Loading...
DSAC Minutes 10/04/2000 ROctober 4, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, October 4, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, as the governing board of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:35 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION at Conference Room "E", Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dalas D. Disney Brian E. Jones Thomas R. Peek C. Perry Peeples Herbert R. Savage Charles M. Abbott Robert L. Duane Marco A. Espinar Tom Masters NOT PRESENT: R. Bruce Anderson David C. Correa Dino J. Longo William P. Dillon Blair Foley Sally Lam STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Vincent A. Cautero Robert J. Mulhere Ron Nino Page I October 4, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We have a quorum. We'll call the meeting to order for September 6, 2000 (sic), Development Services Advisory Committee. Let's see. First, before a motion for the agenda, are there any modifications to the agenda? MR. PEEK: Mr. Chairman, under the approval of the minutes we probably should add August the 2nd's meeting, since last month we didn't have a quorum and did not take any official action on those minutes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. So we'll add that as II (A). Any other revisions? Hearing none, a motion for approval of the agenda, please. MR. PEEK: So moved. MR. SAVAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Second from Mr. Savage. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, same sign. (No response.) None. We'll go to approval of the minutes for August 22, 2000. MR. PEEK: I move approval. MR. MASTERS: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Second. All those in favor, say aye. Any opposed? (No response.) And we have the minutes from September 6th, 2000. Is there a motion for approval or any modifications? MR. PEEK: I move approval. MR. SAVAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All those in favor, say aye? Those opposed? (No response.) None. Item III (A), staff announcements. MR. MULHERE: We"re got the summary. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Summary of Ordinance Amendments. MR. MULHERE: That"s in your packet. It"s just something we give you to update you on dates and certain advisory committee meetings on certain ordinances. I do not know of any announcements that Vince may have Page 2 October 4, 2000 wished to do. Maybe we ought to defer that until he gets in here. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: There is one that I would like to bring up, We received a letter from Sally Lam resigning from the committee. She says she has scheduling conflicts over the past few months and she hasn't been here, and that will continue into the next year for her. So she would rather resign than cause difficulties in attendance. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept her resignation. MR. ABBOTT: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All those in favor, say aye. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, is that letter, a copy, sent to Vince or -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: It is addressed to Vince with a copy to me. And I guess in the way of another announcement here, I got a letter I don't know if everyone else received it or not, a copy of a letter from Patrick White. Is Patrick here? MR. WHITE: Here. For the record, Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Financial disclosure, filing Form 1 financial disclosures are not required by this committee. MR. SAVAGE: How come that happened? MR. WHITE: There was a recent change in the statute. I contacted the office that was responsible for administering this, and they advised me that it's their opinion that, given the function this committee performs, it wouldn't be necessary for the Form ls to be filed. MR. SAVAGE: That's great. Somebody really did some thinking. MR. ABBOTT: I never filed it anyway because I didn't think it was appropriate. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Tom? MR. PEEK: I have a question. With your reading the resignation letter from Sally Lam and asking the question about our interpretation of our committee's rules as it applies to attendance at this meeting. You know, we've got David Correa, who has been a member of our committee and has not attended in a number of months. And it seems like his continued Page 3 October 4, 2000 unexcused absence, is that appropriate or should he be contacted and asked if he intends to continue to serve or should he be replaced? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I think it would certainly be appropriate to contact him and find out if he wants to continue. But maybe Mr. White could give us an opinion on whether or not we need to boot people when they don't attend. MR, WHITE: Generally as long as folks have been given excused absences, there's usually no opportunity to dismiss them. I don't know what the specific regulation is for this committee. I don't know if they even have a specific regulation. MR. ABBOTT: I think at one time we had three. MR. WHITE: I -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: One at a time so our reporter can get that. MR. WHITE: Generally if you miss three unexcused, that's sufficient to have your service terminated. MR. MULHERE: There is an ordinance or a resolution, I believe it's a resolution, that provides that the Board of County Commissioners appointing people to this body is also the only body that can remove someone from this committee. Certainly you can make a recommendation to them -- MR. SAVAGE: That was my motion. MR. MULHERE: -- based on attendance. Right. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I wonder, though, Bob, if we could request someone-- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We'll call. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: -- from the staff to call those people that have not been attending and see if their interest still lies here and if it does not we have a cycle coming up, I think it's November, that they get advertised again, for those openings in January. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. What -- it's not really on a cycle. It's by vacancy or by expiration. Yes. If you have some people moving off in November and we want to add those, sure, why not. One other point I'm aware of that -- let me see -- Blair Foley I think has taken an extended leave of absence from Coastal, so I don't know -- I'm not sure I'll be able to get in touch with him. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I think Blair resigned. Page 4 October 4, 2000 MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: He sent a letter and resigned. MR. SAVAGE: Going back, Mr. Chairman, the fact that Sally did resign, we don't have to have an action by the city -- the county commission, right? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Right. Okay. Bob, any miscellaneous items, other than that that we've spoken about? MR. MULHERE: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Old business. IV (A), impact fees. Bob, do you want to introduce us? MR. MULHERE: I've got to see where we were at on that. I -- frankly I do not know what Vince's intent was with respect to this. I can give you an update. I think that we've got Phil here somewhere. Is Phil still here? MS. FERGUSON: No, but I'll go find him. MR. MULHERE: He was here. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Maybe we can bypass this item and come back to it. How about Item B, fee increase? Is this the fire code fee increase? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We're still working on and looking at the other fee increase or the fee increase for developmental review activities and still working, I think, with a task force as well. So I don't think this item pertains to ours. We're putting some information together for both the task committee and then this larger committee. So I think this is fire review. Ed? MR. RILEY: We had a subcommittee meeting. Dalas was present, Dino, and Mr. Peeples was present. There was one other gentleman. I can't think of his name right now. We went over the proposals and they had several questions to ask. And I'll turn it over to one of them to relate it to you, what we -- what came out of that meeting or their recommendations. It went rather well. But, as I said, I'll turn it over. MR. PEEK: Ed, introduce yourself for the reporter. MR. RILEY: I'm Ed Riley with the Collier County Fire Code Page 5 October 4, 2000 Official. Sorry. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Ed, so we did have a meeting. Information was presented. I think that it was the same information that came before this full committee perhaps two meetings ago. MR. PEEK: August. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And we reviewed it. It was substantial in its nature in outlining the budgetary requirements to operate the office of Fire Plan Reviewer. It incorporated the suggestions and desires from CBIA. A fire task force has been formed with them to review fee increases, manpower, turnaround times and the solutions to the long plan reviews that had been occurring over the -- over the previous three to four months. And the construction industry as a whole, as represented with that task force, was in favor of supporting fee increases to get the manpower to achieve a time line, a total turnaround from -- for first review, plan reviews and permit issuance two weeks from submission. That was brought forward, laid out in Ed's information quite nicely, how -- what current funding is and what levels of funding would be required to meet that goal. The construction industry was again supportive of the fees. It was in a format that was very easy to understand and the numbers were presented very well. Our subcommittee supported that and ! believe that is ready to go to the Board of County Commissioners. I cannot remember what our action was here. if somebody could help me with that? MR. ABBOTT: I wasn't there but Dino told me you-all accepted it. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate that we make a motion to recommend to the county commission the approval? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I believe, yes, that it would be, unless there are any questions or -- MR. SAVAGE: I'll make that motion. MR. PEEK: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Any discussion on the topic then? MR. SAVAGE: I would like to say this. I was very impressed that you said the construction industry was there and in favor of it. My old cliche is that I always like to think the users are involved. And I think we talked about it at great length the last time and I think we certainly ought not to continue it on any Page 6 October 4, 2000 further. I think we should go ahead with it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. MR. MASTERS: One quick comment there, Herb. The CBIA provided the office space for the meetings. That's how important it was to them. MR. SAVAGE: Good. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Hearing no other discussion, all those in favor of the motion, say aye, please. Any opposed? (No response.) Hearing none -- MR. ABBOTT: You can run off, too, if you don't want to stay for the rest of the -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you very much. MR, RILEY: I think I will. I've got a lot to get done, so we appreciate the support. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Keep checking those plans. MR. RILEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All right. Are we ready to come back to impact fee? No? Okay. IV (C), noise ordinance. Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: You all got a copy of the noise ordinance in your packet, but this is the latest version. MR. ABBOTT: Is it much different? MS. ARNOLD: Just some minor changes. Like, for instance, the overlay district that was identified there. It's been changed to the Immokalee area overlay district as opposed to the northwest overlay district. Basically the proposed ordinance before you is changing the sound level standards for residential, lowering it for -- well, keeping it the same for commercial. And we're eliminating the distance requirements that previously -- or currently we have a distance requirement, one category for commercial within a thousand feet of a residential area. Another category for manufacturing industrial within a thousand feet of residential. We are eliminating that. Essentially we take the violations at the complaint location and, so, if it's residential, it would be within the residential zoning district. That would be what would apply rather than -- so Page 7 October 4, 2000 we didn't see what the necessity was to keep these different districts in the code, so we've modified it to eliminate that. One other thing that we're doing is, within the area, the Immokalee area, which incorporates all of Immokalee and it extends down to Immokalee Road or a section north of Immokalee Road where Immokalee Road runs north/south, north of the Orange Tree area and the estates area. That area is the Immokalee overlay district. And essentially their sound standards are remaining as they are today, for residential and then commercial and industrial and so forth. MR. SAVAGE: May I ask a question? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. SAVAGE: When you say the distance was taken out of the ordinance, both residential and commercial -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. SAVAGE: -- supposing you had a light industrial area, an actual residential area, you understand it a lot better than I do. It would not be one way or the other, if the noise happened to be a hundred feet in from the residential boundary? MS. ARNOLD: No. It would be -- if we had a light industrial area adjacent to a residential district and we received a complaint from within a residential area, we would apply the residential standards because we would be taking the reading at that residence, within a residential zoning district. MR. SAVAGE: It bothers me a little bit, if somebody in a residential -- in the commercial area, in an industrial area, and happens to be a little bit loud for a residential neighborhood, it isn't more -- too loud for the industrial area. Why do we -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, what -- the standard as it exists today had a lower class or a lower standard for those industrial areas within close proximity to residential areas. MR. SAVAGE: I see. MS. ARNOLD: Now we have eliminated that. So, if you're commercial, your standard within a commercial district is one -- there's only one standard. It doesn't matter if you're a thousand feet from residential or 10,000 feet from residential. MR. MASTERS: Would it be your opinion, then, that a commercial use bordering a residential area is now more restricted or less restrictive -- MS. ARNOLD: Less restrictive. Page 8 October 4, 2000 MR. MASTERS: Okay. MR. SAVAGE: What? From what you just said to me? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Because before we had a standard for -- we had a separate standard for commercial areas within close proximity to residential, which was more restrictive than commercial areas that are further than a thousand feet. MR. SAVAGE: My good examples is, I think we've all known, have we not, that Krehling Industries is a noisy facility. And that's very close to residential. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. SAVAGE: And you're saying that -- MS. ARNOLD: If an industrial area next to Krehling complained, we would go with the 75 decibel levels as opposed to previously it was 65. MR. PEEK: I have a question. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Tom? MR. PEEK: Michelle, on Page 12 of your new hand-out, under Section 4 -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. PEEK: In Subsection 3, it talks about community events open to the public. A question comes to mind. What about places such as some of the big hotels that have periodic functions that are not open to the public? They are for their guests or some group of their guests, sometimes includes fireworks displays and things like that. Is there a way within this ordinance that they can get permits for those and have those kinds of activities? MS. ARNOLD: That would be a special event permit. That's something we would require anyway, which is separate from this ordinance. MR. PEEK: So this Subsection 3 does not prohibit or restrict that from occurring. Although this talks about community events that are open to the public and it gives certain parameters for those, there is something else that addresses those events that are not open to the public? MS. ARNOLD: Are you on Page 12 on the information that I just gave you? MR. PEEK: Right. Under Section 4 that talks about amendments to certain items. MR. ABBOTT: I have a different Page 12 than you do. Page 9 October 4, 2000 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I don't know. MR. PEEK: Well, Page 12 of what you just handed us. On the bottom it says Section 4. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, on the bottom. Sorry. MR. ABBOTT: It's the same numbers up top. MR. PEEK: Section 4, Subsection 3. MS. ARNOLD: And your question is whether or not they -- a private industry that's not open to the public can get a special event permit? MR. PEEK: Right. Or-- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. PEEK: Or is there some other way -- I just don't want us by omission to exclude them from being able to continue to do what they're doing. MR. MULHERE: There's two ways. MR. SAVAGE: Excludes-- MR. MULHERE: Any type of activity that is not normally taking place within a site or the site is not normally zoned for that type of activity, requires a special event permit. That special event permit may require, if there are -- for example, if there is outdoor amplified music, that they get a separate -- MS. ARNOLD: A separate noise permit. MR. MULHERE: -- a noise permit. And that's handled by the front counter. In the case of fireworks they have to get a noise permit, or a band. And it wouldn't matter if it's the Ritz doing a wedding on the beach with a live band or if that's Publix doing the same thing to celebrate their 20th -- you know, 5 billionth store opening. MR. SAVAGE: Herb Savage. This is on private property and public property? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. SAVAGE: In other words, in my own hotel that I have, and I'm having a banquet outside and an awning and so forth, that I have to get a permit for that, on my property? MR. MULHERE: No. That's a little bit different. I guess I should have clarified functions on the beach, not on their property. MR. SAVAGE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: A hotel may have outdoor banquet Page t0 October 4, 2000 functions. But if they have outdoor amplified music, they still have to get a temporary use permit because most of them are located in close proximity to residential areas. Yeah. They would get a special -- a temporary use permit. And that may or may not require a noise permit, or whatever they call it. Is that what they call it? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. This is making reference to, like, the sports park, when it has a big event and it's open to the public and, you know, and they'll get a temporary use permit for that special event. And there was limitations in the current ordinance for those permits, and we're just trying to expand. Before it was you could only operate between the hours of 9:00 to 12:00, and I don't know if it said midnight. It was kind of limiting. So we're trying to expand the provisions under that current section. MR. PEEK: Okay. I guess I just didn't want us to -- MS. ARNOLD: No. It's not limiting it to -- MR. PEEK: -- by omission eliminate something that's currently being -- that's available. MR. MULHERE: No. They can still -- they've got to get -- in that case they get two permits. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Jones? MR. JONES: Michelle, I have a question so that I can understand the standard of reasonableness with this. Relative to the old sound ordinance, it talks about decibels and vibrations and frequencies and so forth. To me there is a reasonableness standard that is in place. How much -- in percentage terms of difference, how much more restrictive is this in the residential and/or commercial industrial categories? For example, if what -- if a rock band was a 7 decibel and that was objectionable and -- or was satisfactory and complied, is that now off the charts? How -- what type of difference is there in the measurement? How -- MS. ARNOLD: There is no difference. They would still have to meet the noise standards that are identified in -- MR. JONES: Have we changed those standards? Has the bar been lowered or raised? MS. ARNOLD: No. No. Typically -- I'm trying to think of what zoning districts some of those things are -- it could be Page 11 October 4, 2000 agricultural, it could be commercial. With respect to commercial, the change this ordinance is doing is~ all commercial zoning district regardless of what and -- I'm making reference to Page 4. MR. JONES: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Table 1. All commercial zoning districts. So you have one of those events in a commercial zoning district, the highest sound level between the hours of 7:00 and 10:00 has to be 65 decibels. After 10:00 it's got to be sixty decibels. MR. MULHERE: But I think your question -- and maybe I'm wrong. Correct me if I am. But there's not a significant change in those decibel levels in this ordinance. It's very insignificant. The one change that was referred to, that Michelle referred to, was a standardization of the decibel level -- MS. ARNOLD: For every zoning district. MR. MULHERE: -- for all the zoning districts, which made it actually -- actually lessened the restriction on some people. MR. JONES: This table makes it clear. I see that. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. One of the other additions to the ordinance is to -- the introduction of octave band measurements. And I think we may have gone over that with you-all, and that's identified in Table 2. In Table I is -- the decibel levels are identified in Table 1, the equivalent octave band levels, the frequencies are identified in Table 2. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Are you -- MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Go ahead. MR. SAVAGE: Herb Savage. My only concern is, and I know this has been before the county commission and they've been up and down, over and out, all that sort of thing, and it's been very difficult to decide. But when I think of Marco Island, where the YMCA is located, and they have a facility where the park is located, and they -- a Philharmonic band comes in there and plays music in an evening. There's always one or two neighbors in the residential area right next door that complain, no matter how creative the music might be, whether it's a Philharmonic symphony or whatever it is. And I just -- somehow we have to learn to live with each other. And ! hope we are not restricting this. MS. ARNOLD: To address some of those comments, on Page Page 12 October 4~ 2000 9, Paragraph G, authorized school, park and playground activities. That paragraph has been added to address that concern. MR. SAVAGE: Okay. MR. ABBOTT: Charlie Abbot. A question. How has that, the ¥MCA, been handled in the past? MR. SAVAGE: Not easily. MR. ABBOTT: This is what -- MS. ARNOLD: If we got a complaint and it was a planned or scheduled activity, it was a scheduled activity. If somebody was concerned about the decibel level, out of courtesy my staff probably would have done a reading. MR. MULHERE: But they were able to get a permit to do it. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. MULHERE: They just sort of have to live within these decibel levels or former decibel levels. MR. ABBOTT: But in the past they didn't have to get a permit, right? MR. MULHERE: Yes. No. They do. They have-- MR. ABBOTT: They still did. Do those permits cost anything? MR. MULHERE: Seventy-five bucks. MR. ABBOTT: And aggravation and time. MR. MULHERE: Absolutely. They are very painful. MR. ABBOTT: Which costs three or four times the price of a permit. MS. ARNOLD: That's not your question. It's not relating to the permit, but the acceptance that we have this activity. It's not going to be something that happens every day. MR. SAVAGE: That's right. MS. ARNOLD: It's a special event. It's a football game that's going on that's going to be over at 11:00. MR. MULHERE: Let me just interrupt for one second. I'm sorry. I should say, though, any non-profit or civic or community organization has the ability, and often they do, to ask for a fee waiver, but that's only done by the board. And it can be done for multiple events, if that's what they request, even multiple years if that's what they request from the board. But, Charlie, yes~ we charge because it's only fair that we charge for the time that we put in because we charge you-all for Page 13 October 4~ 2000 the time we put in. And some of those things take a lot of review time because they have great concerns about crowd control, safety, public safety and those kinds of things. So, yes, we do charge, but there is a mechanism in place to ask for a fee waiver. But it's only permitted for civic, community and non-profit organizations. MR. ABBOTT: My real concern is, I see this as another hand of government sliding further into our pockets, and I think that that's wrong. MR. SAVAGE: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Well, that's okay. MR. ABBOTT: Clear and simple. And I think the old system's worked, and I just hate to see the restrictions being fostered against everybody. When you get down to the details of talking about how noisy air conditioners are and such, you're asking for trouble. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Thank you. We've visited this three times now, at least. The first couple goes with this were very lengthy in discussion. I hope we've gotten everything out. MR. JONES: One final question. Michelle, the people and the instruments to enforce this, is this used with current staff or are we proposing to hire new people and buy monitoring, and is this going to be responding to complaints only or are we going to be going out on patrol looking for violations? MS. ARNOLD: We are going to handle it with existing staff. We'll need additional instruments and training for the new octave band measurements that are being introduced in here. So we're going to be doing that training if the board approves this. And, you know, ordering the necessary equipment. As far as patrolling, the noise ordinance has always -- and I have no plans on ever changing that, unless somebody requests a special reading. Like we met last week with some of the civic and industrial groups, and they had a concern about the current -- some of the current industries, whether or not they met the standards. We'll do courtesy readings if it's requested. But this is by complaint. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. All right. We'll call the question. All those in favor of the ordinance? Page 14 October 4, 2000 MR. MASTERS: Need a motion? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I'm sorry. Yes~ we do. MR. MASTERS: I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And is there a second? MR. SAVAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: CHAIRMAN DISNEY: MR. ABBOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All those in favor, please say aye? Any opposed? Mr. Abbott. MR. SAVAGE: If I hadn't seconded it, I would have opposed it, so-- MR. ABBOTT: I watched you waffle there. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Thank you. Now, we'll go back to IV (A), impact fees. MR. TINDALL: I apologize for stepping out earlier. I didn't think you were going to get to me that quickly. What I'm handing out here is an updated schedule for completion of -- my name is Phil Tindall, Impact Fee Coordinator. Thank you. That is the schedule for completion of the consolidated ordinance where we consolidated all of our impact fee ordinances into one document, and also completion of an administrative procedures manual. The main thing I want to point out to you that you -- that you'll see here from previous iterations of the schedule is that we're moving the final approval date into the future, into December. And that's because, based upon the latest iterations we've received and staff inputs, we just don't feel we're as far along as we should be. We don't want to sacrifice quality for making an initial deadline. So -- and I will tell you that, in response to previous audits, staff has made previous attempts at developing administrative procedures and they have not been very good attempts. And we just don't want to fall into that same trap again. We want to produce a quality product that will actually be beneficial and useful. So that's why we're anticipating it's going to take probably a couple months longer than we initially anticipated. We had a meeting with your subcommittee a couple weeks ago and received some very helpful, very valuable inputs and we've incorporated those into the comments that we're sending Page 15 October 4, 2000 back to the consultants. And we anticipate -- and we're also still collecting some staff comments. And we'll have all that forwarded to the consultants by the end of the week. And we hope the next iteration will be a lot better product than what we have so far. Somebody had a question? MR, DUANE: Mr. Chairman, since this is going to come back to this, can we dispense with this item, unless there's comments? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Sure. I think this was just an update on the schedule. MR. TINDALL.' I just wanted to kind of let you know where we're at. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: You're welcome. V (A), subcommittee reports, land development. Mr. Duane? MR. DUANE: We had two meetings on the land use amendments. We achieved a consensus on almost all of them, but I believe that there are two that we still need to discuss today. We can discuss any of them that you may want to today, but specifically the Bayshore District was going to come back to us with some new language today, and I think Patrick was going to share a legal opinion with us as to how some proposals to provide for activities on the beach might be affected. Other than that, Ron, I think we pretty much achieved consensus on most of these other items, did we not? MR. NINO: Yes, you did. MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman, there was two that I would like to have discussed here. LDC 2.6.34, the annual beach events permit. And we can concurrently look at also LDC 3.14.3. Sort of a cause and effect type of thing. We can discuss both of those at the same time. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: 6.34? MR. ESPINAR: 6.34 and 3.14.3. MR. SAVAGE: Vehicles on the beach regulations? MR. ESPINAR: Vehicles on the beach regulations and the annual beach events permit. Like I said, it's kind of a cause and effect type of thing. I've got some serious concerns regarding both of them. Basically my concerns are that this ordinance has been designed Page 16 October 4, 2000 to accommodate a compliance problem. And if you'll look at the ordinance 2.6.34, the basis of that ordinance is to allow hotels to expand onto the beach, both their restaurant and dining facilities and their entertainment, onto the beach. Okay. There are current regulations that allow for special events to occur on the beach. This ordinance I think goes above and beyond this. This is actually allowing the hotels to move, like I said, the dining and the restaurant and their entertainment onto the beach. And I've got a serious problem with trying to write an ordinance to resolve a compliance issue. That's basically it in a nutshell. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. MR. DUANE: Mr. Chairman, we took no action on this item pending Patrick's report and maybe at some point he should chime in and tell us what the legal issue is. MR. MUI. HERE: I wanted to add some comments, too. I mean, it's true -- I think it's true that the hotels -- that this process of developing this amendment came as a result of some compliance issues with hotels, some hotels. But, I mean, there are a lot of amendments that start out as compliance issues. And we look at how we can resolve those issues, not only to protect the public interest but also to enhance our economic position. And there are a lot of reasons why we developed various amendments. There are many, many cases where certain compliance issues are the genesis of a land code amendment. So I think we need to talk about the specifics and not the fact that this -- the genesis of this may have been a compliance issue. Because, to me, that has absolutely nothing to do with evaluating the quality or the content or the purpose or the intent of this amendment. And I can tell you that what we were looking to do was, A, protect the public interest in the utilization of the beach, and, B, allow for a reasonable use of the beach by a very viable economic element or industry in our community and to minimize the impacts of that process on the staff. So to allow for a process that provided protection, allowed the staff, especially during sea turtle nesting season but really year-round, the opportunity to review these activities and make sure that they were consistent and minimized the need for us to do that on a Page 17 October 4, 2000 case by case basis but allowed us to create a more annual permit process. We were looking to expedite that process to the greatest extent that we could. If you have problems with the numbers, the days, some of the stipulations, how we -- whether or not we are adequately protecting sea turtles during sea turtle nesting season, et cetera, et cetera, I think those would be the issues that should be raised, from my perspective. MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman? Sure. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I was just going to ask a question. And, having read this, how do I know how many days are allowed under an annual beach events permit? MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman, there are -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I mean -- MR. ESPINAR: That's one of my problems I also have. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: It really doesn't say. It's annual and you get a permit and maybe I want to do it on a daily basis. MR. ESPINAR: Right. MR. MULHERE: Ron, you want to -- MR. NINO.' By reference, there is a set of regulations, i.e., the building permit, the temporary -- the annual beach permit, which contains within it the number of beach events that you can have. And, quite frankly, it's in blocks because it allows the applicant to pay for the purchase of some blocks within the parameters prescribed in this ordinance. And it's 175. The current administrative document that we've set up, which would be in reference to this ordinance~ is for a total of 175. But they buy blocks of them on a monthly basis. And -- and provide us with all of those dates on a monthly basis. The 25th of each month they provide us with a statement as to the events they are going to hold that month. And they pay for those events. And any cancellations would likewise be -- MR. MULHERE: I mean, the question, I think, is what's the maximum number? The maximum number is 175. That process requires them to notify us both of the event dates and other pertinent information as well as any cancellations. And we have the opportunity to go out there. It still requires them to get any state permits, DEP permits, which are required during sea turtle nesting season. It doesn't obviate them of that need. So, you know~ I think it comes down to a question of, we're Page 18 October 4, 2000 trying to make a process that both allows them to continue their business practices but also provides the protection that we need. MR. NINO: Let me add for the record that this -- these regulations or proposed regulations came about as a result of establishing a study committee that consisted of the industry, who are here, and various staff members that have to do with implementing any such regulations. And so this is the product of that collaborative effort on the part of staff and the industry. And we met -- I believe we met four times to draft these provisions. I think we owe that process something. MR. MULHERE: And that included what? That's the natural resource department? MR. NINO: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Current planning, environmental, code enforcement, environmental? MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Mr. Peek had a question. MR. PEEK: I have a question. If this amendment as proposed is approved, what does it provide that the beach front owners can do that they can't do today? MR. MULHERE: I mean, I can answer that question. It provides more days that they can have events at the beach than they currently can. MR. PEEK: But it does not -- does it provide for any additional activities-- MR. MULHERE: No. MR. PEEK: -- that they can't do today? MR. NINO.' No. And in fact they have been operating in this mode for some time. MR. MULHERE: Which is what Marco raises. And that's absolutely true. I'm not denying that. It's been a -- MR. NINO: In fact -- MR. MUI. HERE: I'm sorry. I spoke over Ron. I apologize. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Let's get back to Marco and then we'll come to you. MR. ESPINAR-' The big difference, Tom, is currently that there is a special events permit. Those are for sports, you Page 19 October 4, 2000 know, concerts, whether it's public or private, non-profit or profit organizations to have functions on the beach. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. What this does is it's expanding their business, their restaurant, dining and entertainment, and throwing it over towards the beach side. Okay. The ATV ordinance will be utilized to support those services on there. Basically they are expanding their design and entertainment onto the beach. And that is a public beach. Okay. And what I'm also concerned about is the cumulative effect here. The ordinance the way it's written did not specify the amount of events in it. It is not until we get to the actual permit application that fees are discussed and the amount of events are discussed. MR. SAVAGE: And that's administrative. MR. ESPINAR: And it's 175 events, okay, versus the existing 28 special events permits that are ongoing. Okay. The Ritz -- I believe it's the Ritz, is currently pulling those permits. They have pulled 13 as of the latest count I've got. So it's not hindering them from having special events the way the ordinance is currently standing. MR. MULHERE: That's true. MR. ESPINAR: And I go back to the old thing, if it ain't broken, why fix it? MR. MULHERE: We think it is broken. MR. ESPINAR: No, no, no. No, no. What's broken is the compliance end of it, that they are trying to expand their -- the use of the beach -- MR. MULHERE: Wait. That's a matter of opinion. You believe that 28 days is enough. We do not. And we have provided you with rationale for that. If you don't agree with it, you're entitled to. But it's not a question of us simply opening up the floodgates here. We're tying to accommodate both compliance, natural resource protections and an industry. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman? MS. MICHELLE: From the compliance standpoint, and I have had an opportunity to look at this, my concern is the number of days. Just because, if you put it in respect to the calendar, which is 365, we're talking a lot of days. And I think, from an administrative point of view, we could handle or address specific Page 20 October 4, 2000 hotels or specific establishments. Like, the Ritz does -- has got a totally different setup th.a.n say La Playa or something. You know, one is totally consol,dated, you don't really have a lot of impacts on the adjacent residential, for instance. Like, La Playa is adjacent, sandwiched in between a bunch of condos. So you would have different impact in that case than you would with the Ritz, for example. So I think from an administrative standpoint we would definitely want to address something like that, because 175 events at La Playa is probably totally different -- MR. MULHERE: Two questions, I think. One, are we talking days or events? MR. NINO: Events. MR. MULHERE: So the Ritz could have three events in a single day? MR. NINO: Correct. MR. MULHERE: So the t75 does not necessarily equate to days. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it does. MR. MULHERE: It does. That was my question. And the second thing is, the second question I would have is, if t75 is too high and, hey, that may be the case, is 28 too low? And that's where we started the discussion. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yes, Mr. Savage. MR. SAVAGE: I would like to ask somebody in the industry about this. Here we are all outsiders of the industry. And I like that use of the word, "the user". We're all so protective that we're going to be stepped upon or our turtle eggs are going to be mashed. I do feel that this business is what brings a lot of people to this beach, these hotels and the activities along 5th Avenue, or these other areas of this area. And let's don't sit here and say 28 days is the magic number. I think it's a matter -- we have to look at the industry. Are you-all from the hotel facility here? MR. ALBERT: I'm from the Registry. MR. GRABINSKI: I'm representing the Ritz-Carlton. MR. SAVAGE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have them say something about this. Is that permissible? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I think we certainly could get to that, Page 21 October 4, 2000 Mr. Savage. MR. SAVAGE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I think we have a comment back here from staff first. No? You okay? MR. MULHERE: Did you have some things, Pat? MR. WHITE: If Matt and the gentleman from the Registry would like to go first, that's fine. MR. GRABINSKI: I wanted to address -- THE COURT REPORTER: Please identify yourself. MR. GRABINSKI: Yes. Matt Grabinski. I wanted to address the comment Marco was making about his perceived effect of this amendment, because he points to the current temporary use section, which only allows for twenty-eight events per year per property location. As I'm sure Ron Nino would tell you, I've always felt that this amendment should not even be in the temporary use section, because the temporary use permits are intended to be issued to portions -- to property owners who want to use their property for something that it's not currently zoned to be used for. What we are talking about here are commercial beach front sites. The Ritz Carlton has already been zoned to operate as a hotel and to carry on all of the activities incidental to such use. Now, the way the permit is set up and the conditions to the permit, it specifies that when they are holding functions on the beach, they cannot interfere with the public's use of the publicly owned portion of the beach. But what I think everyone in here needs to be reminded about, including the public at large, is that commercial beach front property owners own a portion of their beach. The public only owns -- well, they used to own to the mean high waterline, now they own to the coastal construction control line. Landward of that, that belongs to the Ritz. That belongs to La Playa. And if I'm the Ritz Carlton and I want to have a reception for 50 people in my rose garden, I don't run to Collier County and say, "Hey, can I have a special use permit to do this?" If I want to do it out by the pool, I don't run to Collier County and say, "Hey, can we have a party out by our pool?" And our position has always been that if we wanted to take people out and accommodate them on the beach, which we own a great portion of, up to the mean high waterline or the coastal construction control line -- but either way they have plenty of Page 22 October 4, 2000 room out there to conduct functions while still legally being on their property, which is zoned for that use, and they have been using it for the past ten or fifteen years, then they shouldn't need a temporary use permit or a special permit. Now, we asserted this position several months ago. Bob Mulhere sympathized with our position, agreed that the county code basically didn't address the situation that everyone was facing. And so the committee was formed as a collaborative effort. There have been -- quite frankly, the hotels don't think that a lot of their activities should be regulated at all. They are using their property. But, through this amendment, we've established a way that the hotels will notify Collier County, say, "Hey, we're going to be out on the beaches," because there are issues as far as interfering with the public's use, there are environmental issues that need to be checked upon, and the county can have intermittent field inspections and inspect those events. Yes, I know that code enforcement was concerned about the number of events because they typically, when a temporary use permit is issued, they will automatically send a code enforcement officer to that event on that particular day to make sure that everything is fine and there are no violations. However, when this committee was originally formed at the direction of Bob Mulhere, in his letter he stated, "It is likely that the process will require intermittent field inspections." Not inspections every single time there is an event. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. MR. SAVAGE: I just want to add one thing. These people are in this business. And it's absolutely asinine that they have to get a temporary permit every time they have some function in that area in which they do business. Now, if you're out in the mean high waterline, which we all know about, I hope, then that's another matter. But they own this property and they should have use for properties along the beach in front of their hotel facility. MR. MULHERE: I just would like to say that -- let's see. I don't agree, oddly enough, that the county doesn't have the ability to regulate special events. I believe we do, just like we regulate all other private property for activities. I mean, it's no Page 23 October 4, 2000 different than a shopping center throwing up a tent sale. Get a permit for that, get a permit for what you do on your -- but I do think that this is a little bit different because this is a unique class of use in that you have this type of facility that is located on the beach, that's looking to utilize that as part of their business operations. There are issues that we're concerned with. We were looking to address our concerns, which really are also -- there are environmental concerns and there are public access concerns and there are beach, you know, pathway concerns. But we were also looking to accommodate the industry to a degree -- to a higher degree than we currently were. I think you've got someone from the public that wants to -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yes, ma'am. Identify yourself, please. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, P-A-Y-T-O-N. I understand about the Ritz and the La Playa but I'm having a little problem with the Registry because they are not beach front in the same sense that the Ritz is. And they are using a public park. And I would like some assurances about how that's going to relate to me as a user of that park from the public, not a guest of the Registry. But how is this going to impede, if at all, my use of that park? Do you understand what I'm saying? I think the Registry is a different situation. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I don't know that it would impede your use at all. The intent is for it not to impede your use. That's the intent of developing this process, so that we address those concerns. I don't know how this would impede your process -- your access to the beach. The Registry is using county -- the county park for special events. Do they have to get permission from county parks and recreation? MR. NINO: Yes. Why don't you describe your-- MR. ALBERT: Ron Albert, The Registry Resort. We would pull the same temporary use permit to have an event for our resort guests on the beach. And I believe this ordinance would allow us the ability to do what we've been doing already, it's just a little more buying a block at a time versus going there each time for a one-time event. And, again, sending the list of events scheduled on a monthly basis to the staff here to regulate it just like we do already. Page 24 October 4, 2000 MR. MULHERE: Nancy-- MS. PAYTON: This is ignorance on my part, but there's probably a lot of other folks out there that have the same ignorance. When you have these events, can I still go out to the park? MR. ALBERT: Oh, absolutely. MR. MULHERE: And, Nancy, that is a little bit different in the respect that, before we would issue that temporary use permit, we would have to see an authorization from the county, it's either Real Property or Parks and Recreation, probably Parks and Recreation in that case. MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. I have a little question about the process where Parks and Rec., or whichever agency of the county it is that gives that permission, do they give it for a certain duration or, in other words, is it for a certain date and time for a certain number of hours per time? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. ALBERT: Right. We ask for a permit for that day right now, one permit per event. MS. STUDENT: Because I would think that underlying agreement would have to be -- MR. MULHERE: This is a little bit different. When someone wishes to use county-owned property, we do not simply authorize them in the planning department at the front counter to do that. MS. STUDENT: I understand that. MR. MULHERE: We need an authorization from the Parks and Recreation Department or the Golden Gate Civic Association or Real Property. MS. STUDENT: But -- MR. MULHERE: I understand. I mean, just for the general public. So this is a little different. There are dual levels of approval. The reason I'm raising that issue, Nancy, is because, if there is a concern with a degree to which such authorizations are granted and if access is in any way impeded to the public, then we need to raise that level to that agency and deal with it that way. And if I know that, I would do that. Because I don't want to issue permits where we have these problems. And that's the reason I'm -- Page 25 October 4, 2000 MS. STUDENT: I just want to observe, if they get a blanket permit, you know, an annual permit that's a blanket, that that may affect the type of license, if you will, that the appropriate county agency gives -- MR. MULHERE: Right. MS. STUDENT: -- to the Registry, because it would have to -- the authorization by the county agency would have to jive with what they're asking for in the permit. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Mr. Peek? MR. PEEK: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the discussion indicates to me that this is an appropriate amendment, the regulations, so I would offer a motion that this committee support the modification to Section 2.6.34. MR. SAVAGE: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Motion and a second from Mr. Savage. Other comments? MR. PEEPLES: Mr. Chairman, I wish to state that I have refrained from any comment on this particular matter and I'm going to have to recuse myself from voting on this matter as my firm represents and has lobbied on behalf of some of the affected parties. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you, Perry. MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman, I'll go back to my original concern and that is the cumulative effect of having 175 events per hotel. And if you look at the ordinance the way it's written, it allows for either public or private parties. What's to prevent condominium associations from challenging this ordinance and saying, if you allow private functions out on the beach, why can't we as a condominium association then have these same functions out there? And, here again -- you know, in and of itself I don't have a problem with -- I mean, God knows, if there's a party on the beach, I'll probably be the first one out there. Okay. I don't have no problems with a special event. But this is going above and beyond this. This is actually expanding their -- like I said, the restaurant and entertainment portions of it and spilling it onto the beach. And we're talking about a number of 175 events. So I've counted -- I believe it should be like five hotels that this might affect, because it doesn't -- I guess it doesn't affect Marco or the City of Naples. MR. MULHERE: Right. I think that's about right. Page 26 October 4, 2000 MR, ESPINAR: Yeah. I think I counted like five. And then, like I said, in the long-term, who is to say that the condos can't challenge us and say, you know, we want to have these functions on the beach, too. MR. MULHERE: But it's different. I mean, the answer to that question is that your hotels are commercial uses, your condominiums are residential uses. Commercial uses have a wider range of uses. Residential uses don't have that ability. MR. ESPINAR: But, Bob, but you're allowed to use -- have private functions at the hotels, why can't I have a private function? MR. MULHERE: They can. They can. MR. ESPINAR: At the condos? MR. MULHERE: A Condominium can come in and get temporary use for a private function. MR. ESPINAR: But can I get 175 of them? MR. MULHERE: But they can't -- they can't have a private function -- you can't go to the Princess Del Mar and say you want to have your wedding there and they would lease you that property and cater that because that's a residential use. This is a commercial use. That's what they are in the business of doing, is catering these types of things. MR. ESPINAR: If I might follow up also, my other concern -- MR. MULHERE: One other thing. Marco, I don't disagree with you that this ordinance expands the days that someone can use it, but I don't believe that this ordinance changes the means in which the hotels are currently using the beach. Right now they get a temporary use permit, that temporary use permit lets them do -- there's no change in what they can do as far as this, there's just a change in the time frames. I don't disagree with that. MR. ESPINAR: Well, my next concern is, looking at one of the reasonings you guys gave was the current system poses a significant administrative burden, okay, on both the county and the applicant. If the current system is an administrative burden and all we're talking about are 28 events, how can 175 events not be exponentially that much more of a significant burden? And, if I may follow up on that, when looking at the fee schedule of this, the fees are inversely proportional. The more activities they have, the less money that they have to pay. And another Page 27 October 4~ 2000 concern of mine, like I said, is staff. We're talking about -- we're talking about code enforcement staff. And the way you look at this ordinance, there is a compliance component, that these individuals have to go out there. Now, we're talking from 28 to 175. And that's just one hotel. MR. MUI. HERE: Our opinion is that we should be able to determine after a fairly short period of time which hotels we can reasonably expect will comply. And if we see a good compliance record, our opinion is that we wouldn't -- we have Alex in on this development -- our opinion is we wouldn't have to go out there as regularly as we otherwise would have to, but we would still intermittently go out there, except during sea turtle nesting season when we recognize that we would need to inspect those sites. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Tom? MR. PEEK: I call the question. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All those in favor of the motion, say aye, please. Any opposed? MR. ESPINAR: Aye. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: One opposed. MR. NINO: Can we go to the 3.143.4, the vehicles on the beach one that Marco also a problem with. MR. WHITE: I think at this time it would be appropriate for me to make the comment that I alluded to earlier. County attorney, Patrick White. Based upon phone conversations that I have had with the general counsel's office for the state agency DEP, who are charged with responsibility for enforcement under Florida statute 161.58, which sets the outer limit, if you will, for vehicle traffic on the beach, my opinion, based upon what I was told by that counsel, is that the proposed amendment, known as 3.143.4.5 would not offend the statute as it exists, either with respect to what the statute itself says or with respect to that part of the statute that pertains to the laws that were in effect in Collier County as of October 1st of 1998. So what I'm saying in sum is that the prior opinion rendered by our office with respect to the possibility of a preemption by the state agency, that no longer exists, so long as we are actually going to get a written communication as promised from Page 28 October 4, 2000 the counsel's office of DEP. We're working to have that accomplished as expeditiously as possible. So what you have to discuss before you is no longer, quote, unquote, a legal issue as it was before the subcommittee last week, but rather just the policy issues and any other matters that may be germane for your consideration. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you very much. MS. FERGUSON: Also -- Barbara Ferguson with Planning Services. I would like to suggest that we remove some language in 3.143.5. MR. SAVAGE: 3.14 what? MS. FERGUSON: 35. MR. WHITE: It's on Page 91. MS. FERGUSON: What I would -- THE COURT REPORTER: Ma'am, please keep your voice up. MS. FERGUSON: What I would like to suggest is that we strike in the second sentence the words "first thing in the morning" and in the middle of the third sentence, third line, "at the end of the business day", so that it reads -- MR. SAVAGE: If I might interrupt here, Page 91 is where? MR. PEEK: 88. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: 88. MR. WHITE: I lied on the exact agenda, it's 91, I think. MS. FERGUSON: So the new language would read, "Vehicles which are used in conjunction with approved permitted beach concession activities may be used to set up concession equipment and may be used to remove the equipment from the beach and return it to the approved storage area. These vehicles may not be used for transportation of people or equipment throughout the day." CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. MR. GRABINSKI: Actually, there was one other change I wanted to talk to you about. Sorry it took until now. I tried to get in touch with you earlier this week, Barbara. We had discussed at our last meeting of that committee my concern with the last sentence of 3.1.3.5, "These vehicles shall not be used for transportation of people or equipment throughout the day." And I was wondering if perhaps we could amend that language to provide that they could not -- the Page 29 October 4, 2000 vehicles could not be used for the transportation of people or remain on the beach during the day, but that there be some language in there at least clarifying that intermittent trips to the beach would be allowed. If the ATV -- MS. FERGUSON: Okay. In terms of creating that minimal use was just to set up and break down the event. I'm not sure. MR, NINO: Can you come closer, Barb? We really can't hear you, MS. FERGUSON: That was -- it was not the intent of the ordinance -- MR. ESPINAR: Don't be shy. MS. FERGUSON: I'm not shy. Just comfortable. It wasn't the intent of the ordinance to allow the concession businesses to use the vehicle throughout the day for their business but just to allow the absolute minimal use of setting up the equipment and then breaking it down at the end of the day. And the biggest concern that we have when we have concerns from the public is that, if they are out on the beach, their vehicles are just going back and forth during the day on the beach. And so this was to allow something that's currently not permitted to be done at a very minimal use. I would rather not put any language in there that allows it throughout the day. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. Brian? MR. JONES: I can see that if there were multiple events in the same day, where the hotels would need to be able to set up and tear down for multiple events for staging and so forth. MS. FERGUSON: That's not for events. This one we're talking about here is just for concession use. There's two. The two vehicles on the beach uses, one, which is the first one, is for the annual beach permits. The second one is specifically for concessions. So the top one would allow, for instance, when the Ritz has 500 or 600 people on the beach for a picnic or a dinner, if they have an ATV on the beach, or four of them, I don't know that -- we don't have any numbers in here, I guess we should try to minimize the numbers they can use, but it would say that they could have those vehicles to set up. And if they have to set up for six hours and the vehicles are just going Page 30 October 4, 2000 throughout the event, we don't have any restriction on that. But the second one is for the concessions and that's for morning and evening, or beginning of the day and end of the day. MR. GRABINSKI: My concern, Barbara, was with the Ritz Carlton, before this matter came up they were using their ATV to pick up a lot of dirty beach towels and take them back to the hotel and bring fresh ones down. During season they go through thousands and thousands a day. And it necessitated several trips during the day with the ATV to the towel stand and back, as opposed to doubling or tripling their on-site beach staff. MS. FERGUSON: Okay. What they've got right now permitted is use of a push cart with large wheels to bring the towels to the end of one dune walk-over, walk them down to the other to set them up at the areas where those towels are distributed, but not to allow a vehicle to be used up and down the beach to pick up the dirty towels. I just don't see that -- I mean, unless the committee wants to -- MR. GRABINSKI: We got a permit for the push cart specifically because we had to stop until we could hopefully get some language drafted. MS. FERGUSON: Right. But the discussions that I have had with Bob Mulhere regarding this is to make sure that what we approve is minimal. MR. GRABINSKI: So could they at least, as part of their morning setup, take a load of towels down with everything else in the morning and in the afternoon? MR. FERGUSON: I don't know why that would be prohibited, if that would be considered part of the concession, of the setup. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Committee questions? Comments? Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Patrick White. I just would point out to you that the provision you just looked at immediately previous regarding the annual beach events permits, one of the things that defines the class of events that are beach events is that they are of a nature not commonly associated with the day-to-day use of the beach by the general public. And I think that you might want to consider that as part of whether -- typically sunbathing and swimming, i.e., the use of towels, are something that is a nature that may be more commonly associated with the day to day use of the beach Page 31 October 4, 2000 by the general public and wouldn't be within the scope of the, quote, unquote, annual beach event, under the provision as drafted. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good point. MR. GRABINSKI: That was our intent. MR. NINO: So you're saying -- Ron Nino. So you're saying we need some tweaking -- you would rather have some tweaking of the last sentence to acknowledge that at least in the morning and at the end of the day -- MR. GRABINSKI: No. I think that's already in there. MR. ALBERT: I think it works. MS. FERGUSON: I don't think Matt wants the second one amended as much as he wants the first one. Well, actually, neither of them are specific to typical hotel use. They are for the annual beach events or for concessions, so -- MR. GRABINSKI: I wanted language in there that would allow the Ritz to make a couple trips during the day to pick up towels and take them back. MS. FERGUSON: And they've been doing that by hand? MR. GRABINSKI: They've been doing it by hand and with those carts, and it's been a three-ring circus -- MS. FERGUSON: Okay. MR. GRABINSKI: -- for them. MS. FERGUSON: I would say that if we're going to expand that, that at the most what I would like to see is stating that, in conjunction with approved beach concession or typical hotel activities, that it still only be used in the morning or in the evening for setup or for removal, but not throughout the day. So if you needed to use that vehicle at the end of the day to pick up or in the morning to set up, then you expand from the concession to include other daily routine hotel activities. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Let me make a suggestion here. And that is that if you guys are going to go back and forth, that you do it outside of this committee and get it crafted and come to us so that we understand what it is you would like to do. MS. FERGUSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And maybe this is one that we cannot dispense with today, if you are going to modify it again and then bring it back next cycle. MR. NINO: You have another meeting next month in which Page 32 October 4, 2000 you can deal with the wrap-up issues. So perhaps we can come back to you at your November meeting. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: That's fine. Any other issues? We can maybe consolidate this. Anyone else have-- MR. NINO: There was an issue on the Bayshore. MR. DUANE: Bayshore. MR. NINO: Who is here for the -- MS. PRESTON: I am. Deborah Preston with comprehensive planning. We have been working on a mixed use overlay district for the Bayshore Drive area. THE COURT REPORTER: Please keep you voice up. It's difficult to hear you. MS. PRESTON: I'm sorry. We have been working on the mixed use overlay district for Bayshore Drive. There is a map directly behind Ron. This has been sort of an evolving project due to the fact that we have had a lot of input from the residents along Bayshore Drive that would be impacted in this area, and also from the commercial property owners, specifically the marinas, which we've included in a W, which is a waterfront district. So the overlay runs from Weeks Avenue to Barrett, and it divides it up into three subdistricts, neighborhood commercial, which is limited low intensity commercial, primarily looking at restaurants and some other retails, the waterfront district, which allows marinas but we've stipulated some of the uses, such as no outdoor sales of boats or repair. We want them either closed or covered or internal to the site. And then the residential district. Currently this is zoned multi-family RMF6, and right now you can't develop on these lot sizes anything more than a single family due to the dimensions, and we're creating some different development standards so that a duplex would be allowed, creating more of a townhouse type development and making this more of a traditional walking type community. There were some issues about taking away some of the height limits. Currently the commercial along Bayshore is zoned C4. We're reducing some of the height limit to 42 or 56 feet, depending on whether or not it's a mixed use district or not. Marjorie was going to write some language -- she's looking Page 33 October 4, 2000 at me in surprise -- from our subcommittee. MS. STUDENT: I'm going to have to bring that back in the wrap-up. We have had some litigation we thought was going to go away and did not and some other issues. I'll take care of that in the wrap-up. Just from a conceptual standpoint, it was going to have to do with having a conditional use process to allow for some increase in height because of the reduction in what was currently around. Also to encourage certain types of uses in the area. MS. PRESTON: And it has been sort of evolving as we go along. We have been continuing to meet with the marina operators and the residents. We have increased our residential areas since the subcommittee meeting to expand it here to again create a buffer between the neighborhood commercial, sort of the mixed use or the multi-family residential, and then the rest of the single family. So we wanted a transition between commercial and multi-family and then single family. So it was some of the property owners along Becca Avenue that had suggested that we look at that. And the marina gentleman had also requested that we look at what is an enclosed area for the boat sales and possibly allowing that to be just a covered area as opposed to something that is a building. They wanted to be able to have that pedestrian activity within their boat sales. On Bayshore Drive, of course, the vision is to increase pedestrian activity but not to have a lot of open boat dealers type, and we prohibit the use -- prohibit boat dealers along Bayshore. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I had said the other day when we were discussing this matter that on Marco Island -- and I don't remember now the marina's name, Walker Marine, I think -- that they have boat sales in an open but covered area. And, in addition to boat storage in behind that certainly, in my point of view, adds to the ambience of the whole street. And I thought it was a very excellent presentation she made there. But I think to allow that kind of a sales program without having a lot of open boats but not necessarily in an air conditioned place, but an open place covered as part of the structure is a very good plan. MR. JONES: Question. Page 34 October 4, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Jones? MR. JONES: What kind of participation and support do you have from the residents who are directly affected? MS. PRESTON: When we first went out with the overlay we had a lot of opposition because we had looked at extending the commercial all the way into where the residential line goes. But after several public meetings, we've come back with this plan. And at our last meeting we had a lot of support. There's just a few folks that are a little bit worried about some of the buffering in between and so we're looking at doing some additional buffering. But I think overall everyone is pleased with it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Duane? MR. DUANE: You'll be coming back with the language for what conditionally can go up in terms of either height or uses and we'll be seeing that at our next meeting? MS. STUDENT: That's right. Also added to that, my office was moving the last three days down here from up there, so -- MR. DUANE: All right. So we'll review it at our next meeting. MR. NINO: That is your intention, to provide for additional height via conditional use permits? MS. PRESTON: In the case of the waterfront district, I think, only where it was suggested with our last meeting with the marinas, currently we're limiting the height to 42 feet and we have marinas there that want to do new covered storage facilities, and based on one meeting we had, they said that the standard for one of those -- the buildings that you can get pre-made would be 45 feet. And they would like us to go up to 45 feet and then, if it has to go any higher than 45 feet because of economic reasons, then they would have to go through the conditional use. We want to be able to protect the residents as well and we don't want to go too high above what -- but we don't want to have a burden on the marinas, so we're thinking about going ahead and increasing the height to 45 feet just in the water front district and then providing the conditional use mechanism for anyone that needs to go any higher. MR. DUANE: Would some of the uses also be conditional that we're moving now, the bars, the lounges? There was a whole litany of those. Would some of those still conceivably be able to conditionally request for some of those that we're taking Page 35 October 4, 2000 out of the C4 district today? MS. PRESTON; I think a lot of the prohibited uses were the uses that we heard from the residents that they really didn't want to have in the neighborhood commercial area. I think we just want to make sure that the marinas can continue to have their boat sales facility, even though we're not allowing boat dealers. But, as an accessory to marina use, that they can continue to exist. MR. DUANE: That was my principal concern, that we don't squeeze the marinas, because these boat slips are all disappearing. And I'm all for boat rental and I do appreciate your help on that. MS. PRESTON: And another thing also I want to mention. After we had talked to some other property owners, that if they are in the neighborhood commercial area and under C4 they would be allowed to have some rental of boats, if they have docks allowed back there, that we would want to include that as an accessory use to a restaurant, say, that might want to rent out some boats. So we would also like to consider including that as another accessory use permitted in the neighborhood commercial, if you are on the waterfront. MR. DUANE: Excellent. Thank you. MR. FLEISCHMAN: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yes, you may. Please identify yourself. MR. FLEISCHMAN: My name is Ted Fleischman. I'm a resident. Debbie knows me. She said very nicely that she was -- talked with the residents. We took a vote at one of these meetings. And, if you look here, it's this lot right here by the Keystone, by the Key area, that was not NC, and we were asked if we wanted to make it NC and the people in the community had a negative vote. So they voted it down. MR. SAVAGE: NC. What's that? MR. PEEPLES: Neighborhood commercial. MR. FLEISCHMAN: So, actually, the residents don't want this. What do I have to do to go and prove that they don't want it? I mean, right now you people are supposed to be protecting us. But the way it's working, it isn't. And we had a vote and it was knocked down. MR. ABBOTT: I see. Page 36 October 4, 2000 MR. FLEISCHMAN: Nice shirt. K-Mart, two for ten dollars. That's where I got mine. MR. SAVAGE: What did he say? See these? MR. ABBOTT: I see these. MS. PRESTON: We did have, I guess -- to clarify some of the things, that was at I think the second or third meeting you took a vote when we had shown -- the NC had originally gone all the way to where the yellow is. And then we had another meeting -- MR. FLEISCHMAN: I have been to every meeting and I have had people -- I have talked to my neighbors and they remember it, that we voted it down. And now all of a sudden it's on the chart, so -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Do we have a conflict with what was understood? MS. PRESTON: I guess at the final meeting that we had, which I did not attend the meeting where Mr. Fleischman said they had taken a vote. MR. FLEISCHMAN: The final meeting you were there. MS. PRESTON: Right. And at the final meeting we had, I would say, the majority of the people that were at that meeting. The reason why we went back one space was to accommodate the parking. To re-develop those commercial areas, there is very shallow depth on those lots. And the overlay provides some on-street parking both on Bayshore and on the local streets, but that still isn't enough. So we felt that we needed to go back, in order to assure some redevelopment of that commercial property, to allow for some parking in that third lot. And we've provided I think a substantial buffer between the residential and the neighborhood commercial. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. MR. FLEISCHMAN: That was the date on the back here. June 8th. And you can see the line, right here. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Fleischman, is that right? MR. FLEISCHMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We have another review of this next month. MR. FLEISCHMAN: Next month. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I think that maybe between now and then, if you and your neighbors have a concern or a problem with Page 37 October 4, 2000 this, maybe you could get with staff and get that -- MR. FLEISCHMAN: I called Debbie up one day. And I got, you know-- So what do I have to do? MR. PEEK: Well, the process is that this committee is a recommending committee to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. FLEISCHMAN.' Right. MR. PEEK: And what we recommend to them, whether it be in agreement with what you have or isn't, the ultimate is the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, so they make the ultimate decision. So I would think that you would want to express your opinions to them at their particular meeting if you aren't happy with the proposal that goes to them. MR. FI. EISCHMAN: Okay. So you're having another meeting here? MR. PEEK: We have another meeting the first Wednesday of the month of November where we will consider this amendment again and whatever modifications is made to it by the time it gets back to us. MS. STUDENT: I just want to state -- Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. There's also a hearing before our planning commission acting as the land development regulation commission under the growth management law, so there will be two hearings before the planning commission as well and they also make recommendations pursuant to state law to the Board of County Commissioners. So there's ample opportunity for public input. MR. FLEISCHMAN: Okay. And how do I get ahold of these people? MS. STUDENT: There are advertised public hearings. You can't miss it in the paper. There's a big map and -- MR. FLEISCHMAN: I'll call Deborah up. MS. PRESTON: I'll give you the meeting dates and a list of the commissioners. MR. FLEISCHMAN: Please. MR. DUANE: And we will consider your comments at the next hearing. We're waiting for some language to come back but we're not trying to discourage you. We will give this item more attention at our next meeting. And bring anyone that you Page 38 October 4, 2000 want to to discuss it with us. MR. FLEISCHMAN: I have to bring people in or do I have to -- MR. DUANE: No. It's whatever your pleasure is. MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. The important meetings -- I'm not saying this committee isn't important -- but the local planning agency prescribed by law is the Collier County Planning Commission. They are holding two public hearings. You can get those dates from staff. I don't have them off the top of my head right now, but those are the meetings you should probably appear before. The land development committee -- development land services committee really deal with issues of how these regulations affect the development community. If you have a particular slant that is different than the slant, quite frankly, that the Collier County Planning Commission has, which is the local public agency which is supposed to think of the broad implications to the entire community of regulations. So those are the important meetings for you to attend to express your opinions, quite frankly. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All right, sir. MR. FLEISCHMAN: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you very much. MR, FLEISCHMAN: Now I'm really confused. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Bob, this was your item. Anything? MR. DUANE: No. We had a whole host of amendments. If anyone wanted to bring any other issues up, now is the time to do it, otherwise we achieved consensus pretty much on all of the other amendments. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Do we need a motion on the remainder of these or will it come back next month? MR. DUANE: We probably do. Either now or next meeting. MR. PEEK: It would seem like we could wait until the next meeting and everything gets packaged together in one final package for us to look at because there was some other language changes that were going to be made. MR. NINO.' There were -- there was some minor changes that were made. We'll mail you out a new -- and the material is in a slightly revised order because we wanted to get it in chronological order and we didn't have it in chronological order. You're going to get a new package. Page 39 October 4, 2000 MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I might, a procedural point. When you had taken the vote with regard to the provisions for changes in 3.14, I believe Mr. Abbott was out of the room and at that point there would have only been seven affirmative votes, which would have been below the quorum required to move the motion in the affirmative. And I would ask if you would please reconsider that and take a vote so that you have a quorum voting on it because of the recusal of Mr. Peeples. MR. SAVAGE: Who made the motion? MR. PEEK: I did. MR. WHITE: It doesn't matter, or you can remake it in any manner. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: That was very observant of you. MR. ESPINAR: And clarification. Was your motion for the 2.6.34 or was it -- or is it both, 3.147 MR. PEEK: On the first. MR. ESPINAR: Only the first. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So the annual beach events permits. MR. ESPINAR: Just for clarification. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Would you care to remake the motion? MR. PEEK: I'll remake the motion that this committee recommend to the county commissioners approval of that section. MR. SAVAGE: I think I seconded it and I second it again. MR. PEEPLES: Once again I'm going to state on the record that I'm recusing myself from this vote. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. All those in favor of the motion, say aye, please. Any opposed? MR. ESPINAR: Aye. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: One opposed. Thank you very much, Mr. White. Appreciate your bringing that to our attention. There's nothing else. Land development, but he's got that taken care of. Construction code committee, Dino is not here. We did meet. We reported earlier about the -- MR. ABBOTT: The fire stuff. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: The fire code review, so there's nothing new there. Utility code. Page 40 October 4, 2000 MR. PEEK: Utility code subcommittee did not meet during the month of September, so we have no report. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. And Item D is our ad hoc committee on fees, and really that was rolled into the same meeting as the construction code. So that concludes those items. New business. There is no new business on the agenda, committee member comments here to finalize. MR. ESPINAR: Just compliment Charlie again on his shirt. MR. ABBOTT: Oh, yes. Thank you. MR. PEEK: I move we adjourn. MR. VANARSDALE: I was advised back in August that the new appointments to this committee would be considered at the September meeting, which was I guess canceled for lack of a quorum. And then I was told it would happen today. And it seems that -- and that's based on applications that were submitted, I believe by August 18th. I'm just wondering if you could provide an update on that issue. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I cannot provide an update on that. I don't know. With Mr. Cautero not here I don't think that we can. What we can do is make sure that it gets on the agenda for next month. MR. SAVAGE: There is Mr. Cautero. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Cautero, you have a question here MR. SAVAGE: That is Mr. Cautero, isn't it? MR. ABBOTT: Cut his hair away. MR. CAUTERO: New look. MR. PEEK: One item, and it was not acted on last month because we didn't have a quorum -- MR. VANARSDALE: That was what I was advised. MR. PEEK: And it's not on the agenda. MR. VANARSDALE: You had trouble even rustling up a quorum due to poor attendance, which is something you should be dealing with. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We've got a quorum. The question of the moment, Vince, is the new member appointments and status of that did not occur last month due to the lack of a quorum. And it's not on the agenda for this month. I wonder if maybe you could update us and let us know where Page 41 October 4, 2000 that stands. MR. DUANE: Could we act on that if we wanted to today? MR. CAUTERO: You guys are one step ahead of me. Vince Cautero. My apologies for being late. I was detained at staff meeting. We were going to add it to the agenda but was needed to make a phone call to Mr. Mulhere and Mr. Perico, since I was in staff meeting. I have the forms for you right now. We do have additional openings on the committee, which haven't officially been announced yet. I don't know how that interacts with your decision today. To be conservative we probably want to handle it one step at a time. This is the item that was continued from the last meeting since there was no quorum. The opening is for Mr. Dillon who resigned over a month ago, William Dillon. Mr. VanArsdale and Mr. Thornton have applied for the position. And here you go. There should be extra copies there. In accordance with the rules and regulations the committee would make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The advertising period has closed and the Board of County Commissioners will not hear the recommendation on their agenda like they do on a regular basis. I understand you talked about Mr. Foley at the beginning of the meeting, and he to my knowledge is on a leave of absence, but I understand from talking to my staff that his resignation may be imminent. I don't know if that's the case. Ms. Lam has resigned and I understand you announced that earlier in the meeting. But those positions have to be advertised by the Board of County Commissioners' administrative assistant. So at this time I would ask you to make just one recommendation so that we follow proper procedures. And then a new advertising period will be opening up shortly for at least one more position and then resumes will be solicited. So we have two applicants for the one position vacated by Mr. Dillon. Mr. VanArsdale, who I'm sure most of you know, is vice president of a construction company currently~ and Mr. Thornton, who is an attorney. MR. DUANE: I move Mr. VanArsdale for this position. I think he would be a valuable addition to this committee. Page 42 October 4, 2000 MR. ABBOTT: I would like a little discussion, if we could. Could we do that? MR. DUANE: Can I have a second first? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Let me get a second and then we'll open it for discussion and then either vote it up or down. MR. PEEK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Second for discussion. Charlie. MR. ABBOTT: Now for discussion. We have had -- remember in the past we have had between eight and ten applicants? And we chose like two or three. And I would like to see that. That way we can balance the people for construction and lawyers and accountants and whatever. MR. PEEPLES: I have a comment to make, and that is, I don't know what the status of Blair Foley is, if we're losing an engineer from this group, but there is a professional engineer who has expressed an interest to me and told me that he would So maybe there is greater like to serve on this committee. interest out there at this point. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Right. from a couple of engineers. I have heard the same thing MR. himself so that we know who he is? MR. VANARSDALE: I'm Peter VanArsdale. MR. MR. MR. MR. SAVAGE: First of all, would this gentleman introduce I'm the guy that SAVAGE: Your name is Arsdale? VANARSDALE: I'm one of the applicants. Yes. SAVAGE: I see. DUANE: Any further discussion of the motion? MR. PEEK: I have a question. Is the position that's vacant one of the positions that needs to be filled with a specific profession or category? MR. CAUTERO: The answer to that question is no, because the Board of County Commissioners, even though this committee tried several years ago to put people in different slots, there are more than one slots filled by the same profession. For example, there are at least two engineers on the committee now. There are -- there were three attorneys until Mr. Dillon resigned. Mr. Thornton is an attorney. So the answer to your question is officially no. But Page 43 October 4, 2000 technically it's yes because there are a lot of slots that are represented because we have more than one person in different slots. There are two architects, for example, so -- and all the contractor spots, for example, are not filled, or subcontractor spots are not filled. So a more appropriate answer to your question -- and I don't mean to be -- I really don't mean to be making a mountain out of a molehill, but the more appropriate answer to your question is yes. But I said no originally because the board just looks at whoever they get usually and takes your recommendation. So, you know, that's the dilemma, because you have one opening now and two people applying, but you are going to have at least one more opening with Ms. Lam's resignation, and maybe two, if we confirm that Mr. Foley won't be coming back. And that would be an engineer slot and citizen activist and environmentalist, which is where Ms. Lam was put in, that slot. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. MR. DUANE: Call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Be happy to. All those in favor of the motion for Mr. VanArsdale as a member of the committee, say aye. Any opposed? There are none. So we'll forward that to the Board of County Commissioners. And I know, Vince, you're on top of taking care of that for us. Thank you so much. MR. PEEK: My prior motion to adjourn still -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Still stands. I think it's waiting on a second. MR. SAVAGE: I don't understand, Mr. Chairman. We haven't heard from Tom, Dick. MR. ABBOTT: Here. He's got comments. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Closing comments? MR. CAUTERO: Two brief comments, if no one on the committee has comments. I think Mr. White talked to you earlier about the Form I filing requirements. He has opined that that is not the case. I'm sure he told you about that. The documents stating that will be in your next packet. I just received them today. And I don't know if you had a chance to talk about it. I'm sorry if I was out of the room. I thought the Bayshore discussion would go a little bit Page 44 October 4, 2000 longer. We listed ad hoc committee on fees under you subcommittee reports. We're going to do that for the next few meetings. We're planning to get a report out to you next week and we would like to, even if we have to do a meeting at the last minute, we would appreciate your assistance, but we understand that can be difficult. We would like to have a committee meeting with that ad hoc committee prior to your November meeting so that then we can talk about some changes we would like to make at the November meeting. Our intent is to try to wrap this up so that we can get something to the Board of County Commissioners, assuming we have a recommendation for approval of some type of a fee structure by this full committee in late November. So it's not something we're going to be bringing to the current board, I don't predict. We'll be bringing it to the new Board of County Commissioners when they're seated in early to late November. So that's what -- we just wanted to tell you about that. We want to put a lot of time in this report. I've met with Bob Mulhere and Ed Perico on it and we talked about it in great detail. We want to give you the best information we can. We just got the final numbers in for the fiscal year and they look really good. The building department alone was 1.1 million over last year in permit revenue alone, so -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Good. I think the committee members would -- I think the committee members for your ad hoc committee would attend as soon as we get some information to be able to react to. MR. MULHERE: We'll try to do a meeting as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All right. We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor? Any opposed? MR. SAVAGE: No. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5-'10 p.m. Page 45 October 4, 2000 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE DALAS D. DISNEY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY ELIZABETH M. BROOKS, RPR Page 46