CCPC Minutes 11/01/2000 SNovember 1, 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, November 1, 2000
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning
Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE CHAIRMAN:
Gary Wrage
Joyceanna J. Rautio
Russell A. Budd
Ken Abernathy
Lora Jean Young
ALSO PRESENT:
NOT PRESENT:
Sam Saadeh
Michael Pedone
Russell Priddy
Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County
Attorney
Ron Nino, Chief Planner
Robert J. Mulhere, Planning Director
Page I
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
ON LDC AND RELATED
AMENDMENTS
NOTICE OF MEETING
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2000
AT
5:05 PM
COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S BOARD ROOM
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - 3R" FLOOR
3001 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL
AGENDA
1. Amendment to Land Development Code (LDC) - First Public Hearing
2000 Land Development Code Amendments - CYCLE II
Summary Sheet
LDC
Section
Proposed
Amendment
DSAC
Recommendation
EAC
Recommendation
CCPC
Recommendation
Sec: 2.1.5. Page 1 To amend the official zoning
Zoning ttlas of Collier County for the
purpose of revising the zoning
Ron Nino~urrent Planning district designation on a number
of properties owned by Collier
County and which properties are
either developed or intended to
be improved as public
recreational spaces to the "P"
Public Use District.
Sec: 2.2.2.3.21. Page 19 Amend the Rural Agricultural
Rural Agricultural District zoning district to add criteria
for Conditional Uses for tour
Fred Reischl - Current Planning operations such as airboat,
swamp buggy and horse tours.
Sec: 2.2.10.1. Page 23 Amend purpose and intent
Mobile Home District statement to acknowledge that
conventional stick/on-site built
Ron Nino-Current Planning homes are also allowed in the
mobile home district. Amend the
permitted use section to allow
single-family homes as defined
in the LDC.
Sec: 2.2.28. Page 25 &dd text to the Main Street
~Overlay Subdistrict to prohibit
Immokalee Overlay District :ommunication towers and to
:larify the intent of the landscape
Michelle Mosca~Comprehensive ~rovision; add text to the SR 29
~ommercial Overlay and the
Planning lefferson Avenue Commercial
Dverlay Subdistricts to prohibit
,rojects greater than 5,000 square
Feet in size from utilizing the
:xisting landscape provisions for
~aid subdistricts; and correct
3crivener's errors.
Sec: 2.2.33. Page 34
Bay Shore Overlay District (New)
Fo create the Bayshore Drive
Debrah Preston-Comprehensive Mixed Use Overlay District
Planning
Sec: 2.2.34. Page 48 ro create a Goodland Zoning
Goodland Zoning Overlay Overlay District that reduces the
GZO)District (New) maximum building height from
three (3) levels of habitable space
Ray Bellows-Current Planning to two (2) levels of habitable
space for properties zoned
Village Residential (VR) in
11/Ol/OO 1
LDC
Section
2000 Land Development Code Amendments - CYCLE II
Summary Sheet
Proposed
Amendment
DSAC
Recommendation
EAC
Recommendation
CCPC
Recommendation
Goodland only.
Sec: 2.2.35. Page 50
Declaration Of A Partial Moratorium To declare a partial
For Multi-Family Residential moratorium for properties
Development The Goodland Area.
zoned Village Residential
Ray Bellows-Current Planning iVR) in the Goodland Area.
Sec: 2.4.4.12. Page 52
Prohibited Exotic Species Add Carrotwood, Cupaniopsis
~nacardioides, to the
Michelle Arnold-Code Enforcement Prohibited exotic species list
Sec: 2.4.6. Page 53 Cross-referencing of
Minimum Landscape landscape requirements
Requirements Between section 2.6.35
Eommunication towers and
Kim Maheuron-Current Planning Division 2.4 Landscaping and
Nancy Siemion--Current Planning Buffering.
Sec: 2.4.7.4. Page 55 Replace the word "minimum"
Landscaping & Buffering ~vith the correct word
"maximum" to describe spacing
Nancy Siemion--Current Planning afhedge material in an
Alternative B landscape buffer.
Require landscaping along
internal roads of commercial
:levelopments. Require
landscaping on the outside of
fences or walls that front major
roadway corridors.
Sec: 2.5.5.1.6. Page 57
Signs Allowing artistic expressions
tnd architectural
Ehahram Badamtchian--Current embellishments on walls of
Planning residential subdivisions.
gec: 2.6.4.2. Page 58 Add language stating that the
Minor After-The-Fact Yard :riteria for administrative
Encroachments approval of encroachments for
structures for which a certificate
Ross Gochenaur - Current Planning of occupancy (C/O) has been
granted will apply to the required!
~ard (setback) at the time of
approval of the C/O.
11/01/00 2
2000 Land Development Code Amendments - CYCLE II
Summary Sheet
LDC Proposed DSAC EAC CCPC
Section Amendment Recommendation Recommendation Recommendation
Sec: 2.6.11. Page 59 1) Amend language to correct
Fences scrivener's error in Section
2.6.11.2.4. of previous
Ross Gochenaur - Current Planning amendment. 2) Cross-reference
fencing standards specified in
Division 2.8 (Architectural &
Site Design Standards &
Guidelines for Commercial
Buildings & Projects). 3) Delete
the requirement that the finished
side of a fence must face any
adjoining lot (but retain the
requirement that the finished side
must face an abutting right-of-
way).
Sec: 2.6.21. Page 61 Add language stating that non-
Dock Facilities residential docks are subject to
all of the provisions of Section
Ross Gochenaur-Current Planning 2.6.21, except for protrusion
limits, which will be determined
administratively by the Planning
Services Director at the time of
SDP review.
Sec: 2.6.33.8. Page 62 Amend Motion
Motion picture/television picture/television production
production section section. Changes include the
section title, limiting the
Fred Reischl - Current Planning required permit to commercial
production, clarification of the
insurance requirement,
!including information on the
application to assist the
2ounty in obtaining future
Film production, and
3ermitting the Risk
Management Director to
fletermine if the insurance
:equirement is commensurate
~vith the production (currently
~etermined by the BCC).
Sec: 2.6.34. Page 66 Fo amend the Land Development
Annual Beach Events Permits 2ode for the purpose of adding a
(New) aew section to establish a special
:ype of annual beach events
Ron Nino-Current Planning :emporary use permit for
:ommercial developments
Fronting the Gulf of Mexico,
Section 2.6.34.
I1/01/00
3
LDC
Section
2000 Land Development Code Amendments - CYCLE II
Summary Sheet
Proposed
Amendment
DSAC
Recommendation
EAC
Recommendation
CCPC
Recommendation
Sec: 2.6.35.6.3. Page 77 Add text to Section 2.6.35.6.3
Communication Towers of the LDC specifying that
:owers used primarily for
Tom Palmer-Assistant County governmental uses may be
Attorney approved as stand alone
essential service facilities.
Sec: 2.6.35.6.21. Page 78 Cross-referencing of
Communication Towers landscape requirements
between section 2.6.35
Kim Maheuron-Current Planning Communication towers and
Nancy Siemion--Current Planning Division 2.4 Landscaping and
Buffering.
Sec: 2.6.35.7. Page 79 Add Subsection 2.6.35.7 (9)
Communication Towers ~o the Land Development
2ode (LDC); also correct
Tom Palmer-Assistant County scrivener's errors in
Attorney Subsection (1), (3), and (6);
also assign a number to
Subsection (8), as shown.
Sec: 2.7.6. Page 82 1) To amend Sec. 2.7.6. to
Building Permit And Certificate Of include requirement for a Land
Occupancy Compliance Process. ~lteration Permit; 2) To amend
Division 3.3 Site Development
Ron Nino--Current Planning ?lan to provide for the
submission of an SDP for Land
&Iteration.
Sec: 2.8.2. Page 86 Requiring all non-residential
Architectural And Site Design structures along arterial and
Standards :ollector roads within the
Urban Area to comply with
2hahram Badamtchian--Current the architectural standards of
?lanning the Collier County Land
Development Code.
gec: 3.2.7.1.11. Page 87
Preliminary Subdivision plat Fo clarify during the Preliminary
Plat process whether a road is
Fom Kuck - Engineering Review proposed to be Public or Private.
1ohn Houldsworth- Engineering
Review
gec: 3.2.8.3.20. Page 88
Street Lighting Set illumination standards for
county and local street lighting
~Fom Kuck- Engineering Review Der IESNA RP-8-00.
11/01/00 4
2000 Land Development Code Amendments - CYCLE II
Summary Sheet
LDC Proposed DSAC EAC CCPC
Section Amendment Recommendation Recommendation Recommendation
Sec: 3.2.8.3.24. Page 90
Change size of conduits under
Subdivision Improvements pavement for water services
from minimum of three-inch
Tom Kuck - Engineering Review
diameter to 4-inch diameter.
Sec: 3.4.5.1.10. and Page 91
3.4.13.5.1. Prohibit blasting on new
Explosives subdivisions and site
development plan
Tom Kuck - Engineering Reviewconstruction within 350 feet
of structures or county
roadways
Sec: 3.5.7.3.1. Page 93
Excavation Depths
~hange maximum permittable
Tom Kuck - Engineering Review:lepth of private and
:levelopment excavation from
12 feet to 20 feet.
Sec: 3.5.8.2.1. Page 94
Excavation Status Reports Change the annual status
report requirements for
Tom Kuck- Engineering Review :ommercial excavations.
Sec: 3.9.6.6.6. Page 97
Remove "dwelling units"
Vegetation Removal
from the language regarding
exotic removal prior to C.O.
Barb Burgeson - Current Planningon residential lots.
Sec: 3.10.9.1. Page 98
Sea turtle Protection Remove Nest Relocation from
the types of sea turtle permits
Kim Maheuron - Current Planningissued by the County.
Sec: 3.11.2. Page 99
To provide additional
Endangered, Threatened Or Listed
language to the protected
Species Protection
species section of the LDC, as
directed by the CCPC and the
BCC during the last LDC
Barb Burgeson - Current Planningamendment cycle.
Sec: 3.14.3. Page 104Language added to Section
Vehicles On The Beach Regulation3.14.3 to allow for additional
exception to the vehicle on the
beach regulations to
Barb Burgeson - Current Planningaccommodate the commercial
11/01/00 5
2000 Land Development Code Amendments - CYCLE II
Summary Sheet
LDC [ Proposed
Section Amendment
DSAC
Recommendation
EAC
Recommendation
CCPC
Recommendation
aspect of the beachfront hotels
and concessions.
Appendix "B" Page 106 Change 5 Typical Roadways
Typical Street Sections & Right-of- Sections to show required
Way Design Standards location of water line and force
main within right-of-way.
Tom Kuck - Engineering Review
11/01/00 6
November 1, 2000
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'd like to call to order this meeting of
the Planning Commission on the first hearing of the Land
Development Code and other related amendments
Today, I believe we are going to go through the items one at
a time and discuss them. Then in two weeks, we will be right
back here again at 5:05 at which time we will be taking a straw
vote; is that correct?
MS. STUDENT: You will be making your recommendations
to the Board of County Commissioners on -- so it would be a
formal vote of what you recommend for approval, plus a finding
of the consistency with the Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. With that, we need a roll call.
Commissioner Priddy? Seems to be absent.
Commissioner Young?
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Commissioner Abernathy?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Here.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage is present.
Commissioner Budd?
Commissioner Budd?
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Saadeh is absent, and
Commissioner Pedone is absent.
Now that we have the name tags correct, any other
business before we start on the individual items? If not, Ron, you
seem to be up.
MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino, and I'm
going to go through each of the amendments as they are listed in
the summary sheet in your agenda package.
The first item is an amendment to the zoning atlas maps for
16 sites that are owned by the park and rec, by the county, and
administered by the County Parks and Recreation Department,
and it's their wish that those maps be designated "P," public use,
which speaks more directly to the park and recreational
permitted uses.
The second item on the agenda is an amendment to the
Rural Agricultural District to provide the conditions under which
airboat, swamp buggy, and Corkscrewers may be allowed in a
Page 2
November 1, 2000
conditional use approval.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I do have a question. On the
summary sheet it indicates that there's a DSAC and EAC
recommendation.
MR. NINO: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We're missing -- I'm sure the
DSAC, Development Services Advisory Committee has already
reviewed these. But there doesn't appear to be any
recommendations.
MR. NINO: Thank you for reminding me of that. The DSA
agreed, in principle, with all these changes. But have delayed
their final decision until today's meeting. And, unfortunately,
they ended up without a quorum at today's meeting and were
consequently unable to deal with wrapping up the land use
amendment.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Are you aware of any that they
were taking a great exception to, or did we have much
discussion on that?
MR. NINO: No. Well, actually, the reason why they weren't
able to conclude or resolve all of the issues, is because quite
frankly, staff had some outstanding issues that they wanted to
bring back to them. And the beach permit and vehicles on the
beach was one particular amendment that was still to be
resolved by the DSAC.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's my understanding, that
they did have a couple of them and as you mentioned the number
of vehicles on the beach, the number of times that you can use
the beach with special permits or something. That they were
not, part of them were not overly pleased with what was being
presented, so now we have no recommendation because they
had no quorum.
MR. NINO: That's right, but you will have another meeting in
two weeks.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes.
MR. NINO: And while even that's not going to be
satisfactory because the DSAC has resolved to meet in their
annual rotation, which would be the first Wednesday in
December.
Bob, do you have anything you want to add to this?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. Well, on the beach permit -- Bob
Page 3
November 1, 2000
Mulhere, planning director, for the record. On the DSAC's
consideration of the special event permit for hotels, beachfront
hotels, they did support the amendment as proposed by staff, in
a straw poll. They did support that amendment.
But we were doing some final changes and still meeting
with some folks and dealing with some of the specifics, like
when an ATV might be permissible and when not. In fact, we're
still -- I believe tomorrow, we're going to the beach
renourishment committee to speak to them about that
amendment. So we haven't really finalized the details. In
principle, though, they have supported it.
That was our reason for taking it back to them and,
unfortunately they didn't have a quorum, and they won't have a
quorum until the December 6th meeting. And if you stay on
schedule, you will have already dealt with these issues. We will
simply have to take the DSAC's recommendation to the board,
and yours, as well.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay, thank you.
MR. NINO: Second item again is the amendment to the
Rural Agricultural Zoning District. Staff is here to address any
specific issues you might have with respect to these. Otherwise,
I'm just going to touch on them in a very cursory manner.
The third amendment is an amendment to the Mobile Home
District section. And that amendment would purport to allow
modular homes as an additional permitted use in the mobile
home zoning district.
The next item is the --
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Excuse me, Ron, I just might mention, I
will keep my eye on the crowd. If any of these items, anybody
wants to speak to, please raise your hand while we discuss them
and we will be glad to listen to you.
MR. NINO: The next item is an amendment to the
Immokalee Overlay District, and as that indicates, that is to
introduce a number of regulations that would be unique to
Immokalee. And Michelle Mosca from comprehensive planning
is here to discuss those, if you have any particular questions you
may wish to ask regarding that.
The EAC did meet on some of these issues, those that are of
interest to the EAC, namely, those with environmental
relationships, and I will indicate their recommendations as I get
Page 4
November 1, 2000
to it.
If there is no questions on the Immokalee Overlay District,
the next amendment is an overlay, zoning overlay, for the
Bayshore Overlay District.
And again, Debrah Preston from comprehensive planning is
here if you wish to address that overlay district.
It establishes the unique -- your packet shows unique
development standards discussed to come up with a mixed use
environment of housing and commercial in a mix that meets
those standards that we've identified.
MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to state for this
and some of the other amendments, there still needs to be work
done, you know, to do classifications and so forth, make some
things more specific. And I've met for an entire day practically
with long-range staff on this district. So I just want to put that in
the record.
MR. NINO: Furthermore to the record, the last few days
there have been some modifications so to make sure that you
have the most up-to-date packet, there were some changes to
the Bayshore Overlay District. They are not of a very substantive
nature, but nevertheless, there were some changes, and you will
have those to digest for your next meeting. MS. STUDENT: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: There are some -- excuse me, Bob Mulhere,
for the record. There are some registered speakers on this
issue.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: On Bayshore? Ron? If anyone would
like to speak on 2.2.33 - Bayshore Mixed Use Overlay District.
MR. MULHERE: I have some names here. Tom Briscoe,
followed by Cathy Hunt, then Ken Mane.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just get up and speak when you're
called.
MR. BRISCOE: I'm Tom Briscoe. I live at 2841 Shoreview
Drive, and I would like to ask you to go ahead and approve this
overlay because it's something that would really help our district
on trying to improve the quality of life that we have there now.
So I'm in favor of you going ahead and approving the overlay.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We won't be approving it, but we will
be recommending it.
MR. BRISCOE: Recommending it, then.
Page 5
November 1, 2000
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We will be recommending one way or
the other to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. BRISCOE: Right.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Okay, next speaker.
MS. HUNT: My name is Cathy Hunt, I live on Shoreview
Drive, off the Bayshore area. If you haven't been there lately, you
should drive by and see the incredible landscaping and how it's
changed the area. That's only one part.
The pavers are going on both sides of Bayshore Drive. It
looks beautiful. People are getting really excited about it.
This is one of the beginning points that need to take place in
that area. The overlay encourages good, strong building, good
growth. It's the kind of work that the good staff at the county
has been working towards for a long time. They have taken
recommendations from the neighbors, from the people that own
the commercial buildings, and put together a very excellent
comprehensive plan.
This will be something that's going to either be done now or
will be done at another time. Let's do it right now. We
recommend that you take a good hard look at this and approve it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker.
MR. MANE: Hi. I'm Ken Mane and I'm also on Bayshore
Drive, speaking on behalf of the Bayshore Redevelopment
Program, and like Tom Briscoe and Cathy Hunt, and I think some
other neighbors here, we seem to have a really good group that's
in favor of it. The county staff has just really worked hard on this
for years.
I've been in the area since 1989, and in the last year, I think
more progress has been made than in the last 10 years. Like
Cathy says, if you take a ride down there, I think you will be
really impressed with what's going on.
This is going to be a great way to bring in new people to
come in and redevelop an area that really has been very blighted.
It's an area that has had a bad rap over the years. And I think
this is a great opportunity to clean it up and really renew it to a
point where it's not an area that you cannot be proud of.
I think if this goes through, that it will be equal to some of
the other areas in Naples, North Naples, maybe even Fifth
Avenue. I think that will be really great to have it all looked at as
Page 6
November 1, 2000
the same.
Let's not look at Naples, East Naples over here and this is a
problem. Let's look at it as all a very nice city that people are
proud of.
So I am in favor of it and I hope that everybody else is in
favor of the hard work that this staff has done. I recommend that
you guys take it forth to make it go through. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker.
MS. BENNETT: Hi. I'm Kim Bennett from Riverview Drive. I,
too, am very much in favor of what the workers are doing. I think
it will help improve the whole neighborhood and encourage
development.
But I have a word of caution also to make sure that the
residential homes that are in that area, as they extend the
commercial district into the residential area, they pay special
care to protect the residents that are going to be now abutting
commercial property.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Margaret?
MS. STUDENT: I just want to make a couple of further
comments. There are a couple of prohibitions in the area for
communications towers and also adult entertainment.
And we have two specialists in our office. One, a gentlemen
who deals with the towers, and the other with adult
entertainment. So I have two attorneys looking at this. We're
going to meet with staff next week.
And also a question has come up about part of the
commercial area that is going to be so designated that attacks
what currently has been a residential area, apparently there are
deed restrictions that limit these to residential areas. Couldn't
find any real helpful case law on that in Florida, so I'm going to
be looking at that a little further.
If that does present a problem then is an alternate way to
deal with it, because it would deal with areas for parking only,
and there is another way to deal with it if that does cause a
problem.
So I just wanted to put that in the record, we'll have the
answers next week.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker.
MS. RUSSELL: My name is Debra Russell, and I live on
Lakeview Drive. I'm also in favor of the zoning overlay, but I'm in
Page 7
November 1, 2000
favor of it being done correctly, and there are a few concerns
that I think have not been addressed to date in the plan. I have
talked about them once with Commissioner Mac'Kie and with
Debrah Preston.
One of my main concerns is before we go ahead and allow
more intense development in that area, which I think commercial
development is going to have a more intensive use by nature of
the fact that we're going to have to have increased paved
surfaces for parking.
We need to address the storm water drainage problem we
have in that area. I think responsible government dictates that
we have to have an infrastructure in place before we allow more
intensive development in an area.
Our neighborhoods flood very badly when we have heavy
rainfall. And one of the reasons that happens is because there is
no storm water drainage system in there and the flow of the
water goes from Bayshore Drive back into the neighborhood.
If we go ahead and have, for example, at the marina that's
currently at the end of the street, it has about 165 slips right
now, or spaces for boats. That's going to need 35 parking
spaces. If that's going to be paved -- which now, you know~
there's some paving there, but it's not paved all the way -- there's
going to be no permeable surface to absorb the rainwater, and
that's going to be coming down the street.
Just from the houses that have been built on the street
since I bought my house, when I get heavy rain, I now am in
water on my driveway, up to my knees. I think that needs to be
looked at a little more carefully.
There's a requirement in the plan that we have six-foot
walkways along the canal. Again, that's a wonderful idea, but if
those are going to be paved walkways, that's going to go ahead
and do away with some of the permeable surface that we have
there. So I think that it's something that needs to be looked at
very closely and should be addressed in this plan.
I think it would be a shame if we allowed this beautiful
development to occur and then, when we get back into the rainy
season, suddenly it's like, "Oh, we should have thought of this
before." We need to do this now before we start with the paving.
My next concern is with the parking. On the renditions that
we've seen, Bayshore Drive, in the commercial area, is going to
Page 8
November 1, 2000
be reduced to just two lanes. And it looks very pretty on the
rendering; it's going to have parking, like angled parking there.
My concern is, growth is continuing in that area. As you
know, there is talk of the development Hamilton Park will go at
the end of the street. There's going to be the new Conservancy
at the end of the street. We're going to have a lot of traffic on
Bayshore.
I'm concerned when in every place else in the county, we're
talking about six-laning roads rather than four-laning them, as in
Livingston Drive to handle the increased traffic. Now, we're
talking about taking an existing four-lane road and making it into
a two-lane through the commercial district.
Now, I know there is some talk about the fact that while it's
still going to be paved and we can only have parking there on
certain hours. Well, that could be done, but if we do that, are we
going to have enough parking then if we're going to take away
that parking during certain hours to allow for the commercial
development that's being put in there?
As I said, I am for the zoning overlay, I live there, I like my
neighborhood. I want to see things done right, but that's the key.
I want to see them done right. I don't -- since we have this
opportunity to set things out correctly and to set standards on
what we are going to allow and what we aren't going to allow,
let's take advantage of the opportunity and not exacerbate the
problems that are already there. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. So I think I
hear what you're saying is the parking standards, the way it's
presented to us now, we just got some new information in a
draft, you're saying that you have some specific objections to
some of this language in here and you're talking about the angle
parking and going from four lanes to two lanes, but you actually
have some specific language that you'd like to see changed in
that section?
MS. PRESTON: If I might, Debrah Preston for the record. I
don't believe Ms. Russell had a chance to review the draft that
was handed out to you today.
We have changed the requirement about parking on
Bayshore Drive. We're now proposing that we allow parking on
Bayshore Drive until we can accommodate the bike lanes that
are being incorporated into the landscape plan right now.
Page 9
November 1, 2000
They're going to be putting on street bike facilities. So we didn't
want to have a conflict of on-street parking with the bike lanes.
So the long range plan for this redevelopment area is that as
these commercial properties begin to redevelop, they will then
be adding additional pavers to their sidewalk area and widening
that sidewalk.
Currently there will only be a five-foot wide sidewalk, which
isn't enough to accommodate both a pedestrian and a bicyclist.
So until we can get further down the road -- this, of course, is a
long range redevelopment plan. This is the beginning of trying to
bring some more reinvestment into the area.
So as far as our parking goes, we have taken off the parking
requirements of being allowed to park on Bayshore Drive. We are
suggesting that we can park along the local streets, and that
would also help, we hope with the drainage situation.
We've taken Ms. Russell's comments into consideration.
And we understand that there is a drainage problem there and
we're trying to work with each of the property owners as they
come in so that we can begin to develop an overall drainage
program in that neighborhood.
It won't just be impacted by the commercial development,
but the new residential development coming in, as well. So what
we'd like to do is have a typical cross-section done for each of
these local streets that will incorporate some storm water
drainage management programs, and that, of course, we'll have
to look at some funding mechanism to do that, whether it be a
tax or some use of the tax increment dollars.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Does that answer your question,
ma'am?
MS. RUSSELL: For me? Yes, to a certain extent. But I'm -- I
do want to make certain that -- I mean, I think that we have to be
careful when we're requiring some of these things. That maybe
we want to have somewhere in the comprehensive plan, or the
zoning overlay, I mean, maybe if it's a permeable surface that's
used for parking areas. I'm not objecting to the parking. I'm
objecting to the flooding might be caused if we pave parking lots.
MR. MULHERE: May I just add one thing? I'm sorry, it's Bob
Mulhere, Planning Director. I'm not sure everyone is aware of
what happens when a use intensifies or when, as you indicated,
commercial use, either existing intensifies or becomes a new
Page 10
November 1, 2000
commercial use is constructed.
But they are required to adhere to certain stormwater
management criteria, requires them to retain that water on-site
under certain storm event conditions, 25-year storm. They are
not permitted to discharge any water off of their site onto a
neighboring site or onto the public right of way.
And although that's probably happening now because some
of those are very old and probably were not subject to those
requirements. When you have new development, that actually
should improve from the stormwater management perspective,
the current situation. Actually it should improve the current
situation as opposed to exacerbating it under the conditions that
they have to meet, whether it's the South Florida Water
Management permit or the Collier County Water Management
permit.
The South Florida Water Management District is the
jurisdictional agency, but they allow the county to review the
water management on small parcels, and many of those would
be small parcels that the county would review.
And they have to submit an engineered water management
plan that shows that they are retaining their water on-site. And
then when a certain level or storm event is reached, that water
has to be discharged into a conveyance.
And so that's just one small part of your question, but I
thought I would share that with you. I wasn't sure if you knew
that those requirements were already in place for commercial
development.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Bob, isn't the same also true of parking
requirements?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, any impervious. Any impervious area.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: A question for Debra. Did I
understand you to say that the sidewalks are going to serve as
bike paths, as well?
MS. PRESTON: Not at the current time, but what we would
like to see evolve is, right now, the sidewalks that they're putting
in with the landscape program are only five feet wide within the
sort of urban area. We'd like to see those sidewalks expand,
because even in just a pedestrian neighborhood, you would want
to see wider sidewalks than five feet when you're trying to
encourage pedestrian traffic in a shopping area or in a
Page 11
November 1, 2000
commercial mixed use area.
And so we are going to evolve into a wider sidewalk later
on,
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Are the serpentine sidewalks, are
they south of this area that we're talking about here? MS. PRESTON: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: That would be sort of a challenge to
the bike riders.
MS. PRESTON: You're right. This section where the overlay
is, this is a -- they're using decorative pavement for their
sidewalks, and the serpentine area will be south of this overlay
area.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: And is that area to the south, is that
going to be the subject of another overlay or --
MS. PRESTON: It may be in the future. This was Phase I of
the overlay, letting that evolve as necessary.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, thank you. I've got a quick
question, and obviously it was not a part of the meeting. Why --
what was the reason -- and a prohibited use of this drive-through
establishment.
MS. PRESTON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I was thinking in terms of banks and
pharmacies. Even those, too, under the --
MS. PRESTON: Because this is a small section, really,
where we're bringing in the neighborhood commercial area -- I
believe there are four or five blocks and those blocks are very
narrow, the hope is to create this as more of a tourist destination
place, and listening to the residents, they don't want a lot of
traffic that might be generated down their local streets into
where the single families are. So we're prohibiting the
drive-through establishments. It's not to say you can't have a
walkup bank teller, though.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Anybody else, comments
about the Bayshore overlay? Guess not. Thank you. Ron?
MR. NINO: The next item on your agenda has to do with the
proposal for Goodland zoning overlay, and the thrust of that
overlay is to limit the height of buildings in the VR district to two
stories above the mean flood elevation.
There are a number of people here to speak to that, and one,
in particular, has offered to speak for a majority of the people
Page 12
November 1, 2000
and asked to be allowed more than five minutes that you allow
the speakers.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Before you start, Ron --
MR. NINO: I've asked Ray Bellows to give brief overlay for
you.
MR. BELLOWS: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, Ray Bellows, principal planner with the current planning
staff.
I have held over 10 public hearings down in Goodland to
discuss various items the residents had wanted to express on
things that range from parking in the swales, storage of crab
traps.
The main item of their concern was building heights.
Limiting habitable levels, two levels over the mean flood
elevation.
The other concerns that were raised during the public
meetings down there was dealing with single-family VR lots. The
current plotted lots are 45-foot wide and 4,250 square feet. The
current VR district requires a 60-foot wide and 6,000 square foot
lots.
So this zoning overlay would allow for those lots to be
conforming and any new subdivisions to be compatible with the
existing platted single family VR lots.
I sent out a survey of property owners, 152 were returned.
The main responses indicated support for limiting the building
heights and reduce the VR lots. We will continue to have
meetings in Goodland to add additional development standards
dealing with some of the other issues I mentioned earlier. Can I answer any questions?
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: In your first paragraph where it says,
"Change is reduced from 60 to 50 feet," is that supposed to be 60
to 45 feet, or am I confused?
MR. BELLOWS: You don't have the current printout. The
printout I have -- and it's correct in your actual underlined
version.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: What does that mean? Current
underlined version?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Over here.
MR. BELLOWS: Section 2.2.3, 34.4.2, it's 4,275 square feet
and the minimum lot width is 45 feet.
Page 13
November 1, 2000
The current version, the packets went out before that error
was caught.
MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman?
MR. BELLOWS: There is also -- the next item is section
2.2.35, which deals with a building moratorium for multi-family
dwellings in the VR district.
Bob, did you want to address that?
MR. MULHERE: Go ahead, Margie.
MS. STUDENT: I can address that. This is an alternative
provision.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The moratorium?
MS. STUDENT: Yes. Only in case the overlay does not get
adopted, then the moratorium is in here because a moratorium
needs to be done as part of the Land Development Code cycle as
an amendment. So that's why it's in here.
That if the overlay is not adopted, then that would control to
allow staff to do further studies to come up with an overlay that
would, you know, pass muster with the Board of County
Commissioners, if they don't -- if they have problems with this
one.
I also want to point out that this was taken from the two
other moratoria that we did pursuant to the order to the order of
the Governor's Cabinet, and I have comments on this. They may
have to be cleaned up, you know, between now and the next
meeting.
And also when I gave the information to Ray, the prohibited
uses would mirror what the changes in the overlay and it would
be multi-family, residential, in excess of two buildings -- excuse
me -- of two levels of habitable space. Just like you see what's
changed here, and I didn't have that information when I gave it to
Mr. Bellows.
MR. MULHERE: Perhaps -- sorry, Bob Mulhere, for the
record. I think it would be beneficial to step back a little bit.
The staff--
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Before you start, I'm confused. If we're
going to vote on the thing and if we don't get what we want,
we're going to have a moratorium?
MR. MULHERE: Right, and I can explain. That's part of what
I'll explain to you.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay.
Page 14
November 1, 2000
MR. MULHERE: Going back post a particular site
development plan that was approved for a multi-family structure
in Goodland, called Dolphins Cove, the residents in Goodland
were upset about the type of development that could be built, in
this specific example, under the current regulations. And for
that reason, they petitioned the board to direct the staff to work
with them to create an overlay that would address their
concerns as a community. And so as Ray indicated, we've been
working with them for some time to do that.
There are a number of concerns that probably haven't been
fully addressed yet. Under normal circumstances, we would
come back to you when we completed our work with them with a
singular overlay that had everything addressed that the
community wished to have addressed.
However, in this case, there was concern there were some
vacant VR properties still remaining in Goodland. And so long as
that vacant property could be constructed, the community
expressed concerns that they wanted address at least the height
issue as quickly as possible.
They brought their concerns to the board and the board
basically directed the staff to bring back as much of the overlay
that we could develop the time frames to date, in this cycle,
including specifically the height issues and at the same time, the
Goodland Civic Association also petitioned the board to direct
staff to adopt -- to bring forward at the same time, as Marjorie
indicated, a moratorium, such that if the board was inclined to
feel that it was legitimate to put a temporary moratorium in
place to prevent further development, in case we had not gotten
far enough in the overlay process to address the height issues.
I certainly don't know what direction the board ultimately
will take here, but we're bringing forward both a
recommendation from the community to limit height in the VR
district as far as this overlay, and alternatively, there is language
in here for a moratorium. You can support probably one or the
other or neither.
I'm sure there's a lot of public comment on that.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sure there is. I'm going to be
interested to hear that, but anyway. Pain Stoppelbein indicated
she'd be speaking for a lot more people, and has asked for a
greater length of time.
Page 15
November 1, 2000
MS. STOPPELBEIN: Well, we do have the next two items on
the agenda. I am Pan Stoppelbein. I am the secretary for the
Goodland Civic Association.
We are simply the mouthpiece for our community, little
small, 300 residents, one square mile island. Some of our
Goodlanders are here today. Could I just ask them to stand up
for a minute because I'm talking for them? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure.
MS. STOPPELBEIN: A few. This is not -- trust me, we could
have filled this place.
We don't have any professionals to speak for us so if you will
just indulge me, I'm doing a little presentation. This has been a
very long, uphill battle, it's probably just about 10 minutes. It's
kind of important that you see where we stand so you
understand where we're going.
Several of you on the commission were here in April of '99
when we defended our request for a change in zoning increments
to limit the allowable habitable floors in the VR district to two
floors over one of parking and a 35 height allowance.
I know that we sent some packages to you, I hope you've
had time to review the materials. It shows newspaper articles,
presentation materials, maps, pictures, and the schematics of
Dolphin Cove. If this material was reviewed it should give you a
good picture of what's been happening in Goodland over the past
two and a half years.
The events that prompted our concern for change to VR
zoning was the approval of the site development plan for a large
multi-family development, Dolphin Cove, which allows 15.2 units
per acre for 76 units, a development that would literally double
the population of Goodland.
For the record, we want you to know that we are still in the
appeal process, and we're fighting that plan stating it doesn't
comply with the county code.
We knew our enemy was the density ratings allowed in VR.
Half of the lots in Goodland are zoned VR and allows 15.2 units
per acre. Currently in Goodland, development in VR is all
single-family homes. Everywhere else in the county, areas of
single-family homes have a density rating of 4 units per acre.
We wanted to ultimately reduce the density allowed, but at
the time, Planning Services Department said density could only
Page16
November 1, 2000
be addressed through the comprehensive plan process.
So we asked if we change the height of the buildings, we
could, in effect, limit the number of units allowed and affectively
reduce the density.
Mr. Mulhere said at the time that we couldn't change the
height of the buildings during the LDC cycle. He said maybe we
could reduce the number of units by limiting the number of floors
allowed and that would be our best attack in that LDC cycle.
We needed to do something as soon as possible to keep any
other developments of the magnitude of Dolphin Cove from
getting building permits and overwhelming the village's
population.
So we began the process, first appearing before your
commission for two meetings, April and May of '99. You heard
our arguments for changing zoning, and you agreed with us and
made your recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners to change the zoning to two floors over one of
parking.
We then appeared and presented our case before the Board
of County Commissioners in meetings in May and June of '99.
The commissioners, after much discussion and presentations by
our group, and by the attorneys and architect for the developer
who owns this large tract zoned VR, decided that if the height of
the buildings was to remain at 35 feet, then what was the big
deal if you had two floors or three floors, you still had the same
height.
The commissioners in the meeting asked the County
Attorney Weigel, if the height of the buildings could be changed,
because if so, then it would make sense to limit the number of
floors. County Attorney Weigel, after reviewing his code book,
said that yes, in fact, height could have been changed.
Mr. Mulhere, as it turned out, told us an untruth. When
several months before we had asked him if we could change the
height, he told us no. So the commissioners, after more
discussion, voted to limit the number of habitable floors allowed
in VR of three over one rather than our request for two over one.
But they did direct the staff to begin work on the zoning
overlay for Goodland stating that during this overlay process we
could address other concerns, such as land uses, architecture,
as well as height.
Page 17
November 1, 2000
So the community started on another journey, that of the
overlay process. We were optimistic that the county was
providing the method for us to protect the village character. We
had our first meeting in January 2000, when Ray Nino, Ray
Bellows, and Bob Mulhere spoke before a large turnout of
property owners at a civic association meeting, where the
county staff talked about the overlay process. It's a tough
process.
It's a lot of people, not understanding a very complex issue.
The question was asked during that meeting, though, was, what
if we go through this entire process, make our recommendations
to the commissioners, and they still vote against our request?
The response was that there are no promises, but in cases where
there is an overwhelming desire for a change, a community's
wishes are most likely to be fulfilled.
If only our combined voices could be heard if it was one
burrowing owl, we'd consider bringing one. Well, anyway, here
we are having gone from our first meeting before you in the
spring of '99 to our many public overlay meetings, surveys,
discussions, arguments, diversionary tactics, misunderstandings,
understandings, a better understanding, and now we're
presenting our request to you again.
There were many other items of concern addressed in the
many overlay meetings, but we decided to focus on the two main
issues that have overwhelming community support for this LDC
cycle. Then we will address the other items in the spring 2001
cycle.
The main issues are building height, with number of floors
and lot width. We're trying to do this to limit the size of any
project to be developed on the last parcel of land of VR property
in Goodland, that's likely to be issued permits in the very near
future.
However, we stand before you today feeling very angry,
disillusioned and unhappy about the whole process that we've
gone through. Mr. Mulhere has again said he cannot address
height, but only number of floors. He said we haven't had enough
meetings during which the public can talk about the specific
number of feet. We've been discussing it but the paperwork is all
verbiage generated by the county, and it's just frustrating.
This effectively leaves the door open, again. A very real
Page 18
November 1, 2000
possibility for the commissioners to say, '~Nhat's the big deal? If
you have two floors or three floors, the height is still 35 feet."
We feel we've been manipulated during this entire process
and that the commissioners are being lobbied by the developer of
the last large parcel so they can be certain to build three over
one.
This parcel stands as a gateway to our village. It's the first
thing you're going to see when you come and visit us. Mr.
Mulhere has said that we could address height in the spring of
2001, after we've had more public meetings, but by that time,
there's no question whatsoever that the developer will have had
time to get their building permits through the process and be
approved for three over one. That's why we're looking at the
moratorium.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, less than two weeks ago at the
October 24th Board of County Commissioners board meeting,
publicly stated that even if the planning commission votes for
two over one, it doesn't mean that they have to vote that way.
She intends to go three over one. Her mind is made up before
she even hears what the community has to say in our overlay
process.
She has been effectively lobbied by the attorney for the
developer of that last tract of VR property. We're on record
today saying we want height addressed, we want height and VR
reduced in this LDC cycle just as we wanted it, we asked for it in
the LDC cycle in the spring of '99.
But we were denied, and we're facing the same denial in
this LDC cycle. We want height reduced and VR in this cycle,
and if the height is not reduced, we want a building moratorium
on issuance of building permits in VR, and we want a moratorium
issued during this LDC cycle if they can't agree on approving a
reduction in height.
We're starting fresh with this commission and on a new,
hopefully, unlobbied Board of County Commissioners, with the
hope you'll carefully consider the impact of just what one project
makes in a village only a mile square in size.
We ask that you do the right thing for those of us who
appreciate the historical significance of Goodland and want to
see it preserved. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Page 19
November 1, 2000
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anybody have any questions?
MR. MULHERE: May I make a couple of comments, since my
name was mentioned?
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We thought you might.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. I have never spoken to anyone with
respect -- nor have I ever said that height could not be regulated
through the Land Development Code amendment. In 11 years of
doing this, I'm well aware of the fact that height can be
regulated through Land Development Code amendments.
What I did say was that we may not support the reduction in
the height. And what I also said was that the best methodology
-- back in '99 it was a correct statement -- I felt the best issue or
methodology to address the density concerns, since density -- to
change the density you would have to do A Comprehensive plan
amendment and it would trigger Bert J. Harris Act issues -- I did
indicate that a reduction in height would reduce the mass, and
the mass of the structure was, at least at that time in my mind,
of equal concern to the residents of Goodland, at least that's the
indications I got.
So by reducing the height, you would reduce the mass and
also, probably, reduce the number of dwelling units because you
can't get as big a structure on there.
But in this cycle, I have never suggested that you couldn't
address the height, that's what we're here for; that's why we're
reviewing this amendment. What I have said is that the staff
may not necessarily support a height reduction in just the VR
district when the single-family district and other districts allow a
height of 35 feet.
And it's certainly an issue that needs to be discussed. So I
think it's an incorrect quote, especially since I didn't speak to
anybody.
MS. STOPPELBEIN: Exactly, but you're--
MR. MULHERE: Well, was it Bob Mulhere or was it Ray
Bellows? Who said that?
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Wait a minute, wait a minute.
MS. STOPPELBEIN: Since Mr. Bellows has been the one
that's been attending or conducting the overlay meetings, so
we've been specifically asking these questions over and over.
Because those are our main concerns and the paperwork
which we keep getting coming back, doesn't say height, it says
Page 20
November 1, 2000
floors.
And it is two distinct issues. And we've been saying the
height all along. Floors are important, too, but to us they're kind
of synonymous. We are not professionals, all we want is two
floors of reasonable height. We are a very low -- we're a low
density, but we're also a low --
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Low scale.
MS. STOPPELBEIN: -- low profile village, and we want to
keep it that way.
MR. MULHERE: And I concur that height and floors are both
the issue. It is -- they are both the issue.
MS. STOPPELBEIN: Why don't you all agree on what we're
asking for, that's all.
MR. BELLOWS: I'd just like to make a point of clarification,
since I was chairing the meetings down there in Goodland. The
question came up, since the zoning questionnaire for the zoning
overlay went out, did not specifically address the height
limitation and only discussions during public meetings down
there dealt with the number of habitable levels above flood
elevation, I felt that after talking with Ron NINO and Bob
MULHERE that we really needed to have more discussion prior to
making that an amendment that would be brought before you
today. And there was no time to really get that kind of detailed
discussion.
So there may have been confusion on that.
MS. STOPPELBEIN: But we've been discussing it all along.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any questions of this petitioner?
COMMISSIONER BUDD: I have a question of Bob. Bob, when
is the - Mulhere - when is the new commission seated?
MR. MULHERE: The first meeting is November 24th?
MR. NINO: 28th.
MR. MULHERE: 28th.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: This will come to the new
commission rather than the sitting one? MR. MULHERE: Yes, it will.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any final questions before this
petitioner? Yes.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: In the material that I read, it
seemed that the overwhelming preponderance of those who live
in Goodland are in favor of limiting the height for the floor
Page 21
November 1, 2000
structure. Ray, wouldn't the county agree with these people or
what is their reason to disagree, if they do?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, as I mentioned, I mailed out a survey
questionnaire to all of the residents, property owners. And that
had a specific question dealing with height. And during the
public meetings, we never discussed the actual height
restrictions, only the number of levels of habitable space.
So therefore, we came up with an LDC amendment creating
the Goodland zoning overlays that talked about height
limitations. Along with that statement I think that we would be
remiss with those residents who felt that that wasn't part of the
discussion and that we may be trying to slip something through.
So I told the residents that we needed further meetings and
have a direct mailing to really discuss what should it be; 30 feet,
28 feet. I mean, it was never discussed, so I felt that we before
we can have an actual thought-out discussion we needed to
provide graphics, like what Mr. Mulhere previously discussed,
how that would affect scale of sizes and structures.
I think all that should be discussed prior to just throwing it
out there in a public hearing.
MR. MULHERE: May I just say -- I'm sorry -- I just wanted to
add that, putting things in perspective we're talking about, it is
true that there is, I don't know the total amount of VR zoning.
Most of it is developed. There's a two-acre undeveloped parcel,
a single two acre undeveloped parcel. The balance is developed
with single family structures.
And it is true that they could be, arguably, they could be
aggregated and the single-family structures could be sold off and
you could come back in with a multifamily structure. So the
application does go beyond just that, that one or two acre vacant
parcel
MS. STOPPELBEIN: What we're looking at in the future.
MR. MULHERE: Right. And I recognize the object here is to
look at the future. It's simply a question of how you apply the
height restrictions. If you are going to apply them solely to the
VR district and to what extent, and if you wish to apply them to
other zoning districts in Goodland to retain that community and
village character.
And they apparently haven't gotten that far along in the
overlay process to look at these issues as it relates to other
Page 22
November 1, 2000
zoning districts down there.
So we're only talking about at this point in time, VR. And
that's one of the concerns that the staff has. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, thank you.
MS. STOPPELBEIN: We are only talking about VR, that's all
that matters. And in all fairness, I have to admit that with this
overlay process came, just educating our residents on a specific
complex project was a huge task for Mr. Bellows to undertake.
But that actual survey that they keep mentioning, started
out in the beginning it had everything but the kitchen sink in it. I
mean, every concern that all governments have. And it just
filtered, filtered, filtered, filtered, and by county process just
taking out what they felt didn't have enough backing. Just like
today we're here just on the two items. And perhaps the height
just got lost in the shuffle, but we've been discussing it all along,
that's always been our main concern.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Are there any other
speakers?
MR. NINO: Yes, we have two other speakers. Wayne Arnold
and Richard Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich,
representing Goodland LLC, the owner of the vacant two-acre
parcel remaining on Goodland.
I don't want to spend a whole lot of time rehashing history,
but I think you need to have a complete understanding of what
the history of the Goodland VR zoning dispute has been.
In April of last year, there was a proposed Land
Development Code amendment that came to the Planning
Commission. As you know, there's no specific advertising for
what is before the Planning Commission for proposed changes to
the LDC. It's very general. You've got to comb through all the
documents.
My client had come down to take care of her father who was
ill and did not know the process, and frankly, in between your
hearings and the board hearings, she contacted me to say, "What
do I do about this?" I said well, we've got to go before the Board
of County Commissioners and make a presentation to them,
since we've missed our opportunity in front of the Planning
Commission.
Page 23
November 1, 2000
And that is what we did. We made a presentation to the
Board of County Commissioners as to why three over one, three
residential floors over one of parking, was a better alternative for
the residents of Goodland than two residential floors over one of
parking.
That was heavily debated by both sides in front of the Board
of County Commissioners, and Mr. Arnold will take you through
our presentation to show you why three over one, which is
currently in the code, is better than two over one.
But what is important for this Planning Commission to know,
is that this issue has been debated, it has been resolved by the
Board of County Commissioners, and they blessed it, it was
about a year ago, and they said three over one is what we
approve.
Nothing has changed in a year other than an overlay process
was begun. The overlay process has been spearheaded, in our
belief, by the Golden Gate Civic Association. County staff is
responding to what the civic association has said and at the
civic association meetings.
I do not believe your staff has endorsed --
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Don't you mean Goodland?
MR. YOVANOVICH: What did I say?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Golden Gate.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, Freudian slip there.
MS. RAUTIO: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I've had that one before.
didn't mean to get ahead of myself here.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Goodland.
we're going through now.
I apologize, I
You're right, Goodland.
I think that's what
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Goodland, anyway. Golden Gate's
another story and I've been here before on that one. As far as
Goodland goes, the Goodland Civic Association has been driving
the overlay process. It's been people they've selected to be on
the committee. It has not been a committee that has been
appointed by the Board of County Commissioners to come up
with an overlay process. It has been a process that, quite
frankly, has been cut short.
There was a survey that was sent out. The survey had 44
percent of the residents of Goodland respond. Originally, only 35
Page 24
November 1, 2000
percent of the residents responded by the established date, so
they needed to extend the time to get more surveys in.
So what you're hearing is recommendations from a minority
of the people of Goodland because over half of them did not
respond to the survey.
(Remarks from the audience.)
MR. YOVANOVICH: Are we going to keep doing that?
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. So, anyway, you're hearing
from less than half of the actual residents of Goodland. You
need to know that. In addition, the survey that went out never
mentions, should we reduce height, should we go higher.
The survey simply says, and I'll read you the question that
they're citing as the overwhelming support is, "Should building
heights of structures in residential and commercial zoning
districts be addressed as a component of the zoning overlay?"
That's both residential and commercial. That's the survey that
went out.
It doesn't say how do we address it, it says, yes, we should
address and have dialogue over it.
There was one meeting after the survey results were
compiled to discuss where do we go from here? And at that
meeting where I'm told -- I was not at the meeting -- there were
10 people present. And those 10 people present decided two
over one was the appropriate recommendation to get into the
Land Development Code at this time. (Remarks from the audience.)
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know. What amount was it?
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Rich, you address us and I will address
the audience. We're professionals here, we're taking testimony.
If you want some discussion, it goes to the hall. No one made
comments when your representative was speaking, we don't
expect comments from the crowd, snickers, laughs. Please,
okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, I apologize for getting
distracted.
So it's our position that the overlay, the proposed two over
one in the current, in the language in front of you is one, it's
already been discussed, and was rejected by the Board of County
Commissioners.
Page 25
November 1, 2000
The survey results that they are representing to you didn't
get to the final question, it just says let's have a discussion. And
that discussion lasted over one meeting, because they were in a
hurry to get into this cycle, forgetting the impact of what does
that to property owners and property rights.
And it's a very impactful thing to the one property that is
undeveloped, and there is not doubt that this is targeted at that
one property. They even said that. They want to stop the
development on this property. They do not want three over one.
Have they shown you any planning reasons for that? No.
Mr. Arnold will go through the planning reasons why the code is
fine as it is and it will be -- what they're telling you building
heights and density are not addressed anywhere in this
provision.
Instead, they've given us a choice. Take the two over one or
take the moratorium. Now, what kind of choice is that? It's not
a choice. There's no sound reason for a moratorium because all
the VR property they've already told you is developed.
Ray has told you that the average size is roughly 4,500
square feet for a VR parcel. You've got to have a minimum of
one acre to rezone to multifamily, or develop multifamily. You
would have to put together 10 parcels, 10 contiguous parcels,
before you can develop a multifamily project on Goodland.
If everybody is opposed to multifamily on Goodland, I would
say it would be nearly impossible to assimilate 10 contiguous
parcels to develop a multifamily project. So this is not targeted
to redevelopment. It is targeted to the development of the one
vacant piece because you will not be able to -- I'm betting money
-- you would not be able to put together 10 contiguous parcels to
develop a multifamily piece.
What we hope is that we be allowed to go forward. We said
we could live with three over one on the one vacant piece. That
doesn't mean will build three over one, just means we have that
option.
Those are very valuable property rights and the property
was acquired under the old Land Development Code which would
have allowed four over one, like Dolphin Cove. But we voluntarily
agreed to the three over one through the last cycle, to
compromise.
So what we would like to see happen is, leave it as is, and
Page 26
November 1, 2000
do this in a slow, deliberate, well thought out process as to what
is appropriate for Goodland.
Do like you've done in all other cases, where you've done a
complete overlay, not a piecemeal overlay, and don't impose a
moratorium. You just talked about the Bayshore overlay. That
was a comprehensive overlay, done properly. Done with the
citizens and did not involve a moratorium while you were coming
up with appropriate standards.
We're just requesting that we be treated like most other
overlays that have been adopted by the county commission and
gone through you all for review and recommendation.
And with that, if you have any questions for me regarding
legal issues.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE:
MR. YOVANOVICH:
CHAIRMAN WRAGE:
Is Mr. Arnold going to address density?
He's going to address it all for you.
Thank you.
MS. STUDENT: I need to respond to something Mr.
Yovanovich said. The case law is very clear. He said there was
no sound basis for a moratorium.
If a local government needs to do a study of some type
before presenting an ordinance amendment or a comp plan
amendment, a moratorium is appropriate. And I would cite as
authority for that, Franklin County vs. Leisure Properties.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't remember if I said there is no
sound authority. I said there's no reason.
MS. STUDENT: -- original basis and I beg to disagree with
you.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to be clear in my mind,
your reference to the overlay being created by members of the
Golden -- excuse me, Goodland --
MR. YOVANOVICH: See, see, they're both with a "G".
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- Goodland Civic Association, and
the implication was there that this should be done by a
committee appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. I'm
not clear on that process. Could you sort of elaborate on that a
little bit because it seems to me that -- I just want pontificate for
a minute here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It seems to me that neighbors are
getting together talking about this, and that neighbors have the
Page 27
November 1, 2000
right to do that sort of thing. So their association has been
pretty vocal, whether you agree with them or don't agree with
them.
Is there something that they're doing incorrectly?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, what I am saying to you is, you
need to have all of the affected property owners and types at the
table having the discussion in order to build consensus.
And as you know, we have that same problem with what we
have now in the rural area where you have the -- you now have
landowners voluntarily placing a moratorium on themselves or
recommended that because they were not at the table. There
were decisions made when they were not at the table.
We had to invite ourselves to the table and sit in the
meetings. There should have been a committee appointed,
either by the civic association and blessed by the board or by the
board, making sure that everybody who was affected had a voice
at the table. And we don't believe that that occurred.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. That was one thing I did
want to clarify for myself. And the other part of it is, I'm a strong
proponent of private property rights and this a government action
that would be occurring if we change the heights or the floors, et
cetera. Does that not then trigger the Bert Harris Act if this goes
through, or not?
MS. STUDENT: He'll probably say yes, and I'm going to say
no. And I say that because this has been going on for a number
of years and how you can have reasonable investment
specifications on a vacant piece of property when you know
there's been a lot of contention about the height, I don't know
how you can say that's reasonable. I would say it will not. But
you will probably say it will.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's very fact specific.
MS. STUDENT: I think that's true.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me tell you, we bought the property
before there was a discussion regarding Dolphin Cove in front of
you. So the only discussion regarding height occurred, as they
have told you, in April of 1999.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But if you had more discussions
and were invited to the table, you feel like you would have more
input to representing this particular property owner?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think at least we would have had an
Page 28
November 1, 2000
opportunity to fairly voice our opinion. We may still disagree,
and that's okay. We can disagree and put on our case in front of
you all. But we don't believe the process was a process that
invited open feedback to where people were given a fair
opportunity to discuss their views.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I suspect --
MR. BELLOWS: I'd just like to point out, the first meeting
starting in January, they're all advertised in the Naples Daily
News as public hearings. Everyone in Goodland was invited to
attend. These were not private meetings, they were public
meetings -- advertised public meetings.
Mr. Arnold attended many of them; Mr. Yovanovich attended
many of them. The property owner of the vacant VR lot attended
many. Over half of the meetings, someone representing that
property owner was at those meetings.
So I can't make everyone attend the meetings. I just
advertise them and if people come, they come.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me -- and I don't want to belabor this
point.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Let's not.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we attended the meetings
because they were public. But there was a committee appointed
by the association to specifically do the overlay. And we asked,
my client asked to be on that committee and she was denied
access to the committee. So the only way she could voice her
opinion was at the public meeting.
I will tell you, I only went to one of those meetings, and I
lost my temper -- and I never lose my temper -- because it was
just a difficult situation for anyone to be heard; including them
and me.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. You did clarify what I
was concerned about. So there is a distinction between the
group and the actual -- unlike so many other civic associations --
they want the person representing the property owner or
representative at their meetings to listen, whether they agree
with them or not.
I've been through several of them at the Golden Gate Civic
Association. That was what your point was, that you didn't feel
you were invited to those types of meetings.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
Page 29
November 1, 2000
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And you were at the public
hearings. Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We were at the public hearings.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Wasn't there a meeting at which
your client was supposed to have been the main speaker in
talking to members of the Goodland Civic Association, and she
never appeared?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well --
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I saw it in the press. No, I mean
they announced the meeting and the speaker did not come.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that I'm not aware of and my
client's in the back saying no. But as far as that was the process
as we -- as I've outlaid it for you. On the Bert Harris issue, we
can respectfully disagree with you.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I've allowed a lot of latitude here and
emotions are running high, but I would like to hear any further
testimony, if you have any.
MR. MULHERE: That was the former owner or part owner of
the Dolphin Cove project. Has absolutely nothing to do with
these folks.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Arnold?
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Wayne Arnold. I'm representing
Goodland LLC.
I'd like to go over a few of the planning considerations, but
not to belabor the point regarding the survey. I think the point at
which we jumped off track here was the fact that there was a lot
of discussion, and there was a lot of contentious discussion over
the course of the last year.
The survey instrument was prepared, it was sent out to all
property owners in Goodland, it was received by all of those
people, returned by something like 44 point something percent of
those people.
Mr. Yovanovich read to you the question of which is being
discussed as supporting a two over one, versus a three over one
increase in height, decrease in height. Well, the fact is it didn't
say anything about increase and decreasing. It also discussed
commercial properties. Commercial properties are not on the
table tonight. But Seaport Property, which is also a prevalent
zoning district in Goodland permits 100 foot high buildings. The
issue seems to be multi-family, and it's clearly being targeted at
Page 30
November 1, 2000
one single lot owner.
I think the process of a survey ended where, yes, a majority
of the people said, yes, building heights should be discussed as a
component of the overlay. That overlay should have continued,
and what I'm about to show you, should're been some of the
discussion that was held as an ongoing dialogue, because other
property owners are clearly VR property owners, but the way
that the language is addressed tonight, it affects one property. It
doesn't affect the multitudes of VR property owners.
I know Mr. Bellows has told me that he has the numbers
relative to the response rate and who responded based on their
zoning district. But I think he -- he has that information. But I
know there are a lot of VR zoning property owners out there, but
only one is being singled out, and one is affected by the proposal
tonight.
So what I'd like to do is take you through some of the
analysis that I gave the Board of County Commissioners last
year, about this time, to demonstrate to them why two over one
may not be better for Goodland, necessary, and may result in
some conditions that they don't necessarily want to see.
I'm not going to belabor the point. I'm going to try to hold it
short, just to make the key points for you. If you have any
questions, then I can certainly answer those. This was an
exhibit -- excuse me. That was an aerial exhibit of Goodland, and
what I've done is highlighted the VR piece of property that's the
subject parcel tonight. The State Road 92, or now County Road
92, as you come on the island, it's the first piece of property.
There's a commercial building with C-4 zoning that sits in front of
the VR parcel. You have VR here. You have residential single
family to the south of that, but you also have the Calusa Bay
Marina here. You have a mobile home park across the canal.
You have a lot of commercial up in the north end of Goodland.
And this was the subject Dolphin Cove property that's now under
construction. It's no longer on the table. It's not owned by our
client.
So what we're talking about is the one just slightly over a
two acre parcel of land, that's zoned VR in Goodland. It's a very
irregularly shaped piece in that it's narrow. It's constrained by
the waterway. What we had done was we created an exhibit
that showed what you could potentially have with three over one,
Page 31
November 1, 2000
versus what you could have with two over one. The top of this
diagram highlights a two over one situation on roughly a two
acre parcel of land. It has the same exact number of dwelling
units on it as you do on the bottom part of my page. It's also
showing a three story configuration over one story parking.
The result is you end up with more lot coverage, and
especially on a waterfront lot, you diminish waterfront views.
You certainly end up having, to me, a larger mass building,
because it's the same height. It's still a 35-foot high building.
But now you've basically taken and put two living units above
parking, and you've stretched this building out along the entire
length of the property, because people are not going to give up
their density. They're buying it by the unit. They're not buying it
by the acre.
So if I'm entitled to put 30 dwelling units there, I'm going to
put 30 dwelling units on that; whether it's a two story or three
story.
The hope of some of the residents of Goodland has been
that if they push the building down far enough, it makes it spread
out far enough, that I might lose a unit or two, because I can't
physically fit all of those on there by the time I meet building
setbacks, et cetera. But, let's face it, if this is an argument
about character and community character, I still have a 35-foot
high building. The single family districts allow 35-foot high
buildings. I can put mobile homes with pilings -- under pilings
(sic) on the same property. I don't know how that necessarily
promotes the character of Goodland. But what we're really
debating is multi-family. I think that's, clear and simple, the
argument here tonight. But what I'm trying to show to you is I
end up with more green space, if I can build three story
buildings, than I end up with three story buildings. I also end up
with a lot more site flexibility in arranging my buildings there, so
that I can maybe put larger and more amenities on the site, as
opposed to just more units, because I can't put more units than
I'm permitted. The comp. plan controls, and I'm permitted a
certain density on the property.
We also have created a couple of other exhibits that were
not well received by some of the residents in the audience. But
what we've created were sort of a little comparison of what you
might reasonably have to the right, two stories over one level of
Page 32
November 1, 2000
parking, 35-feet high, or three stories over parking, 35-feet high.
It's exactly the same height and, in fact, this area takes up
much less length in building area than my two story does. Yet, I
can still fit it in the same building envelope, if you will, taking a
conceptual two acre piece of property.
And what I would suggest to you is that this may not be so
bad, and I'm not sure why that you wouldn't want to force
somebody into doing two over one, which makes you have a
much larger building. And I know the debate's going to be, well,
that's an ugly two story building. Well, the fact of the matter is
what's proposed in the overlay does absolutely nothing to
guarantee character, unless you define character as only the
number of building floors.
And I would respectfully say that -- that we can look around
-- take any example, take the best example you want, take
downtown Naples, and just because you can have a height of 42
feet as your maximum, in that particular case, does not
guarantee good architecture, nor maintaining the character of a
community.
I think character of a community is much more than
building height. And I hope that those two examples
demonstrate to you that you don't necessarily get good
character by limiting the number of stories.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What -- Dolphin Cove seems
to be the bogeyman in all of this.
What is its characteristic heightwise, storywise?
MR. ARNOLD: Dolphin Cove is also a 35-foot high building.
The developer of Dolphin Cove figured out a way that they could
actually put four living floors over parking. Part of that as I
understand it, I didn't work on the project, I'm not -- we're not the
engineer of record, but apparently part of the site was excavated
in order to allow under building parking to get enough height, and
then they went above flood elevation, 35 feet, and within that 35
feet, you could put four living, habitable floors.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Eight --
MR. ARNOLD: Now, again, they didn't increase the height,
and they didn't increase the total number of units that they were
permitted to put on the site. But to some of the residents, the
four story, and I think just the overall look of that building, was
objectionable to them. Although, when I go on Goodland it's hard
Page 33
November 1, 2000
to define the character of Goodland, because there is such --
such, I guess, diversity of housing types, because it is largely VR.
And I think as Mr. Mulhere could probably tell you after
researching it, VR has been maybe a catch-all district for many,
many years. It permitted -- at one time permitted commercial
zoning districts, it permitted marina related, fishing related
commercial uses. Right now it permits mobile homes, single
families, duplexes and multi-family uses.
So it is a catch-all. And I think part of the issue, and I think
a good example is the Bayshore corridor that Mr. Yovanovich
mentioned, and you just heard that discussion tonight. If there
was a concern that multi-family is not desired here or is out of
character, I would submit to you that there may be some
opportunities where it could really be in the character of
Goodland, and may not be intrusive or incompatible, if that's the
feeling with some of the people, because, frankly, our client
owns the only site where you can develop something that is
consistent with today's code.
We've just now, with our action tonight, tried to endorse all
of the nonconformities that have existed over time, by reducing
the lot dimensions to 45 feet for a single-family home. And I
think that, you know, part of the overlay said let's endorse these
so that people can improve their properties. And what I'm seeing
is our client's opportunity to improve their vacant VR zoned
property is diminished by the actions of reducing height.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What's the width of your
property?
MR. ARNOLD: That property is nominally about 140, 150,
160. It varies because it is on the waterfront, and it's only
partially seawall. But I think as Mr. Yovanovich also mentioned,
it is an unprecedented action to even look toward a moratorium
during this process. We've had overlay districts now established
for Immokalee. We've had Golden Gate, Marco Island, Bayshore
Drive, Gateway triangle, and in none of those examples have we
ever contemplated a moratorium, especially one that affects two
acres of property.
And I even object to the act that we have an LDC
amendment that's pending that affects two acres of property. An
LDC affects a wide range of properties. We're not saying all VR
zoned properties that may exist on Goodland, Immokalee,
Page 34
November 1, 2000
Copeland, Chokoloskee should be subject to this. We're saying
only on Goodland should this be addressed. And not only that, it
should only be addressed for multi-family housing and only on
one piece of property.
So I would just submit to you that the appropriate way to
handle this is to continue the overlay process. We continue to
have dialogue. They continue to develop standards that are
appropriate for Goodland. There were many things discussed
throughout these meetings, anything from the ability to store
crab traps and fishing related items in your yard without having
threats of Code Enforcement violations, to parking and, you
know, off your driveway and off normal parking lots, to whether
or not you should have bed and breakfast opportunities in this
fishing village, if you will.
And several of those items were discussed. Some received
more support through the survey process and some didn't. But I
think we really need to make this thing evolve and say, okay,
building heights were an issue, but is there an area that says two
over one was acceptable? No. It was discussed at a lot of
meetings, primarily because it was the proposal from last year
that the Board of County Commissioners rejected. They
supported three over one because it has merits. It also at that
time was directed at two pieces of property, now one.
And I think that when you look at what you gain by allowing
the flexibility in site design, and three over one, versus two over
one, you can agree that -- that it's not necessarily a character
issue of building height.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Anyone have any
questions from the commissioners. Okay. I -- you know, we've
allowed certain latitudes to the previous speakers, and I want
you-all to have a chance to say your say. Please keep it brief. If
you've got something to add or new, we'd be happy to hear it,
and I will accept no personal attacks, okay, to me or anybody
else --
MR. FULMER: You don't have to worry about me.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- to me or anybody else.
MR. FULMER: My name's Edward J. Fulmer. Vice President
of the Goodland Civic Association. To dispute some of the
previous people's testimony here, it sounded like we were in a
law of court. The Goodland Civic Association was advised by
Page 35
November 1, 2000
County that we were to appoint a committee, which we did. We
took a cross section of all the citizens that lived in Goodland,
and we appointed a committee under their advice.
So to say that there wasn't a committee appointed, is
definitely wrong. I was chairman of it. All right. Another thing
about the height, in the first survey, when there was 48
questions in there, there was a question in there, which I
personally wrote, at 28 feet that was taken out by County. In
residential, the zoning height is 30 feet in Goodland. Not 35. It's
30. Yes, there is 100-foot height in C-4, and there's 50-foot
height in C-5. We were advised by the County that they were
going to take care of that situation on their own, for it was not a
discussion at any of the public meetings.
As far as the County Commissioners voting two over one
last year, the County Commissioners did vote two over one. It
was a three to two vote. Mr. Norris, Mr. Constantine and Mr.
Carter voted for it. Ms. Barry and Ms. Mackie in public
statements at meetings voted against it, and it had to be a super
majority.
So the commission did vote for it. It was three to two. But
it was not a super majority. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any other speakers? Yes,
ma'am, briefly.
MRS. STOPPELBEIN: Just one quick thing.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You have to come to the microphone.
MRS. STOPPELBEIN: There is another -- another parcel.
There's -- that is large enough to be developed. It's just not in
controversy right now. It's in trusteeship. There's a gentleman
ready to die, but it can be developed shortly.
So it's not just that, but you've got to remember we're only
a mile. So there are -- there aren't that many properties. We're
not against development per se. But also another thing about
not being represented, it's so totally unfair, because the property
owner is a member of our association, who is there at every
meeting that she wants to come to. And gets all of our mailings,
is privy to all of our discussions, all of our meetings, sitting there
with everyone. So, you know, that's -- that's not true.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay.
MRS. STOPPELBEIN: They've had every opportunity.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay.
Page 36
November 1, 2000
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have one real quick question.
What is the membership of your civic association? Do you know
offhand?
MRS. STOPPELBEIN: Two hundred seventeen. Out of-- I
don't know our exact number of residents, but it's about :350, and
-- but all of these mailings, and every mailing that we have goes
to -- we get the property rolls at the Property Appraiser's Office.
So it's all residents, and it's not just members of the association.
We mail everything to all property owners, all residents.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. We will see
you in two weeks, I'm sure.
MRS. STOPPELBEIN: Yes, you will.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. That's good. Any further
comments, Commissioners? If not, Ron, can we move on -- MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- to the next item?
MR. NINO: We'll move on through some of these, before we
get to the next major -- major amendment that's before you.
This is an amendment that would prohibit Carrotwood from
being introduced into Collier County. I think that pretty -- speaks
for itself.
The next one is Minimum Landscape Requirements.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: This is on a prohibited exotic --
MR. NINO: Yes, prohibited exotic --
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- species. Is that the handout that we
got?
MR. NINO: That's simply supplementary information to
explain why Carrotwood is bad.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. So no one wishes to speak
about the Carrotwood?
MR. NINO: Anyone wish to speak about the Carrotwood?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'd just simply say let's put it on
the list, because it's a pain.
MR. NINO: Okay. That's what we intend to do.
Minimum landscape requirements, the next item requires
the cross-referencing of landscape requirements between the
communications tower section and the landscaping section, and
introduces the requirement for a buffer.
The next item is a -- is a correction. It's a scrivener's error
kind of amendment that replaces the word "minimum" with the
Page 37
November 1, 2000
word "maximum." Again, I think, that's pretty straightforward.
The next item has to do with allowing logos -- to exempt
logos from a consideration that they are signs, when an erected
-- when they are nothing more than embossments along -- along a
wall or fence that encircles a development. For example, the
fleur-de-lis on the Lely Resort wall, technically is considered a
sign. There isn't any verbiage on it. We are saying it ought not
to be a sign. And that's nothing more than an architectural
embellishment.
The next item is to increase the setback -- no, to
administratively allow staff to deal with minor after-the-fact
encroachments that were -- where a certificate of occupancy has
been issued for up to two feet, right, Ross? Do you want to add
to that?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Was that a question?
MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE:
much?
MR. NINO: Two feet.
My question is, you're right, how
Isn't it two feet, Ross?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Yeah. After a certificate -- a certificate
of occupancy was granted, it's a maximum of two feet. The
problem is what they have now in the code relates only to the
current code, and we have cases where these minor
encroachments occurred under previous codes, and we want to
adjust the language so that whatever the setback was at the
time the certificate of occupancy was issued, that's the setback
we'll base the administrative variance on. Otherwise, people
would have to go through a full-blown after-the-fact variance, and
that would almost certainly be granted. I'm sorry, for the record,
Ross Gochenaur, Collier County Planning Services.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I don't know if I'm comfortable
with two feet, but, maybe it's just me, because two feet is, in
some instances, quite a bit.
MR. GOCHENAUR: Actually, we're not amending what's
currently in the code right now. We're just applying that to
previous errors that were done under previous codes.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay.
MR. NINO: And we're not establishing any -- an incentive to
build in contravention of current regulations.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, that's what pops into my mind,
Page 38
November 1, 2000
you know, it's kind of like, I don't get -- on a creditor's report, if
I'm 30 days late, so I make my payment on 29 days.
MR. NINO: The next amendment is a -- to deal with a
scrivener's error and to -- and to allow -- for a long time -- well,
it's not for a long time, about four or five years ago, the fence
ordinance -- the fence provisions were amended to require the
so-called structural member side to face away from the property.
That was done about four or five years ago. The fact remains
that there are, perhaps, in my opinion, the majority of the fences
in -- throughout the community, in fact, have their structural
members facing the neighbor, not inward through the lot.
There's also some suggestion that fences really -- today's
fences really don't have a good side and a bad side, per se, but
have a structural side and a finished side. And neither one of
them can be deemed to be bad or good. However, to err on the
safe side, this amendment proposes that the structural -- the
smooth side, when it is next to a public street, the smooth side
has to face the public street, but the interior line, the structural
member, can, indeed, face the neighbor.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Is this some sort of a Code
Enforcement thing we're trying to resolve at all?
MR. NINO: Well, we get -- we get countless, the land
development code provides for an administrative decision to
what it, in fact, allows the structural side to face the neighbor--
the neighbor. And we get an inordinate amount of requests for
that administrative interpretation. And our track record is that
most of them are approved. And if you approve something
administratively, then the regulation is incorrect.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So these are requests before you
have --
MR. NINO: Right.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- a problem with any
enforcement.
MR. NINO: Correct. And all too often we have approved
them, and if you administratively approve a variance, then the
regulation is overburdensome and shouldn't be there.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Most of the time.
MR. NINO: Most of the time, right.
The next amendment is an amendment to our dock
facilities. And I would like Ross to talk about that.
Page 39
November 1, 2000
MR. GOCHENAUR: Are there any questions about that
particular amendment?
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Do we have that many non-residential
docks in Collier County?
MR. GOCHENAUR: No, we don't. But it was kind of a glitch
in the code that it didn't specifically tell us how we evaluate
commercial docks.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: There simply can't be any place left in
Collier County that's going to build a dock, I mean --
MR. GOCHENAUR: Not many. Goodland -- I'm sorry,
Goodland, on the brain. Isle of Capri still has some undeveloped
property where they wanted to put commercial docks.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. NINO: Next item deals with motion picture, television
production, amends the code limiting the required permit to
commercial production. The commercial production,
clarification of the insurance requirement. It's pretty
straightforward there what the amendment is about.
Do you have any questions about it? Fred Reischl, who is
the author of that, will be happy to talk to you about it.
The next item has to do with the establishment of an annual
beach events permit for basically commercial properties which
front the Gulf of Mexico. I'd like you to take that up in concert
with -- there's a vehicles on the beach regulation on page five of
your Summary Agenda. See if I can be very brief on explaining
this. For years, the hotels in particular, have been conducting
numerous annual -- numerous events in which the event spills
over onto the beach into the public domain. By and large a -- by
and large the functions we suggest to you are occurring on their
properties, that are -- that are zoned commercial. And the
activities are permitted activities. And we have been dealing
with them on a -- on a special basis, and we've felt that we really
lacked regulation that specifically dealt with that. So we
developed a notion of an annual beach events permit, as opposed
to your more traditional temporary use permits for special
events.
Quite frankly we didn't think that those dealt fairly with the
issue. Obviously, you know, this is a very economic -- has very
economic -- great economic significance to Collier County and to
the hotels, and really required -- really required our attention, in
Page 40
November 1, 2000
terms of dealing fairly with the issue of allowing the hotel to
operate in front of their hotels and on portions of the beach in --
without having to come and see us every time they wanted to
have an event.
I think your package includes all of the administrative
regulations that go with this. The actual structure of the beach
permit, and you'll note that it specifically addresses that, in
terms of 150 days, calendar days. The earlier drafts of this, I
might suggest, the earlier drafts of this provided for 175 days.
That was one of the concerns of one of the members of the
DSAC. And we have subsequently reduced that to 150 calendar
days and provided a fee schedule that we think is responsive to
the demands that that oversight on the part of our Code
Enforcements staff brings to the table of Collier County.
The regulations, including the vehicle on the beach
regulations, deal more specifically with protecting -- making sure
that those activities do not destroy the natural features of that
beach, and, indeed, at turtle time, are sensitive to the turtle
nesting requirements.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Excuse me, Ron.
MR. NINO: Barbara Burgeson, who had a lot to do with this,
in conjunction, let me say that there was -- let me go back and
say that there was a committee established consisting of
representatives of the hotel industry, our Code Enforcement
staff, our natural resources staff, our environmental staff, and
what's before you is the product of those deliberations. Not
anywhere near, I suspect, to the satisfaction of the hotel
industry, but nevertheless, a reasonable product of that
deliberative process, which doesn't make them entirely happy,
and they're going to talk to you about that tonight. But if you're
looking for any specific discussion of that, I would invite Barbara
Burgeson to speak to the Board and Bob Mulhere himself had a
lot of input into this, and really was the final drafter of
regulations when it came right down to it.
MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to add that one of the issues
that is a little bit outstanding that I think perhaps
representatives of the Hotel Industry will talk to you about is the
prohibition on utilizing a motorized vehicle to bring equipment to
and from, even in some severely restricted manner, to and from
the hotel property to the beach for special events. We allow a
Page 41
November 1, 2000
handcart as it's currently structured. We don't allow the use of
let's say an ATV, and there is some issues that -- and the reason
that we have done that is we understand there was some
concerns or objections from the Beach Renourishment
Committee. We think we've structured the regulation to address
sea turtle concerns, but we also want to go to the Beach
Renourishment Committee and find out what their concerns are,
and if there's an opportunity, we are not necessarily opposed to
allowing very limited utilization of a motorized vehicle. In fact,
there's an argument to be made that that would have no greater
impact. It might even have a lesser impact, than repeated
utilization of, let's say, a handcart that's loaded up with the same
weight of materials.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But these motorized vehicles is strictly
to egress and ingress the equipment. MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Not motorized stuff for the water and --
MR. MULHERE: No, no, no. It's to bring -- it's to bring
towels or perhaps tables or whatever, you know, needs to be set
up that is difficult.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Has there been a lot of input from say
the public on this? Have you --
MR. MULHERE: Well, one of the principal, you know,
considerations here was also to make sure that we didn't -- that
nothing that we did interfered with the public's ability to traverse
the beach. There has been a lot of input. There's been a lot of
input relative to environmental concerns, and there were some
questions asked about the degree to which the public's ability to
traverse from the high water mark down would be impacted. The
regulations are intended to prohibit any -- any prohibition or any
interference with the public's right to use the beach.
But, I think, really Ron's right, our concern was, we
recognize that this is a very viable industry here, that they have
certain rights to utilize that beachfront property, but we also
have an obligation to make sure the public's not impacted and
that the natural resources are protected, and we wanted to try to
develop a position that did both, addressed the economic issues
and protected the environment.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. Could you just
answer it, or let me know how many properties, beachfront
Page 42
November 1, 2000
properties or hotels we're talking about? What's the number?
MR. MULHERE: At this point in time I think we're talking
about five.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Five. Okay. And it did say here,
concerns of Code Enforcement, et cetera. Is this solving a Code
Enforcement problem? Have we had a lot of problems -- well, of
course, driving up and down the beach is one thing, but -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- what about the not getting the
proper permits or overspilling permits, what are we talking about
in Code Enforcement numbers?
MR. MULHERE: Oh, I'll let Michelle talk to you on that
issue. I know that there was an issue with Code Enforcement
that sort of started this. It started with a -- a, I think, a Ritz
Carlton function that didn't have a permit, but I'm not sure if I
stated that wrong. I apologize, maybe I shouldn't -- a hotel that
didn't ever -- point is -- point is it -- all it did was raise the issue of
the inadequacies of the regulations that we had from our
perspective.
MS. ARNOLD: With respect to Code Enforcement -- for the
record, Michelle Arnold. I can't give you numbers, as far as how
many violations we have off the top of my head, because I didn't
prepare those for tonight's meeting. But we have had issues as
Bob Mulhere indicated, with respect to responding to concerns
with sea turtle nesting season, you know, vehicles and other
equipment being placed on the beach during that time frame,
which were not adhering to those regulations, and we have had
concerns where activities were occurring that a temporary use
permit would have ordinarily been required, but, you know, we
respond to it that night and the next day the event is over.
So, you know, there's no after-the-fact permit that is issued
in those cases.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: With all due respect to the
commercial aspect, which, of course, as a businessperson I
support, but are we trying to create a land development code on
a change that's going to solve violations, that's why I really want
to know how many violations there were, and what the nature is,
because it seems like we suddenly have, you know, big bad guys
doing what they're not supposed to be doing and instead of
having to worry about it and change it, we're going to say, gee,
Page 43
November 1, 2000
now it's okay.
MS. ARNOLD: What I can do is I can have those numbers
for you at your next meeting. I'm sorry. I apologize I didn't have
them tonight.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: If you wouldn't mind, because I --
I'm sensitive to both issues here, that -- being able to use
something, and it seems reasonable. However, I'm not sure that
we want to just sort of give a blanket permit.
MR. MULHERE: Right. This issue was raised at the DSAC.
And there was a lot of discussion about it. And it really wasn't
our intent to sort of look at a habitual offender situation and then
obviate the need or, you know, to change the code to
accommodate them. That really wasn't it. If you think about it,
what we looked at was, gee, is it reasonable -- and some very
expensive pieces of property that are on the beach, who
operated a -- in a climate of attracting tourists to utilize that
beachfront property, is it reasonable to assume that they can
only have 28 events in a calendar year? And we looked at it as
an opportunity for the staff to, in a professional manner, address
the deficiencies and the unique nature of beachfront property
versus maybe a Coca-Cola sale at a gas station. And we felt as
though that the number of 28 per year was causing an
unnecessary amount of Code Enforcement activity. Albeit, they
were, you know, there were -- because there is a discussion here
as to whether or not a beachfront property, if it's entirely on their
property, they'll tell you they don't need a temporary use permit.
We'll tell them you do need one, because you may have live
music. You may have other things.
So we're saying you do. We trying to come up with a
reasonable approach here, you know.
So, I mean, your question is a very, very valid one. It was
raised at a DSAC, were we just accommodating habitual Code
Enforcement violations by changing the regulation? I don't think
that's the case. We can come up with the numbers, but I do
think it was originally driven or brought to our attention and
that's when I looked at it and said, let's set up a committee and
address these issues.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And it would be interesting to
know if, you know, any of this sea turtle nesting have been
impacted, because that's a respect issue, because we need that
Page 44
November 1, 2000
beach and the hotels need the beach to do what they're doing.
So that's very real. So they have to make sure that staff
and other people are really paying attention to what's occurring
at that special event. And I think, didn't we discuss one private
club here that we were talking about people coming in, and we
were trying to limit the number of times they could be on the
beach, et cetera? We went through that process a while back.
And they're not a hotel, though. It's a private club.
MR. MULHERE: That's right. This wouldn't apply to private
clubs. But the other, I mean, you raise a very important issue,
and part of the reason, the way we structured this amendment is
that they will be required, even though they're -- again, it's really
a matter of convenience to allow a -- an annual permit that
allows for a certain number of events. But they are still going to
be required to notify us of the date and the time of every
individual event, and we will still send somebody out there to
inspect for every single event if need be.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: If need be?
MR. MULHERE: Correct. I mean, I think we're going to look
at it and say -- I mean, in sea turtle we might go out for every
one, but we don't have go out for every single one right now. I
mean, the point is we don't have the staff to go out and look at
every single special event to make sure they're complying. When
we know there's a violation we send somebody out, or if we find
out that someone consistently isn't complying, then we begin to
take more aggressive action. And, Michelle, perhaps you could
speak to that issue. But that's the way it -- we don't send
somebody out for every single special event that occurs. We just
don't have the staff to do that, the hotel or otherwise.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: So we want to create a law that doesn't
necessarily -- that protects us in case of a violation, but that
doesn't necessarily assume that there will always be a violation.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That is an interesting concept.
MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with
Planning Services. To address your question regarding concerns
during sea turtle nesting season, we have limitations in this
section that references that vehicle on the beach permits have
to be issued in conjunction with the vehicle on the beach
sections. And that's a discussion that we'll have a little bit later,
Page 45
November 1, 2000
or we can have it right now if you prefer. That section prohibits
these -- the use of the vehicles during sea turtle nesting season.
So it does not -- does not allow the vehicle on the beach
exception certificates to be issued during sea turtle nesting
season for these uses.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Does not.
MS. BURGESON: Does not.
MR. NINO: It's important to add that this process offered us
a window of opportunity to bring those regulations into the Code,
and to provide for a more structured environment in which the
hotels will operate to that extent that they spill over on the
beach. We never had that kind of structured situation, and now
this gives us an opportunity to do that.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think the terminology spill over
on the beach is fascinating, though, because you're purposely
going onto the beach. You're not spilling over. You're planning
an event that uses that particular piece of real estate that's so
important to our economy and that hotel.
MR. MULHERE: If you talk to the hotel industry, they're
going to tell you that they own almost to the water and, in fact,
they do. They own to the mean high water mark on the Gulf of
Mexico. And they're really not spilling over to anything. They
are operating off of their own property. And they have
representatives here that are going to tell you that. And we're
kind of pushing the envelope to some extent, and they have --
they're still pushing the envelope and operating within this
structured environment that we've created. They might're
gotten their backs up and said something different, but they
haven't.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, I agree, you know, they've got to
be good neighbors, too. I don't have any problem with it.
Someone else want to address --
MR. NINO: Yes. We have people from the industry who, I
think have some issues they want to raise. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay.
MR. RABINSKI: For the record, Matt Rabinski, on behalf of
the Ritz Carlton. Are there any questions that any of you would
like to ask specifically? I think that Bob and Ron and Barbara
pretty much laid out -- laid out the story for you pretty well. I just
want to, I guess, reiterate and stress the fact that this was a
Page 46
November 1, 2000
collaborative effort between the hotel industry and property
owners, as well as representatives from Collier County, as well
as representatives from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection at the local level, as well as at the state level. We
have held numerous meetings and discussions regarding this
issue.
Bob was right, it did all sort of come to a head by the Ritz
Carlton having an event on the beach without a permit. And they
didn't know that they needed one.
Again, we were maintained -- as Bob and Ron have
indicated, that the commercial property owners shouldn't under
the current code have to get a temporary use permit if they're
conducting commercial activities on their property. If the Ritz
Carlton wanted -- I've used this argument many times. So I
apologize for those of you that have already heard, but -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But I haven't. I'm really
interested in it.
MR. RABINSKI: If the Ritz Carlton wanted to have a
cocktail reception for 35 of its guests in its Rose Garden, you
would not require them to have a temporary use permit. MR. MULHERE: That's true.
MR. RABINSKI: If they wanted to have it at their pool, no
one would say, hey, you need a temporary use permit. I mean,
they're in -- they're in the business of hospitality and
accommodating their guests. When they're out on the beach,
they are conducting their special events on the portion of the
beach that they own.
They actually own now to -- it's not the mean high water
line. It's the erosion control line that was set when they did the
beach renourishment. But they have approximately at least 50
to 60 feet of beach if not more. That is on their property. That is
zoned for commercial use. That they have been using since the
hotel was constructed and commenced its operations.
Now, we have always asserted that we shouldn't be
regulated at all for this, but we recognize Collier County's
interest to regulate us and work with us. And Collier County has
recognized that we are the commercial property owners, and
that we do have interests and rights that need to be protected,
not just for ourselves but for the tourists that come down and
pump a lot of money into this economy; for the thousands of
Page 47
November 1, 2000
employees of these hotels that are residents of this county.
With respect to the vehicle on the beach amendment,
because I know that's probably a lot more controversial than the
annual events beach permit. Couple things that I wanted to
point out. In our review of the land development code, when we
started looking at the vehicle on the beach language, if you look
at the current language, it basically prohibits everything. It --
basically if something has a wheel on it, it's prohibited. If
something can be called an implement, and I'm still not sure
what an implement is, but if a Code Enforcement Officer can call
something an implement with wheels, it's prohibited.
Now, I'm not sure why there is such a blanket and drastic
prohibition originally, but I think part of the reason was that the
language in the current Code actually originated from an
ordinance that was passed back in 1977, over 23 years ago. I
think back then due to the nature of vehicles and lack of certain
types of vehicles and technology that we have at our disposal
now to reduce impacts, or even by using such vehicles, actually
reduce even further than that which would be allowed now under
the code, as far as impacts to the beach.
We're not asking -- although some concerned citizens or
concerned environmentalists may wave red flags and say, oh,
we're going to have ATV's riding up and down the beach. That's
not the case. The current language would only allow the ATV to
basically get out on the beach far enough to turn around and go
back up to the upland portion of the property.
Actually right now the Ritz Carlton is about to commence
construction of a separate service boardwalk for that purpose.
And under the current code the only portion of the beach that
that vehicle would be allowed -- that the ATV would be allowed
to turn upon, would be a turn around area, a drop off area,
unless, of course, the ATV is being used to rake the beach, which
the land development code already permits. Under -- under the
code, the tires can only put up to 10 PSI on the beach surface. A
175 pound human being puts about 12 PSI, per square inch.
So concerns about beach impaction, I think, are really
moot. And I'd also like to point out that when you look at these
ATV's with these special inflatable beach tires that impact the
beach less, I'd like to point out that like I said, I'll remind you for
-- the current language based on the code was basically
Page 48
November 1, 2000
originated in 1997. Four-wheel ATV's were not mass produced
until around 1984, and their predecessors, the three-wheel
ATV's, actually came about about six years earlier, which
would've been at the most right about the time that this 1977
ordinance was enacted.
So, basically, I would suggest that the current vehicle on
the beach regulations and that portion of the code, especially the
way it affects the current commercial property owners, is simply
out of date and needs to be revised, at least a little bit. We're
not asking for a whole lot. We basically, under the current code,
we have the bare minimum that we need to operate on the
beach, and with the technology that we have nowadays where
the special types of vehicles, with the special types of tires, I
see no reason why it shouldn't pass.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I guess I'm confused. What you're
saying is you support what we have in front of us; is that right?
MR. RABINSKI: Since I'm here on behalf of the Ritz,
absolutely.
MR. NINO: Well, you support it, but you would like to see
some greater allowance for motorized vehicles for set-up, am I --
MR. RABINSKI: If possible. Like I said, under the current
code anything with a wheel is considered a vehicle. You know,
the Ritz has handcarts right now they couldn't -- they can't use
that under the current code, they can't use the ATV with the
special trailer it has to take the hundreds of towels that they
need to get out to the beach every day to service their guests.
So instead they've had a three-ring circus with these,
basically, oversized plastic wagons, that they've been pushing up
and down the beach. The County still required a permit for
these, because those are somehow considered vehicles on the
beach. You know, and I still question, what is the harm that they
are causing that the County is really trying to prevent and
regulate? We talked about Code Enforcement problems.
Sometimes we're trying to regulate problems that I don't think
are really problems, because they're not causing any particular
harm to the beach. I would like to see the language in the
current -- in the current draft that's before you changed
somewhat to allow a continued drop off area on the beach during
sea turtle nesting season, provided that a sea turtle monitoring
program is in place.
Page 49
November 1, 2000
Right now, I know at least the Ritz Carlton has established
a monitoring program. Occasionally they have had some slipups,
and some problems, but when you're a hotel operating with a
1,000 employees, it's difficult to watch everyone at the same
time. And it's difficult to educate everyone on the rules, when
the rules are in the process of changing. But given the fact that
the hotel's allowed to rake the beach during sea turtle nesting
season after a state certified monitor has come and inspected
the beach and cleared it, I would see no reason why the hotels
could not continue to also have a drop off point on the beach for
purposes of beach events that occur during sea turtle nesting
season.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any questions from
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Can you -- do you know how many
times you were in violation? Is it once?
MS. ARNOLD: It was more than once.
MR. RABINSKI: It think it was more than once, but I think,
two, three times?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No. I was just curious if you
know off the top of your head. We don't have to belabor it.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm not sure if that's relevant, but
anyway.
MR. ALBITE: Good evening.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm sorry--
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Do you have -- on the points, do you
have any questions?
off.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Gary, it might be relevant.
MR. MULHERE: You've got all the information. Let's go on.
MR. RABINSKI: Yeah. We're going to go encircles here.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But I don't want to cut the gentleman
MR. RABINSKI: No further questions.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you.
MR. ALBITE: Good evening. Ron Albite, Registry Resort.
Good evening, and I just want to start by thanking the County
staff. I believe -- we are very much -- I feel very comfortable with
the ordinance or the amendment as it has been presented today.
And we've worked very hard with Barbara, Ron and Robert to get
Page 50
November 1, 2000
it there.
The one issue that I'd like to expand upon is in turtle
nesting season, and if you're aware of the Registry operation, we
operate a kayak, canoe facility for our local residents, as well as
resort guests. In fact statistically 65 percent to 70 percent of
the people who come to our beach are county residents. And so,
therefore, we're serving the county at -- in a large way. Clam
Pass, where they -- where our canoe rides and kayak rides mostly
take place, is probably about half a mile from where our station
is. Where the pods are. And, so, therefore, in turtle nesting
season, there would be no way to operate the concession unless
you had some method of being able to take the canoes down on
a daily basis to the pass.
Now, we're worked currently under a special CCL/SL
variance that has allowed us to operate this turtle nesting
season. I want you to know for the record that we've operated --
I'm fairly new here, but we've operated since the hotel was built,
as it is today, without certain requirements being met, out of
ignorance that there were requirements to be met quite honestly.
However, be that as it may, we're here today and working on
fixing things, working together to make sure that we do all
understand the code, and could adhere to it, but again to operate
the business in -- and six months of the year we're talking now.
So this is not a short period of time to be able to operate the
concession. We do also have special events also in the
summertime or in turtle nesting season, that is also very close to
where the pass is.
So, you know, we've gone through this, and I'm glad Robert
raised it, because if there'd be anything that we would like to
see, in addition to what has been presented today, it would be
some method to allow us to operate in turtle nesting season,
with various requirements, you know, we've remodeled the pod
down there just recently. Reopened the boardwalk as you-all
know, and we did it with new pilings going down, almost 100
pilings being plowed into the earth, into the beach during a turtle
nesting season, but it was determined that that didn't impact --
with environmental. They tested it. It was not an impact. It was
not an impact after every morning where the turtle inspectors
would come, we would get the okay and the all clear to be able
to continue our project, and under those same restrictions, the
Page 51
November 1, 2000
same that we do for raking the beach. We rake our beach every
morning as the Ritz does.
We're asking for that same consideration that after
inspection, that it's under the same almost guideline, once in the
morning or twice in the morning, go set up the concession and at
the end of the day break it down by being able to access the
beach with our ATV. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? Is -- I guess I'd like to
ask staff, is it unreasonable what they're asking. I realize we're
talking the two premier establishments, and maybe someone
else down on the beach might not be as vigilant as they are. Is
that --
MS. BURGESON: The reason that we did not add any
vehicular use during sea turtle nesting season was partly
because we had no input from the public or from any of the
environmental groups in this process that would cause us to be
concerned about the additional sea turtle nesting concerns.
So we did not -- we didn't add use during sea turtle nesting
season because we didn't -- I didn't feel that it was appropriate
without having those groups have input during the process.
However, the other -- the other issue --
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But they would've been aware of the
process, right?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Didn't they get invited?
MR. MULHERE.' What group, specifically?
MS. BURGESON: Conservancy.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We are talking about the
environmental groups had no input, and I can't believe that if
they were concerned that they would not have been there.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But we've been before this and
had a speaker or two representing that group saying that they
didn't understand the process, and I think they understand it
better than they ever did before, but if they're not invited, they
may not feel welcome.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So what you're saying, we
can change this later if it became input from, let's say the
Conservancy and some of the other groups.
MS. BURGESON: They weren't involved in the process,
because initially it wasn't something that we were concerned,
we weren't expecting to address additional use during sea turtle
Page 52
November 1, 2000
nesting season.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is Moira Krause involved in
all this? She's sort of the foster mother of all these turtles.
MS. BURGESON: Yes. She did -- she did attend these
meetings.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: She has no problem with any
of this?
MS. BURGESON: I think she's okay with the language as
it's written today, without the additional use during sea turtle
nesting season.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Without the additional use?
MS. BURGESON: Yes.
MR. RABINSKI: We never really addressed it. We were
keeping it separate, because this is a change in the code. It was
almost, should we get this piece accomplished this year, and
then address the remainder next year? And that, be it as it may,
is great, but we're going to have to file for another CCSL
variance. Hopefully it will be approved, but that's never a given.
And to operate a very, very important part of our financial
operation is our concession at the beach.
So I think that's what ended up happening and there is
some other plans for our particular needs, not necessarily the
Ritz's needs, of the redoing of the nature trails, if you will, that
used to exist. That's also -- I'm not sure exactly where the mean
high water tide or coastal line is, but I believe that we would be
able to utilize that path, if it was revitalized, and, I guess, Moira
has applied for a grant for that. She's on board for our use.
Moira Krause works very closely with our staff on a daily basis,
and knows exactly the type of business we've been running down
there, and quite honestly, I don't know if anybody here can really
ascertain the impact that an ATV, and I think it's been discussed
a little bit already, that the difference of an ATV during turtle
nesting season versus a push cart, versus a 175 -- there's lots of
challenges, you know, issues that I think under a controlled
environment, I don't even believe Mora would have a problem of
a limited use of bringing something down after turtles have been
inspected and nests have been identified, and you stay clear of
them. You bring your operation, you set it up, break it down, and
at the end of the night you break it down. I don't think there'd be
anybody opposed, and I think we're more referring to some
Page 53
November 1, 2000
organizations that really weren't involved. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: I think it was our intent to look at those
issues, and if we -- if we felt comfortable to try to create the kind
of restrictions that would have still allowed reasonable use even
during sea turtle, as long as the resource was protected.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Maybe they should just kind of
like go forward and not have a problem and worry about the sea
turtle nesting season at some other time to get what they've got
nOW,
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Speaking of going forward.
MR. NINO: Let me add -- let me add that both of these
issues did receive the attention of the EAC or EAB, and met with
their -- they recommended approval.
The next item deals with communications towers. There
are two amendments here dealing with -- well, the first one deals
with the location of governmental towers as the central services
facility. Don Murray is here to discuss that with you, but I think
it's pretty straightforward. It provides an overlay district
basically along 1-75 corridor and provides the towers within the
right-of-way. Our permitted use is conditionally permitted use is
if the height exceeds 20 feet and they have to be of a
governmental nature. Correct?
MR. MURRAY: Correct. Any questions?
MR. NINO: The next item deals with the landscaping -- I'm
sorry we went there. Next items deals with the requirement to
landscape around the towers.
The next item deals with a land alteration permit process.
We don't currently have a process for issuing a permit for golf
courses, and, you know, the problems with that that generated
for collecting fees.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We have a process now.
MR. NINO: And the land alteration permit provides us with
an opportunity to make sure we catch everything that is
happening out there in terms of disrupting the natural land.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I don't see anybody objecting to that.
MR. NINO: Architectural and site design. This amendment
proposes to require architectural approval of buildings that are
typically permitted in residential districts, such as churches, day
Page 54
November 1, 2000
care centers, and the list of uses that might otherwise be
conditionally permitted in a residential district along arterial and
collector roads. Those uses are not now subject to architectural
regulations. And our experience has been that some of the
results of those buildings that have occurred along the public
highways has not been very architecturally satisfying, and the
result of which it generated an amendment, this amendment to
the regulation.
However, since the regulations have been advertised it
came to our attention via a meeting at St. John Evangelist
Catholic Church that there were some concerns, that if you apply
the regulations to churches in the same way as they're applied to
commercial buildings, that it might indeed curtail some artistic
expression and we need to further modify that provision. And I
have suggested language for accomplishing that. I'm going to
hand it up. That basically provides for alternative architectural
design responses to the strict standards that are in the
architectural section of the Code, and makes them subject to
administrative approval.
It provides for more flexibility, basically.
The next amendment has to do with preliminary subdivision
plats, to clarify during the preliminary plat process whether a
road is a public or a private road.
Tom, do you want to add any comment to that?
MR. KUCK: Not unless -- if they have any questions, I'll be
more than happy to comment on it.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just have a comment. Should
that be PUD's only, or should it be other streets, as well, that's a
-- and we can work that out with Steven. I just want to -- I'm not
going to take up your time.
MR. NINO: The next item has to do with street lighting. We
need to improve our street lighting requirements and properly
reference them to national standards, and that's what that does.
The next item, again, has to do with subdivision
improvements, changing the size of conduits for water services
from a minimum three-inch diameter to four-inch diameter.
The next item has to do with explosives. This prohibits
blasting on new sub -- new subdivision site development plans
when located within 350 feet of structures or county roadways.
Let me tell you that we've had some concern expressed
Page 55
November 1, 2000
about that from -- I don't see them at this meeting. Particularly,
from the meeting that I attended at St. John's Evangelist Church.
There is some concern that -- that would affect their ability to
blast for the water management facilities that they yet expect
they're going to have to do at St. John's Evangelist Church. And
there was -- the suggestion was that you can lower the threshold
so that you bite off smaller pieces. And Tom has a response to
that. And I'm going to ask Tom to respond to it.
MR. KUCK: For the record, Tom Kuck, Engineering Review
Manager. One of the major problems we had with complaints
throughout the county is blasting. There's been so much blasting
going on. So I think each LDC cycle I've been before you, bring
up some new criteria and regulations of tightening up. This
particular one has been endorsed by the blasting contractors,
because they realize the problem and the liability of blasting in
the proximity of existing subdivisions. And I could give you a list
of the various subdivisions, how many phone calls we get on a
daily basis of people living there.
So what we're attempting to do is, and hopefully the
planners and the design engineers will take advantage of this,
instead of putting their lakes right adjacent to an existing
subdivision, form a buffer that moves those lakes a little bit
farther away, and protect the people that are living in existing
homes. That's what we're attempting to do, and they say the --
even the blasting contractors themselves have endorsed this.
We've had some other projects where they -- because of the
proximity of the water treatment plant out on 951, with the
Worthington Country Club, and they were concerned that they
would do some damages to the water facility there, and they did
come in and remove the rock by other mechanical means. Yes,
it's more expensive, but it worked out to everybody's advantage.
If you've got any questions, I'll be more than happy to try
and answer them. Thank you.
MR. NINO: Okay. The next item has to do with excavation
depths, it's self-explanatory, 12 to 20 feet.
Excavation status reports, the requirement to file a status
report.
The next item deals with vegetation removal. Remove a
dwelling unit from the language regarding exotic removal prior to
C.O. on residential lots. That has been to the EAC and they've --
Page 56
November 1, 2000
they've recommended approval of that, and all of the following
ones that are immediately after this one.
Sea turtle protection, endangered, threatened or listed
species.
If you have any questions, and Barbara is here to answer
those questions. We did vehicles on the beach.
And the last item is a typical street section. It's not the
last item, because I'm going to give you a couple more that are
not in this -- not in this summary sheet. And that brings us to the
end of those that are on the summary sheet. But as a result of
the last couple of weeks after this was mailed to you, a couple of
items came up that need your attention -- need to be included
within this cycle.
One has to do with the introduction of compactors. The
current regulation says you have to have a dumpster. It has to
be 500 feet from the structure it is intended to serve. There are
a number of projects lately that said, we want -- we'd rather use
a compactor. They, healthwise, are much better for the
environment, and they're not necessarily 500 feet from a
residence. And the county attorney and the Solid Waste and
yours truly conferenced on this and developed the following
amendments. The Solid Waste Department agreed that
compactors is an advanced technology and not to be allowed.
Basically that's the long and short of it.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: While you're passing that out, there
was no one to comment on the Code Report? MR. NINO: No.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Everyone's happy with the way that is?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We should have a party of
some sort.
MR. NINO: And let me say for the record what precipitated
this quite frankly -- what precipitated this was a number of code
violations where compactors were put in in lieu of dumpsters and
we had to cite them.
MS. BURGESON: For the record, again, Barbara Burgeson. I
just need to go on record on the amendment regarding the
protective species section that we wrote.
MR. NINO: Page 101 of your staff report.
MS. BURGESON: Section 711.3.3 discusses language that
would replace a small paragraph, and it would reference the
Page 57
November 1, 2000
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Habitat
Management Guidelines. I'd like to suggest that we delete just
that proposed change, 311.33 and go back to the original
language just for the time being, because it's very difficult for
people to get ahold of that set of guidelines from the State. And
I would not like to impose on the public guidelines that they
cannot get ahold of.
So until that becomes more accessible, I'd like to just drop
back to the original language that we had there. We can amend
it in the future.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just strike it altogether?
MS. BURGESON: Just under 3.11.3.3 (sic), strike the
change and go back to the original language. It's just too
difficult for the developers or for the public to get that language,
those guidelines at this time.
MR. NINO: The last amendment that I'd like to bring to your
attention is an amendment -- where is that -- the last amendment
cycle, you recall, reintroduced the floor area ratio of the 26 units
per acre for hotels. When we did that we really penalized small
properties within the RT zoning district, for all practical
purposes, along Gulf Shore Boulevard (sic). We really, in fact,
reduced their ability to have 26 units per acre for a type of hotel
that I would call more of a residential motel, where the units,
indeed, may be two bedroom units with kitchen upwards of 2000
square feet.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That's Gulfshore Drive?
MR. NINO: Gulfshore Drive. It's basically a limited area of
RT zoning that's primarily along there. This amendment would
give that lot, that property owner back what they enjoyed under
the previous amendment. It would say that for -- it would say
that 26 acres -- 26 units per acre are -- is allowed for parcels
containing two or less acres. And that in all other cases for
larger parcels, the floor area ratio that we instituted in the last
amendment would apply.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:
MR. NINO: And that's it, folks.
CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That is it.
adjourned.
That makes sense.
And I think we are
Page 58
November 1, 2000
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:25 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
GARY WRAGE, CHAIRMAN
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY KAYE GRAY AND DAWN
MCCONNELL
Page 59