Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/27/1999 S (LDC Amendments)January 27, 1999 TRANSCRIPT OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE HEARING Naples, Florida, January 27, 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: CHAIRWOMAN: Pamela S. Mac'Kie Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James D. Carter ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Wednesday, January 27, 1999 5:05 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. 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 CHAIRMAN. ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 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 DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES, CONDITIONAL USES, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, DIVISION 2.3. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING; 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 3.15. ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES; ARTICLE 5, DECISION MAKING AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES, DIVISION 5.2, PLANNING COMMISSION, DIVISION 5.13. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD; ARTICLE 6 DIVISION 6.3. DEFINITIONS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DEFINITIONS OF ZERO LOT LINE HOUSING, FRONT YARD, AND DUPLEX; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE. 3. REPEAL OF ORDINANCE 91'26, AS AMENDED, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD. 4. ADJOURN. January 27, 1999 Item #2 ORDINANCE 99-6 AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102 THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - ADOPTED CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, I'm going to call the meeting to order for Wednesday, January 27, 1999 for the Land Development Code hearing, and ask that you stand for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, who's going to start us through this process? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll bet Mr. Nino is. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And what's the desire of the board? Do we want to take questions or do you want to go through each item, maybe just hear from the staff on the items that we asked them to bring back to us from the first hearing? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We certainly don't need to do the drill again, we've already -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just the changes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, we've been there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can you do that for us, Ron? MR. NINO: Yes, I certainly can. At your first meeting -- following your first meeting, there were several adjustments that had to be made to the proposed amendments. The first one, which didn't appear and doesn't appear in your -- did not appear in your December 2nd public hearing was to page 18 of your agenda package. Amendments to the RMF-6 district, we had inadvertently omitted a requirement that had been in the RMF-6 district provisions for some time, that if eliminated would create a serious problem with respect to nonconforming lots. We -- the underlying provisions on page 18 have been in the code for a number of years, and this amendment would return that provision to the code, which says that for existing legal loss of record, the number -- the amount of floor area required for each dwelling unit would be 6,500 square feet. And by dividing the lot into 6,500, if the fraction was greater than 1.501, then you were allowed to go to two dwelling units per acre. That provision has long-standing in the code, and we found that there were a number of properties, particularly in the Golden Gate City area, that were zoned multiple family and that people had bought them, having been assured by our department that the rounding up provision to determine density would apply to their property. So to eliminate that problem, we put that provision back into the RMF-6 district provisions. Page 2 January 27, 1999 Are there any -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any "uh", anyone? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Apparently no "uh". MR. NINO: The second area where a change was reflected, which is not -- was not in the December 2nd package is on page 23, which is the variance exceptions for an airport area. We were advised by legal counsel that we needed some additional verbiage in there. I'd like to hand that out. And you'll note that that underscoring, instead of what was in the December 2nd package, would now read subject to subsection 333.031(C), Florida Statutes, and subject to each interlocal agreement entered into by the county pursuant to subsection 3330(B)(1) Florida Statutes. We were directed to add that by our legal counsel. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Palmer. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My agenda packet appears to be numbered incorrectly. I'm having a difficult time following along with the page numbers you're giving. Do we have another agenda packet with us? Do you have another -- is that an agenda packet there? MR. NINO: In the hallway. Then you will recall that as a result of -- I wish to get this into the record. You will recall that at the December 2nd meeting -- this is on page 26 now of the agenda package -- there was a discussion as to the length of time that one could park a boat or recreational vehicle in one's driveway, and there was concern that one would park a boat for six hours and an hour later come back again. We added the language within a time period of seven days to that. So within any seven days, six hours out of every seven days is the maximum period of time that you could place a recreational vehicle in front of your house for purposes of cleaning, loading, unloading, et cetera. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's great. I've got a couple of situations where that will help immensely. Thank you, Mr. Nino. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I have a question about it. If you come home at 6:00 on Sunday night in a recreational vehicle and you've got to unload it, what's going to happen if you don't get it - - what do you do that night? Where -- how's that -- there's a six- hour time frame. MR. NINO: You've got a six-hour time frame. You need to get it unloaded and you need to move it to the back of your property where it's supposed to be, or -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: But what if you're taking it to a storage place and you can't get in there until Monday morning? Page 3 January 27, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you don't want to break all your irrigation lines by driving it to the backyard. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But those things happen. MR. NINO: Michelle Arnold, Director of Code Enforcement, is here to address those kinds of issues. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. If you have a situation as Commissioner Berry explained, the six-hour time frame is being introduced for enforcement purposes. We would -- it's a lot easier for us to witness a six-hour than a 24- hour period. So in that situation, if you moved it the following day, I don't believe there would be a problem. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, because chances are code enforcement's not going to be outside -- MS. ARNOLD: No. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- your house. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I kind of hope not. If you've got all that extra time, I've got some signs out on the East Trail I'd like you to be looking into. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but unfortunately, the old code was abused by -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, absolutely. Okay, Ron, what else? MR. NINO: I need to get into the record that division -- section 2-8, the architectural section, had quite a number of changes made to it; however, none of those changes are content driven. Style, form, punctuation, grammar basically are what drove all of those changes, and -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And we've all had the chance to look through and see those, so I don't think there's any need to go through and tell us the semicolons, unless somebody cares. MR. NINO: The next section, for which there were a number of changes have to do with the amendment abolishing the EAB and EPTAB and creating an EAC. And I have an additional provision for that. Essentially the revisions to this ordinance have to do with making sure that this ordinance is consistent with other ordinances that deal with how members are appointed, their terms of office, what happens in the event of a vacancy, and issues of that nature. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And likewise, I mean, I've looked at all these, and none of them are substantive. They're all important, but none of them affect the actual makeup or working of the committee. And just for the Board's information, I've forwarded this to as many environmental groups as I could find to ask them for comments, and I generally got support and indications of -- you know, positive indications on the new committee with a lot of the proof will be in the pudding kind of comments. We want to see how it's operated and we want to see if it really is going to be on par with Development Page 4 January 27, 1999 Services Advisory Committee. But thought you'd want to know that it's been disseminated that way. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would this be a good time to talk about Ms. Filson's problem that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think they fixed them, though. That's what this is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, so we're all done, Ms. Filson? Okay. MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairwoman? COMMISSIONER CARTER: That would be -- Commissioner Norris, that would be 274 and 275, the corrections that I had that -- get this into sync. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I've been out in the afternoon, so apparently they got fixed in the afternoon. MS. FILSON: They did. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, we're okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So we're all right. Ms. Filson is happy. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we're all happy. Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. I also need to mention that just before the EAC provisions, as was requested by the commission, we've also added a definition of aggrieved or adversely affected party in the 5-2-11 dealing with appeals from the Planning Commission. So that was Board directed, and I didn't want to let that go by without -- that that was added for your direction. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. What else do we have, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: We don't have any other areas where changes were made from the December 2nd review. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So any comments in general by any of the board members? COMMISSIONER BERRY: No comments. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do we have public speakers? MS. STUDENT: Yes, Madam Chairwoman. Ray Pelletier. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ray? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Any more? Is that the only one? MS. STUDENT: That's the only one. MR. PELLETIER: Hello, commissioners. My name, for the record, is Ray Pelletier. I have three things I would like to update you on regarding the Land Development Code and, more specifically, the Landscape Code. The first is a legislation which is the first two pages of your packet. This was a compromise agreement between the landscape architects and the landscape designers, and you have a copy of that, of a Florida law. Page 5 January 27, 1999 The legislation passed through several committees and went through the House and Senate and passed unanimously. The third page is an article regarding the same, where I'd like to point out for the record the final paragraph. It says, "Members of the legislative committees that reviewed this bill felt that the practice of landscape design did not pose a threat to the health, safety and welfare to the public and therefore should not become a regulated profession. The industry is to be responsible for its own self-regulation, should it so choose." The fourth page is the actual requirements for the landscape designer certification. And I'd like to point out that this certification not only exceeds Florida standards, but also exceeds the standards that were'in the original bill that the Board supported in that it has a four-hour exam that's given twice a year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are those standards adopted now, or in place? MR. PELLETIER: Yes. And the first certification with the exam will be held -- I think it says in February. February, '99. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Great. MR. PELLETIER: And the next page is -- there's been some argument that, you know, we're a self-serving organization, which of course most organizations are. But we are -- we have taken on board members that are outside of our actual profession, and the qualifications actually exceed that of a landscape designer. There's -- the board that reviews our work consists of five different people: One is professor of landscape design, the second person is a professor of horticulture, the third person is a national certified landscape designer, the fourth person is a Florida certified landscape contractor. And that person on this review board is also a landscape architect. And then number five, we always have a landscape architect. I wanted to make a note that the current president of our association is a landscape architect; 10 CU's per year required to maintain certification, and that's in line with other professionals. Nurses, I believe, have 10 hours of certification, or 30 hours once every three years. So we've taken the necessary steps to bring not only qualifications, but very high qualifications to our profession, and would hope that on the final page you would recognize this certification process and allow us back into the Land Development Code. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them for you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Questions for Mr. Pelletier? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Madam Chair, what action does that take on our part if they go through this process, they're tested and they are certified for us to then incorporate them into the code? Is this apropos at this time, or does it have to go to the next cycle? Page 6 January 27, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ron, why don't you -- or maybe the cycle question is appropriate for the attorney, but tell us a bit about where we were. MR. NINO: Of course, if you find what Mr. Pelletier says is correct, then whether or not that discipline ought to be considered on a co-equal basis to a registered landscape architect is one that you need to make. And if you would decide that is the case, then we would prepare an amendment either in the next cycle or, if it's possible, to do it in this cycle. I see Ms. Student nodding her head. MS. STUDENT: On that question -- this is fraught with legal problems. And by the time that we would have to get that up to Tallahassee in 10 days, I don't know that would be sufficient time. And I think you might want a report from Mr. Weigel or myself on this, because it has a history to it. And we have not evaluated it under this new provision, because it was not a part of this cycle. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If that's the case, I don't mind. But maybe you can tell me what legal problems it's fraught with, because it seems amazingly simple to me. MS. STUDENT: Well, again, we haven't looked at this new language, Commissioner. However, in the past it was a matter of what the legislative intent was. And I think this Board, or at least certain members of the Board, had heard testimony about that legislative intent. And we have to be careful, because if we go too far on either way, we could be subject to lawsuits by one or the other groups. And that's what we need to be -- in other words, if it's opened up to landscape designers, and that's beyond the legislative intent, we could be subject to suit from the landscape architects. And I mean, we're being asked to render -- I'm being handed out now some documentation from the House of Representatives. And I think it's more appropriate from our office's perspective -- and Mr. Weigel may wish to weigh in here -- but to give us some time to evaluate this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if we need to, we need to. But I just -- I mean, everybody is pretty familiar with this. We've dealt with it for a long time, and it seems to me the issues are fairly simple. This isn't a new letter. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: May 11. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I asked the question before. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, if we're trying to meet a certain level, if the intent is to meet a certain level and their certification process is exceeding that, I don't understand what it is we're still vague about. I don't know what intent there otherwise could possibly be other than trying to prohibit people from practicing a particular business. Page 7 January 27, 1999 MR. PELLETIER: The letter I just handed out, just for the record, is from the Florida House of Representatives, and it is from the Vice Chair of Business and Professional Regulation and Consumer Affairs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ray, can I just read an excerpt here at the last paragraph? MR. PELLETIER: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There is some concern -- this is Representative Brown, who we should talk about who that is -- but there is some concern that landscape architects may go to County Commissioners to ask for ordinances that would usurp the ability of landscape designers to perform the work, as specified in this legislation. In other words, what we've already done by excluding landscape designers this representative is concerned may happen in other counties. If this happens, she would like to know about it. So, I mean, that just -- is she the proponent of the legislation? I mean, would her -- MR. PELLETIER: She was merely the vice chair of that. She did not sponsor the bill. That was sponsored by a Senator and Representative Fuller in the House of Representatives, and Senator Lee. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But she was not the member of the House who MR. PELLETIER: Well, she is a Representative, so she is the House of Representatives person that's on that committee. It's kind of a new experience for me to actually go up in Tallahassee. And I did testify before the Department of Business and Professional Regulations. And this had to pass from several different committees, and it passed each one unanimously. It was a compromised agreement between landscape architects and landscape designers, so they sat at the table in the Representative's office and hammered this out. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ray and I have met on this. And I'll tell you, here's my sort of simple way of looking at it, is that the legislature has said that landscape designers can draw up planting plans. I don't think anybody can argue about that. My question is, which sections of our code describe planting plans and which sections of our code describe something more than that? Because I'm ready to allow landscape designers to work and design -- draw up planting plans. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I thought that the difference between was the fact that Ray can do them for my house -- is that not right? MR. PELLETIER: No, there's no -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I thought it was strictly for commercial buildings. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, the way we defined it right now. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right now. Page 8 January 27, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But the present take in Collier County is what she -- MR. PELLETIER: We were allowed under state law to submit planting plans for commercial buildings. There's no exclusions as far as the scope of work. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then what can't you do now? MR. PELLETIER: You cannot do urban planning, which means we can't go and design a town between here and Everglades City. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What in this county are you prohibited from doing, though, Ray, by ordinance? MR. PELLETIER: Submitting a landscape plan; which, I'd like to add, was called a planting plan up until a few years back. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So where you were going, Barbara, was correct. You all just aren't communicating. In this county we prohibited Ray from doing what he could otherwise do. We said we did that because we wanted higher standards. Now they've come up with a certification program, looks like higher standards. So I see Ms. Student wants to talk to us. MS. STUDENT: Well -- no, go ahead, David. MR. WEIGEL: What I'll say is that it's not impossible for an item that hasn't been advertised for the second hearing to come up and be discussed by the Board. But the ability for the county attorney or any attorney to defend the process where we have no staff representation here to address this issue prior to now, and a potential issue concerning the notice of this -- of the inclusion at this moment I think renders it a little bit difficult for us to say that you go forward without some risk if you were to include it right now. If it should be included tonight and the directive given and it be transmitted as part of the LDC amendments to Tallahassee, so be it, we'll defend it to the best of our ability. But there is a technical issue in regard to bringing up a previously unadvertised -- and an issue that has not had any presentation at the prior hearing at the second hearing here. Now, I know as recently as five, six weeks ago the staff was given direction by the Board in the course of normal Board meetings, bring something back on the LDC and they would do so. And it came into the process in a regular way. But it makes it, I think, from the standpoint of potential defensibility an issue this evening. MS. STUDENT: The other thing I need to add: The Planning Commission, who is charged under state law as our Land Development Regulation Commission, specifically requested that it be brought back at the next amendment cycle. And to answer your other question about the semantics, I think our code talks in terms of landscape plan, and that may be different. But there's no staff here to address it, that a planting plan -- I Page 9 January 27, 1999 think a landscape plan is broader and requires some additional expertise that may differ from a planting plan. But again -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What I've got to say -- MS. STUDENT: -- I can't testify as to that because I'm an attorney, I'm not a landscape architect. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, what I've got to say about this, you know, Ray, I think that we probably can't do it this cycle. And you know I've already told you that. But I want Mr. Fernandez to hear that Ray tried to interject this into the cycle at many appropriate times, it appears to me, in plenty of time for this to be in this cycle. This is a May letter from the House of Representatives. And the legislation passed when, Ray? MR. PELLETIER: It was passed in October. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You know, this could have made it in this cycle. MR. PELLETIER: I think that's a typo in the letter, I'll be honest with you. I have the actual letter with her original signature on it here. And she couldn't have wrote this in May, because the legislation didn't get passed in October. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it's possible, however, for it to have been in this cycle. And so I don't want us to use this we don't have the people here to respond to him as an excuse to not hear it when he asked for it to be -- MR. NINO: Well, may I speak to that issue, however? A lot of people ask the staff to do things in terms of amending the Land Development Code, and we don't -- we can't respond to all of those. But we do have a provision for a person or a professional to file an application to amend the Land Development Code -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The fee for that -- MR. NINO: -- for which there is a fee. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What's the fee? MR. NINO: $1,4007 $1,400. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: $1,400. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Has Mr. Pelletier paid his fee? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, that's the point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the other option is that a commissioner can introduce that. And I will introduce the item, if need be. Because this is one we've wrestled with for years. It's foolish. It's other businesses, it's not safety oriented. It's not -- it's not anything except other businesses trying to cut out certain businesses and hoard their industry. And we ought not do that. If there is some safety issue here or some level of expertise issue here, great. But it appears that's all been answered. And so if the question is whether it's been introduced to the process properly or not, consider this introducing it from this point Page 10 January 27, 1999 forward. If we can't handle it, great, now, that's fine. But if we're going to handle it in the next one, don't wait for that $1,400 check, just consider that came from Commissioner Constantine. MR. MULHERE: I understand. For the record, Bob Mulhere, Planning Services Director. And obviously, whenever the Board directs to adopt a -- an amendment to the Land Development Code, we always do, as well as any direction from the Planning Commission, because they are equally authorized. And the Board, of course, has the final say. The Planning Commission and the Development Services Advisory Committee, who is another body, who may also introduce a Land Development Code amendment with no fee, the Planning Commission and the Land Development Code -- excuse me, the Development Services Advisory Committee looked at this issue in this cycle and both recommended that it not be included, and that information was presented at the first Board hearing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Then why was -- what was their rationale for that? MR. MULHERE: Because they felt as though the appropriation was that the restriction requiring a landscape plan be submitted by a registered landscape architect was appropriate. That was their feeling. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it wasn't -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Was there a certificate process at that time? Was all of this presented when they had to go through a certification and they had to do this exam and everything? MR. MULHERE: I'll defer to Ron on that. MR. NINO: No, it wasn't. It wasn't available to us at that time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why? Ray, was it available to you at that time? MR. PELLETIER: The only thing that they didn't get was the final redo that included the four-hour exam. But I'd like to state for the record that I sent documentations, and I have a letter here that I sent Barbara Berry a copy of, because I wasn't getting anywhere with anybody. I was getting no response, with the exception of an invitation to go to an advisory board meeting that I went to and Mike Ford went to. And oddly enough, the board canceled that meeting. And the only people that were there were me, the county landscape architect and two other architects. And then I -- so I don't know what happened, what caused that to be canceled or what. But I think, you know, somebody's got to ask the question what happened there. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You and I spoke and you asked me before the last land development -- or our first hearing -- MR. PELLETIER: Right. Page 11 January 27, 1999 COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- if I would ask the question. You remember that discussion? MR. PELLETIER: Yeah, and I -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I did that. In fact, I -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, you did. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- asked Ron about this particular item. MR. PELLETIER: So what I did was I filed the same routine that I wanted to do last time. I don't know who gave the presentation before the advisory board. I didn't know about it, and I'm the only person that would have known about it, if we're going to represent our side in the issue. They had the documentation well in advance, and I followed the outline on the front of the packet where it says they need documentation in request. If you want to go before the board, the Planning Commission, you have to have it two weeks ahead of time. They had it in October. And it's just interesting to point out that the Planning Commission voted to approve the ability of property owners and nurserymen to do it. So it went before the Planning Commission with less qualifications than it has now and it still passed. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask Mr. Mulhere a question. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Mulhere, was Ms. Student correct about there being a distinction between a planting plan and a landscape plan? MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What is that distinction? MR. MULHERE: Well, planting plans strictly deals with the planting and the planting materials, other things like irrigation and landscape plans, more comprehensive. It deals with the interaction between the engineering plan and the landscape plan. This -- we discussed this at the last Land Development Code Amendment hearing. My only concern is as I stand up here as a planning director, I have no objection to reviewing this amendment. And if there is in fact a certification process that qualifies these individuals, I have no objection to amending the LDC to reflect that. What concerns me is I want to get it on the record that there was no effort not to do that through this process. There is a process. We simply do not accept a request to amend the Land Development Code from any individual. There is a process to go through. We brought it through that process. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But Bob, we told -- when we cut them out of this, we told them, we gave them marching orders, go away, come back, you know, with a broomstick and then we'll consider it. And they came back with a broomstick and we -- you know, and -- MR. MULHERE: I hear, but this is the first that I've seen that information, that certification process. Page 12 January 27, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, there's a communication problem in getting it to you, because I've seen it and I've seen efforts of it getting there. MR. NINO: That's the first I've ever seen of it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The first you've ever seen of the test? Because -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- that's the only new piece of information. MR. MULHERE: Yes, the test. But I think that's a critical part of the equation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: See, what we need to know is what is the subject matter that they're being tested on. Will that qualify them to submit a landscape plan versus a planting plan? We need to know that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you look at our code and turn to the section that describes the landscape plan -- because I did this -- I find it hard to find elements -- and tell me the section. MR. MULHERE: For the landscape plan, it's 2.4. I don't think it's in your packet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's not? MR. MULHERE: Because that section wasn't advertised. But the section that requires a registered landscape architect in in the site development plan section as 3.3, that was advertised. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So 3.3 is in here. Is there something in 3.3 that they should not be allowed to do? MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There are enough questions here, doesn't it seem prudent that we wait until the next cycle and give our staff a chance to make an analysis and present us with all the facts, rather than -- MR. MULHERE: The only suggestion I would make is that there were an awful lot of landscape architects who were concerned who spoke at the last hearing. I have no objection to taking a look at that and bringing that back as an amendment as directed by the Board. I just don't know whether it's something that can be accomplished at this meeting. That's the only question that I have. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I'm saying. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any other questions for Ray or for staff on that? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, you know, I'm very new at this, but I can understand Mr. Pelletier's frustration. I'm equally as frustrated with process. I don't know how it fell through the cracks, but I hope that we would back up and objectively look at how we do this so that in the future we don't have to sit here for 30 minutes and find out that something has fallen through the cracks because this or that. Page 13 January 27, 1999 So I -- direction to staff would be to look at the process, look at what we have to do so that this doesn't happen in the future. I understand counsel's advice to us, that there's too many things that we have to do legally so that in the end, Mr. Pelletier, so that you are protected and this doesn't become short-term. And I personally apologize to you for the fact that it's been such a delay. MR. PELLETIER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. No other public speakers. Any other questions for staff? Then the procedure is a motion. You could describe for us, I hope. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. I think it's section 3.13, if I'm not mistaken. The issue that Mr. Pelletier just spoke about, I would like to clear that up first before we move on. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I think what we -- MR. NINO: 3.3. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- as I understand the consensus of the Board is that we're going to see this in the next cycle. MR. CAUTERO: That is clearly understood. And I would just like to state, commissioners, for the record, we don't believe it fell through the cracks, Commissioner Carter. We don't. Perhaps you misunderstood, and you have my personal apology for that, but we just don't think it fell through the cracks. There is a process and we just don't think the process was followed the way it should be followed. And if someone's going to take the blame for that, it will lie with me, but we don't believe it fell through the cracks. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I want to be clear that this is not -- and I think Commissioner Constantine's already taken care of it -- that this is not an issue that requires a $1,400 fee be paid and -- this is a board direction that from the time when we changed the code to prohibit landscape designers from taking -- performing certain options under our code, the instruction was if they went away and made their industry regulated, that we wanted to look at it again. MR. CAUTERO: That's correct. And we do not -- we did not take that as your direction. And if that was your direction, then I apologize for the -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what I intended at the time, but it -- and I appreciate your clarifying it, because that makes it a lot clearer. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but once again, I think what Mr. Cautero is saying is there's a process. If an individual is going to bring that forward, that's one thing. If it goes through the proper committees and the Planning Commission, that's another. But the proper process is not to chat perhaps with one or two commissioners and expect it to be done. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, I'm clear on that. But -- Page 14 January 27, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but at the same time, if the process isn't working efficiently, I hope that a small business owner feels comfortable coming and chatting with a couple of commissioners and expecting to get some sort of result. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I didn't mean to indicate that that would not be appropriate. But the point is that if that particular commissioner who got talked to didn't follow up and bring it to the Development Services Division, then it's not going through the process correctly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And apparently for the next several months, it will. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It will. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's the good part. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I think it's really important, because all of you -- Mr. Carter wasn't here, but all of you will remember when this item was brought up before, we had a room full of people sitting here who addressed this issue, who were very passionate. As Ray and some of his people were here and very passionate, there was another side here that was extremely passionate as well. Don't forget that. You don't have that in the room tonight. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, no kidding. COMMISSIONER BERRY: So it's very easy to assume a certain position, but don't forget, you had the other side -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but my recollection was the other side was worried about qualifications. And that's what -- virtually everybody got up and talked about whether or not they were qualified. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to hear -- personally, that's the reason I'd like to hear from them now. Does this satisfy their concerns? We don't know that, because we -- it wasn't advertised, they didn't know that it was going to be brought up tonight. I don't know that, I'm not a landscape architect or designer or planner, or whatever you want to call me. So I don't know what the other side of the issue is. And I think in all fairness, you've got to hear both sides. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, and I made the point earlier, there's some qualifications requirement now and a four-hour test, but what is that? Does it -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I'm sympathetic with Mr. Pelletier. He and I have had numerous conversations about this, and I certainly understand his frustration. But as a professional, as you know, Commissioner Mac'Kie, regulation, professional regulation, you know, if somebody decides to go out -- you know, would you assume that a paralegal could go do your job and sign off on some things? I mean, all due respect to the jobs they do, you know, but this is just the same -- it's the same kind of thing -- Page 15 January 27, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: CPA versus accountant. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- all professions have these. My husband goes through the same thing in his profession. So it's just things that you have to be aware of. You have to hear both sides. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we'll have this discussion -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Six months from now we're going to have a great analysis -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's right. And we'll know better then what direction we should go. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So if there aren't any other issues to come before the commission for this particular cycle, do we have a motion, or is a motion what's called for at this point, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: There's an ordinance, which you have in your package, which would be to adopt -- MR. WEIGEL: All the way at the back. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 91.102, as amended? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I move that we adopt that ordinance. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, I gave the wrong number. MR. NINO: 91-102, as amended. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's -- okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the number I meant to move that we adopt. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Motion and second. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Passes unanimously. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's all? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does that take care of the repeal of 91-26 and repeal of -- yeah. Does that take care of the repeal of 91-267 In the very back of our book there's another blue page that has to do with repeal of ordinance 91-26. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which had to do with EPTAB, and -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right, and create -- we just created the EAC and the -- but I think we also need to -- MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, it absolutely does. That's historical. That's the direction to the Board that came from that November 6th meeting to go and do this here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we have already repealed. MR. WEIGEL: You have done so by your approval this evening. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think -- is there anything else, Mr. Lorenz? Item #3 Page 16 January 27, 1999 O~DIN]tNCE 99-7 REPEALING OF ORDINANCE 91-26, AS AMENDED, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COLLIER COU~VfY ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL /tOVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED MR. LORENZ: I want to make sure and understand that the EPTAB ordinance that currently exists is a separate standalone ordinance. This item here, the Board needs to adopt this ordinance to repeal BPTAB's ordinance. Simply adopting the Land Development Code ~ndments will not repeal EPTAB's ordinance. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And for the record, you are? MR. LORENZ: Excuse me, for the record, Bill Lorenz, natural .~/resources director. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I thought we -- that's what I was concerned with. MR. WEIGEL: Okay, I see -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do we need a motion to repeal that ordinance? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll make a motion ~- MR. WEIGEL: You do. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- to repeal the ordinance MR. WEIGEL: May as well. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- from what I'm hearing from COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -o Mr. Lorenz. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Motion and second. All in favor, please say aye? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. And we're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:47 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL Page 17 ATT,EST ( 'u J£ · '~:..These .m~tes approved by the Board on as presented r as corrected January 27, 1999 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BE~LF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 18