Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/30/1991 SCOLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS UNIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PUBLIC HEARING October 30, 1991 5:05 p.m. Third Floor Boardroom Collier County Courthouse Naples, Florida 33962 Reported by: Christina J. Reynoldson Deputy Official Court Reporter Notary Public State of Florida at Large TELE: OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Carrothers Reporting Service, Inc. 20th Judicial Circuit - Collier County 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 33962 (813) 732-2700 FAX: (813) 774-6022 2 APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS: P. Anne Goodnight - Chairman Max A. Hasse - County Commissioner Burr Saunders - Count%' Commissioner Richard Shanahan - County Commissioner Michael Volpe - County Commissioner Ken Baginski - Planning Services Manager Frank Brutt- Community Development Administ[ator Barbara Cacchione - Growth Planning Department Ken Cuyler - County Attorney Joe Delate - Planning Services Nell Dorrill - County Manager Martha Howell - Assistant County Attorney John Madajewski - Project Review Services Manager William Merrill - Consultant to the County David Pettrow - Development Services Director Jennifer Pike - Administrative Assistant to County Manager Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney Byron Tomlinson - Sheriff's Office Bruce Anderson Gary Beardsley Garry 'Beyrent Hank B uckhannan Barbara Cawley Tim Constantine Sewell Corkran Gene Cox Robert Duane Michael Fernandez Bill Hoover OFFICIAL OOURT REPORTERS, Arthur Jacob Reed Jarvi Raymond Link Ross Mcintosh Mark Morton Keith Pershing Anthony Pires, Jr. Dwight Richardson Gayle Richardson Tony Varano COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 PROCEEDINGS C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All rise. I'll call the meeting to order. (The invocation was presented, followed by recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Frank, I understand that we have a proposed presentation schedule and that we're going to first review the articles, Article VI, I guess. MR. BRUTT: IV, V and VI. If you'll allow me one moment, I'll lead into that. What I'd like to do is to tell you that as in most projects you desire to seek and you do it on time and you do it under budget and I'd like to congratulate the County Commission for the extreme efforts that they've put into this particular code. I'd like to thank the Planning Commission for the number of hours they have spent on it, the Coun~t Attorney's Office, our own community; development division staff and the consultant for the extra hours that all of you and we have put in on the project. As the State -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: Frank, we may as well say something about the public. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 4 MR. BRUTT: I have two other groups to thank. Definitely I want to thank the Citizen's Land Development Code Committee. They had at one time 70 meetings and I guess it took about 85 meetings; and definitely the input from the citizen's groups, both individual and collectively. Since our meeting two weeks ago, meetings have been held with what we call the C-4 and C-5 commercial zoning group that took about four and a half hours last week and also the model homes group met with Ken Baginski and other members of the staff and I believe we have an apparent resolution of those particular issues. What I'd like to do right now is turn it over to Bill Merrill. He's got your schedule and we can move ahead with the project acknowledging the fact that our goal as stated many months ago was to have the project up to the State in Tallahassee by November 8th. Thank you very much. MR. MERRILL: Thank you, Frank. For the record, my name is Bill Merrill and I'm the consultant on the land development, Collier County Land Development Code. What I'd like to do is just briefly go through the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5 order of the hearing for your approval and then touch on some preliminary matters. I believe that the most expeditious way of approaching the hearing this evening would be to start out with the preliminary matters that I will be discussing, they're very brief, then to get immediately into the public comments starting with Article IV, V and VI and then coming back for any final wrap-up matters on Articles I, II and III and then finally the third part of the public hearing would be the final review and adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. With regard to the preliminary matters, what we will be asking from the consultant and staff perspective is that the board adopt the Land Development Code which is primarily the white sheets that you have before you as modified or as amended by the yellow sheets, which are the Planning Commission approved sheets, and as modified by the new sheets that have been additional direction from this board or that were developed after the Planning Commission pursuant to their direction, and those are the blue sheets. As far as the white, yellow and blue sheets and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 what supersedes what, the yellow sheets, if there is a conflict with the white sheets, the yellow sheets will supersede the white sheets. And if there's a conflict between the blue and the yellow, the blue sheets will supersede the yellow sheets. The blue sheets, for the most part, don't have any conflicts with the yellow sheets but I just wanted to make that point for the record because there are a couple of instances where that occurs where we had a number of revisions to the same section over and over where it's been refined and further refined by the Planning Commission and by staff, again, by meeting with the public and then ultimately by this board. COMMISSIONER HASSE: With all those colors, you don't have any other colors we 'can look at, do you? MR. MERRILL: Well, technically I guess we only have two colors since white's not a color, so -- but in any event, as I understand -- as I understand it, and I've consulted with the County Attorney, this code will take four votes to adopt. It does require some rezoning of land primarily because we are changing internal calculations and requirements within a number of the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 7 districts that are currently out there. we are also eliminating some districts and creating a few new districts. MR. CUYLER.. Bill, let me mention something. I see some people in the audience that I think are looking for some side sheets. We have had some delivered and the board members have those in front of them. We have a second set that will be probably be here in about 20 minutes or so and we'll distribute those when they get here. Go ahead. MR. MERRILL: Sure. In addition to the adoption of the Land Development Code, we'd also like to have a motion or resolution that this board indicates that the, in their opinion the Land Development Code is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and implements the Growth Management Plan, and then finally a resolution or motion to transmit the finally adopted Land Develo~ent Code after we have made all the corrections back in our office to transmit that to the Department of Community Affairs by November 8th and also to the Secretary of State for their files and recording. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 A couple other points that we need to bring up, with regard to recent rezonings, especially with regard to your Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance rezonings and the Immokalee Master Plan rezonings that have occurred recently, many of those were not final -- although they were approved, they were not finally prepared ~3 staff until after our original Zoning Atlas had been prepared. Those changes have been marked in pencil on the maps that are at the public records. Those will be included in the new Official Zoning Atlas Map. We are not repealing those or failing to include those. Those will be included in the ~.gning Atlas that will be sent to the DCA and to the Secretary of State. But again, those were -- there just wasn't enough time between when the advert]~sement came along and when those rezonings were actually approved by the board. Another point, the third point deals with repeal. We do h'ave a ntm~ber of ordinances that a]:e indicated as being repealed by this code. Most of the .~ey ordinances are included already. We do have a coup3. e more indicated on a side sheet that you have received tonight; however, there are additional ordinances that should be repealed. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 There are a total of 500 ordinances that needed to be reviewed to see if they're being repealed. Many of them dealt with boards and departments and staff duties and so forth. Marjorie Student is currently going through those, but I just wanted to let you know that those will be coming up probably in an additional ordinance after this code is adopted. In the meantime, if there are conflicts, of course the more restrictive applies and the intention is that the Land Development Code be al 1- encompa s si ng. There are two specific ordinances that I wanted to bring up with regard to the repealer section. There are two ordinances that will be codified. They will not be adopted. They will merely be codified. we are not changing any words or wording in those ordinances. The first one is the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and the second one is the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance. Both of those have been adopted for over a year or nearly a year, the APFO being adopted well over a year. We've had a challenge on that and we do not want to adopt that to then open the window up for new challenges. So '::'.".' ' OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 lO we are -- I want to re-emphasize this. we are merely codifying those. We are not changing the language in any way. We have reformatted it somewhat because of the structure of the code, but again, the substance and the wording has not changed at all. In addition, we do have an errata sheet that is primarily dealing with cross-references in the code and a number of typographical errors; that those will be recorded. We did not lay out every single one of them. Time did not allow us to identify every section that needs to be cross-referenced, but we do have blanks that are in the code right now. Those will be properly cross-referenced to the appropriate sections or articles or divisions in the code. And I do want to mention that so that is part of your understanding when the code is adopted. In other words, ~ze don't want to have a code that's adopted with a blank, we want to have the permission to go ahead and include those cross-references when we do the clean up at the end. COMMISSIONER HASSE: We' re not going to be surprised with anything. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, _NA..PLES, FL 33962 11 MR. MERRILL: NO, I don't think there will be any surprises. It's just a matter of finding where the sections are in the new code compared with the old ordinances. And we primarily had a problem with off-street parking and historic rights because those came to us so late because they were new ordinances of the county and they came to us so late we didn't have the time to do all the cross-reference cite checks. Finally, with regard to a fee schedule, it is my understanding that staff has a proposed fee schedule that they will be presenting or that I think it's a proposed schedule to be on this board's agenda next Tuesday. We will not be dealing with that tonight, but I just wanted to let you know. Staff asked me to indicate that to you, that there is -- the fee schedule is scheduled to be presented to. this board next Tuesday. Finally, I want to thank you and the public and the committee and your staff. It's been a very long process, but I think it's been a very good process. There's been a lot of public participation, more than any other Land Development Code that I have been involved in. As Frank said, there's been somewhere between 70 to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 12 90 meetings of the committees and there have been a number of other meetings with the general public, answering phone calls and so forth and I think this community shoulL% be very proud of its efforts in trying to accommodate the public and to involve as many people in the public as possible in this process. I think it's a very commendable effort and I think as a result you have a very fine code that I think personally, and I'm very involved in the American Planning Association, I personally think that it is good enough material to win some awards possibly next year at their conference. So again, I think that you do have a very good start. That doesn't mean it's going to be set in stone. I think it's a changing document. When things don't work, they sometimes need to be changed, but sometimes they just need to be, you know, people need to adjust to them. So I hope we keep all that in mind and, you know, this implements what the public and what the County Commission has in mind. Thank you. Also, if you have any -- Marjorie Student also brought up during the adoption, Count Attorney's Office OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 13 would like to have us adopt the Zoning Atlas, Official Zoning Atlas on a separate vote. So we will have a vote for the Land Development Code and a vote for the Zoning Atlas. Again, thank you and I'll be here, of course, through the meeting to answer any questions and try to shed any light on matters. Thank you. With this, Madam Chairman, I would .,~uggest that we just go ahead ana open it up to the public starting with Article IV and moving through IV through VI and then starting back at I, II and III for any wrap-up. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGBT: Okay. MS. PIKE: There are no speakers for Article IV. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. Then what about Article V? Is there any questions on Article IV that the Commissioners have? (No response. ) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGBT: Then what about Article V? MS. PIKE: There are no registered speakers for Article V. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGhT: Do we need to take a motion OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 14 with each one of these or just an overall -- MR. MERRILL: No, I think we can just go ahead with an overall motion. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Then the next article is Article VI. MS. PIKE: Article VI does have three registered speakers. The first speaker is Anthony Pires. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Pires. MS. PIKE: Pires. MR. PIRES: Good evening, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Anthony Pires, Jr. of the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Anderson. At a disadvantage, I'm not sure -- I don't have the side sheets and I guess Ken indicated they'd be available in 20 minutes or so. I know at the prior meetings Mr. Madajewski indicated that for example in the definition of subdivision the word "lease" would be deleted from there. I assume that's been taken care of, but I don't have that in front of me. MR. MADAJEWSKI: To verify that, I have a copy of the side sheet, as the board does, and that term has been removed. It is stricken. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 15 MR. PIRES: Okay. Thank you. Another issue, and I was speaking with Barbara Cacchione before the meeting on the definition of "base density." As currently written, I have a concern that it could be confusing. That's on page 6-7 of Article VI. The way it's written, it's language relative to the language in the Comprehensive Plan. And Barbara and I have discussed some possible language and I don't know if Mr. Merrill's had a chance to review it or not. MR. MERRILL: Yes, I have, and that's fine with me. I've talked with Barbara and so we went ahead and adopted that, Tony. MR. PIRES: Okay. .Is that in the side sheets? MR. MERRILL: No, but we can recommend that, because it just was done tonight. MR. PIRES: I think --would it be appropriate, Madam Chairman, then, for Miss Cacchione-- I think she has the language, or Bill. MR. MEP.RILL: I'll read that right now. The suggested language that Barb Cacchione and Tor~; ~. ~r~ : worked out is on page 6-7 under the deflnltlon of base !,.-- ' ~':'~"":.: density. :. ................ ~)~:~':':~.':~:..:'' OFFICI~ ~URT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, ~ 33962 16 COMMISSIONER HASSE: Is that on a blue sheet? MR. MERRILL: On the white sheets. There is no side sheet for this because we just worked this out a few minutes ago. It's on page 6-7, and I'll wait until you get there. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Please do. MR. MERRILL: And I think it's more of a technical than a substantive issue. Tony was concerned about some double counting or double subtracting -- MR. PIRES: Double subtracting. MR. MERRILL: And I wasn't so concerned about it, but I don't see any harm in making the change that he's discussing because we cross-reference it back to the Growth Management Plan. But on page 6-7 under the definition of "base density," we would cross out starting at t:he parenthesis where it says, "Minus any density reduction" and cross out all the way to the end of that sentence. So we'd cross out, "Minus any densit:y reduction for traffic congestion or Coastal Management Area without application of a density bonus program" and we'd add the words in that place, "Pursuant to the Density Rating OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 17 System of the Future Land Use Element." So the -- that first sentence would read, "The number of residential dwelling units per gross acre permitted in the Urban Designated Areas, as identified on the Future Land Use Map, pursuant to the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element." And then we would continue on with those same two existing sentences that are at the end of that paragraph. All this does is really reference it back to the Growth Management Plan which is what Tony's concern was. He was concerned that we were changing the definition, which was not our intent. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Isn't the base density in the Coastal Management Area three? MR. MERRILL: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SHANABAN: It says four here. MR. MERRILL: In the Coastal Management Area it's reduced by one and in traffic congestion areas it's reduced by one. You' re correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But then the next sentence I~,:.': says in the Urban Designated Areas. Are the Urban ~,~i¥~.:~ Designated Areas -- isn't there an overlap between Urban ..-.. 18 Designated Areas and the Coastal Management Area? MR. MERRILL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So it says within the Urban Designated Area is a base level density of four residential uses is permitted, but that doesn't recognize that the base density in the Coastal Management Area is three. MR. MERRILL: Barb, is this-- MS. CACCHIONE: Barbara Cacchione, for the record. The base density is four units per acre and then based on locations, Coastal Management Area, Traffic Congestion Area, there is a loss of a unit per acre so that it is correctly stated that it's four and then based on project location and characteristics it can be lowered or increased. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members of the Board. That's all I have. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Nice to see you, Tony. MS. PIKE: The next speaker is Gary Beardsley. MR. BEARDSLEY: Good evening. For the record, my name is Gary Beardsley, a resident of Collier County, 2396 13th Street North. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 !9 My only concern in Division VI or Section VI in the definitions, I find they're very important to especially people that may move into Collier County and not realize what this means, what various terms used means. I've got a whole series of 15 terms that I don't see in here, especially most~of these refer back to the environmental section. I guess I could just start out the first one there's reference to canouy midst or in ground. Canopy's not defined on page 6-9. There's also talking about conservation easements a term "dedication." I'm sure that's a legal term, but I'm not sure I know what it means, and that's on page 6-13. Then there's a whole ordinance or a whole section in here on Environmental Impact Statements and I don't see an Environmental Impact Statement, EIS, defined. That should be on page 6-18. One very important part of looking at the land, the raw land, is doing a vegetation map and specifically it's discussed in this land development ordinance to follow the Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System, which the acronym FLUCCS is given. I don't see that defined. It should be on page -- or Section 6-20. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 Also, it talks about habitat type or habitat. There's no reference to habitat or habitat type, and that should be about in Section 6-22. There's also a whole section in here talking about listed species and how you have to survey for them. Protected or listed species. I don't see either of those terms defined. Again, "mid-story" should be defined someplace about probably on page or Section 6-34. Also, I think there's some ambiguities or confusion on the definition of mining. I think that needs to be defined. It's not. That's in Section 6-34. Also, there's reference to native vegetation. I believe the county has a list of what they consider typical native vegetation for the various habitat types and that should be referenced. There's no definition of "native vegetation." That should be about on Section 6-36. And again, a very important term that's used a lot is "natural resources." You might want to define that, Section 6-36. Also, we talk about zoning maps, ST, Special OFFICIAL COURT REb0RTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 21 Treatment. That's not defined. That would probably be about Section 6-48. Also, the county has specific references and also talks about wetlands and jurisdictional wetlands. There's no reference or no definition of wetland or jurisdictional wetland. That would be about -- jurisdictional wetland would be about Section 6-24. Wetland could fit in at Section 6-54. I would hope that somebody is looking through this document and trying to find terms, especially, you know, have somebody look at it that has no knowledge of what these terms mean. They'll right away say, Well, what's this mean? And if it's not in the definition or not referenced somewhere, it needs to be. Thank you. MR. MERRILL: We could certainly add these definitions. I think most of them are a term of art used in the environmental profession. John, I don't know if you have any feelings on that one way or the other. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, one suggestion might be I think from some of the definitions that Mr. Beardsley recommended, some of them sound like they should be defined somewhere in the code, but I suspect OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 22 that the best thing to do would be to go through those definitions with Mr. Beardsley at your leisure, not tonight, and then determine which ones should be added during an ~unendment process. MR. MERRILL: And maybe that should be a board directed thing for staff to do after the adoption of this code. And I think those are good suggestions as far as the user friendly code so you don't have to look in other sources. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Well, when you relate to those things, we have a definition someplace. MR. MERRILL: Well, I think for the most part I think that they would pass any type of muster because most of them are terms of art used in the environmental profession. So, for instance, habitat or listed species are a term that everyone understands. Of course many laypeople, of course, wouldn't understand that. But the people in the environmental profession and staff would understand that and there is a provision, of course, a standard boiler plate provision that we have in the code that says if the term is not defined and it's a technical OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY,. NAPLES, FL 33962 23 type of word or a term of art then that's how it will be defined and if it's a common word, then it will be defined as you find it in Webster's, basically. So I feel that we're covered on that, but I think from a user's perspective I think it's a good idea that Mr. Beardsley has suggested and I don't think we can do that tonight, but I think it is something that maybe the staff can look into with his help and other's help on down the road. MR. MADAJEWSKI: I think that would be the best thing to do, we would take direction so that it was not just staff with one individual coming up with a definition and then have that brought back on whatever the first amendment cyclE: would be. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Are these terms defined currently in any one of our ordinances that you' re aware of? MR. MAD;%IEWSKI: I would have to go back the Comp Plan. Most of them come out of the Comp Plan. There is a -- as Bill has said, they are standardized things, but as Gary said, for certain specific individuals. So I don't think anybody could be, you know, led to believe OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 24 something other than if somebody presented it, you know, that it would become a confusing issue. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I was looking for a place on an interim basis -- if you could just lift some definitions if they're currently defined in our Growth Management Plan and the Coastal Conservation Element or anyplace that we could just lift them right now and put ~.~ them in here. MR. MADAJEWSKI: An example of wetlands, the Growth :~' Management Plan Coastal and Conservation, Collier County has adopted wetland species that are in the DER wetlands list. So there is a quick tie. If there were to be a dispute, I think very easily there's a reference source !~.~,~ ...~ that could document it and what we would do is work to ~tf~:~'. , ~ just bring those specific ones into the code on the first '. ~_ amendment cycle. ~~i!':~'!'I'~cD COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That would be my suggestion .~-~' where it's currently defined. i~ The other is that just as an example, with .~!'i~i.!i.' conservation easement, conservation easements are defined I ~ ~!~:: ':: by statute. i ~. MERRILL.' That's correct. 25 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And just -- you've got a definition of a conservation easement. It would seem to me that you might want to tie it back in k.ecause that is as defined by the Florida Statute, unless you didn't want to do that. MR. MADAJEWSKI: There's been some heated debate on that because the Florida Statute is very, very restrictive. MR. MERRILL.. We originally had that. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. So you don't want it to be that way. Okay. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: In our blue sheets, we've got some Division 6.3. MR. MERRILL.. 6.37 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Yeah. Aren't we on VI? MR. MERRILL: Yes. MR. MAD~EWSKI: That is the specific one on the word "lease" in "subdivision." That's the one-- MR. MERRILL: Mr. Pires brought that up. MR. MADAJEWSKI: -- Mr. Pires brought up. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: That' s okay? MR. MADAJEWSKI: That' s fine. OFFICIAL COURT REPCRTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NA?LES, FL 33962 COF~ISSIONER VOLPE: The one I've got is on non-conforming lot of record. MR. MADAJEWSKI: Well, there's some other definitions that are in there that I guess have been added in that haven' t been brought up, the one Ann referred to. I think it's on page 6-49 and 6-50 is the definition of subdivision where we were going to remove the word "lease." MR. MERRILL: I added the word "lawful" to clarify that situation. didn't want to allow unlawful lots to become non-conforming. 26 On the non-conforming lot of record, We CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Then we've got 6.3, the definition of shopping centers on the blue sheets. I I~'CD JUSt want to make sure that we cover everything in !~ii!~.:'CD MR, MERRILL: That's correct. There s a definition I~iti~.i~i'.~,'I of sho~ in center; a definition on the next page of !~?:?:~:.;- ' CHAI~,~ GOODNIGHT: Then the non-co~orming lots ~3~'~'~ ~. ME~ILL: That's the one I just mentioned. :.; ~ ?:~,' ... . ....... ........... 27 C~AIRMAN GOODNIGRT: So all of those that are on the blue sheets have been taken care of? MR. MADAJEWSKI: Mr. Pires brings up one other point we will take care of. There is a term "subdivide" and in the last sentence -- that is on page 6-49 in your white sheets. In the last sentence, the middle of the sentence the word "lease" shows up there. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: You've got it marked down on the blue sheets. MR. MADAJEWSKI: That is the definition of "subdivision." CHAIRMAN GOODN IGHT: Um-hum. MR. MADAJEWSKI: So we will prepare a sheet that I will turn over to Martha tomorrow as a little cleanup sheet which on the term "subdivide" the word "lease" will come out of that. CHAIP~MAN GOODNIGHT: All right. Is there anything else then in No. VI? MS. PIKE: There's another speaker. CHAIPJ~AN GOODNIGHT: One other speaker? MS. PIKE: Article VI. Okay. Barbara Cawley is registered to speak on OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 28 MS. CAWLEY: Good evening, Madam Chairman and Commissioners. I'm glad to do this a little earlier tonight than last week. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: So are we, Barbara. MS. CA~L~Y: Thank you. This is the same issue that I brought up last week and I've had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Baginski and Barbara Cacchione about it and this is the definition that we' re going to be expanding on hospitals and this relates to the Comprehensive Plan amendment that I brought before you and that you forwarded to DCA. This would allow -- this would expand the definition of hospitals to all~ medical centers which offer primary and urgent c~e treatment for all types of injuries and traumas such as the Marco Urgent Care and Golden Gate Urgent Care facilities to ~ included under the definition of hospitals. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Is that proper? Is that a proper way to put it, covered by all? MS. CAWLEY: We've worked it out so that it limits them just to the urgent care facility ty~ facilities. mean, we aren't going to allow all types of medical 29 centers, but this would limit it to just urgent care type facilities. COMMISSIONER ~{ASSE: You're gearing that to one type of medical center? For medical -- MS. CAWLEY: It doesn't -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: -- care center or-- MS. CAWLEY: What it would -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: What about the others that are around in the county? MS. CAWLEY: What it would do is it would not allow it to be like an eye clinic or a kidney clinic or that type of thing to be located in any district like a hospital would be located in. This would limit it to those types that are emergency trauma care type facilities to locate in districts where hospitals would be allowed to locate. COMMISSIONER HASSE: That would limit any other people coming into the hospital? MS. CA~LEY: No. It would not limit the type of people at all. It would limit the type of facility. MR. BAGINSKI: Well, if I may just interrupt, the ~iiii~111 important thing or the thing of major importance is that · ,~:,~';?~ : , .~,~:~:i/'~ ' OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3O we're not talking about permitted uses. This would still be through a conditional use and require public hearing and review and approval by the board, also. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So you' re in agreement with the recommended change. MR. BAGINSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Fine. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is that on a blue sheet or not? MS. CAWLEY: I've got pink sheets, if you'd like. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Pink sheets. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I've forgotten my color code here. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: We're still on Article VI? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do those replace blue sheets? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: We're still on Article VI but now we' re receiving pink sheets. MR. BAGINSKI: We asked her to try and not conflict with the blue and get something that blended in, a nice pastel color. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: This is the definition that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 31 we've just discussed? MR. BAGINSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: These supersede the blue sheets; is that correct? MR. BAG INSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: They will now. MR. BAGINSKI: They will now, yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In case anyone in the audience is confused, you' re not alone. MR. MERRILL: All your sheets should have the words "but not limited ton crossed off. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: It's just standard procedure. Pink should always supersede blue. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I could see what Judge Thomas would have to say about something like that. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. Is there any problem with that then? (No response. ) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. Is there anybody else then on Article VI? MS. PIKE: No, ma' am. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 32 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Madam Chairman,. we've received some correspondence from a Mr. David Lamb. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGhT: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's in Article II. Article VI is okay in terms of the definition of hunting cabin; is that correct? Current language allowing hunting cabins in the agricultural -- so, you're right. of that is okay. It's in 2.2.2.3. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: II, or is it Article III? MR. MERRILL: Article I. I, II, III and finish it up. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. MR. MERRILL: If that's all right. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: So we're now going back to Article I? MS. PIKE: There are two registered speakers for Article I. First speaker is Ross Mcintosh. MR. McINTOSh: Good evening, Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission. For the record, my name is Ross Mcintosh. I live at 1470 13th Avenue North in Naples. He says the definition Excuse me. Then the next one is Article We might as well just go OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 33 I'm here-- I don't have the page in front of me. I was relying on Bob Duane for that particular page and perhaps Bob dan help me out with this. I'm addressing, speaking to ~'.~e matter of applicability. As I understand this document, any property that is not currently under construction is subject to the regulations that we' re discussing. There is parallel language presented, prepared by the committee that suggests that any property on which a final Site Development Plan or a phased Site Develo~ent Plan on which phase one has been finalized should also be exempted. I'm perfectly prepared to use myself in a project in which I'm engaged as a case in point. I am the developer of Interchange Food Court at Davis Boulevard and 951. We have our final Site Development Plan. It is a phased plan. Phase one has been finalized for Burger King. We have applied for our building permits for the Burger King. We have been in a rush to get this project underway not in a bad faith effort to beat the ordinance, but in a good faith effort to beat Christmas. That's what we' re OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 34 all about is trying to get a Burger King built as quickly as we can, and we mornentirely find ourselves in a situation where in the event that this, the effective date of this ordinance precedes our receiving our building permits, we're out of luck. We're back to square one. We've spent $23,000 on engineering fees. Yes? MR. MADAJEWSKI: Ross, if I could interrupt, what I'm hearing is you say you currently hold an approved final Site Development Plan for a phased SDP? MR. McINTOSH: That's correct. MR. MADAJEWSKI: That is covered by the code. You have from the date of adoption of this two years to move forward with the phase you have in hand and then you have an ability to come back and request an extension through the Development Services Director, so you are -- you hold a development order. MR. McINTOSh: Then perhaps I've misinterpreted Article I. It seems to me the applicability language doesn't seem to say that. The parallel language does. MR. MERRILL: I "~hink the problem is you may not have the side sheets that'have occurred and we've had OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, N%PLES, FL 33962 35 about ten different changes to that one section, the original September 16th draft. The current draft which was reviewed by the board at their last meeting allows for final SDP's and it allows for phased SDP's for one final SDP. MR. McINTOSh.. Thank you. That's fine. I'm sorry to take up your time with a matter that's already been resolved. Thanks very much. MR. ~ERRILL: Thank you. MS. PIKE: Next speaker is Michael Fernandez. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Mike, are you back? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, Commissioners. Regarding -- there was a committee side sheet that dealt with projects that are already in the pipeline, and I don't recall if that was approved or accepted or not. And the other issue that I'd like to address is the effective date of the ordinance. And I was wondering if it might seem reasonable that the effective date of the ordinance might be a given time period after it's published and available to the public or if staff might be able to give us an idea when the published document might be available and therefore establish a date, 90 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 36 days hence or whenever the effective date would be. COMMISSIONER SBANAHAN: Can we get some answers here? MR. MERRILL: Yeah. The effective date changed to 90 days after ~doption? MR. FERNANDEZ.. When would the effective date be? In other words, we won't have the actual ordinance to work with out in the private sector and we' re wondering -- it's going to take some time to take it up to Tallahassee and then to have it published and codified. MR. MERRILL: It takes -- it's less than ten days. Ten days or less and you'll have the ordinance back. The ordinance will be down here the entire time and all we' re doing is recording it up at the Secreta~i of State's . Office. So it will become effective upon receiving · - ~fi:i;i~ C notice that they've filed it. 3 il:::~'~:~:' c:~ COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Ten days. fi;~'.:: COMMISSIO~R SH~~: SO Nov~r 8th is -- what ~J~,::' is the ~te? I/t/~/;;-::~.:~':. :. ~- '~~, ~ date we transit, no later than ~~. Novemir 8th. If we can get it out sooner, ~e will, but I'~ ' ~'~, 1~?:,-,.. O~ICI~ ~URT ~EPORT~RS, ~LL~ER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 I think that's pretty ambitious. But we'll definitely get it out ~y November 8th. So presumably the effective date would be on or about November 18th or sooner. COMMISSIONER S~ANA~AN: Whenever they -- MR. MERRILL: That's correct. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. But we won' t have it as a working document to work in-house, but -- MR. MEP/~ILL: You will. You'll have it November 37 8 th. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You're saying it will available. MR. MERRILL: everyone November 8th. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. It will be fully available to COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: How about the other projects in the pipeline? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah, the issue about projects in the pipeline. In other words, if we've suhnitted for a submittal, there was some language that was talked about that those projects would maintain their density, as long as that wouldn't be affected they would be able to go forward. COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 38 MR. MERRILL: That specific issue's covered by Section 1.5, Applicability, and that's the issue that has been debated extensively by the committee and kS' this board and the Planning Commission and staff and the language that we came up with was to in essence guarantee the density and intensity, the yard requirements, the landscaping buffer widths and phasing for the items that are listed there, which are Final Subdivision Plat, Final Site Development Plan and then the phased. MR. FERNANDEZ: Very good. Thank you very much. MS. PIKE: Next speaker is Gary Beardsley. MR. BEARDSLEY: Again, for the record, Gary Beardsley. I'm not saying anything specific to this 1.5.2.2, certain previous approved development orders, and again, I don't have the side sheets. The oldest one I've got is dated the 21st of this month. I'm going to ramble here a second, but typically a person takes a raw piece of land and tries to get that land upgraded, either change the zoning or have a preliminary development site plan approval and then move through to a final site plan approval and sometimes puts 39 it on the market for sale. That's a way of increasing the value of that land and takes away the uncertainty and the speculation on the potential buyer. But I'm struggling with a phased project. I'm working a phased project up in Lee County where the first phase is going to be developed and the second phase is just going to lie there and it happens to have listed species, Florida Scrubjay and Gopher Tortoises on it and of course that person developing that site would like certainty that he can develop that second phase with the same densities that he has on the first phase. But I'm concerned on how we' re looking at it and I don't see anything here. It says definitely that the densities and intensity of the land used in landscape buffer widths will not change, but I'm wondering how the environmental aspects of that project are addressed if the ordinance is changed later on later phases. MR. MERRILL: If, for instance, and ! don't know exactly how this would work on a particular project, but if for instance you're required to have more preservation area regardless of that requirement, we, under this provision, for these types of development orders, we OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 4O cannot reduce the density or intensity as you're originally approved in your final site or Final Subdivision Plat. MR. BEARDSLEY: Okay. Now, that brings a big ~ :?7 ' ~ ' OFFICI~ COURT RE~RTERS, COLLIER COUNt, NAPLES, FL 33962 .problem up. You've hit upon it. Here's my concern, and my concern is this Unified Land Development Code was supposed to be in August 1st, 1989. So, you know, if it was in place already then we move through the comprehensive land plan and it has habitat protection ordinances and inventories of habitat, criteria and standards of development for those habitats. We don't have any of that in place. We' re now allowing someone to vest a development under these regulations, and these aren't all the regulations. 9?here's a lot of them that are not here because they' re late by years. I'm having a -- I'm struggling with that- problem. MR. MERRILL: I understand your concern and one thing I need to clarify, the Land Development Code was not required to be adopted August 1st. There are a number of regulations that are required under your Comprehensive Plan to be adopted. That may or ]nay not include some of the enviromnental regulations, I'm not 41 entirely certain, but the Land Development Code as a whole did not necessarily have to be adopted by August 1st. There are a lot of additional matters we've included in the code and there's a lot of codifica=ion and revision of existing regulations, so for the most part the county was in compliance with a good portion of the DCA's requirements. You're correct, though, there are a number of regulations and I understand the number of the environmental regulations that have to be adopted were supposed to be adopted by August 1st. We've received the extension by DCA to November 8th. And !' do understand your concern to the extent that a develol~ent can, possibly can, accommodate the new requirements in this code without reducing the density, then they will be required to do that. If, however, there's no other way to work out for instance the increased habitat requirement or increased preservation area requirement without reducing the density, then the thing that will go will be the preservation area. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 42 MR. BEARDSLE¥: MR. F~RRILL: part, I think that there are ways that things can be moved around or juggled around to accommodate both conce ms. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: When we discussed this the first time, we had 113 SDP's that were in the pipeline. MR. MERRILL: SDP's or subdiuisions. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And 31 subdivisions. MR. BEARDSLEY: How many PUD's? MR. MERRILL: John, do you know the PUD numbers? I have concerns with that. I understand that. But for the most Excuse me. M}{. MADAJEWSKI .. PUD' s? MR. BEARDSLEY: Just approximate. There are PUD's in the pipeline that aren't developed. The PUD's aren't covered ]my this. The PUD's are dealt with later. Okay. They' re pemnitted. MR. MERRILL: MR. MADAJEWSKI: MR. BEARDSLEY: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: SDP's -- MR. MERRILL: It's only final SDP's and final subdivision, so the number is even less than 113. everything in the process. That ' s OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 43 MR. MADAJEWSKI: Under the phased situation that Gary is addressing, there is specific language in the document that requires once you have a final SDP in hand when this code is adopted, you have two years to act. If you don't act, then you have the ability to come back and request up to a one-year extension through the Development Services Director, but he can then apply the provisions to that. If you don't act, then your SDP sunsets and you have to go back to square one and start over with the c~de. So there is a two-year sunset available so if you do not continue to move through the project on that basis, it goes away and you have to start from new. MR. BEARDSLEY: My concern is not that there are people out there that take a raw piece of land and bring its value up. I think that's perfectly right. My concern is that they do it and it's such a long period of time that they can just sit on it. I happen to know that there are developers in the county that are going back to old PUD's for example and buying them because they have no environmental sensitivity on them and they' re developing them because OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 44 they understand that to get a new PUD they have such environmental sensitivities they couldn't put the densities or the land use on it. I'm just concerned with that. That' s all. MR. MERRILL: Gary, --yeah. Just to answer that for the board and the public, the one thing I think we have to keep in mind with all provisions in this code, and John brought up a good point, that we have to look at it as a whole. We can't just take one provision and -- and under the board's direction and under the Growth Management Plan all development orders, all final development orders now have a sunset p:~ovision. So we don't have that worry anymore whether it's going to be a Site Development Plan out there for 30 years and suddenly someone's going to ~{ant to rejuvenate it or say you change it or I'm going to develop under the old one. They expire after two years unless there's certain other requirements that are -- MR. BEARDSLEY: That's a positive aspect. I see that. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Next speake::? 45 Article I. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: the board on Article I? (No response. ) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. Article II. MS. PIKE: There are -- MR. MERRILL: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I'm sorry? Is there any questions from ~nen we'll move to MR. MERRILL: Excuse me. Let me point out one thing on the -- in the blue sheets are a couple things. Under Division 1.22 we are adding an additional ordinance into the repealer section and that is historical and archaeological preservation and that's Ordinance 91-70. And in addition, although the full language is not included here, I'm adding a separate section into that division for codification and it should read something to the -- do you have that language with us? It should read that the following -- or something to the effect that the following ordinances are not repealed or replaced by this code but instead are merely codified and included in the provisions of this code and OFFICIAL COURT B:EPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 46 those include the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance which is Ordinance 90-24. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Where do you find that? MR. MERRILL: It's on the blue sheet, page 1-35. COMMISSIONER RASSE: I have several sets. MR. MERRILL: It's in the -- it's something you've just received today. COMMISSIONER HASSE: In the new packet. MR. MERRILL: Yeah, the new packet and it's dated new -- or, 10/30/91. But in essence I don't know if you need to go to it. It just -- it merely lists the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, Ordinance 90-24, and the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance, 90-89. Those are the two and the only two ordinances that we are codifying in this code and we are not repealing them or changing them or revising them in anyway. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOODN IGHT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'd like to give to our staff a copy of the letter that I think we all got from the Citizen's Political Committee. There is an objection OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 47 to the inclusion of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance in the list because of the litigation that's pending and I merely -- I'll merely give this to our staff as part of the record as a courtesy to the Citizen's Political Co~umittee and ask that it be introduced. Do you have a copy of that? MR. MERRILL: No, I have not seen that, but the -- we had the same concern. We did not want to have the one-year time limit start up again and that's the exact reason why we' re codifying it rather than adopting a new one because the trigger mechanism is the adoption, not the codification. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Does that accomplish the recommendation or is it the commission should delete this section of the draft pending the conclusion of the outstanding challenges by codifying it or by just -- MR. MERRILL: I disagree with that. I believe that codification does nothing to change the status of the ordinance. It's no different than sending all of your ordinances in the past up to Municipal Code and having them do it for whatever thousand dollars they do it and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ........... Ill 33-3.~C-33_3-- 3 ----I I I II II 48 just merely renumbering it. And we're doing nothing more to those two ordinances than renumbering them and reformatting them. We are not changing any of the language or any of the meaning. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Fine. C~ AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. Thank you. Then we' 11 -- MR. MERRILL.. We have one other -- there is a blue sheet -- Martha ~owell just brought up a point that there is another blue sheet that goes back to the point that I mentioned at the very beginning during my preliminary comments and that is that there are a number of blank section numbers in the text of the code and cross-references and some typographical errors. Those will be included in the ultimate draft transmitted to the code. There are no surprises in that. It's merely cross-referencing with last minute changes and so forth. There just wasn't time to look up all the different sections that they apply to. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs and to the Secreta~7 of State as well. MR. MERRILL: That's correct, and to the Secretary OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 .......... ~ _ L~____ .... 49 of State. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. Article II. MS. PIKE: For Article II there are 16 registered speakers and for Article III there are two registered speakers. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: MS. PIKE: For Article II. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Article III? MS. PIKE: Sixteen registered speakers? And there's only one for There are two for Article III. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. Then let's take Article III and then we'll take Article II. MS. PIKE: Okay. The first speaker is Sty{ell Corkran. MR. CORKRAN: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Sewell Corkran. I live at 213 Ninth Avenue South. I've got a prepared statement which is available for the commission. I wish to address the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. I am 100 percent aware of what this process is, and my statement is in two parts. And the first part has to do with standing. The incorporation of the Adequate OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 50 Public Facilities Ordinance 90-24 is a reaffirmation of that ordinance and I wish to reaffirm my challenge to the sections and regulations in that ordinance. And in part No. 1, I have listed under 1'he code division numbers the regulations that I have ~allenged as an individual and I have also list:.~. the regulations challenged by me in conjunction with the Department of Community Affairs. Every one of these regulations has as its essence the challenge that the regulations are inconsistent with and do not implement the plan with respect to concurrency, which is necessary to maintain the adequate Levels of Service in the plan for roads. People listening to this that are not ,~p to speed on it may think that this is an academic exercise and it is not at all. These regulations dealing with roads have an immediate impact. They have in the past and they will on the future on a road backlog project improvements within the neighborhood of 60 to 80 million. One of the latest is around 22 million for the Livingston Road extension. Enough on that. Obviously, I think that portions of the Ordinance 90-24 ought to be changed 51 before they go into the code. Part two of my statement involves the question, and .the question is strictly on the code, but before I ask the question, I have to give you some background. And I have to sweep away what I would consider is legal underbrush that might be used as a smoke screen for a failure to answer my question. So bear with me. I don't ramble. I'm talking about the code. On July 25th or 6th in our courthouse Mr. Robert Pennock who is the Chief of the State Planning and Mr. William Merrill who was representing Collier County at this hearing testified under oath and of their own volition introduced the fact that there had been an arrangement between the Department of Community Affairs and Collier County; that this arrangement covered a period September 30th, 1989 through September 30th, 1994, which corresponds exactly to an important plan policy and its implementing regulation. What I want to establish is that this regulation is not subject to the Recommended Order that's 9oing to come out of that hearing. This arrangement does not involve a consistency determination. What this arrangement does OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 52 involve is what is known as an unpromulgated agency statement, and an unpromulgated agency statem, ent, if it's challenged, is challenged under 120.57 (1). And that challenge goes not to the DCA, it goes directly to the DOAR. And the challenge is to the action taken by the Department of Community Affairs. It's not tc. the rule, to the arrangement, it's to hhe action taken. Now, with that background, and I think I've established the fact that this arrangement is not subject to the determination in the hearing, my two-part question is why with an 80 million or a 60 million dollar backlog on roads impacted by this arrangement that was sworn to under testimony, I can't understand why that's not of public knowledge and getting to the code. I am confused as to whether the ordinance and the APFO and the code are going to implement the plan or whether they're going to implement the arrangement. I don't know which one they' re going to do. They can't do both because the arrangement and the plan are different. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HASSE: MR. MERRILL: OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, Any response to that? I don't believe that we should COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 53 comment on that with the pending litigation at this time. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I understand. Okay. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGRT: Next speaker? MS. PIKE: Next speaker is Gary Beardsley. MR. BEARDSLEY: Apologize-- the name, for the record, GaD] Beardsley. And help me. What section are we on? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: We're on III. MR. BEARDSLEY: Okay. I'm on the same section. COMMISSIONER H~SE: Well, I'm glad you're in tune with us, Gary. MR. BEARDSLEY: My problem is this: And I'm looking for direction more than trying to direct. My statement is basically concerned with Section II and Section III. My understanding, Section III covers among other things a lot of environmental aspects but it also covers subdivisions. Section II covers other PUD's and other kinds, classifications of zoning. Help me understand. This doc~ent, if it's adopted, is going to direct growth in those kinds of land use areas. You know, subdivisions, PUD's, whatever, in OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ;, . ~ :.7:.,' ~... 54 the unincorporated area of the county. That's just a general statement. That's basically what it's going to do. These are Land Development Regulations that are going to address those areas of the count5, in general. MR. MADAJEWSKI: That's correct. MR. BEARDSLEY: Okay. Now, my concern is with the Comp Plan. And again, you know, this is kind of like-- I've had a lot of people say this is a terrible document. It won awards and I hope this Unified Land Development Code wins awards. This has won awards but there's no teeth to it but we won awards. This document we' re talking about tonight is, are some of the teeth. Now, here's my concern: In the Coastal and Conservation Element, objective 11.3 and it says very specifically until the Coastal Barrier and Beach System Management Plan is adopted, objective 11.6, undeveloped coastal barriers shall be maintained predominately in their natural state and their natural function shall be protected, maintained and enhanced and then there's a whole bunch of policies and objectives. I read this as saying until we do a Coastal Management Plan and adopt it, which we haven't done, that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 55 we'll keep the undeveloped coastal barrier undeveloped. Basically undeveloped. Says in its natural state. But I'm understanding that when we adopt this tonight, we're basically saying that all these operations can happen in unincorporated Collier County. Doesn't address exceptions of coastal barriers. So I have a problem with that. MR. MADAJEWSKI: In response to that, on April the 9th of this year the board directed Mr. Lorenz's staff to work with Development Services to bring three items from conservation coastal management, and one of those items is shown as Division 3.12, which is on page 3-126. I worked personally with Stu Santos to put this together, and if you read it, Section 3.12.3, New and Existing Development, requires that until formal adoption of the Coastal Zone Management Plan as described by certain policies that the provisions of the Comp Plan are how we will handle coastal barrier islands. That means what Gary has in his hands today as the Comp Plan are the rules under the Unified Land Development Code until a full ordinance is done and heard and implements this section. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 you, it might save something. II,i ~{.~:'--'. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, 56 MR. BEARDSLEY: Okay. That's good. That's what I would hope you would say. Now, the second area and again, I'm like everybody else out in the audience here trying to play Johnny Catch Up and I've got a whole pile of side sheets and I've got 15 colors here, but that's my problem, not yours. I think in here also -- if I don't drop this. In the section, specifically 3-125, Division 3.11, Endangered, Threatened or Listed Species and I guess that one page covers all the endangered species in the county. I mean, that's it right there. And one area that I'm concerned with is down there where it talks about 3.11.3.3 and it reads until adoption of federal guidelines for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and the Florida panther, the developer shall be responsible for the development of a protection plan. Now, I'm understanding that as saying, you know, until we adopt those, the developer has that responsibility. I'd like to read from a DCA letter -- MR. MADAJEWSKI: Gary, if I ca~.:ld clarify that for COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 57 MR. MADAJEWSKI: The developer is responsible to prepare the plan. The staff through the Conservation Element is required when neede~ to seek technical assistance from the State, one which is Fish & Game, which we do, and then that plan is reviewed by Fish & Game in the county; Fish & Game gives its recommendations to staff and then staff will either act on them in our administrative ability or will bring them to the board for the board to review an act. A typical example are the eagle management plans. We have one coming on autumn phase two. Similar type things that are -- the responsibility originally lies with the developer. Division 3.11 on page 3-125 is of the same nature as the Coastal Barrier Management Element which says until those specific ordinances are adopted, the provisions of the Comp Plan apply and that is how we review all of those things, so I think th~ response that I gave you on coastal ~rrier is the same thing on here, threatened and endangered species. MR. BEARDSLEY: Okay. All I'm saying is that DCA and the commissioners have signed an agreement between OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 58 them that said when this Unified Land Development Code is adopted that you will address guidelines for Red-cockaded. And it says here you won't, that the developer does it. That's all I'm concerned %~ith. MR. MADAJEWSKI: Well, it says-- I'm reading from again back on page 3-125, Section 3.11.3.3. It says that until adoption of federal guidelines because there are no federal guidelines that we are aware of today. MR. BEARDSLEY: Yeah, but this document between DCA and the county here doesn't say until federal guidelines. It says the county will adopt with the Unified Land Development Code guidelines that discuss and cover Red-cockaded Woodpeckers. And we' re not doing that here is one of my concerns. Do you see what I'm saying? This document says that the developer's going to do it, yet this document from DCA agreed upon by the commissioners says that this will be covered in the Unified Land Development Code. MR. MADAJEWSKI: Right. And again,. that is the approach of Division 3.11 to do that. If y'~u drop down to 3.11.3.4, -- MR. BEARDSLEY: Yeah. I think you're missing the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 59 point, and let me just make sure. In the same document it says you will develop guidelines to protect eagle nests and also woodstorks and you' re doing that in this document, the Unified Land Develo~ent Code. You' re adopting guidelines. But it also says you will develop guidelines, the county. It doesn't say you will adopt federal. It just says you will develop guidelines. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, that doesn't mean we can't adopt the federal guidelines. MR. BEARDSLEY: But there are no federal guidelines. He's properly saying -- the agreement that you as commissioners signed says that you, didn't say you will adopt a federal. It says you will develop management guidelines and you will implement in this Comp Plan or this Unified Land Development Code and you will transmit that by November 4. pointing that out. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. MR. BEARDSLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HASSE: answers to that? You agreed to it. I'm just Mr. Merrill, do you have any OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 60 MR. MADAJEWSKI: If I can respond and let Bill do that, again, that was what the intent of Division 3.11 was. 3.11.3 under Ne~ and Existing Developments specifically indicates that until permanent guideline standards are adopted by Collier County, the following shall apply as interim guidelines and standards for the protection of endangered, threatened or species of special concern or status as prescribed by Policy 7.3.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of Comp Plan. So, again, working with Mr. Lorenz's staff, knowing that he is working on a new protection ordinance and there are others that are -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: This gentleman is saying that we're doing something inconsistent. Legal staff needs to tell us whether or not what we've done does comply with the directire that's contained in the agreement we signed with DCA. MR. MERRILL: Well, from my understanding is -- well, with the DCA fzom my understanding what we are doing is we are referring it back; we are cross-referencing back to the Growth Management Plan. So OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 61 we are being consistent with the Growth Management Plan by doing that cross-reference. MR. MADAJEWSKI: We are basically acknowledging and confirming the interim plan that we have through the Growth Management Plan and that interrelation with the State and federal agencies to work out acceptable management plans. And as I say, in Section 3.11.3.4 it indicates that all such protection plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Project Review Services Department of the Development Services Department. The county may consider and utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance of the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission and recommendations and guidelines through the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in issuing development orders on properties containing wildlife species of spec-al status. So we have tried to address the issue to have something here that will give us the criteria and to do these until the actual formal ordinances have been brought to the board, approved and bound into this document. MR. MEIeRILL.' Again, my understanding --- I'm not P. PO~T~R$~ ¢O~]',TER GOO~ NA~S~ ~ 33962 unfortunately sometimes things get left out. 62 aware of the additional letter. I mean, I know there was a letter. I do not have a co~l of the additional letter from DCA setting the November 8th deadline. Was there -- I don't know if there's something additional that was -- MR. BEARDSLEY: November 4th. Right here's the letter if you want to read it. MR. MADAJEWSKI: Again, I believe that was the impetus of the board's April 9th direction to Mr. Lorenz's staff to work with us to get these three specific divisions into the document to be in compliance with that so that we had it formally adopted even if they were into your standards. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: . I think this probably fits into the category of a recommendation that staff needs to take a look at. Ok~liously we can't develop a plan tonight and deal with that, but you can afterwards. MR. MADAJEWSKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Ok~.l. MR. MADAJEWSKI: I have one item. Do you have a staff side sheet new dated 10/30/917 It deals with page 3-107. This was action that the board took last week and It deals COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 63 with Section 3.8.4, Submission and Review of EIS. In the fourth from the last line in the underscored section, after the word "years" at the end of the sentence there was supposed to be a short section in parenthesis that somehow was left out. I just want to read that into the record. It':3 what the board approved last week, and we will handle it tomorrow with Martha. The words that should be added after "years," should be "two years of which shall be in the State of Florida," specifically related to experience over academic credentials for preparing the EIS's. COMMISSIONER HASSE: It's not in here? MR. MADAJEWSKI: No, sir. That has always been on a side sheet. This was a side sheet that came recommended from the Planning Commission and as I say just through transcription -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: State of Florida? MR. MADAJEWSKI: the State of Florida." Article III. MR. BEARDSLEY: Two years in what, in the "Two years of -which shall be in And that's all that I have in Could I speak on that one? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 .................... i____ 64 MS. PIKE: Sure. MR. BEARDSLEY: Madam. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOODN IGHT: Yes. MR. BEARDSLEY: record. I'm an environmental consultant. Again, Gary Beardsley, for the I should ask for 50 years experience maybe. I don't have that many. I'm struggling with that. I don't know which way to go. A teacher can come with certification outside the State and teach in Florida and teach your kids but I'm not quite sure, why does a person have to have two years of experience in Florida? What if he has two years in north Florida? He doesn't know any of the plants down here. I'm just looking at -- I'm having problems with that. MR. MADAJEWSKI: Again, we tried to, working with Mr. Link who's here tonight could address that and our staff -- it was to try and isolate it due to the issue that Florida under itself has its own special habitat. Agreed, as you transition through the State you're going to see things changing from north to south. It was almost impossible to write it down to a real specific OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 65 area in the State and we felt that was the, you know, most reasonable we could do so that we weren't limiting anybody but we' re trying to qualify who would be acceptable if they didn't have the academic credentials. MR. BEARDSLEY: Help me understand. Like an engineer -- is an engineer or a lawyer does he have 'to have two years experience in the State of Florida? I mean, if he passes the bar, I would think -- and an engineer -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I don't think that's -- MR. MADAJEWSKI: And again -- MR. BEARDSLEY: I'm just -- MR. MERRILL: Sometimes lawyers do for particular jobs they'll say five years' experience, and the whole idea is that you want to have a more quali -- you' re hoping you'll get a more qualified person. It doesn't guarantee you that, but I think that this, the intent of this is appropriate if the board wants to do that. I don't think it guarantees -- you can never guarantee that someone's going to be a good lawyer or a good architect or a good environmental -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Originally the rc~/uirement was OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 66 five years, wasn't it, and we reduced it to three years and -- MR. MADAJ EWSKI: It was -- this language, the two years was always in there. So that was what -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Originally it was three years of experience which could be substituted for academic credentials. So if you've got someone who's got the academic credentials, he can just come here and -- MR. BEARDSLEY: I would really fear someone that only had the academic credentials. I could take anybody from various universities with -- I'm concerned and I'm the person that this is protecting. I just-- I'm wondering what other thing I could suggest to substitute. I just know that other professions don't say you have to have so many years experience, you just have to have the right credentials or experience and, you know, I don't think you have that provision. MR. MADAJEWSKI: Well, again, on the other side to relate it to my profession, engineering. You can come to the State of Florida, you can't practice without obtaining your certification from the State and they will review your prior credentials to see if it's OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 67 sati sf acto ry. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Madajewski, in terms of the engineering and all that, that's just really irrelevant. We're dealing with an ordinance that covers EIS's and it's specific to Collier County. But there is a little bit of confusion here. It says by academic credentials and/or experience. And as I read that, I thought it meant that there would be some subjective determination based on either academic credentials or experience or a combination of the two. MR. MADAJEWSKI: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I'm not sure how you apply that if somebody has some academic credentials and one year experience, does that fit? So you need to -- MR. MERRILL: Take out the "and" completely. This was discussed last week and I think that the -- I believe the "and" should come out. If it's meant to k~ an alternative, we should only have the word "and" there ; ;i instead of "and/or." R~_~.~'J;~i:?;:' COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So if we do have someone I~;;~:. with the academic credentials they can do these EIS's or !:!~!i:!~i!i:11 if they have the experience they could do it. :..~ :,~ .' ~~- ~,?:".: OFFICI~ ~URT REPORTERS, ~LLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 68 MR. MADAJEWSKI: If that's the problem, -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm not sure why that causes any problems. MR. MADAJEWSKI: That was in there to allow people who only have the experience -- one gentleman, I can't think of his name, that's been referenced before. MR. LINK: Ted Balough (phonetic). MR. MAD~JEWSKI: Ted Balough who has numerous years of experience in the field and is probably better than anybody or equal to anybody's that come out of school, so if the wording is just proper to strike the "or," we can do that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: "and." MR. MADAJEWSKI: Or the "and." MR. MERRILL = The "and." COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So it's either academic and/or experience. I mean, and -- MR. MERRILL: And I think on each -- there are two other places where "and/or" occurs and I would suggest that the "and" be struck in all three. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGhT: The "and" or the "or"? I think you're striking the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 69 MR. MERRILL: The "and." COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The "and." MR. MERRILL'. So that it reads or-- it'll say environmental sciences or natural resources management. I believe that's what's intended. John, is that correct, either one? The first "and" talks about credentials or experience that should be an "or." MR. MADAJEWSKI: Right. MR. MERRILL: Okay. The second one talks about environmental sciences and/or natural resources. Is that intended to be an "or," they can have it in either natural resource management or environmental sciences. MR. MADDJEWSKI: Right. MR. MERRILL: So cross off the "and" there. And then the last one's on the second, third to the last line. It says -- talking about the experience and it says ecological and/or biological professional experience, and I think that should be "or" as well and cross off the "and" in that instance. MR. MADDJEWSKI: Fine. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Is that what you had in mind, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 7O Mr. Beardsley? MR. BEARDSLEY: I'm kind of concerned in that the environmental consulting field is not a certified field. We're trying to be certified. We have an organization that's trying to do that. And I'm looking at this as kind of protectivism. I shouldn't be doing this. I mean, I should say, Bey, have six years experience. I've got about 15. Let's make it 15. But I'm just concerned that this needs to be looked at and I'm not sure. I really wasn't prepared to make suggestions. I just think -- I had some problems with it. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Doesn't this -- MR. MADAJEWSKI: And again, this deals with the author of the Environmental Impact Statement, whomever he uses on his team as supporting staff, and this just brings some credence. That's all I have. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Are you sure you wouldn't like for me to continue this until next week? MR. MADAJEWSKI: No, ma'am. I'll gladly accept. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I was just wondering because he plans on leaving on vacation and so I was trying to NAPLES, FL 33962 71 put MR. MADAJEWSKI: You'd have to court order me in. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: You did a great job, John, thank you. All right. MS. PIKE: Let's move to No. II. Article II has 17 registered speakers. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, we have -- just a thought. We have 17 speakers. I think there's three issues in that article and there's been s~me significant changes since the last time we met and it might be worthwhile to let the audience know where we are on those three issues and that may eliminate some of the controversy here. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Yeah, we had a lot of repetition last week on the same issues and it's because people weren't informed, so I agree with Commissioner Saunde rs. MR. MERRILL: One issue is the model sales. The second issue deals with C-4, C-5, and the third issue deals with landscaping. Ken, you're on deck. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I've got -- we've received OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 72 letters that's dealing with more than that, and I received a whole bunch of faxes today that deal w~..th the side setback in industrial zoning. MR. MERRILL: That's the C.-4, C-5 issue. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Industrial zoning is C-4, C-57 MR. MERRILL: Part of it. There's also industrial district, but I think -- I haven't seen the letters so it's difficult to tell, but I think there was a big issue about the industrial uses allowed in either the C-4 and C-5 and whether they should be allowed in the C-4 and what should be allowed in C-5. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Why don't we start? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: That' s not -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: These are separate issues. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Yeah. The issues that I'm talking about is the code currently allows 75 foot wide buildings on hundred foot wide lots with drives on one side and they're saying that these are going to be changed and they're going to really have an effect. Is that something we're going to cover with C-4, C-57 MR. BAGINSKI: I'm not sure. I don't have a copy of that letter either. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 73 MR. MERRILL: This wouldn't preclude addressing those additional issues. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: There's three or four of them that we've received today. MR. BAGINSKI: Those are additional issues. CHAIRMAN GOODN IGHT: Sir? MR. BAGINSKI: Those are additional issues. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: That's what I think. So why don't we start first with the ones that has to do with the model homes? MR. BAGINSKI: As indicated, there was considerable discussion at the meeting last week and we had the opportunity to meet and I'm talking about the model homes and the temporary use section. We had opportunity to meet with representatives of the industries that included builders and contractors as well as the real estate profession. I believe that based on those meetings and of the identification of the concerns that staff certainly made an effort to accommodate and provide for their concerns, and in doing that we have created major modifications to the temporary use permit section which effectively, if I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 74 can just sL~nmarize, would allow for model homes, permits to be issued initially administratively for a period of two years. Any further extension beyond the two-year period would require application and a public hearing before the Planning Commission ~:o extend that to a maximum of three years. And I basically borrowed-- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: To a maximun of three additional years or -- MR. BAG INSKI: Yes. The Planning Commission, similar -- I borrowed a similar procedure to that of the boat dock extension provisions and procedures that the Planning Commission could allow up to a maximum of ~:hree years' extension off of -- over and above the original two-year administrative approval. Anything beyond that would require a conditional use to be submitted and go through the public procedure and to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER HASSE: That means existing model homes stay where they are and they're okay, is that what you' re telling me? MR. BAGINSKI.. As long as they're legal now, sir, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 yes. 75 that. believe it was late Monday afternoon. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COL] £E]t I wanted to make sure -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: And I wanted to make sure of MR. BAGINSKI: Well, yes, but I'm trying to suggest that was one of the topics of conversation that came up at the meetings that we had last Thursday, and certainly the staff is amenable. As a matter of fact, it's my consideration and my interpretation of the writing of this code, the way it was drafted intentionally, that this would basically provide an additional two years. In other words, with the adoption of this code any existing model would fall under the proposed two-year administrative procedure. Then they beyond that would have to go through the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Baginski, you had a meeting with the appropriate representatives and they've ~een this and they've agreed to it? MR. BAGINSKI: We have no objection to it. I have submitted that, transmitted the draft couy to Linda Lawson I believe it was either Monday -- I ! had a COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 76 conversation with Miss Lawson Tuesday afternoon, I believe. She bought up one point which we've made the changes in the blue sheets. I did identify the fact that draft had not been provided to our county attorney staff and I knew that we were renumt,~.ring, rewording sections but there was no major change in the intent and purpose. To my knowledge, there still hasn't been. She registered no objections. up. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: She just gave you a thumbs I don't know if -- MR. BAGINSKI.- And nor, I would point out, not only Miss Lawson, but I have not received any negative correspondence, telephone calls or death threats. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. ~%en I'd like to ask the audience if there's ar~yone in here that wishes to discuss further on model homes. If so, you need to raise your hands. So the model home issue has been settled? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. Then the next item would be C-4 and C-5. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 77 MR. BAGINSKI: That's correct. Again, last week we did have a meeting with a number of the interested parties, those in particular that have existing C-5 property. We had prepared and distributed at that time drafts of the modified C-4 District and the revised or revived C-5 District, if you will. We have included many of the heavier commercial uses that were originally approved or permitted within the C-5 District that were relocated into the C-4 which is, as I said, we've gone through and modified the C-4 again to extract those heavier commercial uses and we put them back into the C-5 District. We've attempted to make provisions wherever we could for the, for example, for the storage of materials, a number of questions concerning automobile repair shops, body shops, that type of thing. I believe at least in my discussions and the subsequent input or communications from the committee or community, I believe that we have either corrected or to most everyone's satisfaction addressed those changes. I would point out to the board, as I explained last OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 78 week, that we have eliminated or removed those heavier commercial uses out of the C-5 District that I or we perceive to-be for manufacturing and industrial, more intensive uses and we have relocated those into the industrial districts. But except for those uses, you have basically the original C-5 District with some modifications. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is that consistent with what was discussed at the CCPC? MR. BAGINSKI: It's very difficult to answer your question, Commissioner, because really there were a number of questions and concerns raised. The direction of the Planning Commission was to go back, create a revived C-5 District. And again, I explained at that time it was still our intention to remove those industrial uses. MR. MERRILL: Generally -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: We have remow-~d those industrial uses from the C-57 MR. BAGINSKI: From the direction of the Planning Commission as well as the board. MR. MERRTLL~ That is based on legal reasons. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 79 Marjorie Student from the County Attorney's Office had prepared a memorandum on interpretation of the Growth Management Plan which she felt it requires those industrial uses to be taken out of the Growth ~lanagement Plan. COMMISSIONER SHANA~AN: type items. MR. MERRILL Principally manufacturing Manufactur -- yeah. Fabrication, manufacturing and processing. MR. BAGINSKI.. Warehousing and distribution cente rs. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Contacts that I'we had we re very satisfied with the changes that were made. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I think that was stated here tonight. We didn't see any complaints about it. MR. BAGINSKI: Well, again, I can only s~.~ak again to the comments that I've received. And I have yet -- I've had a nL~nber of questions that I~ve spoken to people addressing the changes and attempted to explain. I have not received any negative comments. COMMISSIONER SHANA~AN: Ken, you might want to quickly discuss landscaping as it relates to this and not OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS~ COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 8O landscaping as it relates to 7 foot, 8 foot, 10 foot and 12 foot trees but buffering landscape in place of fences and opaque fences and et cetera. There were some questions and there were some adjustments that you made based on those discussions, as I understand it. MR. BAGINSKI: Yes, sir. And I'll point out one of the changes in the proposed C-5 District, if I can find it. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Call out where it is, please. MR. BAGINSKI: I believe this references page 2-41 under the UL -- or, the LDC code. Actually, it's labeled Section 2.2.15.8, Heavy Commercial Districts, C-5. And approximately -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: About -- MR. BAGINSKI: Five pages -- the last page of that district. We have -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: The end of the commercial, C-5e MR. BAGINSKI: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN .. MR. BAGINSKI: I'm sorry. Sir? No, go ahead. 2.2.15.8.5, Merchandise Storage and Display. I'm sorry. Merchandise Storage and --- Section That is a, OFFICIAL ~URT REPORTERSv COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 81 basically a new section that was drafted and it does say that unless specifically permitted for a use the temporary permit outside storage or display of merchandise is prohibited within any front yard. For the purpose of this section, the term "merchandise storage and display" shall include any merchandise or product offered for sale or rent with the exception of vehicles. And that -- with the exception of vehicles would include such things as the rental of cars, trailers, that type of thing, anything defined under the Department of Transportation as a motor vehicle, and I believE: they just about say anything with wheels. So that would provide for the outside storage and front yard of the C-5 District. It would prohibit -- it would prohibit the storage of inoperable vehicles and equipment except those currently under repair or alteration to provide for auto repair or body shops that have equipment or pieces that are again under repair or will immediately be repaired. It would also prohibit vehicles not bearing current license plates to prevent again, long-term storage of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 82 wrecked or inoperable vehicles or basically tho-~e things that we get the complaints on. We have provided for outside storage and display to be allowed within the side and rear yards. In response to your question, Commissioner Shanahan, there was some conversation about permitted use of outdoor storage which would be permitted use No. 17 which essentially is very similar to the existing language we have in the C-5 District. At the suggestion of those parties that we dealt with last week, we have included simply a phrase that says except for necessary ingress an opaque fence or wall not less than six feet ~.n height or the equivalent landscaping or combination thereof and provided further this provision shall not include or permit wrecking yards, junk yards, et cetera. So we have attempted to put a provision in there that would certainly not prohibit someone from using landscaping in lieu of a fence. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Fine. And that --- MR. BAGINSKI: Certainly I would not even suggest that we would attempt to do that. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, }~ 33962 83 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: That's fine. I think that will satisfy most of the people that I talked with. Fine. MR. MERRILL.' I have two additions or corrections that need to be made on the C-4 District. This is the first time I've reviewed the new sheet. In the Purpose and Intent section because we do allow the hotel/motel, we need to have a statement similar to what is on the last sentence of C-5 Purpose and Intent. We need to add that same sentence into the C-4 Purpose and Intent, that sentence. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Would you read it, please? MR. MERRILL: Yes. That sentence should read, "The maximum density permissible or permitted in a district shall not exceed the density permissible under the Density Rating System." And then in addition to that, the fourth line down under permitted uses, Section 2.2.15.2, it says permitted -- or 5th line. "Permitted as a right." And it's a minor thing, but just to be consistent with everything else, I changed the "a" to "of." 'Permitted as of right." And it really doesn't change the meaning OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 84 on that, but it just makes it consistent with all the language we have used in all the other districts. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The density in an Activity Center is 26 units per acre for hotels, motels and time shares and outside of Activity Centers it's 167 MR. MERRILL: Yes, but they both have to be consistent with the Density Rating System in that regard. MR. BAGINSKI: One other thing I might point out in particular for the benefit of some of the individuals we spoke with last Friday concerning the C-5 District is Section 2.2.15A.4.4, which is the maxim lure height in the C-5 District, it was an oversight on our part. The original drafts that we put together and handed out to the individuals have the maximum height in that C-5 District as 100 feet. When we went back and extracted those uses out of the C-4 and recreated the C-5, we have changed that back the original 35 feet height limit which was, which is the restriction currently within the C-5 District. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Then that's been corrected in here. MR. BAGINSKI: Yes, sir. It shows up as 35. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 85 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN CHAIRMAN GOODN IGHT (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT All right. Is there any other questions? Okay. We're now discussing C-4 and C-5. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to d].scuss them? Then you need to come up the podium. MR. PERSHING: For the record, Keith Pershing. I want to thank the county staff. We had a very good workshop last Friday and as he said, about 99.5 percent happy with all the results. I do want to bring up a couple things for discussion. We talked about being able to use some landscaping for opaque. I think the word 'completely" should be deleted from page 2-41, Section 2.2.16. Just as in industrial completely opaque residential facing side, -- MR. MERRILL= Where are you? MR. PERSHING: Blue page 2-41. The section itself would be 2.2.15A. 1. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Purpose and Intent? MR. PERSHING .. Yeah. Outdoor storage yards are permitted within the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 86 requirement of such yards are completely enclc)sed. I think the complete opaquing on residential side such as was adopted under industrial would be good, but the completely enclosed storage lot that's bounded on the other side is by business. MR. BAGINSKI: I want to make sure you understand that what we're talking about is outdoor storage is a permitted use, which would mean it would be the principal and permitted use. And again, as currently required under our C-5 District, it does require completely opaque fence for any outdoor or when the principal use is storage as defined in No. 17. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Does that answer your question? MR. PERSHING: Well, I am recommending that it may not need to be completely opaque if it's just facing the rest of the C-5 area and not a residential. MR. BAGINSKI .. MR. PERSHING .' MR. BAGINSKI: I think-- That is the question. I would just have to disagree with that because admittedly we have made some modifications OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 87 within the industrial park. The argument within the industrial park was that these were heavily industrial and intensive areas and rather than worry about and provide for the screening from internal street:s or local rights-of-way that we would attempt to buffer the outside storage materials from the residential districts. But I think we're talking about something a little bit different with a typical C-5 District that's found along all your major thoroughfares and collectors and arterials within Collier and I would respectfully suggest that we still maintain that if we're going to use that as a permitted use that it be buffered and screened. COMMISSIONER HASSE: In other words, you' re indicating all the way around. MR. BAGINSKI= Yes, sir. If you're using that as a permitted use, if your intent is to use C-5 property as a permitted use outdoor storage area, yes, sir, I am. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Wasn't there some question from the police department in that regard? MR. BAGINSKI: Well, we attempted to address that right in the industrial district and I've made modifications to show up in your blue sheet to require OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, }4 33962 88 for fencing of storage materials within the industrial district. And again, frankly, I conceded on that because it was the general consensus in safety requirements. Again, I think what we' re talking about is a little bit different. We're not talking about internal to an industrial park where one might anticipate that. I'm talking about C-5 property that can be found along any arterial collector street in Collier County, much more readily and in much greater numbers than you do in industrial properties, and I would just again respectfully suggest-- I would not promote the idea of -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE.. I support that, Mr. Baginski, and I think I know specifically the site that came up recently for discussion on Airport-Pulling Road that I think for aesthetic purposes it should be completely enclosed with some type of an opaque fencing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I tend to agree with that. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any other questions then? COMMISSIONER SHANA~AN: Any further comments? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Do you have another comment on OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 89 something else, then? MR. PERSHING: I brought it up to the board and then we Just ask you to use your judgment. That was my opinion, and it's kind of both ways situation. The location I'm at in the' C-5 is our intent or intense district. It's not as applicable as other areas that are adjacent to highway. So what's more average for the county then would have to apply. Next question is on the outside merchandise storage and display or temporary displays. It's c~mmon practice in many businesses such as a hardware to display items for sale, a wheelbarrow, fertilizer spreader. Automotive, we have a tire rack display. Gas station has an oil rack display or a free Pepsi with your fill-up. By eliminating or ~f the words "merchandise storage and display," prohibiting any of that, I don't know if that's a necessa .ry job of' zoning enforcement to do. Those things that are considered normal of business would be normal of business and if the public doesn't like them, they would likely not go to that business and the problem would be self-defeated rather than wasting OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 90 the taxpayers' money with zoning driving around because somebody's got time to complain because the gas station has a Pepsi display out front. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Well, what are you talking about Pepsi displays? I mean, balloons and things like that? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN.' The stand. MR. PERSHING: You know, the different businesses have some common displays and I think we're talking probably more in C-4 and C-5's, but then if you go to the store on a Saturday and a dress shop has a little display rack out with some dresses for sale, 50 percent off, I don't consider that objectionable. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Baginski? MR. BAGINSKI: The gentleman is absolutely correct. When the Merchandise Storage and Display Section was written and I think you would agree that I admitted quite readily that the intent was to prohibit in the front yards some of the various or the very things that he's talking about. I would point out that under the existing ordinance in the C-5 when it references service stations that there OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, ~ 33962 91 is a provision that would allow a rack or a -- I can't remember exactly what the term is, but a display of oil, for example. But even now under our current ordinance that the outside display of materials and I believe it specifically says things like tire racks where people will have a tire store or a service station and sometimes they will take tracks or tires on racks and they will wheel them to the front, yes, that is intended to prohibit this. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. How about someone who parks their van out in their parking lot in the evening as a sign? Some of these shopping centers I see that going on. Is that prohibited under this ordinance? MR. BAGINSKI~ We some months ago made an attempt, based on numerous complaints as a matter of fact, to make some changes of provisions within the sign ordinance to specifically -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's in a separate ordinance. MR. BAGINSKI: Right. And we made the attempt and we ran into some, at that point, I believe some constitutional issues in terms of definitions and freedom OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 92 of speech, but yeah, we have considered that but unfortunately it is not addressed. In fact, I've made the statement to numerous people that have been concerned about that, that the way this ordinance is drafted, that if we are allowing that business office or profession, that under this ordinance it would be my interpretation of its reading that yes, we would allow those vehicles to be parked there. For example, there's numerous surveyor engineering firms that have vehicles that they take out to conduct their business. This ordinance would not prohibit storage or parking of those vehicles that are connected I want to make sure everyone to the business. understands that. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Ken, on the Merchandise Storage and Display, in C-5 it's not allowed in the front yard but it is allowed in the rear and the side yard. MR. BAGINSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: So you're not prohibiting it entirely. MR. BAGINSKI: No. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 93 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: You're just prohibiting it from displaying the merchandise in the front yards. MR. BASINSKI: That's correct. MR. PERSHING: We' re very satisfied with the addition of our side and rear yards being given back to us when we got C-5 back. I just think that the common retail display of some goods is of no harm and a waste of taxpayers' time and money to enforce that it shouldn't be there. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, let's see what the general consensus of the board is on that. I think I tend to agree with you that prohibiting that all together may be a little bit overly restrictive, but I suggest that we modify that to some degree or delete that prohibition and see how it works. Let's see what the rest of the board feels on it and if it's a consensus we'll do it; if not, we'll leave it the way it is. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, I think the staff's given some considerable thought to that and obviously of particular -- what I've heard Mr. Baginski say is this type of activity is currently prohibited under our existing ordinance and what I've understood him to say is C2~ 94 this is just a clarification of what already exists. MR. BAGINSKI = Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So I think that on occasion where some people have a permanent type of display in the front yard of their C-5, I think -- I'm not supportive of that. MR. BAGINSKI: I would also point out just for the benefit of the board that admittedly I believe that in the years the current ordinance has been adopted there are numerous requirements, restrictions, prohibitions that either have gone unnoticed or for one reason or another unenforced; that we are looking at the adoption of this code as the time to start enforcing and really, you know, bringing this into compliance. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Hasse? COMMISSIONER HASSE: Well, I have a great deal of sympathy with permission of displaying. is do we leave ourselves open for cluttering? there' s -- MR. PERSHING: business to clutter and that your public -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: I wish I could say that. The only thing You know, I should think it wouldn't be good OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 95 I've watched some of these things and they've been a real mess that's been derived out of this and don't you think it would be sufficient to have the side and the backyard to be used for this? MR. PERSHING.. Well, your front area's where your customers would come in and in our heavier business we don't have show windows and displays as shopping centers and stuff do, so the tire rack or a little windshield wiper rack generally are rather minimal. It's a little reminder there. COMMISSIONER HASSE: A little rack -- I mean, where does that little stop or start? MR. PERSHING: That's probably the reason they want to make a code that says you can't have anything because it's hard to distinguish, but is it cutting off our nose despite our face? That's my question. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Well, I don't know. I certainly don't want to see a cluttered up bunch of racks in front of any place. And I understand what you' re saying, but unless we can come up with a ordinance that -- MR. PERSHING.- Is there a haps; medium? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 C": C_-L' 96 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Well, have you got a recommendation on a hap~y median? I'd like to see some opportunity for some very. carefully selected displays, if it's possible to modify the language. What does "unless specifically permitted for a use" mean? MR. BAGINSKI: Unless it is specifically identified as permitted for outside storage within the permitted use sections. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Can you read that again, Mr. Baginski? MR. BAGINSKI: What it references or what it means, Commissioner, is again, of course, in every district you have specific permitted or conditional uses. And what this is saying is unless you're identified under the permitted use section for outside storage or display, either in the permitted or conditional use, or unless you're exempted by the outside or the Merchandise Storage and Display, that you would be prohibited. COMMISSIONER HASSE: What I'm trying to get at now is what is a ~ermitted. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 97 C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Well, then let me ask you without having to ask you to read the thing of what would be permitted, what if, for example, Pepsi has a sale and the owner of the store decided that they would buy a number of cases and sell them at the price and therefore they distribute -- they were displaying them at the front of their building with a sign that said, Pepsis for a dollar ninety-eight a case or I mean a six-pack. MR. BAGINSKI.' I would suggest that again through the interpretation of writing the code that if they did not, for example, come in, which they could under a temporary use permit for a specific period of time for a specific product to use that outside storage, yes, they would be prohibited. I think that right now that there are service stations that do exactly that. They have promotional sales that they want to stock and pile material on the outside and many of them have come in for temporary uses to allow temporary storage of those outdoor materials and products. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Well, I guess my problem with that would be, you know, to every time to be able to have OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 98 a promotional sales, you've got to come in and get special permission to do that and I think that instead of doing that, that we need to set a criteria that says that it can only be so many feet from the front of the building and it can only be held for so many days or something like that. MR. BAG INSKI .' I mean, you know, we can-- Well, one of the things to consider is, and I think the shopping center was brought up, and surprisingly enough complaints come in, and in fact I think even some of the commissioners have questioned outdoor or sidewalk sales on some of the shopping centers. Right now they are restricted to a temporary use. If they are going to move that merchandise outside and put it in the walkway or on the streets, they're required to come in for a temporary use for a specific period of time, limiting its location and guaranteeing that we don't block such things as thoroughfares, pedestrian-ways, making sure that it's stacked or located somewhere that it will again not affect pedestrian movement or traffic circulation or safety in any way. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: How long is a temporary use OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 99 permit? MR. BAGINSKI.. That's a maximum of 28 days per year unless -- I believe unless it's extended by you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: In any case, whether you're a temporary use, does that mean putting out as this gentleman was talking about windshield wiper stand in front of the service station or in front of some garage or does it apply to tires and -- MR. BAGINSKI: There are provisions, for example, I believe that -- I was just thumbing through the ordinance this afternoon and I believe that I found a specific section dealing with service stations that would allow them to display I believe such things as motor oil, canned motor oil or windshield wiper blades. But that's a specific prohibition for example, you know, of placing racks of tires outside for display. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, I'd like to suggest some language to this section just for our discussion. Change the section to read unless specifically permitted for a use, outside storage of merchandise is prohibited, period. Temporary display OFFICIAL COURT RE~)RTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 100 during business hours is permitted as long as it does not interfere with pedestrians or vehicular traffic or interfere with public safety. The idea of requiring a permit every time someone wants to have a sale just doesn't make good sense. Let's see if that works and if it creates a problem, come back and amend the ordinance and prohibit it. COMMISSIONER SHAMAHAN: your problem? MR. PERSHING: Does that --- that solves That sounds very good to me. COMMISSIONER HASSE: COMMISSIONER SHANARAN: language. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Hasse? COMMISSIONER HASSE: Yeah. O kay. I would subscribe to that I would, also. Commissioner MR. MERRILL: Can we hear the language again? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: First sentence, unless specifically permitted for a use, outside storage of merchandise is prohibited, period. Temporary display of merchandise during business hours is permitted so long as it does not interfere with pedestrian or vehicular OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 101 traffic or public safety. Something to that effect. MR. PERSHING: I guess as long as we have that front yard part in there. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Well, that's what we' re talking about. MR. PERSBING: Yeah. Make sure we don't slip. MR. BRUTT: Madam Chairman, two or three iljustrations I'd like to bring to your attention that we're noticing in the last few years. Two or three years ago you wouldn't see K-Mart or other stores utilizing the sidewalk with their shopping carts. Because of a lack of enforcement or no enforcement or no regulation against that, if you drive around today, you're going to see exactly what I said, shopping carts moved out of the stores. the sidewalks. They're on the sidewalks. we finally asked Code Enforcement to go down to K-Mart and ask them to take the three cars off the sidewalk. The difficulties that we have seen in some of the shopping centers, especially in the springtime and the fall, and around here the growing season is all year, where we have flats of fertilizer and we have flats of They' re blocking The other day OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 102 bark, gravel, et cetera, et cetera on some of those shopping center sidewalks. The difficulty is to come back and say how long should they be there. To what extent should they be there. To what percent of the sidewalk can be blocked and et cetera. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Brutt, the language that I suggested accommodates your concern in two ways. Number one, it can only be out there during business hours, so they can't store a whole ton of stuff and keep it out there forever. d~. They have to bring it inside every Secondly, there's a statement in there t:hat will not interfere with pedestrian traffic or public safety. If they're blocking sidewalks, I think that's -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Public safety. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- a public safety issue and you have the right to tell them to move the stuff. MR. BRUTT: That's good. MR. BAGINSKI: So again, for clarification purposes, and I'll state a specific example. For example, some of the grocery stores would have pallets of sod or fertilizer, that would not be under even your OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 103 verbiage alone. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: store it -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: They would not be able to Yeah, they could. They could take it and put it out on the sidewalk as long as it didn't do -- you know, didn't obstruct anything and then at night they'd have to bring it back in. So that means they've got to have the forklift out front to pick it all up and bring it in there. So I think that that's going to prohibit a lot of it. MR. MERRILL: The language I came up with from what Burt's indicated is temporary display of merchandise during business hours is permissible provided it does not adversely affect vehicular or pedestrian traffic or public health or safety. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: What's your next subject? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Didn't it say something about the business hours? MR. MERRILL .. MR. PERSHING: Yeah, during business hours. I think that's very good and I'm very hap~y with the results. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. We need to take OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 104 ~..~. ~- %,,. ~:. about a five-minute break so that we can change the paper. (A short break was taken.) C~AIRMAN GOODNIGhT: All right. Is there any more speakers that are wanting to talk about C-4 or C-5 zoning? MR. CONSTANTINE: For the record, my name is Tim Constantine. I'm president of the Golden Gate Civic Association. When we first sat down and took a Look at the proposed codes and all, there were -- of cours. e as with everyone we found a number of different problems in there, but one clause stood out and that was the proposed elimination of C-5. We took a number of steps to alleviate that and we had a little town hall meeting and Ken was nice enough to come out and answer a lot of the ccmmunity's questions. We had about 60 people come out for that and he took care of some of the initial worries with that and then we followed through with the CCPC and had some public meetings with Ken and his staff and have ~ alleviated almost all of our specific concerns.. ~iiiiiJ'~ . Staff not only from us and from this issue but from :~-.~. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 105 a lot of people and a lot of issues takes an awful lot of criticism along the way and sometimes even from me and I don't think at any point we can get 100 percent agreement with everyone and with staff, but we have got awfully darn close on this particular one, so on behalf of the Civic Association I just wanted to publicly and for the record thank Mr. Baginski and his whole staff for working with us. They have worked hand in hand with us through this whole thing and have really taken a great concern to what the community thought on this and what the community wanted on this and because they are sometimes so heavily criticized I wanted to make sure at the same time they were commended for a job well done. MR. BAGINSKI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Thank you, Mr. Constantine. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. Is there someone else on C-57 Mr. Bey rent? MR..BEYRENT: For the record, my name is Garry Beyrent. I represent the Collier County Mental Health Association. They had the dubious idea to make me a board member last week, so my first task is to -- thank yOU. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 106 My first task is to point up a little indis -- it's a discrepancy that exists in C-4, in the C-4 zoning category. And probably the easiest way for me to explain this is to use a hypothetical situation. It's v~ry understandable that way. Imagine that I have two shops in Naples. I have -- in North Naples I have an antique store that I sell expensive furniture, used furniture but albeit it's expensive. And in this antique store ! happen to have a shirt and the shirt has the monogram on it "EAP," Elyis Aaron Presley. Okay, so I have Elvis ~'resley's shirt in my antique store and I want a thousand dollars for it. Now, on the other side of town I have a little thrift store that I operate as non-profit and I'm under the C-4 zoning category. I have to be in a different zoning category to have what the county calls a thrift store or a secondhand store. NOW, in this thrift store I have used furniture that I sell. It's not antiques, but essentially it's old used furniture, not much different from antiques. And I have another shirt in this store, too. Now, this shirt used to belong to Burt Saunders, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ................ j_ IIIIII Ell I 107 okay. And now this shirt I have for sale for $10, okay, because -- and the only reason I have it for sale for $10 is because, you know, we're not going to argue -- Burr was never the undisputed king of rock and roll, okay? So I have a $10 shirt in my thrift store. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Can we substitute Commissioner Shanahan's name for the rest of this? MR. BEYRENT.. That was the only reference I was going to make to you, and it wasn't derogatory, okay? COMMISSIONER HASSE: This is on the 98th page of your statement? MR. BEYRENT: No, no, no, I only have one more page to go. Okay. To make a long story short, you're going to argue well sure there's big difference, you know. An antique store sells expensive stuff, even if it's used, and thrift store sells cheap stuff that people give away. In most cases, 90 percent of the thrift stores, the secondhand stores in this county are operated by non-profit organizations like the Mental Health Association of Collier County. Now, the problem we have is that for some unknown 33962 108 reason they can never get out of this C-4 zoning category. They should be in C-3 with every other retail store. There's no reason whatsoever. Now, Ken Baginski's going to argue that with me. He has a definite reason for wanting to keep them down there in C-4, but really there isn't any reason why they should be. They should be up in C-3. They're not having outside displays. Essentially they're selling retail goods, even if they're used, just like an antique store does in C-3. And one last thing, I'd like to have somebody on the board recommend that we modify the C -- this. situation. We take the non-profit what we call secondhand stores designation out of C-4 and move it into C-3 where it belongs. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Ken? MR. BAGINSKI: I said this afternoon I wasn't going to argue. And I'm not going to argue, but I just think as I pointed out when I spoke to the gentleman this afternoon I think that there is a considerable difference between used and secondhand materials and antiques or things that might be considered as collector's items or OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 val uabl es. The only other point that I would make is that traditionally since I have been here through staff's correspondence and interpretations and from what I remember administrative appeals before the Board of County Commissioners that you and the previous staff was very, very, very apprehensive about letting secondhand stores into the C-3 District and they have been traditionally restricted to the C-4 and the C-5 uses. Another thing, unless you come up with some very good definitions that I'm sure you're going to get the argument that pawnshops are secondhand merchandise and that they do indeed once received put them up for sale and they' re secondhand. We have -- past occasions very recently -- we've been attempted to be pressured into a situation of allowing pawnshops in the C-3. 109 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: not-for-profit, though. MR. BAGINSKI: MR. BEYRENT: This gentleman's talking about Yes, I understand that. That's actually -- that's the key to ~?~. i it because essentially 90 percent of these -- IlIII _.. FL 33962 110 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: These secondhand shops aren't allowed in the industrial area, are they? ~::i~ MR. BEYRENT: They would be naturally I think only because as the zoning goes down, -- :~:~ COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, the only thing that I '~' think that came up at one point was sale and ~etail in .4~-.~ some of these industrial parks and that's an issue and they're selling as retail. MR. BEYRENT: Well, that makes it tough, too, because people don't like to go into industrial parks to buy their used shirts. I mean, that's -- most non-profit ~" organizations have a semi-high profile and I'm talking like the Love Shop or the different non-profit __ organizations. And essentially they all operate for the ~ benefit of the community and they're not retail and ~ they're not, you know, capitalist situation. '-: c:. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Merrill, is it permissible for us to say that a not-for-profit 1t"~ secondhand or used goods store can operate in C-3 but a ;~.".: for-profit cannot? Is that a equal protection problem :~:' ::':'~" · there? ~,:. MR. MERRILL= It's a new issue to me, so I couldn't l:w. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ':'i?;.:'" 111 tell you for sure. If you give me a little bit of thought or let me think about that, there is potentially that concern. I agree with you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't-- I doubt that there's a problem in saying that pawnshops have to be in C-4. I think we could make that distinction k~tween pawnshops and every other type of store k~cause of the type of merchandise that they deal with and that's a distinct type of an operation. So if we do permit the secondhand good stores in C-3, it shouldn't be based on whether it's for profit or not for profit is the whole point of that. And we can specifically prohibit pawnshops in C-3, if that's the real problem. MR. MERRILL: The only thing with regard to equal protection, I don't -- as long as we have a reasonable basis, I think we could make that distinction because it is an economic requirement. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: How about -- MR. MERRILL: But just so we don't get into the First Amendment issue, you know, a religious not-for-profit or anything of that nature. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 112 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGhT: Cou].d we put a conditional use on the thing and then the Commissioners could decide or the Planning C~nmission could decide? MR. MERRILL: Certainly we can do that. Ken, as a conditional use? MR. BAGINSKI: Certainly. sorry, I thought of that after I got off the telephone with you and it just slipped my mind. MR. BEYRENT: though, didn't you? MR. BASINSKI: No. COMMISSIONER $HANAHAN: COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: As a matter of fact, I'm But you wanted to argue with me, Why don't we try that? Let's try that, Mr. Baginski, if we could. to keep pawnshops in C-4 or C-5. in C-3. MR. MERRILL~ So allow secondhand stores as a conditional use in C-3 except for pawnshops. I think we all specifically want We don't warit pawnshops Thank you. Thank you very much. You did a good job as a new MR. BEYRENT: Great. COMM IS S IONER VOLPE: board member. MR. BEYRENT ~ OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. Is there someone else that wants to talk on C-4 or C-5 zoning? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGhT: MR. BAGINSKI: floor area ratio? You have a side sheet. One of your blue sheets that deal with floor area ratio where it's proposed by the staff that that not necessarily be deleted but held in reserve. What we neglected to do was also include the lot coverage in various districts. We want to do the same thing there. We want to hold those in reserve and we don't necessarily want to delete it out but we want to leave the term 'maximum lot coverage' but just leave it reserved to be addressed later in other amendments. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You'll probably need to add something there to show that. MS. HOWELL: Yeah, you'll have to--yeah, you'll have to -- we'll just have to come up with some language right now that says that. We take out -- most of them have a percentage and then right now so we'll have to Okay. The next item-- I would -- I would -- Martha, on the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 114 take out that percentage and then put reserved like on the side sheets that you have. MR. MERRILL: And again, that is one of those issues that could be done on the first amendment within the next several months. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Fine. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any other discussion then on C-4 and C-57 (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. Then the next item is the landscaping. MR. DELATEz Good evening. record, from Planning Services. I think we have to deal with three issues as outlined in your side sheets. There's a couple other minor corrections we've inserted in here, but the three basic issues are the bonding requirement, the tree size and the hedge requirements. What we've done, the staff has done is outlined a couple alternatives for each issue for the board to make a decision and the staff would like to present our angle of it and then hear from the public on it. I'm Joe Delate, for the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5 115 First issue is the bonding issue. And as directed by the board last week, I have done some research into this and I've talked to a couple bonding companies throughout the State and I've been told by those people that they would be able to bond landscaping. The costs that I was given was approximately two to two and a half percent of the value. And they feel that unless the plant material that they were bonding was something that was super exotic or impossible to replace, that they would have no problem with doing that. And I talked back to them and saying that this common landscape material is available anywhere throughout, you know, south Florida and I don't think that's really the issue, an issue at all. So what we have proposed here is we've adjusted the language to call it a surety bond in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, performance bond or cash in substantive form acceptable to the Collier Coun~.{ Attorney shall be tendered by the applicant. I wanted to clarify that there's been some concern from the landscaping contractor and the landscape industry that they would be responsible for the bond, but OOURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 116 the way we devised this is that it is referred to as the applicant. In this case, an applicant would be the owner or developer who is proposing the project, not the actual landscaper would have to be responsible for the bond. Again, we've left the remaining language 'that it would be held for 12 months and then theere would be a reinspection by Compliance Services and then the bond would be released. Following that, we've had some language that would -- that as an alternative you could decide not to go with this approach to delete the bond and just allow for a reinspection. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Allow for what? MR. DELATE.. Just a reinspection. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Ace you recommending alternative one? MR. DELATE: Yes, we are. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: How about the committee? Does the cc~unittee have a recommendation in that regard? MR. DELATE: The committee -- originally this was a committee and staff recommendat~on. I don't believe that there's been any divergence. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 (~ 117 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So the committee and staff are continuing to recommend the bonding requirement. MR. DELATE: I believe so. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: And alternative one -- the language in alternative one on landscape and buffering Division 2.4, 2.4.3.5, page 2-115 in the blue sheets? MR. DELATE: Correct. Installation. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: MR. DELATE: Okay. Yes, that's it, under Okay. I buy that. Okay. The next item? I've also added in here for your information on the second page under 2.4.3.7 some additional language under Mainteuance to give some criteria for our code enforcement people to -- after this bond is up they would get a reinspection and the bond would be released to give them the available means of enforcement to secure compliance from that time forward. There was some concern that the language we had in here was kind of vague, so we've added some additional language just to clarify these steps that the compliance can take to ensure compliance with our codes for landscaping. And that would be under 2.4.3.7 under OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, ].V~ 33962 118 ma in t enance. The next issue is the tree sizes. We've presented three alternatives for the board to revie~ based on the direction we received last week. We have three alternatives, one being all the trees being eight feet in height. Alternative two being 20 percent of the trees being 10 feet and the remaining 80 percent being 8 feet. And alternative three being a 50/50 division, which is similar to the original Planning Commission approved recommendation which was 33 percent 8 foot, 10 foot and 12 foot trees. COMMISSIONER VOLPE.' But you've taken out the 12 foot trees. MR. DELATE: trees. Correct. We've taken out the 12 foot COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN= alternative two and the committee? suggesting? MR. DELATE: So, Joe, are you suggesting What. are you I'm not sure about the committee. I believe the staff originally -.- we were recommending alternative two. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 119 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN .. MR. DELATE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Three? You want three? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: the percentage, is that the idea? MR. DELATE.. Yes. Alternative two? Mr. Richardson? No? The difference then is just I've heard from several folks on the phone and in fact one member of the Planning Commission I believe is here and they again recommended through our hearings, the Planning Cc~nmission hearings, that we would go with the larger trees. And I had some phone calls concerning that, that they recommended that we would go %~ith the larger trees. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: They're 12 fcot height trees, or have I misunderstood? MR. DELATE= Right. They originally recommended the 33 percent of each size tree, the 8, 10 and 12 foot. I had a couple phone calls about that this week. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I don't see anything here, unless I'm just missing it, where we' re talking about 12 foot trees. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 120 MR. DELATE~ NO, we didn't include that as an alternative. COMMISSIONER S~ANA~AN: And the alternatives have gone down to ten feet. MR. DELATE: At the time I wrote this up, I did not have that as an alternative. COMMISSIONER SHANA~AN: It came in after that fact. All right. MR. DELATE: I don't think there would ~ a problem with them accepting a higher number of 10 foot: trees in lieu of the 12 foot trees. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Because of the trees? MR. DELATE~ Because-- right. Because of the concern that the larger trees trees have a problem with adapting to the -- COMMISSIONER SHANA~AN~ Alternative three is the recommendation? I buy alternative three. COMMISSIONER HASSE.' Does that restrict or constrict on the average landscape person couldn't put that tree in because it's not a container tree, it's a burlap tree or something? MR. DELATE: The way we have it written, I believe these can come right out the container. I don't think OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 121 there's a problem with them not coming out of a container. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Do containers come with that large a tree, with the larger size? MR. DELATE: You're able to -- to my kn¢~ledge, you're able to get trees this size in containers. If there's some professionals in the audience that would like to contradict that, I believe that this can be attained in-- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I think all wa heard last time was the 12 foot trees. MR. DELATE: Right, 12 foot. Then you're starting to get into what's called a B & B tree, bald and burlap. The next issue is the shrubs and hedges. And again, the concerns deals with double staggered rows. And we've presented, again, two, alternatives; one being leave it as -- one alternative being deleting the double staggered rows; the other alternative being leaving the double staggered rows but clarifying where that would be required, which is in a type D buffer, which is essentially adja -- a parking lot adjacent to a right-of-way. Only in that case. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 122 COMMISSIOneR SHANARAN: And what's the recommendation of the combined group? MR. DELATE: The staff and committee recommends alternative two. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: MR. DELATE: Right. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN'. I' 11 buy that. MR. DELATE: Again, I'd like to point out that there was some concern expressed at the last meeting about the fact that these plant materials would be growing too close together and things like that, but if you look at areas line Pine Woods and Pelican Bay along our various thoroughfares, you'd see where they creatively done this, having double staggered rows of hedges. And it's not something that's going to detract from the landscaping. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN .. functional. MR. DELATE: it. Correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Staggered in the D section. I believe so. I think it's going to improve MR. DELATE= I believe so, too. And it is going to be 123 COMMISSIONER SHANAHA/q: Recommendation is two. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Well, I think that, you know, it looks like that we're talking about an increase of 180 percent. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Depends upon how you approach it. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The next item? MR. DELATE: Okay. We've all added a, some clarification under existing plant material that was recommended by the committee. The other issues -- there was a concern about the number of trees required in interior of vehicular use areas. We've modified that to go back to our original proposal which is 1 to ].50 square feet because there was concern the trees would 1~ too densely packed on site. We've added language at the recommendation of an outside individual for when we allow compact ca~' parking to have the islands correspond to the width of the car parking. That's a difference of only one foot. Staff has no problem with that. COMMISSIONER $HANAHAN: Where are you now, Joe? MR. DELATE: Okay. We're on the staff sheets, OFFICIAL COURT lIEPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ummslmm mu ..... 124 second page of the land -- third page of the landscaping, 2.5, 2.4.5.2 and 2.4.5.4. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: And is everybody satisfied with moving the hundred back to a hundred and fifty? MR. DELATE: I don't think there's any opposition on that. COMMISSIONER SBANAHAN: Okay. MR. DELATE: Okay. 2.4.6 under Minimum Landscape Requirements, we've rewritten lines five, six and seven to read that trees shall meet the requirements of Section 2.4.4.2 which is essentially the tree sizes. We"11 just refer back to the other standards. COMMISSIONER SHANA~.AN.. Alternative three. MR. DELATE: Right. And we've added -- there was a concern raised by an outside individual last week at the hearing concerning existing residential developments such as the duplexes in Golden Gate that don't have any landscaping. We've added some language in here as a proposal to try to accommodate that to say that existing residential developments that does not meet - that should be, actually, development - that does not meet the minimum OFFICIAL OOURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, PL 33962 125 landscape requirements of this code shall be required to install the required landscaping before a certificate of occupancy is granted for any improvements to the property. And that would be interpreted to be if someone came in with a building permit on a property that did not have any landscaping, they would be required to plant the minimal amount of trees on that site. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN.. Wait a minute. Existing residential developments, that would suggest to me that they're already there. MR. DELATE: Correct. The concern was raised last week was that -- the example given was duplexes in Golden Gate. There's a lot of them out there that don't have any trees on the site. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: They will be required now to have them. MR. DELATE= When they come in for a building permit -- let's say they came in to put in a pool or something like that, add an addition to the house, we could come back to them and say you need to give us two trees on the site and then they'd have to put it. in at OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 126 the time they get their C.O. on that improvement. Now, if they never came in for a building permit, we'd never do anything. But when they came in for a development order, we would require that. COMMISSIONER VOLPE.. There may be another way of getting at that, too. There may be some incentive that can be done and maybe that can be done locally through maybe the Chamber of Commerce or something like that. I mean, in terms of what we can do. COMMISSIO}fER SHANAHAN.' I'd like to see it happen, f r a nkly · COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I would, too. I think that there are some particularly in certain areas of our community where a little bit of landscaping would certainly help to improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Can we require existing duplexes to comply with the new or some minimal standards? MR. MERRILL.' They'll be coming for in for another development permit, certainly. I think it would be very difficult to go back and do that, but when they' re coming in for a permit like this in this situation, yes. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 127 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGhT.' Is there something else? MR. DELATE~ Okay. The next page is 2.4.7.4 under the table of buffering requirements. We just wanted to have some clarification that we would insert back to the correct zoning districts because we brought back C-5 into this and there was a strike-out of another district, so it was incorrectly -- it was incorrectly labeled CI-T. It should be C1-T. So we've inserted the correct zoning districts. Under 2.4.7.4, Table 2.4, we added the Agricultural District back into the table as originally proposed. The reason this was brought back in is because we've had some concern with some developers that and engineers that have been designing projects currently and they're trying to design it to the new code and they've been saying, Well, if my project's up against agriculture zoning, which could be any vacant land in Collier County, they wouldn't have to do any buffering on that side so essentially they could pave right up to the property line. So we wanted to bring this language as we originally proposed with our original draft back into it so that there would be at least some minimum landscape OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 128 area required on the perimeter if it was adjacent to the agriculture. And we've also added language to say buffering required in Agricultural District so it would be applicable at the time of SDP approval. Essentially that would refer to if you had someone came in for a Site Develo~ent Plan on something zoned agriculture, such as a large -- let me give an example. Like a packing house or something. If we didn't have this language in there, they wouldn't have to do any landscaping. And the way we currently do that, if it's a packing house or some large manufacturing or something on an agricultural zoned property, they would need to -- they would need to at least put in some minimal landscaping. So that was added in there to accommodate that, and that's how we had it originally proposed. And the last sentence we -- I'm sorry. The paragraph we've added in 2.4.7.4, some language that addresses the conflicts between buffering requirements and setbacks. The language states that where a conflict exists between the buffering requirements and the yard OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 129 requirements of this code the yard requirements in the subject zoning district shall apply. In that way if there is ever a conflict between what a setback is and what a buffer is, the setback would override the buffer. And I think there is a couple of examples where that possibly could have happened. So we try to accommodate the language here. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is that all? MR. DELATE: Yes, that's all. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any questions? (No response. ) CIIAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. Do we have some speakers that want to speak on the landscaping code that has been recommended here? If you do, then you need to come up. MR. PIRES: For the record, again, it's Anthony Pires, Jr. Just three areas of concern on the landscaping area. One is the proposed alternative two as proposed for shrubs and hedges, 2.4.4.3 proposed for shrubs and hedges on page 2-116. I believe the staff indicated that they're in favor OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 130 of alternative two which states that double staggered rows of hedges shall be required only in type D buffers as opposed to alternative one which says delete and double staggered rows. I'm no landscape architect, but my understanding is that an example was given, for example, of Pelican Bay. And I double checked with the planner just as we were talking and the Pelican Bay commercial area is where they have the HMA building which has a nice landscape buffer between 41 and the parking lot and the Sun Bank building has the same kind of landscape buffer and the BancFlorida building in the commercial se. ctions of Pelican Bay are not double staggered rows. It's sort of like modulating sort of landscaping and Westinghouse has, you know, an upgraded sort of criteria for landscaping, but that is not double staggered row of hedges. In other words, that would be excessive even in that area. That's sort of like a modulated sort of natural plantings and other features. So I think this is excessive and I think therefore alternative one would be the appropriate alternative and the appropriate shrubs OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 131 and hedges criteria. COMMISSIONER SHANA~AN.' You're saying delete it totally even regardless. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SHANABAN: It doesn't make any difference what district, there's no need for double staggered rows. MR. PIRES: That's correct. Like I said, I'm sure everybody's quite familiar with that area of Pelican Bay. COMMISSIONER SHANABAN: You're picking an exceptional area of the community. Every area isn't like that. If every area was like that, you wouldn't be -- you wouldn't have any problems convincing everybody. But you're picked one of the nicest landscaped areas in the entire community as the example. MR. PIRES: I guess what I'm trying to say, Commissioner Shanaban, is that is less that double staggered and that is nice.. So double staggered is excessive. I guess it goes beyond that is the point I'm trying to get across. COMMISSIONER SHANABAN: I understand what you' re 132 trying to say. MR. PIRES: And that's my understanding from talking with planners. That's a big concern I have. Additionally, just for clarification on the issue with regards to-- to clarify the intent on 2.4.6.3, I know it's not on the side sheets. That's on pac, e 2-121, and that has to deal with the littoral zone planting. It's 2.4.6.3 on page 2-121. And it states that all developments that create lake areas shall provide littoral zone plantings of emergent, aquatic vegetation in accordance with South Florida Water Management District regulations. COMMISSIONER SHANA~{AN: You're on the white sheets? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. Has not been changed, and it's just a point of clarification, if I may. COMMISSIONER SHAN~{AN: 121 did you say, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES.' Yes, sir, Mr. Shanahan; 2-121. And I guess the clarification is that the intent of that is if South Florida requires in man-made lake areas that there be littoral zone plantings of emergent and aquatic vegetation, then the county will r,~uire that. But if South Florida does not require those types of OFFICIAL O0URT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 .................. IIIl!l l__ --_ - c~ ;? ':'... 133 plantings in man-made lakes, then it is not required. MR. DELATE~ The intent of that section is that if the South Florida Water Management District criteria calls for littoral zones, then you would be required to do that and to show it on the plan. Essentially, though, from my knowledge they're required if you armor the shoreline and put riprap and things like that you and compensate with an identical area or subjective area of littoral zone plantings. This is not to say that if you created a lake you'd be required to do littoral zone plantings. MR. PIRES: So if South Florida criteria require that there be littoral zone plantings in a man-made lake and then the county says then you need to do it as part of the county's regulation. That's correct. MR. DELATE ~ MR. PIRES.' Okay. COMMISSIONER SHANA/JAN: MR. PIRES: clarification. Is that okay? Yes, sir. It was just a point of I appreciate that. COMMISSIONER SHANARAN: It's a good point of clarification. I didn't realize that and now I've OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 134 learned something new from your coming up here. MR. PIRES: Thank you. And just one point and I'll try to be finished. The concern I have on 2.4.6 on the blue sheets that the staff is reading with regards to Minimum Landscaping Requirements, as to page 2-121 about existing residential development that doesn't meet minimal, I guess the concern is in what instances would a C.O. be issued I guess. Seeing how extensive remodeling in an interior, kitchen of a house of a 35 year old home on a non-conforming lot and you want to do extensive interior remodeling which require electrical work and plumbing work and maybe even changing the whole ins[de, would you need a C.O. for that type of work? MR. DELATE: You'd get a C.O. on that, but in most cases the house would probably have the minimum. required trees. MR. PIRES: Well, I'm just saying that for instance Naples Park which has 50 foot wide lots for example and may be relatively narrow and you may not have the required vegetation or trees. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, OOLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, EL 33962 CD CD 135 MR. MERRILL: We're only talking two trees for that type of a situation. COMMISSIONER SHANAHANs Two little trees. MR. MERRILL= And if it isn't that extensive work and it doesn't have two trees on the lot, then probably it should have two trees on the lot. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Two ten foot trees. MR. PIRES: Again, I'm just saying I think it has a much greater impact than everybody realizes because of the type of situation where C.O.'s are required. If I put a dome light in my kitchen, am I required to get a C.O. for that? And I guess that's the concern I have. Where does it end? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: If you come in for a C.O., we're going to ask for the trees. MR. PIRES: I have plenty of trees of my own. If not, I'll go out there tonight and put them in.. You'll have no idea. But I do. But that's a concern I have. MR. BRUTT: To answer your question, if it's over '$500, you would need a building permit. If it's less than $500, aesthetically in most communities it's part of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 · ~ ........... · ........ _ ._~ _~ ~7 ~_ i'~--- -- ~ ..... -- -- -~ --- - ~ ~- J 136 the standard subdivision ordinance. We' re not -- you know, you' re talking about a bare lot. If a lot is bare and doesn't have two trees, Tony, I mean, let's get reasonable. MR. PIRES: You may have a lot of bushes and no trees. And I'm serious. I think this encourages people to skirt the law and that's just the concern I have. I thank you very kindly. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Tony's back to the double hedge discussion and is questioning the need for the double hedging in any district, Joe. Do you want to -- MR. DELATE: Okay. Referring back to--- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: We have so~e other speakers. Why don't we wait until the end? Maybe somebody else can address that as well. MR. BEARDSLEY: For the record, Gary Beardsley. Only two points I'd like to concur with. I'm getting the feeling that the board is ready to go with alternative number three on 2.4.4.2 and again, I would encourage them to go with that one. The other is I'm not sure on the hedge issue. Do you talk about the spacing of the plants in the hedge, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 137 whether it's a double row or single row or -- MR. DELATE: We have it addressed as the spacing. MR. BEARDSLEY: You have not? MR. DELATE: Yes, there is a spacing r~K~uirement. MR. BEARDSLEY~ Again, I know everybody's talking about Pelican Bay and how nice that looks along the road. I would encourage you to fly over that site. It's a little different from the air. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: You' re saying we ought to go with the double hedging in that district? MR. BEARDSLEY: Yes, I am. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Thank you. MR. HOOVER: Good evening. Bill Hoover, Butler Engineering. I've got a handout that will make my presentation real quick, I believe. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Very good. COMMISSIONER HASSE: We need more papers up here. MR. HOOVER: This is referring to ~-~he buffer table on 2.4. And the question I have on here or the problem rather is where we have similar type uses and we're requesting a ten foot landscape buffer on each one. Let me demonstrate that up here. Let's say this is OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 138 your road and let's say this is an industrial project. Right now if you put your building right in here and you've got a driveway coming in the back, going around the side of the back of the building, you're required to have a five foot landscape buffer with one tree every fifty feet along here and clear along the side and then over here. On this site, since you're building this between the vehicular use area in the side yard, no buffer is required. Now, what we have proposed now is a ten foot buffer clear along here, a ten foot buffer clear along here and if it's industrial in the backyard, another ten foot buffer clear along here. The -- what that does is you just lost 25 percent of your property to no use but to provide trees in an industrial area. And if you look at the definition of landscape buffer in the back, it reads, "An area of land which is required to be set aside along the perimeter of a lot in which landscaping, existing, relocated or introduced, is used to provide a transition between and to reduce the undesirable or incompatible impacts between differing," not the same, "differing land uses." OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 139 So a landscape buffer typically planning-wise, what you put the buffering in for is to reduce the intensity of a high use down to a low use. So what we'se doing here is we're putting a ten foot buffer in here. Now, when the neighbor comes in, he's got to put a ten foot buffer in, too, to screen himself between the trees and NOW, that's a little bit ludicrous, I his property. think. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: MR. HOOVER: It's five foot. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: MR. HOOVER: What's it now, five feet? MR. DELATE: Now it's five foot. Urn-hum. Let me address that, please. that you mentioned 25 percent of your site. on the size of your property for one thing. I think It depends MR. HOOVER: I'm talking about a hundred foot lot in the industrial zone, which is pretty common. MR. DELATE: Okay. The other factor is you referenced this definition in the back. I think you need to look at the Purpose and Intent also under Section 2.4.7.1 because the definition is only condensing of wha{ that is, and the Purpose and Intent actually addresses it OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 140 a little better. You have to realize that buffer is not just solely for the reason of screening incompatible land uses. It also develops an area to actually have landscaping in. Currently we're getting a five foot landscape strip that is a lime rock cliff that drops into a three foot swale that someone has planted an oak tree on the side of it and the thing is not going to live. There's no soil for it to survive in. Its roots are being eroded every time it rains. And it's being used as a water management area essentially with landscaping thrown in as dressing. What we're trying to do is accommodate an area for landscaping to be provided, not for an area -- not solely just for buffering. There's a lot of reasons if you look under the Purpose and Intent of this section. MR. HOOVER: I think what we -- what I'm suggesting is that we go with a five foot -- if you see the oval area I drew here, and that's -- what we're even doing is making single-family projects buffer from another single-family project. And I think if we had two five-foot buffers there, that would be overkill. If you look at the second page, for instance, OFFICIAL OOURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 141 that's pulled out of Lee County zoning ordinancE:. I also looked at Charlotte County and the City of Naples. No buffer is required between any of those -- the same uses. $o we're going to be sort of an oddball here in requiring buffer between similar uses. MR. DELATE: I must caution you that the landscape codes of Charlotte County, Lee County and the City of Naples are currently -- I'm not sure about Charlotte, but the other two counties ame currently being revised and they' re operating on antiquated codes as we are currently here. We're trying to create a vision for Collier County. This code will lead us into the next century. We have to have some foresight here. You can't compare it to other counties' codes that are totally substandard. MR. HOOVER: Well, my point is that if we went with a five-foot buffer, the same -- if we stayed with the same amount of trees, and what I'm also proposing is that we don't allow vehicles to overhang in here, I think a five-foot quality buffer with the same amount, same type of trees is basically going to do the same thing as a ten-foot wide buffer area. OFPICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 142 And I just-- that is really unique to have buffers between the same type of units. We're tripling the interior landscaping and I think the --- most of the develo~ent community and most of the ~ople here- are strongly supporting that. And I think one of the things that we haven't looked at is it doesn't cost so much to stick in an extra 50 trees on a small project, but when you start reducing some of the lot and maybe paid a hundred thousand dollars for the lot to put a project on, now we' re reducing the guy's building by 33 percent so we can buffer him from his neighbor. I think that's a little bit too restrictive. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. Is there any other questions? (No response. ) C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. The next speaker? Is there another speaker on the landscaping? MR. DUANE: Robert Duane, for the record. I just wanted to mirror the previous speaker's comments and I think they' re very well taken. i[f you take two or three particularly small parcels like OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 143 out-parcels in a planned commercial development, you have 300 feet of frontage and you start putting 20 feet between each of 300 foot, you end up with 60 feet of landscape area or 20 percent of your frontaging. I think that the tree requirements are ample enough in other portions of the code in vehicle use areas or other landscaping requirements, but these buffer requirements are too excessive, particularly for smaller lots. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So you're saying it should be left at five feet or you're saying no buffering at all? MR. DUANE: No, I support the previous speaker's recommendation. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Five feet instead of ten. MR. DUANE: Five feet; that is correct. MR. BAGINSKI: I would just like to point out that that's one of the reasons we increased these specifically -- not specifically, but certainly to address things like out-parcels that generally end up with nothing except minimums. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. The next speaker? MS. RICHARDSON: My name is Gayle Richardson. I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 144 live at 1926 Princess Court, Naples. And before I get to my prepared speech, ~' think -- it is my understanding that this was widened because of the problem with the swale and that you cannot grow things. And I think some of the pictures that you have would allude to that. If you have a five foot width, where do you put the trees? What you just haw-~ is a swale. So I think that's to be taken into consideration, also. I'm asking for five minutes of your time so that we may enjoy Collier County for possibly the next 20 years. I ask that we remember why we chose to live in Collier County in the first place rather than Hillsborough, Dade or Lee County. I think the answer is obvious. We recognize the quality of life in this county. It doesn't have buildings lining a treeless highway with broken asphalt and half-dead landscaping. Or does it? Take a closer look sometime in North Naples or East Naples. It's getting away from us. With each change, there is always opposition. inevitable. It' s It's a situation that must be weighed and OFFICIAL OOURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 145 hopefully done for the greater common good. I have never attended any public meeting anywhere where the most vocal opposition did not come from special interest groups. These public meetings are practically unknown to the voters of this county. The public meeting notices didn't exactly make front page news. And as a matter of fact, I never found it in any newspaper but I'm certain it must have been there someplace. If it had been more prominent, I'm absolutely sure this room would be packed with residents vocally supporting these new ordinances. W~en I first drove into the parking lot on ~orseshoe Drive, the sign didn't read Planning] Services, it reads Development Services. And I thought I'd lost the battle before I even started. I have found that the staff has worked along with its volunteer appointments very long hours extended over many months. They have brought in and tossed out more material than you can imagine. Every piece of material has been argued for and against. They recognize the need for these changes as a result of present loopholes, substandard materials, non-compliance and in fact, it is these improved ordinances that are needed in order to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 146 keep up with the fast growing pace of the county. The voters applauded the county's position on forming the ULDC committee with men and women from various parts of the community and we all felt that they indeed would have our best interest at heart. After all, they live here, too. I have had enough experience with the results of the present landscaping ordinance to know that we are being literally laughed at by developers and builders. They say things like we ran over budget and we were going to do more but you can't do anything to us because we meet the landscaping code. When I asked them if the trees they planted which look like sticks was their idea of a tree, they laugh again and say it meets the code, lady. The single hedge that's supposed to do its job in screening parking lots usually winds up half-dead in three months, leaving huge gaps. And you're right, they' re all not Pelican Bay. Compliance tells me they really can't do anything for the first year and they're terribly understaffed and as we speak the Mercedes-Benz dealer on Airport-Pulling 147 has butchered the shade trees in front of its business. This is a blatant violation of the present county code, but when informed about it, Compliance said they probably won't do anything about it because they can't keep on top of everything. It would be impossible to get around to all the sites as Collier County is building so fast. At present, Compliance does not take the initiative to handle any landscaping problems. They only react on the basis of complaints and then you must call again and again and again. It is unfair to assume that Compliance alone could .::? handle this as they do not have the staff to handle the .~?., present situation. And why should the burden of policing these commercial sites be left up to the public? It's ~" about time the developers and the builders and the owners c3 start sharing the responsibility for the mess they leave :., c, when they make their money and move on. ~i~/i~/~!!11' ~ The days of a local resident building s small project are over. Sure there's still a few, but by and large they are investors from out of state who could care less about what the finished project looks like. AS I was told by one prominent North Naples OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 148 developer, I build as cheaply as I can within the code and then I take my profit and build all over again. Many times I have asked for help with dead bushes and trees and sometimes it takes several years just to get one tree replaced. It seems the developer takes his money, the builder sells to the new owner and the new owner either claims it's not his problem or that he has no money since he just opened up business. It's a catch-22 with the developer/builder out of it all .together. Compliance tells me you can't get someone to replace something if they don't have any money. Did you know that only 50 percent of all the i~i?'? developed sites do no thing beyond the basic co de lli~ii?'~.. requirements? Is this the legacy we wish to leave to I!~;:~::~ C~ Collier County? Do we want to ride up and down our roads ~i~i'~:.~> seeing large buildings, signs and asphalt: because the ~.'.:' ~ lands~ping code as it stands today is abominable? ~. c~ We have heard incredible stories about ~he ~.... stripping of forests and the need to plant mo:.e cano~ :~'~. trees. Let's not kid ourselves. Each time a b~ldozer [~]'~;: pushes away acres of native vegetation in a f~w hours, I1'~;~::'~:', there reply isn't much difference ~tween that and the OFFICI~ ~URT REPORTERS, ~LLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 149 South American rain forest devastation. It's subtle, but it is happening. If we continue to allow these developers to replace this lost vegetation with tiny trees, we havE: done Collier County a great disservice. Do we care enough about our county to tell these developers you may make a little less profit when in fact the well landscaped c~nmercial site draws more people to it than a site that looks like a parking lot, and that's a marketing fact. The staff has already changed a lot of their size selection, and I have spoken with several landscapers and they say they have no problems getting larger trees. And of course you can replace three palm trees instead of a canopy tree. Most landscapers are excited about the new ordinances and feel it will generate more business, not less. And I personally called a half dozen landscapers and growers yesterday by phone and not one of them said they would have a problem even getting me a 12 foot tree in 1 to 14 days, so I ceased further calls. You have, I am sure, received pictures of some of the latest landscaping done under the present code and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FI~ 33962 150 I'm sure you find it as frightening as I do. There will always be changes here and they' re happening so quickly that we must at this time protect our county from getting away from us. When all the work is done and all the effort made by so many over this past year, I hope and pray it is not thrown away by so few in the name of so ma~5;. And in the end, the judgment is left to each of you and I ask what is best for the residents and the taxpayers and 'the voters of the county what is the legacy we wish to leave because after all, developers come and go but this is our home. And so in closing I ask each of you this evening to support the new landscaping ordinance, including the requirement for larger and greater diversity of trees, the doubly planted hedges where screening is required and appropriate landscape bonding by the developer in order to assure Collier County residents that new development does not equate to a half-dead, treeless enviro~nent. Thank you. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there another speaker on OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 151 the landscape? MR. FERNANDEZ: For the record, my name is Michael Fernandez. I would like to compliment the previous speaker on being very eloquent about some of the problems we have here. I would like to offer a compromise, though, dealing with the buffer requirement. It seems that one of the greatest problems that we do have and we've spoken about pictures is that people tend to incorporate water management with that five foot requirement or whatever requirement is. That is a very similar problem we had in the City of Naples, and I authored the landscaping ordinance that is going to be reviewed by the City of Naples. What we did is we proposed in that ordinance that the water management be disallowed in that Duffer area and that way we circunvented that problem. And I think that that's something that we should look at here rather than just saying well, we need ten feet so that we can accommodate the tree, the hedge and the swale. If the developer so wishes to put a swale, then he would have to augment that five feet and add OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 152 additional green area. But that also gives the developer the opportunity to if he so chooses to use water management through a mechanical means, piping in the parking lot for instance. But the developer shouldn't be penalized. It does seem that is an excessive requirement. I want to call particular attention, though, to industrial zoning in t_hat, for iDstance, on a 10,000 square foot lot yes, we do, as Mr. Hoover said, lose about 25 percent of the lot to that ten-foot perimeter buffer requirement. That seems an excessive loss. Also, there's very little land in Collier County for industrial sites and it's very condensed areas. I do believe there needs to be substantial buffers around the perimeter of these sites especially when t~aeir next door neighbor is residential. But the internal landscaping requirement for the numerous, and we're talking about here -- usually our industrial areas are not these massive plants but they're generally the smaller, especially on the ~naller lots are the plumbers and the other service people that we need in our community and we don't see that there is this need to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 153 provide a ten-foot buffer between 10,000 square foot lots or a minimal building. And I ask you to reconsider that standard that's been proposed. It just doesn't seem that it's consistent with trying to put our industrial areas in a singular area, in singular areas. And I don't think it should have the same standard as the other districts. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: What's your recommendation for the industrial district? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think we ought to go ~ack to the five-foot buffer areas. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: And leave all the rest of them at ten? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. I don't think that's necessary. Well, in the industrial areas if you'll see that in between similar uses you're not required at this time to have that landscaping requirement. Nc~, that is consistent with many other counties in this area that have considered revised landscape codes. In other words, it doesn't seem that it -- it doesn't seem to have the same purpose that you have OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 154 elsewhere. COMMISSIONER HASSE: In other words, no buffering at all between like uses and industrial areas. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think what you' re seeing if you go to some of these industrial developments are that they have almost contiguous use. In other words, you buffer the perimeter of the site as far as next to the highways, the access roads, the subdivision roads that are internal to an industrial park, for instance, and you also buffer the aceas to the community. But internal, between building A which has a plumbing supply store and building B that is a popcorn distributorship, no, I don't believe so. I think we ought to have the room and the leeway there to provide the access to the vehicles. I do believe that the increase that we're talking about addresses some of the deficiencies with internal asphalt areas. Right now we have a minuscule 3.3 percent requirement of the asphalt areas to be relegated into landscaped areas. I believe that we are now proposing to increase that to ten percent. That is a threefold -- you know, 300 percent increase. And I think that gives the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 155 latitude to the developer and designer to try to locate those areas that are most efficient in his development. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Does that require them to build -- I mean, to landscape that area, that ten percent? MR. FERNANDEZ.' x~.- Absolutely. And with the new standards, we're talking one tree for every hundred square feet and scope and hedges and so forth, so I think it's -- you know, it's a substantial increase. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: about the buffering issue. between like uses, really. That's not really talking We're talking about buffering I mean, I understand what you're saying. You're saying it's going to look pretty anyway, so why do you need to buffer? Essentially, that's what you' re saying. MR. FERNANDEZ: Essentially, yeah. Let's look at these -- let's look at these individual parcels as a continuous use and buffer from, you know, public access-ways. But between each other seems that it would be not be appropriate, especially in industrial areas. And for the other areas in the county, again, I would suggest that rather than have the ten-foot requirement we .!!i, ii!11~!i!. OF FICI AL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ~lll~n '" 7 ~ __- ' ~_ i_. ~ , _ ~ ~ ~ i~-~--317~~~~n~n~'m 156 go to a five-foot requirement with no water management allowed in those areas and that will take care of one of the major problems to what we've been hearing about and we see in our shopping centers and elsewhere. And then the developer wants to do -- he wants to put his water management into a landscaped or a s%:;ale area, he'll have to provide additional landscaping. COMMISSIONER VOLPE~ So when we talk about out-parcels, let's talk about the Home Depot, 10,000 square foot out-parcel there. What kind of buffering would be required around Checkers or around Oil Swift or whatever they call it? What kind of a buffer would you want around that? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think in those cases I think that yes, you would have your five-foot requirement that you could -- I think when we're talking -- you know, when I'm talking about the like uses, I'd like to specify that I'm talking about industrial areas and not necessarily those other areas. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I just wondered. You said like uses you didn't want any buffering. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. I need to specify. I'm OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 157 ?~'14 talking about the industrial areas. And the rest of the community, rather than have the ten-foot requirement, I think the five would easily meet the requirement needs. Thank you. MR. JACOB: I was going to say Madam Chairman, but she's not here, so Commissioners, my name is Arthur Jacob. I live at 431 Palm Court in beautiful Vanderbilt Beach. I am here as chairman of the Second District Association. The Second District Association is made up of the majority of the property owners associations J.n the second district and I think now in north Naples because it looks like we're going to lose a couple. On October 10th at our most recent meeting of the Second District Association, we heard a report from ULDC activities and status from the citizens at large appointed by the commissioners to serve on the community-based advisory committee. He covered many of the changes that would occur when a new code is adopted. He focused the association's attention on some of the important changes being proposed in the landscape and buffering portion of the ULDC. These reviewed as OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 CD C) 158 particularly important to those of us in North Naples as we seem to be getting a lion's share of the new development. We have many, many examples of how poorly we are being treated by the developers following the minimum landscape requirements of the current code. We strongly believe that the citizens of Collier County have vested rights to a quality of life that we moved to this county to enjoy. These rights can be ignored or they can be honored by insisting that the new development upgrade the minimum landscape and buffering requirements. This, of course, will not happen if the proposed code is weakened to satisfy the landscaping and development interests that seem to have formed a common special interest group to sabotage the minimum requirement of the new code. As I understand it, this proposed code has been through eight months of intensive staff and advisory committee review and the proposed code has passed muster at the two public hearings in front of the Board of Planning Commissioners. I'm certain that you know k~; now OFFICIAL COURT ~PORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 159 this new code has improved plant standards with larger, healthier trees. It provides financial incentives to the developer to assure that the plant material survives during the first critical year. And hedges that when required will be planted in such a way that the screening requirements will be achieved. In the code, this means planted in staggered double rows around the perimeter of parking areas. I'm here this evening to let you know that the citizens of this county deserve to have the improved landscape and buffering standards called for in this ULDC. The Second District Association wants to be on record with the following resolution that was unanimously agreed to at their last meeting on October 10th. The resolution is as follows: It is the sense of the association-- the Second District Association is fully in favor of the language in the landscape and buffering section, Division 2.4 of the draft currently being reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners for enactment by the county by November 8th, 1991. 33962 160 The Second District Association urges the Board of County Commissioners to sustain and support the provisions in the draft against special interests that may try to lower and weaken the standard. You now know where our members stand, and I hope that you are in agreement. I would just like to say my tax bill is going to be coming in a few days and I'm paying for beautiful Collier County and I hope you see that I get it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Next speaker? MR. LINK: Madam Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Ray Link. I've been a natural resources consultant in Collier County since 1972. I had a little speech prepared but it doesn't seem necessary now. The comments I were to make, I would be b~sically echoing the comments so eloquently stated by Mrs. Richardson. And regardless of what you do tonight, I think you're making a step in the right direction. I would have liked to have seen you go to the 8, 10 and 12 foot tree heights as supported by staff and OFFICIAL OOURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 161 Planning Cc~mission, but as I said before, I think we're making steps in the right direction. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. BUCKHANNAN: Hank Buckhannan, landscape architect. Last week's meeting I gave a presentation. I just -- after our meeting Friday with staff, I just want to touch on the bond issue. I still feel that the bond issue is not compatible. We talk about two and a half percent costs for a bond. Maybe that's what we've precluded today. Who knows, next year it might be five or ten percent. That bond money is going to come off the top of the contract. We can use that money instead of having to purchase a bond we can use it to buy more trees and larger trees for our project. You have the ability to support this and enforce this issue with the alternate two. You already have that ability. So I don't feel that it's necessary to impact the costs of a projo. ct by requiring a bond. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Would you restate what the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 162 alternate two is? COMMISSIONER VOLPE .. Inspection. MR. BUCKHANNAN~ Alternate two is-- the5, have-- under the Maintenance, which portion -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have it. MR. BUCKHANNAN: maintenance. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: right here. MR. BUCKHANNAN ~ 2.4.3.7, page 2-115 under the I've got it. I've got it You have the ability to enforce this ordinance over long periods. I see no reason why you can't enforce it with the same mechanics after the first year. Relative to the tree issue, I still feel that the alternate two would be the better way to go to hold down the impact of costs on a project. Here again, if we can use -- plant more trees with the same amount of monE~ as if we have to buy the larger trees, larger percentage. Also, relative to the staggered rows as we stated last time where you have staggered row, all we're doing is doubling the costs. Aesthetically there's some good OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 163 points, but at the same time with the double rows you run into more of a maintenance problem that we talked about last time and also as I stated, doubles the cost of the items as well. All the other issues that were brought up have been pretty well resolved to our satisfaction. Thank you for the time. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. Is there another speaker? MR. VARANO: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, ToA?.~ Varano. I spoke here last week against the opaque fencing in our industrial areas. And I would like to congratulate the commission for giving directions to staff for taking care of that problem. I'm a little bit concerned now and I have to agree with Mr. Fernandez who just spoke a few minutes ago. In our industrial park areas where we have a like use against a like use, I think if we go with the ten-foot buffering or a twenty-foot buffering which could in a couple years end up being, again, an opaque situation, but instead of made out of stone or brick or other OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 164 materials it ,:ould be a natural shrubbe~], opaque fencing. And I think that again would be a concern to the sheriff's department. I believe again like I spoke last week, yes, up against residential areas we should have it. But when you have, as Mr. Fernandez said, a plumber against the landscaper against the mason against the carpenter and as one gentleman said they lose a lot their land with a 10,000 square foot piece of property, I agree with that but I look at it as I spoke last week as a safety issue. I think somebody should consider that shrubbery -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE= But that same is t=ue whether it's five foot or ten foot. I mean, you're just talking about -- it can be opaque whether it's five o~ ten or fifteen. So the issue is either don't have any at all or -- MR. VARANO: I would say -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE.. So your recommendation's not have any at all. MR. VARANO= I would say not have any at all in the industrial area within the industrial park unless it's abutting residential. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 165 Thank you. MR. DELATE: May I clarify something on it, please? He was concerned about being opaque. I don't think that's going to be a factor because the buffering on those conditions we would only require trees, not any shrubs or walls or fences. So we' re just looking at trees in those areas. Also, the other factor is a lot of thesE: sites are non-conforming currently. A lot of these industrial parks have areas, lots that don't have any landscaping. So they would be abutting those lots and coming in with some landscaping. MR. COX: My name is Gene Cox. I've been a resident of Florida for over 40 years and I've been a nurseryman for 20 years in south Florida. I spoke last week in support of the eight foot trees and I'm here again this week still supporting the eight foot trees. I'm speaking in behalf of the Florida Nurserymen and Grower's Association and also for the nurserymen of Collier County. As I mentioned last week, there are only three nurseries in Collier County capable of handling the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 166 larger containered t£ees. That means that for the larger trees, and that includes ten footers, we' re going to have to go out of county. That means the business is going to go out of county. The smaller nurserymen, of which I am one, are going to lose out. As far as planting a diversity of trees, if you plant different species, you're going to attain diversity in trees. You' re going to get different rates of growth. So in a year or two you're going to have the difference in the height of trees. One other thing, and if I may, before I continue I'd like to give you a copy of the South Florida Water Management District -- this is an excerpt from one of their sections. COMMISSIONER VOLPE.. This is a 1987 report? MR. COX.' This is an excerpt from a study that South Florida Water Management did at the cost: of many thousands of dollars and in it they reccmmended, as you can see there, that eight foot trees with an inch and a half caliper were adequate. They also mentioned the fact that a shrubbery should be planted in single rows. I feel that planting shrubberies and shrubs in OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 167 double rows is not going to solve the problem of dead material at the end of the year. You're going to have dead material whether it's planted in single, double or triple rows. The other point: I'd like to make before I finish is the fact that the code, t..a .)roposed code proposes that we have 75 percent native trees and 50 percent native shrubs in our planting. Now, if we go to the largest size trees, our requirement, we're going to run into a problem. The nurseries in the county do not grow the larger size native trees in containers or very few ¢.f them grow them in the ground. So consequently to get native trees, you're going to have to go out of county or we're going to be planting oaks and mahoganies, oaks and mahoganies. NOW, there's nothing wrong with oaks and mahoganies, but you have to remember this is south Florida and a varied and colorful landscape is synonymous with south Florida and that's what a lot of people like to see when they come down here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there another speaker? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 168 MR. RICHARDSON: Good evening. F.~y name's Dwight Richardson, and I seem to have had a relative here before speaking. I didn't kn~ she was going to be here tonight. I provided to the commissioners during the past week amplification on our comments of the three issues that Mr. Delate mentioned last week, and I would like for that to be entered into the record for your -- to support whatever deliberations you come to. We have seemed to have run the issues slightly tonight. In dealing with the newest one first with the increased buffering over the existing code, I'd ask the commission to remember that we are trying to provide for buffer strips for more than just simple, simply aesthetics. And Joe has referred to the specific Purpose and Intent, but let me just call this particular section out to you, 2.4.7.1 to let you know that these ten-foot -- minimum ten-foot wide strippers, strips - maybe strippers, too - strips are there for a multipurpose. And let me read. This division promotes the use of landscape buffers and screens to eliminate and minimize OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 169 or minimize potential nuisances such as dirt, litter, noise, lights, unsightly buildings and structures and off-street parking and loading areas. Additionally, buffers and screens .provide spacing and landscaping to reduce potentially adverse impacts of noise, odor or lighting. So, there's more reasons than just one, and I would urge you to continue to support the staff and the advisory committee which indeed reflected a whole cross-section which included the development's interests to support the idea that we need to have these buffer strips. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Richardson, on the height of the trees, is the committee now that has met supportive of the ten foot trees as -- MR. RICHARDSON: Let me speak to the trees next, and I brought a prop with me just to iljustrate the point. This is a seven foot tree. I'm about six foot. This is an eight foot tree. We' re not 'talking about huge material. In fact, the eight foot tree would have a caliper of one inch per the code with a four-foot spread. MR. BEARDSLEY: Inch and a half. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 170 half. MR. RICHARDSON: I stand corrected. An inch and a MR. BEARDSLEY: ~o foot off the ground. MR. RICHARDSON: Base, two foot off the ground. A ten foot tree grows as high as the hoop on a basketball backboard. Twelve foot trees, which Mr. Link and I both hoped we would be able to introduce into the landscaping seems to have fallen into poor notice based on the difficulty that the landscapers seem to have in handling that kind of material. I would point out, though, that if you would call Pelican Nursery, Greenthumb, Island Garden Center, Tree Wizard, just the first four that were called, they had no difficulty in providing 12 foot trees in a minimum period. So I don't know who's saying what. Maybe they've got to go someplace else to get the tree. I wouldn't argue that. The growers certai~ly know what they' re capable of doing right now. I frankly feell they're , missing a business opportunity. But to answer your question, Mr. I)elate has been caught in the middle. He has provided you altecnatives OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 CD 171 and the alternatiYe that goes to 50/50, eight foot and ten foot trees I think may be a reasonable compromise. It doesn't meet what I'd like to see, but I think in the spirit of trying to move this to a conclusion that I would throw my support behind that and hope that the suppliers and the landscapers will try to get some diversity in plant material and trees rather than just taking what's on their particular lot at the time. Bonding I think we've heard and ]: hope we're all continued to agree that some sort of financial incentive needs to be put in place during that first important year. The double hedges, I think pulling it back to the alternative D makes sense. It performs the function better to have it there. I'd like to see it more often but certainly the upscale developers are going to put in the double rows anyway, so this as a minimum requirement for those people that depend on the minimum code I think we should leave that in. Let me just close by expressing my appreciation to the board for having appointed me to this task. It's one that I've enjoyed most of. I appreciated working with OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ............. ~ ~ __~ - ~ -- ~ ._l~ ~. III1~11~1~11..~ T-~ .... ~ 172 the professionals that you have on staff and certainly the fellow workers on the advisory committee I felt might have divergent interests but they all do li. ve in Collier County and I think have -- we've come up with a good product. So, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHANAHANz Before you leave, on the trees, do you recommend our going with alternative three? MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, alternative three, 50/50. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: On the industrial use, Mr. Richardson, how much discussion and debate did you have relative to isolating the industrial areas where they have like facilities, like manufacturing and buffered all the way around the perimeters an(] the three foot, the ten foot now trees within the parking area? Is there some-- should we be giving some consideration at least to that industrial section? MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Shanahah, if there was a relaxation to occur, that's probably the place you'd look at first. I agree with that. However, I would say in terms of the vision idea OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 173 that, you know, the industrial areas shouldn't look schlocky just beceLuse they happen to be industrial areas. Why not bring some quality of life to all aspects of our society and not just cornering off particular areas to say okay, it's industrial so let's let it look bad. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I wonder, though, then if we shouldn't at least relax in the industrial areas, the ten-foot buffering. I think that therE: might be at least some consideration from the board in that respect because I do think you have a different set of cards that you' re dealing with in that respect. You know, I certainly am pretty well convinced in almost every other area but that's one that gives me a little bit of pause. MR. RICHARDSON: Let me just suggest this: One of the speakers made the point that one of our problems is that buffers are sometimes used for multiple purposes, they're used for ~.~ales, for water management as well as landscaping. If It could be assured in this proposed relaxation of industrial areas only, that the buffering strips would not ke used for water management areas, that -- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTF, RS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 174 COMMISSIONER SRANAHAN: management area use. MR. RI(/qARDSON: Right. Five foot and no water Exactly. And if they need to use it for water management, that they'd have to -- COMMISSIONER SHANA~AN.. That makes sense. I mean, and that gives, provides some flexibility and some compromise. MR. RICHARDSON: That might provide an area for us to -- COMMISSIONER SHANA~AN.' The only other area that I would ask for your comments on, almost all of the speakers said hey, ten feet is too much, take it back down to five. Obviously you don't think that's a good idea. But is there a compromise there we should consider? Should it be seven and a half? feet. MR. RICHARDSON: No. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: COMMISSIONER ~. RICHARDSON: Yes. cases -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: The compromise should be ten That's the compromise. Ten feet on each side. Well, you've got. a lot of That's 20 feet. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 175 MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, that's true, but you've got a lot of cases where you're going up against existing. I mean, we're talking about in-fill lots in a lot of areas. And out in -- and so we've tried to make this so it's going to work and we've got some words into who has to put it in first and what kind of screen:[ng would take place. But I don't think that's too much to ask for us to improve some of the ambiance of our county and to take a quantum leap forward to coin the phrase in terms of how we are trying to conserve our quality of life. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Thank you, Mr. Richardson. CgAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. Is there any other questions? (No response. ) C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. Is there any other speakers on landscaping then? (No response. ) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. ~:hen what's the direction of the board? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Madam Chairman, I'd like to suggest that we take into consideration the industrial OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 176 change that was somewhat supported by Mr. Richardson and take that down to five feet in the industrial area and eliminate any water retention in combination with that change. MR. DELATE: May I make a suggestion? If you're going to go in that direction, then maybe you want to limit. that to lots that are let's say less than 20,000 square feet because in my opinion once you get above that threshold, that's not a valid point that they're going to be running out of room. Mayh.· in lots that are smaller than 20,000 square feet:. feet. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: That sounds good. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Good. COMMIS S IONER SAUNDERS: Less than 20,000 square COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Less than 20,000. that all make sense to everybody? COMMISSIONER HASSE: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Does Yes. I guess probab].y what we' re saying is that what I've heard is on the bonding requirement that we are -- I think there may [~ a consensus on the bonding requirement. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, CX)LLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 177 COMMISSIONER ~qHANAHAN: I think there's a consensus there as far as I'm concerned. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And on the double staggered row of hedges required only in type D buffers? COMMISSIONER $HANAHAN: Yes. three. three. COMMISSIONER ~ASSE: That makes sense. C~AIRMAN GOODN IGHT: Urn-hum. MR. MERRILL: What was the tree height? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: The tree was alternative That was the one that we had -- the alternative COMMISSIONER VOLPE: 50/50? COMMISSIONER SHANA/{AN: 50/50, ten feet. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Yeah. Okay. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. Is there any item or anything else that we need to address, Joe? MR. MERRILL: One thing, and on the bond you went with alternative one? COMMISSIONER SHANA~AN: Alternative one, yes. Correct. The letter of credit or a suret. f bond. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there anything else that we've missed? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 __ 178 MR. DELATE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT COMMISSIONER VOLPE No, that' s all. Okay. Then -- It's kind of interesting, isn't it, that we spent so much time talking about landscaping and buffering? We've really come a long way. We've spent a lot of time talking about these things. Great. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. Now, the way that I've -- now, what I've got, I've got two other items that neu. ds to be discussed. One is on page 2-9. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: 2-9? CHAIRMAN GOOD, lIGHT: Yes, 2-9. We've received a fax from David L~unb concerning the conditional uses. conditional uses. It's 2.2.2.3 and it':~ No. 4 under It says hunting cabins subject to all building codes and permits. And David's ccmment is that, "As you' re well aware, hunting camps may be appropriately ranged from simple shelter to get away from the rain and mosquitoes to quite large locally elaborate second homes. When people build and stay in the former, they are basically camping out and seeking a more rustic experience. We find this OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 179 shelter in many states and national parks along the Appalachian Trail. It is also a structure that's been historical built by hunters and ranchers in Collier County. These structures may not -- may or may not have plumbing, electricity, insulation, and floor covering, yet they can be safe, clean and appropriate for their use, ~ And I concur completely with that and I think that there needs to be some kind of a guideline to say that if there's not any electricity there they don't have to put insulation in, but if they're going to put electricity and plumbing in the thing then they need to -- I mean, I'm not saying that they don't need to have a building permit issued, I just think that there needs to be some criteria. MR. BAGINSKI~ And what I was going to suggest is I had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Lamb this afternoon and I concur. I have no objection at all1 with removing subject to all building codes and permits. And basically why I'm so free with that elimination is the fact that it is through conditional use and we will have conceptual site plans and you and the staff will b.e able to know OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 180 exactly what they're contemplating and conditions can be placed as appropriate. COMMISSIONER SHANA~AN: Fine. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGhT: Okay. Then you'll make those changes? MR. BAGINSKI: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Everybody agree? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I don't have any problem. MR. MERRILL: Is that only in that Section 2.2.2.3.4? COMMISSIONER VOLPE hunting cabin-- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN that group. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT cabin. MR. MERRILL: the whole code? No. 4. Yeah, the definition of As it relates to No. 4 in The definition of hunting Is that the only placE: it appears in C~AIRMAN GOODNIGhT: Yeah. It's 2.2.2.3 and it's And then the other thing that I have is we've OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 181 received a letter from Mr. Pires discussing 2.2.20.1. Tony? MR. PIRES: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Has that item been addressed? MR. PIRES: I don't believe so. If you'll come to the CHAIRMAN GOODN IGHT mi cro phone · COMMISSIONER VOLPE This is what we discussed last week, wasn't it, Mr. Pires, having to do with mixed uses and PUD' s? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And you didn't want -- you didn't want to have all residential PUD's, single-family residential PUD's. MR. PIRES: No, sir. The concern is that -- there was a committee side sheet on this issue with regards to changing language. The proposed staff language says that vesting requires all PUD's be mixed use in nature. There was a committee side sheet that stated, basically deleted that word "mixed use" from before plan development and then put afterwards, including mixed uses. I think it has a OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 182 substantial different connotation, and that's what I was in support of. Ken Baginski and I were kind of missing each other as far as this week was a rather hectic week but the concern I have is that by forcing it into -- he expressed some concerns about what I guess I call them single purpose PUD's. He mentioned the concern about a PUD just for a church or some other -- I call them in my own sort of phraseology a single purpose PUD. But you can have a PUD of a commercial nature that has a substantial number of uses that has a mixture of uses but may not b=. a "mixed use" as defined because a mixed use defined would be a commercial with residential, residential with industrial and industrial with institutional, commercial with industrial, commercial with institutional, and I don't think that's necessarily appropriate. And I think by -- when you look at the various uses that you can put into it a commercial PUD you have a substantial mixture of uses. That's my concern. And i believe also under Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes dealing with the Comprehensive Plan, under OFFICIAL COUR~ REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 183 163.3202 (3), with regards to land development regulation, states that this section shall be construed to encourage the use of innovative Land Development Regulations which include provisions such as transfer of development rights in sensitive and inclusionary zoning, Planned Unit Develo~nent, impact fees and performance zoning. And I believe that this just goes against the -- is inappropriate and isn't necessary and I don't see any horror stories or problems out there that need to be resolved in the fashion as proposed by the staff and I think the committee side sheets provide flexibility as designed for PUD's. And I think there's some other speakers that wish to speak on that issue after myself. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: There's a blue sheet that's in here, is that not correct, that says 2.2.20.1, the Purpose and Intent. been made? MR. PIRES: There has been some changes that's But it still retains the language of mixed use development. It says, "Or planned developments that may or may not be mixed use in the Urban Fringe Areas." That doesn't take care of -- OFFICIAL OOURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 184 MR. BAGINSKI: Thmt is not the issue that Tony is addressing. One of the things I'd point out is the issue was brought before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission suggested or agreed with the staff recommendation with the proviso that we provide definition for the mixed use, which we ]lave and it has been. provided to you. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Where is that, Mr. Baginski? MR. BAGINSKI: Should be a yellc~¢ sheet. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Does Mr. Pires have that? MR. PIRES: Yes, the definition of mixed use. Yes, sir, I do. MR. BAGINSKI: Second of all, as I pointed out to the board before, that what we have in many situations in the past, we have had single use, single develoi~nent projects that have the used PUD as a variance request, as a vehicle to vary the dimensional standards from the district in which that would be as a per~itted use or an accepted permitted use. I don't believe that the intent to the PUD is to provide a mechanism simply to avoid the variance OFFICIAL COURT REPORTEP~, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 CS. CL 185 procedure or to eliminate standards that can't be provided in other districts. Simply because ! come to you and say I'm a PUD, therefore it's a 25 foot yard and I want a ten foot yard, I don't think it's appropriate. That's one of the provisions or one of the reasons that we requested an increase in the size of the acreage and required -- and made it a requirement for a mixed use. I provide other clarification. Under the definition of "mixed use" we have provided for mixtures or different types, two or more types of residential, whether they be single-family and multi-family, single-family and duplex, single-family on 7500 square foot lots and single-family on 10,000 s~uare foot lots within the same development. That would also constitute mixed use development. Again, specifically what we're trying to prevent is, again, a five acre or a ten acre -- and I just -- the church coming in asking for a PUD because they want a reduction in the yard requirements. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Could those people, though, just go for a straight rezone and come in then for the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 CD 186 subdivision? MR. BAG INSKI MR. MERRILL Yes, sir. Under the new language they can. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So is that -- I mean, then we've got -- one of the concerns we've had is that this community's kind of directed the use of Planned Unit Developments because it does give us some greater control other than the standards that are allowed within the straight zoning. MR. BAGINSKI: I'm not sure. I mean, I'm not sure. So often we've heard that there's a trade-off and many times I have to ask the question where the trade-off is. I mean, we've heard this before on numerous occasions, for a PUD we have greater control. I think your requirements through the review of any rezoning, through the subdivision regulations, through the site plan, through conditions that you levy is as much control as you will receive through the PUD. We've -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But in your earlier example that this church couldn't use a PUD but could come in for a straight -- actually it would be a provisional use I guess is what it would k~, that would b.~ okay. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 187 C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: MR. BAG INSKI .. district. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Commissioner Saunders? Assuming that it:s allowed in that In that dist:rict. Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Baginski, to follow up your example and we use the church, their concern is that they would potentially or the petitioner would potentially use the PUD mechanism to avoid setbacks or other restrictions that would be typicsul in that particular zoning district. It's my understanding that the reason for encouraging Planned Unit Developments isn't so much to gain more control over the development but is to provide flexibility to the land owner and to the county to ensure a better product. MR. BAGINSKI: agree with you. COMMISSIONER SAU~IDERS: And it seems to me that if someone comes in with a Planned Unit Develo~nent and it's apparent that their purpose in using that vehicle is to try to avoid some of the restrictions, we can simply say no to that petition. So I don't think fr¢~ a planning standpoint that that particular problem that you raise OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 188 really is one that we should be concerned about. MR. BAGINSKI: That may be. I'm going to suggest that the tradition in Collier County has been very often to allow single use developments. I will suggest that from my review of not only past but some current projects that it appears to me that the obvious intent is to provide a PUD Master Plan with really nothing more than the intentions to reduce development standards as if it was a normal district. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: When you see those instances, Mr. Baginski, then it should be incumberit upon you to bring that to the attention of the board rather than -- MR. BAGINSKI .' And we will. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: -- be the staff's recommendation and -- MR. BAGINSKI: We will. COMMISSIONER VOLPE.' -- approval. You say this is just an attempt to circumvent the ordinances. MR. PIRES: I have no -- no one here has a problem with that and I kn(~ my clients here don't have a problem with that, Commissioner Volpe, about bringing that to the I!!i ~a,~'~ attention. ~i~"i': OPPICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 189 And as I said, I think it's a flexible, creative tool that'll be straightjacketed with the language as proposed. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS= I'm sympathetic with the language or with the argument that Mr. Pires has presented and would suggest that we consider amending the language to-- along the lines that Tony has suggested because I think that there are enough controls in here that we're not going to have to worry about that situation that Mr. Baginski's concerned about. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Have we increased the acreage, though, from five to ten or are we back to five now? MR. BAGINSKI.- As far as I'm concerned, or as far as I'm aware, we're still at ten. COMMISSIONER VOLPE= We're still at ten. So it's ten acres as PUD and what we' re talking .about is you may have a single purpose PUD but would have to come to the board for a review. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Can you %~o.uk the language to that extent and to satisfy yourself'? MR. MERRILL: We can, but I don't: --- the one concern I have is if you want to be ab].e to limit single OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 190 use PUD's, I don't think you'll really have any basis for doing that anymore, if you take this out. We can -- maybe there's something we could develop to do that. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Don't we do this in Activity Centers? I mean, essentially there's certain criteria about a mixed use. And mixed use, I think we also inolude some open space as well as part of a mixed use. I thought that that was the intent, you know, as to for planning purposes and to allow some flexibility. So I guess is there some way that --- this is a -- you know, this is a requirement. Is there some way that we could make it, you know, an encouragement that they should be mixed use. MR. MERRILL.. I think certainly we could do that. One thing I just wanted to point out is that one of the key things or key aspects of this code is that we are, and this goes way back probably two or two and a half years ago when we started the interviews, one of the biggest concerns was that everything went through PUD instead of the euclidean zoning that you have out there and that was thought to be quite a bit excessive. And what this ne~ code allows by allowing OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 191 conditions to be attached to euclidean zoning is it allows you to accomplish a lot of the things that you in previous years have not been able to accomplish. COMMISSIONER VOLPE~ What's your recommendation, Mr. Merrill? MR. MERRILL~ Well, it really is a policy issue I have to say. I can't tell you that legally -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I'm only asking for a recommendation. MR. MERRILL: My personal feelings -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: As our consultant and having worked through this process. MR. MERRILL: I would have to support the staff with their recommendation with regard to the PUD's because of the additional language regarding conditions attached to rezonings. MR. PIRES: If I may make a suggestion, as I indicated in the letter that the committee side sheet which was attached to the letter I think would be language that's beneficial to the county. That's on 2.2.20.1. I think it was attached to my letter as the last page of my correspondence to the t~)ard. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 192 And I think the board always has an exercise of the police power and they can make some determinations and turn down the rezonings and Mr. Merrill can advise you, you know, in using the fairly debatable test and tremendous amount of discretion in that legislative function and I haven't seen any abuses pointed out or any real problems. There's a generalized statement that there's too many PUD's, too many PUD's, but I really --my concern is where's the problem, where's the abuse, and I really don't see it except the generalized statement, and that's my concern. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: You're suggesting this new language be considered, this last page, is that what -- MR. PIRES: It was a committee side sheet, I believe, attached to my correspondence. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN.. I'm looking at the first -- MR. PIRES: The second -- COMMISSIONER S~ANAHAN: Okay. Committee. I'm sorry. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Pires, the only thing is OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 193 the CCPC, which is representative of the community with development interests represented and so on, they didn't accept your, the committee's recommendation; is that correct? MR. PIRES: That's my understanding. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And they've directed, the CCPC directed that we go along with the staff. MR. PIRES: That's my understanding. Once again, as an advisory board to the board, they had that discretion-- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I'm looking at who sits on that CCPC right now and the interests that they represent. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think you stated it accurately. They represent the community in general. It's not loaded to representing any particular special interest group. But I think that certainly we listen to their rec~nmendations. We don't have to follc)w their recommendations. We just changed the landscaping requirements in contradiction to what the Planning Commission had recommended, so I don't think really OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 194 that's the issue. I think the issue is whether we are unnecessarily restricting the use of Planned Unit Developments. I'm not sure I understand what the benefit would be in restricting them to require a mixed use. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: My only comment would be, and your point's well made, C~mmissioner Saunders, that I was just trying to point out they are representative of the community and they are our advisory board and they spent hours, far more hours probably than we have working on it and in each instance we've gone along -- I think in the landscape committee but with a consensus from our staff and from the committee. That's really where I was looking. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In terms of the hours that they spent and certainly they volunteer an awful lot of time on that, I don't take lightly their recommendation. But we've all sat here for years and we've spent many, many hours and we've reviewed many, many Planned Unit Developments and we, I think, have a very good feeling of of the flexibility that's provided not only to a property owner but to the county. And improving those. I think 195 it's unduly restrictive. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Let's see what the rest of the board wants to do. Cc~nmissioner Shanahah? COMMISSIONER S~ANAHAN: I'm -- I'm going '; pass for the moment. COMMISSIONER ~ASSE: I see some good points that Mr. Pires has come up with. Pires. I'm sorry. MR. PIRES: No problem, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HASSE: But staff, too, has come up with a pretty good answer to it. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I don't want to be overly restrictive, Madam Chairman, but I certainly think that we need to take into consideration staff recommendation and the committee or the committee report and the CCPC if there's some middle ground and compromise that we might be able to make, I would certainly, you know, welcome that kind of language change. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, one middle ground might be, and I'll just throw that out for Mr. Pires's comment and staff's comment, that we don't put an absolute r~quirement that there be mixed use Planned Unit Developments but we simply indicate that if it's not a OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERSt COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 196 mixed use Planned Unit Development proposal that there'll have to be some good reasons given for the review of that because I think what we're probably talking about is a piece of property where a mixed use just isn't going to make any sense. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: How about that as for a compromise, everybody? MR. BAGINSKI: We have in the language provided to you in the blue sheets, we have attempted to lift those restrictions. For example, infill PUD's they've even allowed to be less than ten acres, and we've eliminated some of the restrictions in terms of siting and availability. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Did you have some -- MR. MORTON: Yeah. For the record, Mark Morton, chairman of the Unified Land Development Code. I've been kind of sitting back listening to this and I will say this was discussed pretty b.riefly at the CCPC. At that point, we talked about changing the definition of mixed use, directed staff to do that and it's kind of let that one go forward to the board. So just to clear that one point up. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 197 The second thing, if you would turn to page 2-54 and 2-55 of your document, -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: White pages? MR. MORTON: 2-54 and 2-55. We spent a lot of time putting together criteria to try to get more creative, innovative PUD's to eliminate the problem that Mr. Baginski is bringing forward. If you'd read through that list of criteria, and I'll read some of them, for them to approve a PUD, you should show that it provides usable, common, open space within individual tracts or increments to offset any -- and compensate for decrease in typical lot sizes or yard requirements, provide for public access to open space areas beyond the boundaries of the property; uses occurring within a PUD are such that compatibility with surrounding uses can be assured; providing places for public assembly such as parks and plazas; link centrally located, ensure open space. It just goes on and on. And the reason we put that in was. to address that specific concern. When you put the acreage limit on it, you're going to give up a couple things. One is someone that comes in and meets that criteria, a church or OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 -. ............. :_ . .- III1 11111: 198 someone that wants to tie into corner management or something and would like to have that opportunity to be a PUD, they don't come in and offer that. Plus, the -- as you all know, many of your PUD's that come through, the people end up putting in turn lanes and all those different type things, right-of-way dedications, et cetera. You know, you're taking a large chunk of people out of that process. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Are you -- you're the chairman of the committee so you' re supporting the committee's reccmmendation then. MR. MORTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: MR. MORTON: Yeah. just clarify something. I think that -- I think we understand that. I think we should -- and let me If you look at the title of this, Minimum Dimensional Standards Within a PUD, what it's talking about is if you want to get out of the minimum standards in the subdivision regulations, you've got to meet a bunch of criteria and it's innovative design, et cetera, et cetera. So I think it's really addressed already in the document and, you know, I recommend you delete the word OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 199 "mixed use" because it's not accomplishing that. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Recommend what? MR. MORTON: Delete the word "mixed use" that's in the pink sheet. COMMISSIONER SHANA~AN: White sheet the one I got. MR. DUANE: Robert Duane. I support the two previous speakers, and I drafted for the subcommittee the language that Mr. Morton just referred to you because I for one was sympathetic with Mr. Baginski's argument that PUD's should go and in many cases exceed the basic requirements of the zoning ordinance if they' re going to deviate from them in some places. And I think if you take the language that's there, we're not going to get abuses, we're going to get better develo~nent. That's better planning and that's better for the community. Thank you. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there someone else who wants to speak on this issue? Hurry up, guys. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is this anything new and different? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 200 MR. JARVI: This will be slightly new. My name's Reed Jarvi. And I just -- along the same lines, a little different vein, I just question why we'[e going to ten acres versus the five acres which we've been doing for several years apparently. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Does the language that Mr. Pires suggested coincide with the discussion that we've had where some flexibility would be allc~ed to encourage the use of PUD's but it's not required, not mandatory? MR. MERRILL: We can do that. I mean, as I stated earlier, it is a policy issue and if you want to put something in there where it strongly encourages as opposed to requires, we can go that rout.-= as a compromise. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I think, you know, in this discussion what I'm hearing is that we haven't had some specific abuses. We've got the flexibility. We're encouraging them to do it. Mr. Duane has said that we've already tried to address that possibility where there might be that exception. I'm not supportive of reducing it back to five. So if we could stay at ten and do the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, ~IAPLES, FL 33962 201 encouragement to mixed use I think we can balance this out. CBAIRMAN GOODNIGhT: Let's hear from Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah, I'd like to encourage you to perhaps say that it is encouraged that it be a mixed use development but that you have that flexibility in there, but I would like to also say that regards to ten acre business I do beliew.~ quite firmly that you can do significant develoi~nent in a five-acre parcel. And the only rationale that I hear that we're going from a ten to a five is for the same reason that we' re trying to put mixed use in there as a requirement; that we're worried about the sole issues. And I think that there's no reason you can't do a five acre mixed use even. And we have done it successfully. Five acres has been a standard for some time here, and it gives you as the council the adde4 review that you're looking for. And there again, advantages into deciding what's good for the development. Thank you. MR. BAGINSKI= I would point out to the board that, and we did discuss this last week at the direction of the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 .... · ,,,~ ......... _: ~: : ~;T 202 board, that we added additional language which is included in your blue sheets which provides an exemption from the acreage requirement within the Activity Centers and also within the urban -- in Urban Fringe Areas for PUD infill development. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: as I'm concerned. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's satisfactory as far I'm satisfied at this point. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll go along with that as long as we just encourage the mixed use. I'll go along with the ten acres. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Change that to encourage mixed use. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. Is there any other directions that you need then? MR. BAGINSKI: No, ma'am, but I would like to address something if I could. It simply addresses one of the zoning maps, the Zoning Atlas, that we have had some communications with the State on a particular piece of property and while we have suggested to you that this particular piece of property owned by the State remain under the agricultural OFFICIAL COURT REPORTE S, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 203 zoning, we would like to identify a portion of a site which is located in Section 6, Range 29 East, Township 50 South. This is a site that's been in communications or is currently in discussion with the county in terms of providing an EMS station, et cetera, and would like you to acknowledge the fact that we're going to change a portion of that property somewhere from an acre, half acre to an acre and a quarter to a public, or the P District as opposed to the Agricultural District that it's identified as now. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: All right. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. ~low then, I need to know if there's anything else that needs to be addressed. COMMISSIONER SHANAMAN: Look at all those hands come up. Holy Moses. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman and Commissioners, I'd like to address the issue of industrial zoning. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Industrial zoning? I thought we went through that. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, F.b 33962 204 MR. FERNANDEZ.. This is relative to setbat:ks, specifically. The issue is -- if you would pass that on perhaps and if I could give this to staff so that they may follow along. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Just a second b.~cause we need to change the paper. MR. FERNANDEZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. In regard to industrial zoning, the graphics that we've produced here shows the minimum sized lot and if you apply the develo~nent standards, the setback requirements to a hundred by a hundred, which is the minimum size, what: you get is a 900 square foot building which is not allowed by the development standard which calls for a 1,000 square foot structure. Obviously this needs to be addressed. The existing zoning says that the minimum requirement, lot requirement is for a 20,000 square foot lot, and also the setback requirements are significantly different. These setback requirements, if you were to apply on an apple to apple basis, let's say a 20,000 square foot lot to a 20,000 square foot lot, wha'~- you are OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 205 incurring is a 36 percent decrease in buildable, developable area on that site. That is a significant loss to a community that has limited industrial zoning. In addition to that, we have already talked about the perimeter landscaping and so forth. The only stipulation that I am concerned about was the one that said, Well, only to lots that are less than 20,000 square feet. But as you can see by the graphic, a 10,000 square foot lot, which is the minimum lot, does not work. In addition to that, again I'd like to reiterate that we are looking at an interior landscape requirement that has a 300 percent increase. COMMXSSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Fernandez, excuse me. We're not back on landscape buffering, are we? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, but there -- what I'm saying, though, is that all these standards are going to decrease the amount of developable area here. We have a limited amount of industrial zoning in this county by the Comp Plan and by current zoning and I'm just relating it to the setbacks. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: make sure I understood what you said. It sounds like -- let me On the hundred by OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, 33962 206 hundred foot lot, which I believe there are plenty of those in the county, you said that it would be physically impossible to build a legal size building if we apply all of the setbacks and the minimum square footage of the building. MR. FERNANDEZ: That' s correct. That wou[Id be a non-developable lot. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Would that not, Mr. Merrill, put us a the position of extending those 100 by 100 foot lots in the industrial zone? MR. MERRILL: If we are shrinking a buildable area? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, if we shrink the buildable area to the point where they can't legally build. MR. MERRILL: I can't speak to that, but if we are requiring yard setbacks that are greater or they reduce the size of lot to more than what the minimum building size is, I think it needs to be adjusted. And I haven't done those calculations. That's something that-- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: That was the letters and the faxes that I received today that I gave to Ken earlier I haven't run the specific numbers so OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 207 that's addressing that. MR. MERRILLz Ken, can we look at that and adjust that to make it work? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah, I think that %~hen you start looking at these setbacks, what are we trying to protect from what? You know, if we' re talking again the individual -- who this is hurting the most is the small entrepreneur, the small, you know, franchise or whatever that's working within an industrial area ~cause the setbacks seem to be very excessive, a lot more than you have between other uses. And as you can see, the smaller shape basically shows the proposed area, and we really are shrinking an industrial use in the county where we have a deficit. I mean, it's been recognized in the community that there's a lack of long-range, a future of develo~ble area and industrial and we're looking at a one-third percent or a third decrease in developable square footage in those areas. And so my reccmmendati~,n is that we do keep the existing setbacks except for those that we have to do with the adjacent land uses. But where there's -- COMMISSIONER HASSE.' What's the setback you OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 208 recc~mend? MR. FERNANDEZ: It's the ones that are current. The current setback requirements -- well, first of all, we're starting with a 20,000 square foot lot and the minimum width is 100 feet; front yard of 50 feet; side yard, 20 percent of the lot, which may be. reduced to 50 feet; that can fluctuate, adding some flexibility. The rear yard is 15 feet unless it's abutting residential, and that the-- along the railroad there's none. But the current standards do offer some flexibility, and I'm not-- I'm unaware of the problems associated with industrial to industrial problems. In other words, why do we need this increase setback and I'm just wondering by the fact that we have suggested a lot size with constraints that won't allow buildable, it's one of two things, that either we defer these new requirements until they've had a better chance to be reviewed or that we go ahead and readopt the old ones with the minor changes that we need to provide the adequate buffers and setbacks along the adjacent property. COMMISSIONER VOLPE.. Have you had the opportunity ??.~,:.'i", OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5 209 to discuss this with our staff before this evening? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, I haven' t. It was brought to my attention yesterday evening and we put together this exhibit. So, no, I haven't. I'm sorry. I would have much rather -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: Do you have any response to this gentleman? MR. MERRILL: I would say the only after reviewing that, I take back my original c~nment to a certain extent, although I don't know how feasible the minimum floor area is a thousand square feet. That doesn't mean that it would be all on the ground level. It may be on the upper -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. MR. MERRILL: -- levels and they may build up to 50 feet, so we wouldn't legally run into the problem in most instances; however, what's out there may not k~ practical. Maybe most of the industrial in Collier County isn't two stories and I suspect that that may be the case. MR. FERNANDEZ: The building would be, I believe, like 15 by 60 feet, which isn't a practical size. And if OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 (~ 210 we have to go two stories to achieve, we're in trouble. And I just -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE~ What -- the suggestion's been made. This is something that our staff hasn't had the opportunity to look at and maybe Mr. Baginski has some suggestion as to maybe this is one of those that could be considered as a first amendment process but we would leave the current setbacks. MR. HOOVER: What we have. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Where we would leave the current standards in place until staff has had an opportunity to review. There seems to k~.~ a problem here. MR. BAGINSKI: Certainly it was not: our -- never was our intention to create or recommend a setback that would make it impossible to develop a piece of property. Of course what you have right now is yet7 limited setback requirements within the industrial districts that amount to next to nothing at all. MR. DORRILL~ I think the other thing we'd like to have a chance to check is whether a 10,000 square foot lot is a typical industrial lot in Collier County. My impression is that the typical industrial lot is larger OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 211 than a hundred by a hundred. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I suggest this: I suggest that we stay with what we've got in the book but we instruct staff that if something comes along that is not going to meet this until we have a chance to address it, that then that be brought to the board and then the board will then decide as to what we will do until staff has had a chance to go out and look and see just exactly what type of an impact this is going to have. MR. MERRILL: And that could be accomplJ. shed through a variance. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: And we can set that mechanism up until we look at it to see if that's it. So we're not going to prohibit anybody from building if that's the case because the commissioners %~ill have the final say so about it if that problems exists and then we ('.an -- then staff can look at it and then bring it back and it may be an amendment process. This may be our first amendment process thau we have to do. MR. MERRILL: The other point I want to make with regard to several things we've deferred to, the first amendment process, and I just wanted to make one point, OF. FICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ...... _" ~ __~ --.]~1~] t.[[w,~wunm~,nmu[,~~ 212 and Bob Duane brought this up to me, and that is under our amendment process we only allow amendments twice per calendar year; however, I have -- you all asked me to look at this again and I've gone back and looked at that and I felt that that was adequate to cover ar~3 of these glitches that may occur because we only have two months left in this calendar year which allows you for two amendment processes over the next two months. I doubt if you'll even need two. You'll probably need one, but that should be plenty adequate for this first year. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: But having this variance incorporated into that, we can address it until the process does come along and we have time to check it out. MR. MERRILL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Would that take care of the problem then? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma' am. I do have -- I've been been asked to address one other issue relative to industrial zoning -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and that is that the new subdivision regs will require in an industrial, let's say OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 213 subdivision, that you would have sidewalks on both sides of the street, I believe. And I was wondering if you feel that that is something that's really necessary. It's requiring us to have a larger width of roadway and sidewalk between industrial developments which doesn't seem -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: It's certainly an improvement over what we've got where we don't even have roads within them. out there do -- MR. FERNANDEZ: that I'm haptry to There are some quality developments say we're involved with that COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Wonderful. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGhT: John? MR. MADAJEWSKI: Only response is I thin): we've worked very closely with the committee and have some standards for sidewalks that are minimum standards. We have the ability to come in and present alternative, creative, innovative solutions on a case-by-case basis and I think that adequately addresses ~t on a county-wide basis. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Yeah, I think we did almost OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 214 the exact same thing with our residential area and I think that's the way that we should handle this, on a case-by-case basis. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. If we can have that exception possibility to look at unique alternatives within an industrial development -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: It's in there. MR. FERNANDEZ: Very good. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. Is there something else now that needs to be brought up? MR. HOOVER: It seems like I'm always the last person to speak. Bill Hoover, Butler Engineering. I'm bringing up an issue that I finally got to talk to the Planning Commission at their last hearing on and they directed me to talk to jeff Perry about it and I talked to Jeff Perry about it and he agreed with my viewpoint and then I discussed it with Ken Baginski twice since then and Ken was going to draft a staff side sheet and take care of this, but there was one concern he had. So we retalked about that tonight and we do have language that Ken and I have agreed with and this regards Section 2.3.14, which is the parking requirements for OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 215 shopping centers. And right now everything is based on gross floor area. What we' re saying is a regional shopping (:enter which would be 400,000 square feet or larger. Right now there is not one in the county. It was -- for instance, Coastland Mall would be the only one that would meet that criteria. And what we're suggesting is, and Ken agreed with, is that regional shopping centers may base their parking on gross leasing area. Gross leasing area shall. include any common area that is leased for retail activities. And the second sentence is what Ken would like to have on there. What this allows is a mall that may desire to go in the county. They would base their parking requirements on the area that's leased, not the sidewalks inside there. If you go to your typical retail center, your sidewalks are on the outside. Let's say like Bridgeport. Additionally, when we reduce the parking requirements for shopping centers, we only did that basically for the smaller shopping centers. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Was the staff in agreement OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 216 with this-- MR. BAGINSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: MR. BAGINSKI: Yes, ma'am. COMM IS S IONER VOLPE .. anyway. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: -- recommendation? And you'll take care of that? And you're the parking crew He wrote it. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: He wrote it. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN.. Why didn't you take care of it then? MR. DUANE: I proposed it. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: That makes sense. Just the leasable square footage within the mall. MR. BAGINSKI.. What we're trying to prevent -- that's why I asked for the additional language. As you're fully aware, when you go into any mall, you'll find little pavilions or little stands. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: So you're excluding those. MR. BAGINSKI: Well, we're not excluding them. We're saying that if that is to be leased out for retail area, that will be included in the calculations for OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, C~LLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 217 parking area. MR. DUANE: Thank you. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. We have something else now? COMMISSIONER SHANA~AN: Saving the best for last. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I'm a lawyer that always likes to have the last word. COMMISSIONER HASSE: You' re right. MR. ANDERSON: ~t name's Bruce Anderson. Page 2-178 of your code contains a new section, Restrictions, Stipulations and Safeguards. And this is a section that was added after the zoning committee had finished its work and was never reviewed, and a similar provision that would have authorized property owners to request limitations on the uses if they were permitted in their general zoning district was presented to the committee and was unanimously rejected unless it was tied to a develo~ent agreement. Now it's my view, and I know that Mr. Merrill probably disagrees with me because we have discussed it, that you're going to be treading on ve~t thin legal ice to attempt to limit uses in a straight zoning district. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 218 It's entirely different -- it's an entirely different matter where you are doing PUD zoning or granting someone a conditional use. The Fifth District Court of Appeals has held that it is illegal for a county to condition a rezoning on a limitation to a specific use. The cases Porpoise Point Partnership versus St. Johns County, 470 So.2d page 850. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Would that Court have arrived at the same conclusion if it was simp].y deleting a particular use out of a whole list of permitted uses? MR. ANDERSON: It's not clear. What they stated was a property owner is entitled to have his property properly zoned based on proper zoning concepts without regard to the one particular use which the owner might then tend to intend to make of the various uses permitted under a proper zoning classification. A zoning authority's insistence on considering the owner's specific use of a parcel of land constitutes not zoning but direct governmental control of the actual use of each parcel of land which is inconsistent with constitutionally guaranteed private property rights. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 219 In my--my point is that these restrictions and stipulations section should either be deleted from this Land Development Code and considered as part of the develo~ent agreement ordinance that's supposed to come before you or that there ought to be authori~f added to this section tying it to a develo~ent agreement. This section has all the requirements of a development agreement but none of the protections. In fact, it says all conditions, restrictions, stipulations and safeguards which are conditioned to the granting of the change in zoning district shall be deemed appropr iate. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Don't we always have a sheet of stipulations that have been agreed to? I mean, don't we do that all the time right now? MR. ANDERSON: On PUD' s. COMMISSIONER VOLPE.. We don't-- we don't do that. You' re saying we shouldn't -- MR. ANDERSON: In PUD' s. COMMISSIONER VOLPE.. We can rezone PUD's but we can't do it on a straight rezone? And the reason for that is? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 220 MR. ANDERSON: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Merrill? MR. MERRILL: It's unlawful. That's your opinion. I disagree. Okay. Before 14r. Anderson even pointed me to the case he was referencing, I knew which case he was referencing and I've already -- I've done several -- I've done quite a bit of research in this area before and advising other counties. I believe that conditional zoning is allowed in Florida. There are at least two major local. governments in the south Florida area that regularly use conditional zoning. PUD zoning is no different than conditional zoning. There's no statutory authority for PUD zoning in the Florida Statutes other than a brief reference to it; recently in the 1986 Growth Management Act. That was the first time, of course. As we all know, ?UD zoning's been used for years in Florida. So, there a~:e numerous law review articles on it, numerous cases on it. And quite honestly, the conditional zoning issue is pretty much dead in Florida. There are very few cases on -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's a legal issue and that's the way it's been presented by Mr. Anderson and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 I __., IIIIIII c~ cD 221 our consultant says that you disagree and so -- MR. MERRILL: The other thing I might add is that this is the--we've--'this is a key p.uovision in the new format of the zoning code. MR. ANDERSON: And my point is that it should simply be tied to a development agreement. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Thank you. Is there something else? MR. DUANE: Robert Duane, for the reco~:d. I gave you the practical reasons last ~;eek on why we ought not to get into conditional zoning ]~:cause I think it makes the process more complicated. I won't belabor ~'~he point, but I support Mr. Andersox~ for different reasons. I have one final, small point I'd like to bring up which I think may make your job easier and t~a.t is in Section 2.7.4.6. It's on page 190. We have had a timeless stipulation that these conditional provisional uses expire in one year. Frankly, I was guilty of three deadly sins last year. I brought three churches before you ar.d zoned them PUD for the simple reason that the churches had problems OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 222 obtaining funding. We went to PUD and some of those churches are still having funding problems. I think if the board had the flexibility at the time of zoning under special circumstances su(~ as for a church or a battered woman's center or some other worthy use that was uncertain as to just when that use could begin, that you have the authority to extend that period of time to say two or three years, I think you'd find less people coming back requesting extensions before you. And I recall another example in front of this board last year where I've spent 18 months trying to find, get the permits from outside state agencies for that provisional use and frankly we're up against the two years and we may have to go back to the zoning process. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The only problem we've got -- I think it's a point well-made and I know that we've got the ability, this board does, to extend it for an additional year and a provisional use gets two -- MR. DUANE: For one year. COMMISSIONER VOI,PE: But you' re talking about where you want to extend it out and use the PUD zoning to extend it out and that happened to do with the one on OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 c c 223 Santa Barbara where they weren't going to build this out as a provisional use probably for a period of 10 or 15 years. That's-- that's the one that I recall in terms of higher use in the PUD zoning. MR. DUANE: Well, there's two Catholic churches and one Greek Orthodox Church that the point I'm just trying to make that if the board has the flexibility in special circumstances to extend the conditional use for one or two or three years, and if it's a use that's the right use in the right location, it's not particularly on non-profit institutions, put them through this. If it's a use that's questionable to ~.~gin with and conditions change around the property in you]: mind, then by all means we ought to keep the one-year pi:ovision. I'm suggest that 2.7.4.6 that you add the language unless the BCC extends this period of time based on special circumstances determined by the board at the time of zoning. I'd appreciate it if you'd -- COMMISSIONER SHANkMAN: MR. DUANE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SHANA}IAN: MR. MERRILL: To that last paragraph? Thank you. What do you think, Bill? I don't have a -- I mean, again, OFFICIAL OOURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 224 that's a policy issue. We need something more, a little bit more criteria, though, Bob, as far as -- it just can't be special circumstances. What is that, that they're a good friend of yours or something? I don't want it to be so arbitrary that we get challenged on that issue. So if we had some criteria, I don't have any problems from a legal perspective. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: They have to have at least four good friends then. MR. BAGINSKI: The only thing I'd caution you on, I think the language that he's proposing says at the time of rezoning or -- in the time of conditional use. So what you're being asked or would be asked is to extend that deadline on a conditional use at some finite portion of time. He pointed out the fact that conditions change. I mean, do you want at the time of conditional use action to extend that two, three or four years or make them come back at least every year to extend it? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I think that I had rather do it on a year-by-year basis but extend the conditional use to more than just one repeat. MR. DUANE: That's acceptable. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES~ FL 33962 225 idea. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN.. I think that's a good CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I mean, if we could say that they could get up to four years or three years as a conditional but each year they'd have to come back, then at least we'd have some control over it. MR. DUANE: That's acceptable. MR. MERRILL: So that would be automatic for what, four automatic-- COMMISSIONER SHANAHA/q: It's not autom~tic. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Right now you've got the board may extend a conditional use one time up to one year and I think we're talking about is adding some l~nguage there that would allow the board to grant maybe th:ee one-year extensions. I think that's what we're saying. MR. BAGINSKI: Or unilateral all condi'=ional uses. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But it's not automatic, it's at the discretion of the commission. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Do you have any problems with that, Ken? MR. BAGINSKI~ Well, if it's-- I certainly prefer a year-to-year basis bringing it back to you to assess OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 226 the conditional -- COMMISSIONER SHANA~AN: That's what we' re doing. MR. BAGINSKI: All right. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But -- MR. BAGINSKI.' Well, I just thought on=- of the nice things coming to Collier is that limited provisional use; that people come in and they say, Yes, we have unique impacts with surrounding community. We'rE: r=.a~.f to do it and they're forced to do it as opposed to liagering the future and trying to plan around it. COMMISSIONER HASSE: That's up to us then. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: At the end of tha~ year if they came back, we could very well say that .~nd deny the provisional use. MR. BAGINSKI: Yes, definitely. don't have any great opposition. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGhT: As it is right no%~, as far as I'm concerned, there's one provisional usE: that was out there that even though after the one year I felt like there was an impact to the community but l~cause there had been the precedent set that all provisio~al uses had been more or less approved for that second year, that I And like I said, I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 227 mean, I didn't really see that I could vote against the thing because of it. This year -- I mean, what I'm hearing here and what I'm wanting to hear is that we're going to say that you will have a provisional use for one year. At the end of that one year then it will be brought back to the board and the board will either agree to it or deny it depending on what the impact is to the area. MR. BAGINSKI: And I feel much more ccmfortable. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Are we going to have any criteria for that or is it just the same criteria that we used in the original draft of the rezoning? MR. BAGINSKI: As the commissioner po~nted out, that in many cases as other things in the ordinance, some things become kind of rubber stamps and I think at your direction I think that we both scrutinize t~ese things a little more closely and bring you a little mo~e in-depth analysis as to why it's being done in the request. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry to come up here again, but on the subdivision is -- on the industrial use issue, I may have misunderstood but when I went back to my colleagues I was told that what you had suggested was OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLE~C~, FL 33962 228 that if we cannot meet those requirements w~. come back for a variance; is that correct? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's correct:. MR. FERNANDEZ: Our disagreement is mcre broader scoped than just limiting that to that issue and especially if, you know, if you have one of these smaller lots it is a hardship to have to come back here and then start -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: We've already said that we've got two times to amend it and -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: No, what we're sa.fing is that we're going to readdress this issue. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: And in the meantime, before this issue is readdressed and staff has the chance to see what the impact's going to be and it's brought back to the board to see, there is a variance process that you can go to. If you have someone out there that's wanting to do this, and they're wanting to do it before this rewrite or revision is put in there, then they may come to the variance to get this so that we would not di?~a.llow OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 229 someone to be able to develop on their property. But this is something that's going to be readdressed, so you need to get with staff and -- MR. FERNANDEZ .' The problem I have with that is we've got a couple of subdivisions that are of industrial use that are being turned in here in the next week or so. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Fernandez, this was just brought to your attention yesterday. We haven't had a chance to review it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Sure. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I think we've got consensus here amongst the board and we're sorry about the subdivision that you're going to bring in the; next couple days and-- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHTs And staff's going to work with you on it. If you've got a problem, then you:'ve always got us to come to to solve it before the real problem can be solved. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: For the subdivisions that you're bringing in, Mr. Fernandez, -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- the projects that you're OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 230 bringing in, are they 100 by 100 foot lots? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, they are not, but ~:cause of the dimensions that we do have, they're going to be severely impacted so the subdivisions would not be valid. And we don't feel -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You can still .... you can still -- you'll have to redesign the subdivision is what you' re saying. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. We would have -- we couldn't turn them in as they are right now, and so we basically would have a delay here of approximately two months or to whenever the next cycle would be before we g¢.,. so, you know, we' re in limbo for a substantial ~riod of time, which is detrimental to our client. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're not really in limbo. You can redesign your subdivision under the n,_~w code, so you're not in limbo. You may not like what ~ou have to do, but you're not in limbo. You can do it. COMMISSIONER VOLPE~ Madam Chairman, if there's no further speakers, I move to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Second the motion. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 231 to close the public hearing. saying aye. (A chorus of 'Ayes. ') C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT .' (No response.) C~AIRMAN GOODNIGBT: COMMISSIONER S~ANAHAN: resolutions? MR. MERRILL: Yes. All in favor signify by Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. We need a couple If I may, I can indicate-- if thE** board's pleasure is to adopt the Land Development Code, what I would suggest is that the motion include the white ~ocument which is the main body of the Land Development Code as amended by the yellow sheets and the blue sheets and the one pink sheet that you approved today, and I'd like to go through these so that we have this all in one spot on the record and the following changes that have been made by consensus by the board today. The fi;~-st one being the change in the definition of 'base densit'.f" as we discussed earlier, and t.hat was Mr. Pires's comm,.:nt. The second is that we would delete the word "lease" OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 232 from the definition of subdivide. The third would be that the definition of hospital would be revised, and that's the pink sheet. The fourth would be that the "and/or's," there's three of them in Section 3.8.4, those will b~, changed to just read "or." The fifth change would be to allow secondhand shops or whatever the appropriate term is except for pawnshops in the C-3 District as a conditional use. The sixth change would be to put the word "reserve" where lot coverage requirements are indicated throughout the code in the zoning districts. The seventh change -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're reservi]~g floor area covers also. MR. MERRILL: Yes. That's on one of the side sheets so I didn't bring it up as a verbal, but yes, we are reserving floor area and as well we wanted to include the lot coverage. Also under Section 3.8.4 we would add ':he words "two years of which shall be in the State of Florida," after the words "three years." OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 233 With regard to the landscaping, the board requested that where internal. industrial uses meet up ~gainst other industrial uses internally within a subdivision that the buffer strip be 5 feet instead of 10 feet if the lot is less than 20,000 --- 20,000 square feet or le:3s. And if it's over 20,000 sq.[uare feet, it remains at the 10 foot buffer width. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No buffering in the swale. MR. MERRILL: And that there will be no buffering -- you mean, no water management in the buffer. COMMISSIONER SHANN{AN: buffer. MR. MERRILL: No water management in the No water management or swales and so forth or detention in the buffer areas. buffer areas or ju~lt the industrial buffer areas? that any -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's where we reduced it from ten to five. MR. MEP~ILL: Right. COMMISSIONER SHAN;U{A~;: Only in that area. MR. MERRILL: Okay. In the industrial. MR. MADAJEWS~[I: Just in the industrial. And is that any Is .~?...- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTE:~S, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 234 made. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: That's the only change we MR. MERRILL: With regard to Section 2.4.3.5, you selected alternate one and I believe that deals with performance bonds.. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: It does. MR. MERRILL: Section 2.4.4.2, you selected alternate three, and I believe that's the tr~.e height. In Section ?..4.4.3 you selected alternate two, which is the double hedges only in class D bLffer. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Correct. MR. MERRILL: With regard to Section 2.2.2.3.4, hunting cabins, w~.~ will delete the word "sub:ect to all building codes and permits." With regard to Section 2.2.20.1, ins~tead of requiring mixed use, and we'll have to dewel(~p the exact language, but instead of requiring mixed use PUD's we will replace that with language that says "encourage mixed use PUD's." And if we can, I:11 take a look at that and see if I can come up with something right before the vote. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, (I)LLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 235 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: MR. MERRILL:: Yes? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: On the hunting cabins, -- -- I believe what we were trying to do is if they're going to put elec:rical systems in or pltm~bing in they have to be built to code but there's no r~luirement that any of those systems be put in and I'm not: sure if that's what you gaid. CHAIRMAN GOODNIG.gT: What he said was the hunting camps is actually in conditional uses so thai; means it's going to have to be approved with a Site Development Plan before the board and so therefore we can put in whatever we need. MR. MERRILL:: That's correct. So al.l ~;e're doing is we're deleting it so now it'll just read hunting cabins, and any of the other applicable reluirements would still have to apply. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. MR. MERRILL:: With regard to Section 2.3.14, I believe it's in this section. I wasn't clear. Mr. Hoover suggested, I believe, that we go from gross floor area to a calculation for off-street parking based on gross leasable area. OFFICIAL COURT I{EPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLE,c, FL 33962 236 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: On regional shopping centers. MR. MERRILL: On regional shopping centers, yes. Only on regional shopping centers. Is that fo£ -- that's not for parking. I'm sorry. That's for -- MR. BAGINSKI.. Yeah, it is. That's for parking. MR. MERRILL: What about the landscape? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: No, it's for parking. MR. BAGINSEI: Parking at gross leasing area. Gross leasing area shall include any common areas that are leased for retail activities. MR. MERRILL: Okay. And then finally with regard to the changes for tonight, the boa£d on Section 2.7.4.6 wants to add up to three times for the extensions on conditional uses; three times, up to one year each. A couple more items. The other items that the board would like to direct the staff to do within the next -- within the first amendment process would be to identify the additional terms that Mr. Beardsley -- I think there are about 13 or 14 of those with regard to environmental definitions, that they would take a look at OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, ~PLE.,, FL 33962 C;.',' 237 those and try to include those in the first amendment process. In addition, we will take a look at t~,e lot coverage, and if they are requirements, as soon as possible for an amendment process. And the o~3er is adjusting the industrial setbacks if appropriate to accommodate some of the issues that Mr. ~oover brought up. Those are the three items I have that should definitely be included on the amendment, the first amendment cycle or one of the first amendment cycles. In addition, I wanted to just go through a couple quick items that I mentioned early in the hearing, specifically the rezonings that will be inc].uded on the map, the Official Zoning Atlas that will be submitted or approved tonight and transmitted to the DCA and to the Secretary of State, including the Immokalee rezones which is under Ordinance 91-72 and the Zoning Re-~.valuation Ordinance fez ones which were residential rezones and that's under 91-85. And in addition to that, the staff will be changing back to the C-5 district what they changed previously now k OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLE~c, FL 33962 · ' ....................... -- (2 (~.~ 238 that that is approved. So we will be chang.'Lng that back and that will all be included on the new Official Zoning Atlas that we are amending tonight. here. Almost finished The other thing that should be included, one other thing that should be included on the first set of amendments is any additional ordinances that'. are being repealed by this code will be included in t~le first set of amendments. And then in addition we have an errata sheet. It's included in your blue sheets but it's more ¢,f just a cross-reference and it does identify all the sections, but we will be correcting all the typos in the sectional cross-references in the code. I believe that's everything. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOODN IGHT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: all that. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I'll make a motion to do Second that motion just as ~.? :. !. descr i bed. I,[:~:"::, COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just as described. 33962 239 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: On the motion, yoll'd also mentioned, Mr. Merrill, about the fact that our new Land Development Regulations are consistent with our Growth Management Plan. MR. MERRILL: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And the transnitt~l. Is that separate motions you want for that or do we want to include that? MR. MERRILL .. That can be a separate motion. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Separate motions? Okay. MR. BAGINSKI: Madam Chairman, if we could just also reference the redesignation of that P D:~.strict and the State land that I brought up to the boar{! during the meeting, also include that as part of the motion. COMMISSIONER HASSE: When are we going to get all this capsuled into one document? MR. MERRILL.. We will have this ready and f'inished for the transmittal on November 8th and it will go out November 8th one way or another. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second. MR. MERRILL: One other thing that Mr. Cuyler 240 able to finish that up as far as the ordinances that are being repealed by this code. We should be able to finish that up within the next couple of days and if we are able to do that if we could have your authority to go ahead and do that and include this in the transmittal document, I think that would be a lot cleaner. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Good. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any other discussion? MR..CUYLER: your mo tiol~.? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: signify by saying aye. (A chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No response. ) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: For the record, that's included in Sure. And the second. Okay. Then all in favor Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Just one more 'thing. Thank you. MR. BEARDSLEY: We've got the ordinance itself. MR. MERRILL: Consistency. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 241 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I'll make the motion that the newly adopted Unified Land Development Regulations are consistent with the Growth Management Plan for Collier County and direct the staff to transmit The Unified Land Development Regulations to the Department of Community Affairs and the Florida Secretary of State not later than November 8th, 1991. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? (No response. ) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Then I'll call fox the question. All in favor signify by saying ayE:. (A chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRMAN GOODN IGHT: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Zoning Atlas? MR. MERRILL: Yeah. Zoning Atlas and we do want a separate motion then for the adopting ordinance which you have received a copy of. Motion carries unsnimously. Do we need a motion for the We would like a motion for the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 242 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I make a motion providing for Section V of the adoption of the Zoning Atlas Maps. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Second. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT.' I have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. (A chorus of "Ayes.") C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No response. ) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The next item? Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. MR. MERRILL: And the final item is the adopting or enacting of the enabling ordinance which you have a co~y of. COMMI;~SIONER SHANAHAN.. Madam Chairman, I make a motion that we -- an ordinance enacting and establishing Land Develolm%ent Code for unincorporated Collier be approved. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I'll second. MR. MERRILL: And if I may, I know there is a member of the public -- I have not reviewed all of the findings here, but he has apparently indicated there are some errors and if we can just -- is it short? OFFICIAL COURT R~PORTERS; COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 243 MR. BEARDSLEY: There's four errors. MR. MERRILL: Can you tell us what the,.~ are real quickly, on the record, so we can -- MR. BEARDSLEY: Basically, you-- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Does this ordinan~De need to be adopted this evening? MR. MERRILL: Yes, if that's the pleasure of the board. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: As opposed to next: Tuesday is what I was thinking of. COMMISSIONER SHANt~AN: Why don't we take a -- is it quick? MR. BEARDSLEY: All I'm saying is there's some of the references to objectives and they refere~ce specific objectives in the land use plan and it's the wrong objective, so they need to be checked. Ther_='s four errors like that. MS. HOWELL: Those findings were taken directly from the whereas clauses of the ordinances that -- MR. BEARDSLEY: They're incorrect, though, is what I'm saying. MS. HOWELL: Right. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 244 MR. CUYLER: I think if you could givE. us the authority, Mr. Beardsley perhaps could identify those specifically, if you could just give us the authority to change that and we'll take care of that. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: They' re scrivenez's errors? MR. CUYLER: They probably were not scrivener's errors at the time but they -- there may have been something that's changed since then. We're not sure exactly what they are. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: We give the authority to check out those mistakes and correct them if they are so found to be so. MR. MERRILL: And approve the ordinance. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN ~ Yeah. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Just to cover ourselves, could I have the approval to look at these things before I sign the ordinance? MR. CUYLER~ Sure. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: pleasure. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: the board? Sure, if that's your Would that be appzopriate with OFFICIAL OOURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES~ FL 33962 245 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You have to sign them. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGhT: I have to sign them. I just want to make sure that they're pointed out a~ what they are so that I can make sure that if I have a problem with them then I can bring them back to the k~ard. MR. CUYLER: That would be fine, and not only will we do that but we'll bring you the exact reference and where it was and sit down and explain that to you, and I'm assuming that these in fact are errors that would be easily identifiable by us. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: If there's more than just this scrivener's error in it, then I think that it should be brought back to the board. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's what 1%.,as just getting ready to say. I'm not sure that we could delegate authority to the County AttornE.y to make changes in an ordinance. If there are of any, if th~ are of any substance. We could hear what they are real quickly. MR. CUYLER: Why don't we do that? I'm assuming that it's 3.1 which states this is and it's not 3.1 it's 5.1 and if you go to the plan and do that. ~ut if you have Mr. Beardsley --- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 246 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We don't know. MR. BEARDSLEY: I looked at this about four minutes and I found these errors. I'm not saying there aren't more. I'm just saying there are at least these. Specifically, -- MR. M~RRILL.' Page and paragraph, if you would. MR. BEARDSLEY: Specifically, if you turn to page 12 on item 6 on that it references objective 1.1 of the Conservation Coastal Management Element and it talks about setting up a technical advisory committee. It doesn't say that. It says that in policy 1.1.1, and even in that policy it doesn't talk about settin~.t up an EAC, it talks about a technical advisory committee that's already been set up. So it sounds as though you' re trying to set up two technical advisory committees out of one but there's a couple errors there. That's one. On page 13 on item No. 7, the second line it says the general public interest shall be further served by developments designed and executed to optimize the use of natural resources. I don't think you mean optimize the use of natural resources. OFFICIAL (X)URT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 247 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What do you think they mean, Mr. Beardsley? Help us. MR. BEARDSLEY: Well, I don't think --. I think that's in direct contradiction to what the comprehensive land plan-- it specifically says that you will conserve, preserve and appropriately use natural resources. It doesn't say you'll optimize the use of natural resources. So that's just -- again, these are red flags that jumped out, and I did this in five minutes just now. On page 16, item No. 2 under landscaping and buffering it references a policy 6.4.1 and it quotes part of that but doesn't quote the rest. It says that policy 6.4.1 of the Conservation Coastal Management Element of the county Growth Management Plan requires identification of native habitat communities and then it st.)ps. What it really says, it goes on, it says on all plans for development. That's important. I mean, if you're just going to say you're going to identify native vegetation, that's all you're going to do. .It says specifically on development plans. And the last one of significance on page 23, item No. 9, the only place that you talk about coastal OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 248 mangrove trees, you make mention that they serve to ameliorate the destructive forces of hurricanes. I would say also that that's a physical. There's also a biological at the start of the food change. And that's very important and it's referenced in the C~p Plan. MR. CUYLER: Just for the record, these were pulled out of existing ordinances and just placed in these findings, so they exist under current law right now, but Bill, do you have any suggestions? MR. MERRILL: I didn't see any of them that really seemed to be that much of a problem because Policy 1.1.1 is under objective 1.1, so I think it's cove~'ed. The o~ly thing I would suggest is on page 13 maybe add the word "appropriate" before use on paragraph 7 and that should cover the appropriate use of natural resources. MR. BEARDSLEY: MR. MERRILL: That's right. And then the other ones ! think are all okay. Just because they don't cover everything in the Growth Management Plan doesn't mean they aren't correct. So with that one change, I would recomm~_nd that you OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 249 approve this. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT = Okay. and a second to approve it as it has been dillcussed. in favor signify by saying aye. (A chorus of "Ayes. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: .) Opposed? Then I have a motion All Motion carries unanimously. Is there anything else? MR. MERRILL: That is it, Mrs. Chairman. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'd like to thank staff for really spending an awful lot of time and doing a very professional job. of it. COMMIS~{IONER VOLPE: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I think you all should be very proud I concur. And the c¢~,a%ittee, and the And the commission. Thank you. We' re ~djourned. CCPC. (Proceedings concluded.) OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 October 30, 1991 There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - T'~'~':%~fiu~· approved by the presented X Time: 9:45 P.[4. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONigRS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER IT:~ CONTROL PATRICIA ANNE GOODNIGHT,"~CHAIRMAN Board on or as corrected March 3, 1992 250 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) I, Christina J. Reynoldson, Deputy Official Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceE:dings were taken before me at the date and place as stated in the caption hereto on Page ] hereof; that the foregoing computer-assisted transcription, consisting of pages numbered 2 through 249, inclusive, is a true record of my Stenograph notes taken at said proceedings. Dated this 27th day of November, Ch~ istina Nota~ Publ~ State of Florida a,t'/Jarge.-~ ,. ·. ":,': ~,' .....:..'1 i' OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962