attorney from Tallahassee. I represent the State Landscape Architectural Association, and I won't take up much of your time this evening. Page 33 May 26, 1999 I would, however, like to correct some information that has been provided with respect to the legislative determination on health, safety and welfare with respect to landscape design. I have before me a letter dated April 30, 1999, and it is to the Honorable Pamela Mac'Kie, Chairperson, Collier County Commission, from Mark Ogles who chairs the Florida House of Representatives Business Regulation and Consumer Affairs Committee, which is in fact the committee that considered the landscape design legislation over a number of years that it was before the legislature. And in relevant part, I'd like to quote. The legislature chose to exempt persons providing landscape design services from licensure and not to implement the state regulatory program for landscape design as originally requested by the Florida Landscape Design Association due to the estimated costs associated with the state regulatory program for landscape design. The legislature did not make any determination regarding the impact of the practice of landscape design on the health, safety and welfare of Floridians. Local governments are free to accept landscape planned documents from those providers that best comport with community standards for purposes of local code compliance. This is really an issue that legislature decided to leave to the local governments so that the local governments can implement those code provisions that best fit a given community. It was suggested a little earlier that a fifth grader could prepare a landscape plan in this community. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My fifth grader could. MR. NAM: Well, certainly, but other than that, I don't think many of the classmates would be -- in any event, if there are any questions with regard to legal aspects of the exemption that was created at the state level and how those interplay with local code provisions, I'd be glad to answer any of those that I could for you. Other than that, I appreciate your time this evening. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. Direction for staff. My personal opinion is that we should not change what we have now. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. I've spoken in the past and I've been concerned about this, and after hearing all the information and looking at the standards in Collier County, I think we're best to leave it right where it is and keep the high standard. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It sounds like that's a direction of staff for the -- for the next hearing. Okay. So, we can move on to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This takes a super maturity vote? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't think so. It's just a code amendment. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Code amendment? Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You're thinking comp plan. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, so we got three. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We've got three and that -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Fine. I think we ought to leave it as it is after listening to this discussion tonight. I really believe that there is an opportunity for those who want to get to that next level and it's proven it can be done. They can do it. Page 34 May 26, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. And the situation would be different if we were taking something away that they had today, which we're not. That's not being proposed at all. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Not a taking. ***CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, to be talking now, move on to the sign discussion. MR. NINO: Yes. The next item would be the sign amendments. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That cleared the room. MR. NINO: Let me advise that, by and large, we didn't attempt to make any serious changes to the sign provisions. We were carrying forward sign provisions that we deleted in the architectural section and in the gasoline stations and brought them forward, but there were two new things that we attempted to do in addition to that. And one was to eliminate access lighting and, secondly, was to require that the pole sign that is allowed at shopping centers in addition to their directory sign had to message the shopping center and not a tenant within the shopping center. And I think you'll appreciate that that's probably in response to a sign that was erected not too far away from us. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. NINO: I understand that there are presentations that people would -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would -- I would like to make a couple of comments if I might, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have been working with a streetscape committee and we have been looking at this whole, whole process of medians. We've looked at the sitescaping, we looked at intersections and we're looking at everything that affects the aesthetics of Collier County. And within that, one of the areas that we felt that we could make an immediate change would be in the elimination of pole signs to go to monument signs and do an amortization process, which would not penalize businesses. It would give them an opportunity to come in compliance with this. And the reason we made that move is that we saw that as a linkage in everything that we're trying to do that eventually will go to the greater Naples Civic Association Committee in -- in this arena. But in any given six-month period, we've been advised that 40 or 50 new -- whole signs can be erected in this community, which we refer to in our group as visual pollution. And we've had some really great people work on the committee; Joe McHarris, Wayne Arnold, Wayne Hook, just a few of the people that '- and George Botner, and we've used his streetscape plan as a guideline in this, and that's why we wanted to bring it to the commission tonight for this -- this period so that we could make that happen. And I know there are a number of people on the committee and others who would like to speak to that issue to you tonight and share with you the conclusions that we've reached. I know Joe McHarris. I don't know who is first up to speak, but I know Joe has got some slides to give you some visual presentation of what it looks likes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I would certainly defer you if that's how you'd like to go. Are there comments from the board first? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Just a quick comment and that Page 35 May 26, 1999 is from what I know of this conceptually. I don't necessarily agree. I think if we can do some things with signage, I think we certainly ought to. We're already more restrictive than most communities. I have no objection to even getting more restrictive than we are. My concern is the process. One of the things we have in the last seven years from time to time stumbled with is trying to do things outside of the process. And while I think the intent and the actual content here is probably good, we've stepped outside the process a little bit in doing it. It hasn't gone through every step that we require. And while we all hate that bureaucratic stuff, there's a reason why it's there and that is to maximize public input and so on. So, I don't mind if we go through this tonight. My concern is making this change when it didn't go through all the process, what some of the impacts of that may have and where we go with that. MS. STUDENT: For the record -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Marjorie. MS. STUDENT: -- Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Got a little distracted. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sorry. Just hang on, Margie, we'll get there. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Go ahead. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. I have a concern about that, too, especially in the area of signage. It can be fraught with many legal issues; first amendment, free speech issues, and I feel that, you know, any changes that would come about need to be studied from a legal perspective, because there are certain -- you cannot regulate, for example, content. It's a first amendment problem. And -- but you can regulate the structure of the sign. I also have a legal concern for it not having been to the Planning Commission and we could risk exposure if we were to add something substantive to our sign code being such a legally sensitive issue by it not going to the Planning Commission. And I just need to let the board know that we have some exposure there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to conclude my thoughts, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think we can -- I know there's always an argument about free speech issues and so on, and what people can or can't do, but there are communities around the country and I always use Freeport, Maine as the example that have tremendously restrictive sign ordinances when alleged and they've been successful, but they also did some research ahead of time in putting those carefully together. I'd like to make this a top priority for us to move ahead with. I know we've already assigned our committee of 12 there to -- as signage to be one of their items, and you may have already done half their work for them ahead of them, but rather than try to force this in and open ourselves up to legal exposure, I'd like to carefully go through that, make sure we cover our backside. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll tell you what, Jim -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is it an issue that it didn't go through the Planning Commission? Is that the issue? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, it's part of the issue. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Part of the issue? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Part of it is it hasn't gone through the Page 36 May 26, 1999 Planning Commission. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I still don't understand the frustration of when you get here and you know you've got the right idea and you want to do it and want to do it now and it's frustrating not to be able to do it as promptly as we wish we could, but these bureaucratic restrictions and legal restrictions sometimes prevent us. COMMISSIONER BERRY: One of the things I did read in here, I think, had to do with the accent lighting. Is that the neon? Okay. And, so, we're addressing that and I know, Jim, that was one of your concerns and you brought that forward, so I think that's -- that's a plus. That's something that is going to happen so -- and I certainly endorse that one hundred percent. But I have to agree with what Tim and Pam and, actually, I think John's indicating, too -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Miss Student as well. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- that it's the process part of it and I think we've got a -- I'd like to get them to buy in the people who have these particular kinds of things. I'd rather them buy into this through the -- through the process rather than, you know, hitting them head on maybe. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The context of it is we just don't want to get sued. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'm not looking for that either, but personally the staff is looking for direction from this board that we can proceed and craft that language so that we can take it through that process. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Count that as one. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And that's -- that's what we'd like to do tonight, to get everybody's attention, and how we can do that and give them direction to craft the language, take it back to the Planning Commission or whatever -- whatever vehicles we have to take it through to get it there. But that was our intent tonight to give you that input as to where we are and why we felt it was so important to bring it forward. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If any other board members require the slide show to persuade them to do that, I'd be happy to see if -- I don't think I need to be persuaded. I think what you distributed earlier in the week certainly points in the right direction and I'm comfortable giving staff direction consistent with what you've distributed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I'll say I was strongly supportive and, frankly, you know, all excited that you had taken the lead on this and could get us -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- that far ahead of the game because the proposals that you have are extremely good as far as I'm concerned. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I've got a lot of people here who want to come and talk to you about that, but at least we know that I was very successful in making that effort. I want to thank them for taking the time to be here tonight to support that -- that issue with us because that's where we want to go and make it happen. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We appreciate that work. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So, staff is duly directed then? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For the next cycle. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: For the next cycle, of course. MR. NINO: You're saying the next cycle because code amendments Page 37 May 26, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because of what Miss Student told us. MR. NINO: -- codes amendments can come forward at any time, but if your direction is that we take our time and look at the matter -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not -- MR. NINO: -- comprehensively, then the next cycle would -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me interrupt you, Ron. Margie, can code amendments come up in -- MS. STUDENT: We can only amend the code twice a year -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. MS. STUDENT: -- unless there's a finding of some kind of extreme emergency. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Will the Planning Commission meet between now and the next code meeting? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. That would be in this process if we -- but basically what it means, Jim, is it's going to add six months, six months from now before we can do anything real. That's the bottom line, unpleasant as it is. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I -- maybe that may have an advantage. It may work to all of our advantages in the fact that we may get a little more support -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- from the business community out there and get them to buy into this because -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah. We don't want to leave them out of the process and I'd never -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- attempt to leave them out of the process. There were a few things that we felt that we were doing within the system for this go around. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You know one -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: This committee, I guess, had some frustration that we weren't moving ahead fast enough and being able to bring something back, and this seemed to be the vehicle for us to accomplish this. And, so, what you're telling me is that we'll give staff direction to do the word smithing and to come back to the Planning Commission so that in December that we could make this a reality. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And in the meantime, isn't there a committee already -- CHAIRWOM3~N MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- that can be working on it? Jim, you're working -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. Our committee is folded into the other. What we're doing is -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- work that we can take it to them also, but they have a much bigger agenda. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Ours is only a small part of that agenda. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One thing I would like to see if maybe if we're going to go forward with something in this area regarding the pole signs in particular, I think we should have some way of having staff notify people when they come in for a building permit, that, look, we're working on an amendment that's going to affect your Page 38 May 26, 1999 signage in the future, here's what we're working on. It's not passed yet, but there's a good likelihood that it probably will be. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I like that, John, because we really -- we really are trying to stop the proliferation. We would be very happy if we could stop it today and the work people six months from now, it's going to be a real issue. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our direction to staff is to work with the committee that we have on that as well as with the folks you're already dealing obviously to get through the public input process to research potential public legal pitfalls and see where we come up in four months from now when we start advertising legal hearings for six months from now. Is that right? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The way I hear it, yeah. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I believe staff also has resource and past communities will successfully have done this, and so there should be some precedent. We're not telling people what they can put on their signs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: What we're talking about is height and we're trying to get away from what I call visual pollution to monument signs that give us a much better look in our community. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And this time we're doing neon, so -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: This neon, we're giving a little of the stripping. We haven't gotten rid of all the neon -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We haven't? COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- but we'll work on it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So, if you are wanting to speak on that particular subject, if you would not mind waiving your opportunity to speak tonight because it sounds like we're going to do that again in four to six months. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Four to six months. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Four to six. Sorry. It's my southern accent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unless they object to the direction we've given. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's a good point. If someone objects to that direction, we would need to hear from them, so why don't you call speakers and let's see who we've got. MR. McNEES: Kim Kobza. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Waives. MS. McNEES: Sally Barker. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Waives. MR. McNEES: Michael Boyd. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not waive. MR. BOYD: No, I won't waive. My name is Michael Boyd. I'm president and owner of Signs and Things. I'm a 23-year resident of Collier County. I have a family here. I employ approximately 20 high paid employees. I provide them health insurance. If I was a business looking to move here, you'll be welcoming me with open arms. I'd just like to make the comment, I thank you for putting the brakes on this drastic change as far as pole signs. I was originally coming here for the minor changes that we're going through, which I can live with. I can live without the accent lighting if that's what everybody wants. I can live with that, but to Page 39 May 26, 1999 drastically change how I do my business, how I derive my revenue, I thank you for putting the brakes on it, giving us six months to hopefully be able to work with staff. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would assume as part of our direction we would include the industry in the discussions? MR. BOYD: I would hope so. CHAIRWOMI~N MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, yeah. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely. MR. McNEES: Joe McHarris. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Waives. MR. McNEES: Ray O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR: Waive. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Waives. MR. McNEES: Henry Hamel. MR. HAMEL: I'd like to speak. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please. And after him? MR. McNEES: Would be Wayne Arnold. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Has waived. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Waived, flamboyantly. MR. McNEES: Followed by Mike Davis. MR. HAMEL: Good evening and thank you. Madam Chairperson, honorable commissioners. THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, could you identify yourself? MR. HAMEL: Henry Hamel, H-a-m-e-1. Most appeals to you come from those aggrieved by insults to nature such as the environment, some come to you by insult to the eardrum such as planes and vehicles or loud music, and some, as you well know, come from smell such as the landfill. I ask your indulgence to protect our vision, which is a little different, especially as related to signs and lighting, primarily a nighttime concern, but daytime signs are all the time. We can stop further downscaling of life by limiting not banning commercial displays. I have read the proposal and I am not against what the gentleman said about his business. What I am against is bad things; for instance, Commissioner Carter, Loove Lashow (phonetic), who just left, and I met with the representative of the Long Horn Steak House. They're on the 8600 block of Tamiami Trail North. Unfortunately, the neon tubing was already incorporated into the design and was on at night. The representative understood our concerns, promised to see the president of Long Horn the next day in Atlanta, but the request was refused. Other Long Horns used it, other Collier County establishments had it and it was legal. I think Mr. Nimo came up to the office with us that day. Most nationwide or regional operations design every aspect of a commercial establishment; looks, signage, lighting and inside items, of course, like food displays and menus. Deviation from corporate adoption is not a favored course of action. Asked too often to deviate and you're out. So, the manager has to go along with headquarters. But just as the county regulates building heights, fire control and access parking, space proximity to neighbors and trash removal, I ask that you adopt these stricter lighting and signage controls. And this especially affects the national chains who have a set design and don't want to change. A good part of this business that this gentleman talked about Page 40 May 26, 1999 probably comes from people who are headquartered outside of Naples. We can't go back and take away established legal conditions but we can change the law. Older signs not in conformance can be brought up to standard or they can be after sale or renovation. We have a beautiful county, much of it due to your work. I ask that you help our vision and that you adopt the new code and I know you've given the county staff six months to work on it but I just want to give my endorsement to it. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We appreciate that. Thank you. MR. McNEES: Mike Davis. MR. DAVIS: You know how much I like to talk. Mike Davis for the record, vice-president of Sign Craft. Not to lose sight of the Land Development Code amendments that have been through the process, yeah, the -- the illegalization, if you will, of neon accent lighting is in there and along with some other changes which I would encourage you to -- to approve because I agree that they're all good changes. On the issue that Commissioner Carter's brought up this evening, and he and I have discussed this at great length, and -- and I don't misunderstand your intent or your sincerity in bringing it up. My concern is -- is we did what the architectural standards for something as profound a change as what's being discussed and with something that carries a five-year amortization in which all signs must comply, it's got to be comprehensive. It's got to be all inclusive of the community to be involved in the process. And to that end, excuse me, as Commissioner Constantine pointed out, you just recently appointed 12 people to a select committee for what our community is going to look like in the future. One of the charges, specifically in the executive summary, was the comprehensive review of the sign ordinance and revision thereof. I would ask you to direct staff to bring back these comprehensive changes in the next cycle, I think, is too tall an order for staff. I think that the select committee needs to be reminded of this charge and for them to bring it back to this board as soon as they can. It -- it may take more time. That's fine. If it takes more time to do it right, then that's what we need to do. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Mike. MR. McNEES: No more speakers. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do we have any other speakers registered on any other topics? MR. McNEES: You have two. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why don't we call them? ***MR. McNEES: One on 2.3, off street parking, Bruce Anderson. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Bruce. MR. McNEES: While we're waiting for Bruce, you have Rich Yovanovich registered on the dedication language. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Instead of having staff introduce the items, we're familiar with them, why don't you just tell us what the issues are? Is that all right with the board? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which item are we speaking of? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Rich is on the dedication language and Bruce is on what? MR. McNEES: Off street parking, 2.3? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Off street parking. ***MR. ANDERSON: Good evening. My name is Bruce Anderson. Page 41 May 26, 1999 I was prepared to waive my hand in a less flamboyant fashion in the back and not speak. I just am arising to speak in support of the staff proposal. There's a little glitch that they're fixing as a result of comp plan language and it will merely enable this commission to consider off-site parking petitions when they're next to commercially zoned property. It's as simple as that. It's always been allowed and it should continue to be an option. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Bruce. And Mr. Yovanovich. ***MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I represent First Baptist Church, and as we were going through the PUD process, it came to our attention that the county's LDC requires certain dedications of right of way through the PUD process. For instance, the reservation of the east 275 feet of the church property for Livingston Road, and the LDC clearly points out, you know, that the county has the right to require that dedication, and it also addresses that the county will in fact give impact fee credits to property owners when they go ahead and agree to that dedication. I've been working with Keyin Hendricks in cleaning up the language because there are a couple of circumstances that really aren't addressed. One of them is if the value of the property dedicated to the county exceeds the amount of impact fees that that property would generate, the property owner is not compensated for that additional value of property dedicated to the county. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Rich, let me interrupt you. It sounds like a fairness issue. Have you talked about it with staff? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And, well, I was just going to get to that. Keyin Hendricks and I have -- I have given him my proposed language. Conceptually we're in agreement. I just wanted to make sure the board was in agreement and basically directed us to us work together over the next couple of weeks to clean it up. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It seems to me like the right thing to do. Yes. So directed? COMMISSIONER BERRY: You could work it out. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Yeah. It sounds like the right thing. And can you tell we're a little hungry? MR. YOVANOVICH: I can tell. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there -- is there anything else that the board wants to discuss tonight? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just whatever Mr. Nino needs to lead us through. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Anything to tidy up, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Other than what's in your agenda packet, that -- as I indicated -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. MR. NINO: -- is not of really great substance. They do represent primary tidying up, clarifying misunderstandings. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, we're clear. I see Mr. Cautero and then Miss Student. No? Miss Student? ***MS. STUDENT: Just one item on the reference language about the dedication and Kevin Hendricks was going to mention it, but there Page 42 May 26, 1999 was a part in there that had a legal problem that talks about the developer commitments for things that benefit the whole community. Under the law, you can only exact, unless they agree to it, what relates to the impacts of their development, so we cleaned that language up a little bit. That's '- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's a good thing. MR. NINO: See you June 16th. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: See you then. Oops, Mr. Weigel. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Weigel. ***MR. WEIGEL: I just wanted to respond that Mr. Norris asked earlier about four votes. I thought he was questioning about four votes needed to make any changes for the next hearing that you have, which of course is not required. Ultimately changes to the code itself will require four votes -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, I'm sorry, John. MR. WEIGEL: -- at your next hearing, so that's clear for the record. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we do need four. Okay. We're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:15 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF EALS/EX OFFICI GOVERNING BOARD (S) OF SPECI DI TRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL PAM~/~C'K~/FiA~~# .... 'E"~¥',', ,~, , j.:_, i~ ' .,,. ' T~SCRI~T ~RE~BD ON BE~LF OF GREGORY CO~T REPORTING SERVIOE, INC. BY ROSE N."WITT, Page 43