Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/15/2000 SNovember 15, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Naples, Florida, November 15, 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: Gary Wrage Ken Abernathy Michael Pedone Russell A. Priddy Lora Jean Young NOT PRESENT: Russell Budd Joyceanna J. Rautio Sam Saadeh ALSO PRESENT: Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page1 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON LDC AND RELATED AMENDMENTS NOTICE OF MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2000 AT 5:05 PM COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S BOARD ROOM ADMINISTRATION BUILDING- 3RD FLOOR 3001 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL AGENDA 1. Amendment to Land Development Code (LDC) - Second Public Hearing (,4 sum~nary of the proposed LDC ,4mendments follows this page.) 2000 Land Development Code Amendments - CYCLE II Summary Sheet LDC Section Proposed I DSAC Amendment Recommendation EAC Recommendation CCPC Recommendation ~,ec: 2.1.5. Page 1 To amend the official zoning Z~oning atlas of Collier County for the purpose of revising the zoning Ron Nino--Current Planning district designation on a number of properties owned by Collier N/A County and which properties are either developed or intended to be improved as public recreational spaces to the "P" Public Use District. See: 2.2.2.3.21. Page 19 Amend the Rural Agricultural Rural Agricultural District zoning district to add criteria for Conditional Uses for tour Support staffs Fred Reischl - Current Planning operations such as airboat, recommendations swamp buggy and horse tours. Sec: 2.2.8.4.5. Page 23 ¥o amend 2.2.8.4.5 to reinstate a Maximum Density Permitted density of twenty-six (26) units per acre for hotels and motels Ron Nino-Current Planning for projects less than two (2) N/A acres in size. Sec: 2.2.10.1. Page 24 a, mend 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 N/A !permitted use section to allow single-family homes as defined in the LDC. Sec: 2.2.28. Page 26 Add text to the Main Street Overlay Subdistrict to prohibit [mmokalee Overlay District communication towers and to clarify the intent of the landscape Michelle Mosca-Comprehensive >rovision; add text to the SR 29 Commercial Overlay and the Planning Jefferson Avenue Commercial N/A Overlay Subdistricts to prohibit projects greater than 5,000 square feet in size from utilizing the existing landscape provisions for said subdistricts; and correct scrivener's errors. Sec: 2.2.33. Page 35 Bay Shore Overlay District (New) To create the Bayshore Drive N/A Debrah Preston-Comprehensive Mixed Use Overlay District Planning 11/09/00 1 2000 Land Development Code Amendments - CYCLE II Summary Sheet LDC Proposed DSAC I EAC CCPC Section Amendment Recommendation Recommendation Recommendation Sec: 2.2.34. Page 50 Fo create a Goodland Zoning Goodland Zoning Overlay 3verlay District that reduces the (GZO)District (New) a~aximum building height from :hree (3) levels of habitable space N/A Ray Bellows-Current Planning :o two (2) levels of habitable space for properties zoned Village Residential (VR) in Goodland only. Sec: 2.2.35. Page 52 Declaration Of A Partial Moratorium To declare a partial For Multi-Family Residential moratorium £or properties Development The Goodland Area. zoned Village Residential N/A Ray Bellows-Current Planning (VR) in the Goodland Area. Sec: 2.4.4.12. Page 54 Prohibited Exotic Species Add Carrotwood, Cupaniopsis. ~nacardioides, to the Support staffs recommendations Michelle Arnold-Code Enforcement Prohibited exotic species list Sec: 2.4.6. Page 55 Cross-referencing of Minimum Landscape landscape requirements Requirements >etween section 2.6.35 Communication towers and N/A Kim Maheuron-Current Planning Division 2.4 Landscaping and Nancy Siemion--Current Planning Buffering. Sec: 2.4.7.4. Page 57 Replace the word "minimum" Landscaping & Buffering Mth the correct word 'maximum" to describe spacing Nancy Siemion--Current Planning >f hedge material in an a. lternative B landscape buffer. Require landscaping along N/A internal roads of commercial developments. Require landscaping on the outside of fences or walls that front major roadway corridors. Sec: 2.5.5.1.6. Page 59 Allowing artistic expressions Signs and architectural Chahram Badamtchian--Current embellishments on walls of N/A ?lanning residential subdivisions. ISec: 2.6.4.2. Page 60 Add language stating that the ~linor After-The-Fact Yard criteria for administrative Encroachments approval of encroachments for structures for which a certificate Ross Gochenaur - Current Planning of occupancy (C/O) has been N/A granted will apply to the required /ard (setback) at the time of approval of the C/O. 11/09/00 2 2000 Land Development Code Amendments - CYCLE II Summary Sheet LDC Section Proposed Amendment DSAC EAC CCPC Recommendation Recommendation Recommendation Sec: 2.6.11. Page 61 1) Amend language to correct Fences scrivener's error in Section 2.6.11.2.4. of previous goss Gochenaur - Current Planning amendment. 2) Cross-reference fencing standards specified in Division 2.8 (Architectural & Site Design Standards & Guidelines for Commercial N/A 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- ~vay). Sec: 2.6.15. Page 63 Amend Section 2.6.15. tc Solid Waste Disposal allow solid waste compactors as an acceptable solid waste N/A Ron Nino-Current Planning :lisposal method. See: 2.6.21. Page 65 a. dd language stating that non- )ock Facilities :esidential docks are subject to fil of the provisions of Section Ross Gochenaur-Current Planning 2.6.21, except for protrusion N/A limits, which will be determined administratively by the Planning Services Director at the time of SDP review. Sec: 2.6.33.8. Page 66 Amend Motion picture/television Motion picture/television xoduction section. Changes }roduction section include the section title, limiting the required permit to Fred Reischl - Current Planning commercial production, clarification of the insurance requirement, including information on the application to assist the County in obtaining N/A future film production, and permitting the Risk Management Director to determine if the insurance requirement is commensurate with the >roduction (currently determined by the BCC). gec: 2.6.34. Page 70 To amend the Land Development a, nnual Beach Events Permits Code for the purpose of adding a [New) new section to establish a special type of annual beach events Support staff's temporary use permit for recommendations R. on Nino-Current Planning commercial developments fronting the Gulf of Mexico, Section 2.6.34. 11/09/00 3 2000 Land Development Code Amendments - CYCLE II Summary Sheet LDC [ Proposed Section Amendment DSAC Recommendation EAC Recommendation ccPc Recommendation Sec: 2.6.35.6.3. Page 81Add text to Section 2.6.35.6.3 Communication Towers :>f the LDC specifying that towers used primarily for Tom Palmer-Assistant County governmental uses may be N/A Attorney approved as stand alone essential service facilities. Sec: 2.6.35.6.21. Page 82Cross-referencing of Communication Towers landscape requirements between section 2.6.35 Kim Maheuron-Current Planning Communication towers and N/A Nancy Siemion---Current PlanningDivision 2.4 Landscaping and Buffering. Sec: 2.6.35.7. Page 83. Add Subsection 2.6.35.7 (9) Communication Towers to the Land Development Code (LDC); also correct Fom Palmer-Assistant County scrivener's errors in N/A Attomey Subsection (1), (3), and (6); also assign a number to Subsection (8), as shown. Sec: 2.7.6. Page 861) To amend Sec. 2.7.6. to Building Permit And Certificate Ofinclude requirement for a Land Occupancy Compliance Process. Alteration Permit; 2) To amend Division 3.3 Site Development N/A Ron Nino--Current Planning Plan to provide for the submission of an SDP for Land Alteration. Sec: 2.8.2. Page 90Requiring all non-residential a_rchitectural And Site Designstructures along arterial and Standards collector roads within the Urban Area to comply with N/A Ehahram Badamtchian--Current the architectural standards of ?lanning the Collier County Land Development Code. ~ec: 2.8.2.5. Page 91 Non-commercial Development Amend 2.8.2.5. to allow Alternative Architectural N/A Ron Nino--Current Planning Design Standards for non- commercial development. Sec: 3.2.7.1.11. Page 92 Preliminary Subdivision plat 1'o clarify during the Preliminary Plat process whether a road is Tom Kuck - Engineering Review proposed to be Public or Private. N/A John Houldsworth - Engineering Review 11/09/00 4 2000 Land Development Code Amendments - CYCLE II Summary Sheet LDC Section Proposed Amendment DSAC I EAC Recommendation Recommendation CCPC Recommendation See: 3.2.8.3.20. Page 93 Street Lighting Set illumination standards for county and local street lighting Fom Kuck - Engineering Review Der IESNA RP-8-00. N/A Sec: 3.2.8.3.24. Page 95Change size of conduits under Subdivision Improvements mvement for water services from minimum of three-inch N/A Tom Kuck - Engineering Review iliameter to 4-inch diameter. Sec: 3.4.5.1.10. and Page 96 3.4.13.5.1. Prohibit blasting on new Explosives ~ubdivisions and site ilevelopment plan N/A tom Kuck - Engineering Review :onstruction within 350 feet 0f structures or county roadways Sec: 3.5.7.3.1. Page 98 Excavation Depths Change maximum permittable Fom Kuck - Engineering Review depth of private and development excavation from N/A 12 feet to 20 feet. Sec: 3.5.8.2.1. Page 99 Excavation Status Reports Change the annual status report requirements for N/A l'om Kuck - Engineering Reviewcommercial excavations. Sec: 3.9.6.6.6. Page 102 Remove "dwelling units" Vegetation Removal from the language regarding Support staffs exotic removal prior to C.O. recommendations Barb Burgeson - Current Planning on residential lots. Sec: 3.10.9.1. Page 103 Remove Nest Relocation from Support staffs Sea turtle Protection the types of sea turtle permits recommendations Kim Maheuron - Current Planningissued by the County. See: 3.11.2. Page 104To provide additional Endangered, Threatened Or Listedlanguage to the protected Species Protection species section of the LDC, as Support staffs directed by the CCPC and the recommendations BCC during the last LDC Barb Burgeson - Current Planningamendment cycle. 11/09/00 5 2000 Land Development Code Amendments - CYCLE II Summary Sheet LDC Proposed DSAC EAC CCPC Section Amendment Recommendation Recommendation Recommendation Sec: 3.14.3. Page 109!Language added to Section Vehicles On The Beach Regulation3.14.3 to allow for additional exception to the vehicle on the beach regulations to Support staff's Barb Burgeson - Current Planningaccommodate the commercial recommendations aspect of the beachfront hotels and concessions. ~kppendix "B" Page 112Change 5 Typical Roadways typical Street Sections & Right-of-Sections to show required Way Design Standards location of water line and force N/A main within right-of-way. Tom Kuck - Engineering Review 11/09/00 6 November 15, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Are we ready? Okay, let's call -- call to order the Collier County Planning Commission meeting on the LDC and related amendments of November 5th, 2000. Pursuant to the record, we will call a roll. Thank you. Commissioner Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Young? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio called me and told me she's on a plane, may or may not be here, so she's absent. Commissioner Wrage is present. Commissioner Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Is here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Pedone is present. Commissioner Budd is absent. And Commissioner Saadeh is absent and on vacation, I believe. Where did Marjorie go? MR. NINO-' She's right here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MS. STUDENT: Sir. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: A brief description on what the rules of what we're going to do tonight. Now, we're going to go down each item and take a straw vote; is that correct? MS. STUDENT: Not really. You need to make an official vote on the amendment to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, and along with that motion there needs to be a finding of consistency with the comprehensive plan. However, for the Goodland items, we discussed taking a separate vote on that because of the -- we have the situation where we have the overlay with the criteria, or in the alternative, a moratorium. So because of that alternative situation, and discussing it, it was thought that it would be better to separate that out and take a separate vote. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. With that, Ron? MR. NINO: Yes, Ron Nino for the record. I believe you can hear these in the aggregate, with the exception that Marjorie Page 2 November 15, 2000 identified. As you recall from your first meeting, we -- from the first public hearing, we went through each of the amendments that are in this cycle. And there were some that stood out or that had some concerns expressed by members of the audience. And I believe that by virtue of the sign-in slips that I've received, there are a couple of items that will also require separate discussions. Let me go back and remind you that under normal circumstances you would have -- your amendment summary sheet would have indicated the action taken by the Development Services Advisory Council with respect to their recommendation. Actually goes -- that really goes to the board. But I'm sure that it is of interest to the members of this commission as well. As a matter of fact, Commissioner Rautio raised the question at the last meeting as to why the DSAC recommendation isn't here. We've had problems. Apparently we've had problems lately getting quorums of a number of committees, and unfortunately the second hearing of the DSA resulted in the lack of a quorum. However, as you'll recall, and as I pointed out at your first meeting, the DSAC did go through each of the items in the agenda package and in principle did not have a problem with any of these amendments. There were two in particular that were kind of left hanging, and we wordsmithed those. And that was vehicle on the beach and the annual beach permit amendments. There were two that stood out, as far as the DSAC were concerned. The DSAC will hold their meeting in the first Wednesday in December, and hopefully we will be able to report to the board what their recommendation is. But I want you to appreciate why at this point in time we still -- for your purposes, we don't have an official DSAC recommendation. However, as you'll note from the summary sheet, we do have the EAC recommendations, with those things that we brought to the EAC's attention. And those are environmentally driven issues. And it should be interesting to note that on two of the most contentious of the amendments were environmentally driven, and the EAC did recommend approval of those. With that, I would prefer that we went to those items for which there are members of the audience here that want to discuss those matters that there are still some unresolved Page 3 November t5, 2000 issues, CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I think that the board would probably go along with that. MR. NINO: And the first one is the Goodland issue. And that is on page -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: 50. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: 50. MR. NINO: 50, is it? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Last seen it was. MR. NINO: The amendment before you would purport to restrict the height of residential development in the RT -- in the DR district by virtue of an overlay to two stories. And it does provide for some lot area reductions and lot width reduction, recognizing the status of a lot of the historical development in the Village of Goodland. That is essentially the substance of that amendment, that proposal, that is before you. And you'll recall at the last meeting we had indicated that in the event the board found this amendment unsatisfactory, that the board would have the opportunity to consider the imposition of a temporary moratorium on Goodland to allow us time to develop a regulation that is more consistent with the wishes of the board. With that, I think you might be well advised to hear the Goodland representation in terms of whether or not they support this overlay or in fact wish to optimize something even more restrictive than what is before you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Who is the proponent of this, Ron? MR. NINO: The County Board of Commissioners. Ray, do you want to speak to that issue? Ray Bellows has been instrumental in all of the meetings to develop the overlay district, and this is Ray's baby. Let him speak to it. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, for the record, Ray Bellows. A year ago the Board of County Commissioners heard an item to limit the building heights in the VR district. Originally four stories over -- four habitable spaces over parking. And they amended it to three stories over parking for the VR district. Now, that spurred Board of County Commissioners' discussions with residents in Goodland to have a zoning overlay public hearings in Goodland to see what other items can be done Page 4 November 15, 2000 or more further restrictions in building height can be done. We held about 10 meetings down in Goodland, starting with the very basics. We did an existing land use map that was intended to get the residents to walk through the community to, you know, pick out -- or issues that they want to address the zoning overlay. We did an existing land use map and nonconforming block map. And as a result of these early discussions, we had a tentative idea of where we wanted to go with the zoning overlay. We also had a mailing to all the property owners of a general question. This meeting wasn't intended to be -- or this amendment cycle wasn't intended to be the entire Goodland zoning overlay. This is the first step addressing just two issues. We're going to hold many more meetings down in Goodland and address single-family RSF lots, commercial lots, possibly, maybe have an architectural ordinance associated with this, or some general architecture to keep that village residential feel, addressing storage of boats and vehicles in the front yard, parking and swales. Those are the other issues that we'll address. We just didn't have time to address them for this cycle. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, let me cut to the chase on this particular one. The reason it came up a year ago was because of-- MR. BELLOWS: Well, some residents had concerns -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- the people in Goodland wanted something done to change? MR. BELLOWS: -- of the Dolphin Cove development. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: People in Goodland wanted something done to change? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And you went from four habitable to three, or four to two? MR. BELLOWS: Four to three. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Four to three. MR. BELLOWS: I think they were questioning two, though. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Now we're going three to two? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Yeah, proposed. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Excuse me, you said there were two issues on this. Height obviously is one. What's the second one? Page 5 November 15, 2000 MR. BELLOWS: The nonconforming lots in the VR district. The single-family lots, generally they are platted at 45-foot wide lots, and the VR district lots were I think 50-foot wide lots. So they're nonconforming, and this would make them all conforming. MR. NINO: Let me add to that, Commissioner Abernathy. When the issue first came up, it was the result of a condominium that was proposed in the Goodland area. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, yes, okay. MR. NINO: That drove the issue. And the board held hearings with respect to an amendment, and the board optimized -- the board's direction at that time was to -- was to add -- you see, the current regulation was that you -- the height was restricted to 35 feet, but there were no story limitations. And the board, in considering this whole issue, directed an amendment at that time to three stories above the mean flood elevation. And held to 35 feet as well. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Three and 35. MR. NINO: Three and 35. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: One question before we get to the public's comment, Ron. Has there been any discussion or any change as far as the staff's concerned since two weeks ago? MR. NINO: No, there has not. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have a question. On the 45-foot wide lots -- MR. NINO: Let me also add to that question. This is not a staff recommendation. We're the messenger. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's what I was -- MR. NINO: Not a recommendation. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have a question. Ron, I have a question on the 45-foot lot, that 45-foot wide lot? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Is that to bring the existing homes into from nonconforming to conforming, or do they also plan to redevelop that area with 45-foot lots with new homes? And if so, would that be called row housing? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Cjuster housing. MR. BELLOWS: The 45-foot wide lots are for future subdivisions, and would make those existing 45-foot wide lots Page 6 November 15, 2000 conforming. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: And let me ask straight. If you have a 45-foot wide lot now and you want to have a minimum five-foot setback on either side, we're looking at homes then probably 35 feet in width at a maximum. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, that would be like cjuster type housing. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: As I recall, the other issue here is, is should and when you have a hurricane or disaster, to be able to bring it back to the way it is now; is that -- MR. NINO: Yes, that would allow -- in the event of a natural disaster, that would allow the existing lots to be rebuilt. MR. BELLOWS: And if I may, also, the intent of the zoning overlay is to preserve the fishing village atmosphere, and this is another attempt to keep new lots to be similar to the existing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. With that, Ron, we have some speakers? MR. NINO: Yes, we do. Edward Fullmer, Steve Camacho and Vivian Holland. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The only thing, before you start, a request. Remember, we sat through this two weeks ago, and although I don't want to hinder any input, we're really looking for something new than what we heard two weeks ago, please. MR. FULLMER: I spoke very briefly last time. My name's Edward Fullmer, vice president of the Goodland Civic Association. I've been involved in this for three years now. To bring you up to speed, the last Planning Commission, with the recommendation of the Development Services, was two over one. When we came before Bob Mulhere and the Development Services Department, we negotiated and the recommendation from Development Services to the last planning board was two over one, and the last planning board voted for two over one. And then we went in to the commissioners' meeting. Because of the opposition of a single owner of a large VR property, which was Dolphin Cove, and the Curcie property, Fisherman's Cove, there was opposition from her lawyer and her architect. And they came in with drawings and so forth, which you seen last week. Which I dispute their drawings, because they're making one nice and the other one ugly, and nobody's Page 7 November 15, 2000 going to sell an ugly building. But anyhow, this has been going on for two and a half years. We've had overlay meetings ran by the county, open to all citizens of Collier County, which in the beginning I disagreed with. I thought it was just for Goodland. But they opened it up to everybody, which brought the developer's lawyer in, the developer's architect in, and people that doesn't even live on the island came down there and voiced their opinion, which I thought was totally wrong. But I guess that's the way government runs. Because I'm not paid by anybody, I'm a volunteer to represent the citizens of Goodland. Now, we've had numerous petitions down there, and every petition that came out down there wants two over one in that area. They don't even want multiple housing. They want to keep the village the way it is. We do not want these money people from Marco and Naples coming into Goodland because they've got money and can buy a big plot of property and develop condos and sell them for low rent housing, which Dolphin Cove is, but that's a different issue which we'll address on the 28th. They want to come down there. They don't live there, and they're trying to tell us how to live. We know how to live. We're there for a reason. We have millionaires that live in Goodland. They walk around with raggy pants on and white rubber boots, because that's the way they want to live. And we don't want to change by outside developers coming in there. You know, the last commission they called it Okay Coral, because they gave everything to the developers. And what happened to us at the last commission meeting, this board approved two over one, we went there, and because we didn't change the building heights, because we were told by Development Services we couldn't change the building height. Because we want it lowered. We want it the same as residential, 30 feet. Because what they did, even Bob Mulhere, when I was in a meeting with him, said we don't know how he got four floors in 35 feet. Well, he did it easy. He made a Days Inn, seven-inch poured slabs with half-inch gypsum glued to it to give him eight feet to get it in 35 feet. There's not another building in this county, in Collier County, that's designed like that. There's none built like that. There's still none built like that, because they haven't even started the Page 8 November 15, 2000 work down there. And we talked to Bob Olliff. They offered 2.7 million to buy that property for a county park. The people involved refused to sell it to the county. And they took 2.8 million off another developer. So we want this two over one in, because there's one more large property to be developed. The citizens want it. Our last survey, we mailed out 352 letters. We got three nos back. And one of them was the developer that's trying to develop the next property. And the other two is two part-time citizens. So we're telling you, 349 people in that village had an opportunity to voice their opinion. We got 210 back that wants it two over one. And we're asking you to please approve two over one and approve the nonconforming lots. Like you said, if a hurricane comes, the people that are living in there, in their trailers, would not be able to put a trailer back on the lot if we went by the county standard right now of 100 by 100. We want to preserve Goodland the way it is. And it's also an historical place, as you know, because the Calusa Indians started it with their shell mounds. And Mr. Collier started it by moving the people off of Marco to Goodland so he could develop Marco. And we don't want to get moved out of Goodland so the developers from Naples and Marco can develop Goodland. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Next speaker? Just a comment. We do not approve it, we make a recommendation, just so you all understand that. MR. CAMACHO: Good evening, and thank you. My name is Stephen Camacho, and I'm a native of Goodland/Marco Island. I'm six generations. My grandchildren are eight generations. My grandfather was Captain Bill Collier, and I do live in Goodland now, And I commend Mr. Fullmer and components (sic) of the civic association in their effort to keep Goodland the way it's always been, quaint, a fishing village, and restore and maintain the historical value. Not only were the Caiusas there, but there were a lot of other families with a lot of heritage. I think the issue that we have and my comments I would like to mention on the VR zoning were the two over one and the four over one to the three over one, the things that have come to pass Page 9 November 15, 2000 in the past. In speaking to the people that I know personally and are residents and property owners in Goodland, the majority of them do feel that, that we do not need multi-family in Goodland. However, we have the issue of property rights, that whoever owns the property, the intent therefore and so on. I would be in favor of this non-commercial attitude. I think there could be an architectural board that would keep things in more conforming with the ambiance such as the Key West style homes and zero lot line, things of this nature, rather than the condo aspect of it. And I totally stand behind Mr. Fullmer in that respect. The second issue as to VR zoning, and really the reason that I'm here, as far as nonconforming lots, when we started this overlay dialogue, we started, as Mr. Bellows said, just under two years ago, and it started at a luncheon with the Collier County Historical and Preservation Board and Mr. Bellows and myself, Mrs. Fullmer, and some of the other residents of Goodland. And the issue was definitely Dolphin Cove. That was one of the issues. The other issues were the island as a whole, meaning the rights that we have enjoyed, the change of zoning from fishing village commercial to VR and RSF-4, which happened some decade and a half ago, I believe. Mr. Bellows could correct me on that. However, there was an intent of property at that time. We had commercial fishing industries and we had cottage industries in our homes at that time. And now we are not allowed to do that because of zoning. These are other issues that will come to pass as we go into the overlay aspects and the things that will be amended to this overlay later. However, one thing I would like to be clear and I think we should all consider: Set aside the condo aspect, on the 45-foot lots with a square footage of non-conformance. We also have other zoning areas in Goodland which have not been mentioned in this. One being RSF-4, which are predominantly 50 by 100 lots. And they are nonconforming in square footage and in setback. In my home I have about a three-foot lot line. My horne's 100 years old. It was moved from Caxambas in 1948. Whether it be termites, whether it be my will or whether it be a natural Page10 November 15, 2000 disaster, I would like that included also, all of the zoning. Whether it be C-4 -- maybe not the commercial. That's an issue that maybe the owners could take up. But as far as residential, I think we should speak out of one voice, one mouth for the community and not be separated in the community. So if this is going to be addressed and sent to the commissioners for their vote on this part of the overlay, I think the square footage issue of nonconforming should relate to all residential properties. And that's basically why I'm here. And thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker? MS. HOLLAND: Good afternoon. My name is Vivian Holland. I'm an 11-year resident, full-time resident, of Goodland. Well, I can't give you my opening statement now, because it's been shot to pieces by what these people have said. But today I would like to correct some statements that have been misrepresented to you by our opponents. Mr. Yovanovich continues to state the community of Goodland is not supporting our effort, that it is a select few pushing zoning overlay, moratorium requests and the appeal of the SDP for Dolphin Cove. As Mr. Fullmer said, a mailing was sent out this year to all Goodland residents to get approval for the GCA board to retain an attorney. Of the 340 mailings sent out to all property owners, only three of the 200 plus responses were against hiring an attorney. I should also add, we have had over 30 donations toward a legal fund from our residents, which more than paid the attorney in full. Although these monies were allocated to our fight against Dolphin Cove, it certainly shows community support for the issues at the front, which are height and density. In any community there are supporters and there are doers. Goodland is no exception. We have a group of residents that have devoted two years of their lives to stop this inappropriate development in our tiny village. We have done this with a solid support of our people. Mr. Yovanovich also said that our zoning overlay committee was somehow a select group of biased members. The committee was selected by the GCA president, John Carter, at the request of Mr. Bellows. It was formed as a fact-finding Page 11 November 15, 2000 committee only. Information on lot sizes and zoning districts were presented to Mr. Bellows, the committee was disbanded, and the county from that point on determined the direction of the overlay. The county made suggestions and listened to our discussions among ourselves. Unfortunately, some of our residents harbored a common distrust of county officials, and it took much explaining and many arguments to make clear Goodland's final goals for this overlay. But in the end everyone understood the process and agreed on our goals. After much more discussion and input from everyone, the 40 questions submitted to the county were narrowed down to a final 17, which the county felt had the potential to become major issues in our overlay. The foremost issues are and have been from day one height, density and lot site. When height was first addressed, we were told by Mr. Mulhere height could not be an issue. He suggested that the way to reduce density was not to reduce height but to reduce habitable floors. We had a question on our initial survey to property owners, asking if the height should be changed, but that question was removed by the county in the final overlay questionnaire. We have always listed height as our number one priority. Mr. Yovanovich insists that our efforts are a personal attack on his client. Whether we like his client or not is irrelevant. We do not like the Goodland unfriendly developments that -- pardon me. We do not like the Goodland unfriendly developments. They will benefit Goodland in no way. They will serve one purpose and one purpose only: To make his client money at the cost of our tiny community. We will be faced with a 100 hundred percent increase in population, an unbelievable increase in traffic and a major increase in boat traffic in this designated critical mariatee habitat. But the most important impact will be the loss of our way of life. We will never again be Goodland, the historical, quaint, charming fishing village everyone loves to visit. It will be gone forever. Make no mistake, that by not taking measures now, Goodland is forever lost. Mr. Yovanovich also has claimed his client has not been treated fairly. He cites a lack of information regarding our Page 12 November 15, 2000 objections to her development. His client is member of the Goodland Civic Association, has attended, with and without her hired representation, meetings of the general membership and many overlay meetings. All meetings are publicly advertised and his client receives all mailings concerning GCA material and overlay material. Her purchase of the two-acre site in Goodland was done one full year after Goodland's highly publicized protest and objections to this type of development began. His client bought with full knowledge of our position on VR multi-family housing. Never in the past two years has any of our information not been public record. I might add, this two-acre parcel may not seem to be of significant size, and if it were in Marco or Naples or Fort Myers, we would agree. But in Goodland, a one square mile island surrounded almost completely by water, two acres is a major portion of our community. We are targeting this two acres, but also, we are thinking of the future, combinations of property and one additional large tract that could be available in the very near future. We are asking this: We want a zoning overlay that allows only two habitable floors over FEMA. We want to make all nonconforming lots conforming. We want a reduction in height to 30 feet over FEMA in VR zoning. These issues are of utmost importance to our residents and for the future of our tiny village. If at this time it is determined all of these requests cannot be recommended, then we again request that a moratorium on multi-family VR zoned property in Goodland be put into effect until necessary steps can be taken to implement our overlay. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ron? MR. NINO: Next speakers are Wayne Arnold and Rich Yovanovich. MR. ARNOLD: Good evening. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold. I appeared two weeks ago and made a presentation. I know that a couple of the commissioners were not present at that meeting, and I'd like to go back through those briefly, just to state our position of why we think that two over one has its problems and why a moratorium is unnecessary. Page 13 November 15, 2000 I think, you know, I too have been involved in this thing going on two years, and I think there's been some mischaracterization of our client as a developer, which she is not. She happens to own two acres of property that has for many, many years under the VR zoning district permitted a variety of uses, including commercial uses on this land. So that over time, yes, the VR zoning district has been scaled back somewhat. A year and a half ago when the Goodland Civic Association brought to the County Commission and to this Planning Commission the request to change the building elevations from what was then permitted to be, let's say, four stories -- but it always said 35 feet; it never really said four stories, it said 35 feet -- that restriction was argued here without the benefit of representation of my client. The County Commission at that point in time did hear our presentation and agreed with us that maintaining 35 feet, whether you have three stories or two stories, is immaterial. You have 35 feet of building elevation. We also think there are some very significant design considerations that make two over one not necessarily more appealing or more in the character of Goodland than does three over one, for instance. And I have some exhibits that do show that. I think there have been no bones about it, this has been targeted toward one property owner; one property owner that happens to own two acres of VR zoned property. The only other property that from my research yields anything close to an acre that's the minimum required for multi-family housing is about .8 acres, which easily requires lot assemblage to make that a multi-family site. But also then going back to any of the other lots, you have to assemble up to possibly 10 or 11 lots, depending on the actual size of those platted lots, to put a multi-family structure in place. We don't think that it's eminent that there are other sites that are going to be developed. They already have multi-family housing on Goodland. There's already been an approval and building permits approved for the project known as Dolphin Cove that will be built. The condominium use has been permitted for years, and Page 14 November 15, 2000 maybe Mr. Mulhere, who I know has researched the history of this, can attest to that. This has been the character of Goodland. It just hasn't been built because the market possibly wasn't there or the multi-family or condominium development. Goodland has been discovered. There's no doubt about it. People are finding Goodland and like it. There are waterfront lots there. And no difference here. This property that's in question is a waterfront property that's just slightly over two acres and would permit multi-family zoning. It permits under VR now anything ranging from mobile homes to multi-family housing and everything in between. It has different density restrictions for those uses, it has different building setback and development regulations for those uses. You range anywhere from seven units an acre to 14 units per acre. Nothing in the proposal tonight to reduce height changes density. It doesn't change the development standards, it doesn't change any other aspect other than the number of stories that you can put within that. And I'm telling you that to go ahead and change the building footprint to make it a two-story building envelope just makes you spread out your density across the site. It doesn't mean that people aren't going to maximize their density on the site. People are buying the land based on the number of units that they can achieve on that land. And it so happens that development standards have changed to the point where your building setbacks maybe lose a unit or two. That's one thing. But you're going to fill up more of the lot to put the same number of residential units on it than you do if you allowed someone to go to three stories and have more open space on the site. That's just a given. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Mr. Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question, Mr. Arnold. What can you go there today without -- coming through this process, what could you have pulled permits this summer and built, density-wise? MR. ARNOLD: Multi-family building up to I think it's 14. -- 15 units per acre for multi-family housing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: 14 units per acre. Could have been 35 feet. MR. ARNOLD: Right. Still 35 feet. Could have been multi-family. We could have easily equally pulled permits to build Page 15 November 15, 2000 -- put a site development plan together for a mobile home park on the same property. That's the other alternative and the other end of the spectrum. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: If-- and irregardless of whether two stories over or three stories over is approved, the same number of people are going to be living on that property at some point in the near future. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. This doesn't change the population of Goodland, it doesn't change the density of Goodland. The density is already assigned on that property because the VR zoning district was reviewed during the original compatibility exceptions of the zoning reevaluation ordinance back in 1991 and 2, I believe. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay, so the only argument here tonight is not that people are going to live there, that more people are going to be clogging up the roads, but as to whether they're going to live in a two-story or three-story building. MR. ARNOLD: That's the way I see it. And I think that -- to go back, a lot has been said. I heard Mr. Fullruer mention a number of surveys. And I know the Goodland Civic Asso¢iation's sent out a number of surveys over the course of the last couple of years, but the county sponsored a survey that was submitted as part of the zoning overlay process over the last year. 352 property owners received it. The county extended the deadline because response rates were not very good. They extended the deadline in order to receive more responses. Well, out of those responses, less than 45 percent of the residents responded to that survey. The survey question never asked whether you supported two over one, three over one or anything else. It said do you support, as part of this overlay, we looked at building heights, period. Yes, building heights should be addressed as part of this overlay. This has been sort of taken out of context and pushed into this amendment cycle because this is the same agenda that was pushed by the civic association a year and a half ago. County Commission heard the same arguments and agreed that three over one was the standard that should be applicable. So now going back a year later, we're having a Land Development Code amendment that affects one piece of property. We're Page 16 November 15, 2000 talking about a moratorium that affects one piece of property. Blatantly targeted and blatantly unfair. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, I think certainly in my mind the initial misconception could be is that if you limit the height you're going to limit the number of people, and that simply isn't taking place. Looking through some of the pictures that the civic association sent out, there are certainly a number of buildings on Goodland that are 35 feet in height. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. Yes, and don't forget, there are also a number of C-4 commercial and C-5 commercial areas that allow heights up to 100 feet that are not being addressed. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: In your mind, what are the benefits of trading off the spreading out for the going up? I mean, there's got to be open space, landscaping, things that can be achieved if the footprint is taller rather than wider; is that fair? MR. ARNOLD: I think it is. And the exhibit that I have back here on this board, the top shows a two over one story parking building configuration. Same number of units. The bottom of that exhibit shows the three over one. And you can clearly see that the building separation automatically increases, because the way the county says that you have to separate buildings based on their height. And it also requires open space. We have 10 percent more open space in the diagram with three over one than we do two over one. And I would argue that on a waterfront lot, having more water view and less lineal coverage of your lot is an enhancement rather than a detriment. I think it also, when you look at some of the other exhibits that we presented, and I know -- you know, forgive me, I know that the Goodland residents do not like these exhibits, but on the left you see a 35-foot high two-story building over parking. On the right you see a 35-foot high three-story building over one floor of parking. You can embellish a three-story building to make it look very attractive and very nice. You can see that the building, to get the same number of units, is longer and boxier on the left. It doesn't mean that you can't embellish that. And I think that that's a fair criticism by Mr. Fullruer. Yes, that could have been Page 17 November 15, 2000 gingerbreaded up to make it look more attractive. But the fact of the matter is, three stories doesn't have to be unattractive either, and it's still the same height. You know, again, I would argue that there's no need to change the standard that's been in effect for the last year that was argued and adopted by the County Commission. And clearly, going for a moratorium is unprecedented for any other overlay. We've had overlays in Marco, in Immokalee, Golden Gate Estates. We've had I guess the attempt in North Naples, none of which resulted in a discussion on moratorium. Especially something that would be targeted at one property. So I would encourage you to leave the standard as it is today and have the committee go back and work through the balance of the overlay to come up with standards that are appropriate for the other issues that were raised and addressed in the survey. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: To staff, are there any 30-foot limitations anywhere else in Collier County? MR. NINO: Well, anything that's zoned VR is limited to 30 feet. But the -- all of the RSF-1 through 6 zoning districts -- and there are RSF zoning districts in Goodland where the height limitation is 35 feet. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions before the next speaker? MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich, whose name was mentioned a few different times so far. To embellish a little bit on what Ron said, I believe in the VR zoning district you can go up to 35 feet, so there's not a limitation of 30 feet in the VR district. But he is correct, on a single-family district on the island you can go to 35 feet. So there is a consistency between the VR district maximum height and the single-family district maximum height. I don't want to repeat a lot of what I said last time, because I know the Chairman doesn't want me to, but I do feel like I need to address a couple of points that were made by some of my previous speakers. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Chairman has an ally in that regards. MR. YOVANOVICH.' I understand, Mr. Abernathy, and I will be very, very brief. Page 18 November 15, 2000 I think it's important to note that this is not a staff recommendation. The staff is just merely the messenger on this petition. As Wayne pointed out to you the first go around, there was no notice to our client that there was even an L. DC provision under consideration. When we did find out, we jumped in on the process right away. So that explains why there was no opposition, and why maybe the Planning Commission voted the first time in favor of two over one, because clearly there was no opposition. There is opposition, and that opposition was presented to the board, and the board did look at these exhibits and recognized the trade-offs of three over one versus two over one. It is -- it is a very important -- and I think Mr. Fullmer summed it up very clearly how this process has worked so far. He believed it was a Goodland process. And for it to be a Goodland process, you had to live there. That is not the process. The process is a property owner process. And our property -- our client is the predominant VR -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Excuse me just a second. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did I say Goodland? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Because last time I made you be quiet while staff spoke, so I would ask staff to be quiet while you speak, okay? Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's okay, they weren't distracting me. But anyway, the process was intended to be a process that involved all the property owners. The committee was set up by the Goodland Civic Association. As Vivian pointed out, my client is a member of the Goodland Civic Association, and my client requested that she be on the committee. My client in fact was the property owner that they're targeting. And they did not invite her to be on the committee. I think they summarized better than I can summarize, that they didn't -- she's an outsider. I'm an outsider. Wayne, who's been promoted to architect instead of planner is an outsider. We were not welcomed into this process. We did try to interject our opinions, and it just was not a process that was -- where we were welcomed. And that's why we're here today, disagreeing with the conclusions. It is important to understand, we have been involved in this Page 19 November 15, 2000 process now. We weren't originally. We're standing involved in this process. My client is not a developer. My client basically inherited the property; is just simply seeking to keep the alternatives available that she has. The current code provision was heavily debated. It was -- the board voted for three over one. There's no reason for a moratorium. It's one parcel of property that can be impacted by this moratorium. There would have to be other properties assembled. Wayne has pointed that out to you. We request that you do exactly what Wayne has said, leave it at three over one, do not impose a moratorium. There's no reason to have a moratorium. Go forward with it. In they want to continue to go forward with an overlay, let's do a comprehensive overlay and address the issues that I heard them address, and that was character. Let's address the character through the overlay process. But let's not punish a property owner by imposing a moratorium on her property by giving her a choice of -- an unacceptable choice of two over one or a moratorium. As I said previously, that's not a choice. That's being backed into a corner and taking the lesser of two evils. And we request that you not put our client in that position. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: It was stated that staff had not recommended this two over one possibility? Which seems to sustain the wish of the people of this rather historic area, to maintain the same ambience. MR. NINO: Well, I had said that staff did not initiate this amendment, but we were the messenger for the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'm real confused on how two over one is going to maintain the ambience of the community as opposed to three over one when you're going to have the same number of people. I mean, it seems to me what the neighbors and the people ought to want is the best fit on the piece of property, whether it's a single-family home or multi-family home or commercial, is that they want the best that they can get on that piece of property. And I fail to see how spreading a -- you know, spreading that out over the lot is going to in the long run be satisfactory to Page 20 November 15, 2000 everyone that lives if they're looking at the same number of people live and spread out over that (sic). So I'm having a lot of trouble, you know, with that argument of coming down to two stories. Because the same number of people are going to be living there. You know, it's just a matter of what you're going to be looking at in the way of a home. And, you know, I don't -- I'm not understanding how reducing that down to two accomplishes anything for the folks on Goodland. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Have we closed the public hearing? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No, I have not. And the Chairman is going to take a little latitude here, because it is an emotional issue. Briefly, please. MR. FULLMER: Thank you. Yes, I'd like to have Wayne bring his pictures back up here that he drew, if you don't mind. I'd like to show you -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If he's willing to do that. MR. FULLMER.' You might not have been to Goodland. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I've been there. MR. FULLMER: And the brown roof motel that he drew last year, he changed the color of the roof to red this year. The residents in Goodland would rather see that than the gingerbread that he had over there. That's the way Goodland is. And the two over one is the height. Where he has this drawn -- this one here is probably more important because what he's showing you here, this is a narrow strip of property along a canal. And on the other side of the canal here is trailers, people that's been there for years living in trailers. This is the canal and then sunset. For him to build three stories here and have them looking down on these people, it's more common sense to the people in Goodland to have two stories here with a longer footprint. That's the way Goodland is. We have one fishing village, was supposed to be, that turned into a condo association down on the other end of the island. And it's spread out like this. There's 13 units together. He's not showing 13 here, but we have 13 units. Koon Key Fishing Village. It's one floor over parking. It fits in with the community. This does not fit in. This is what they just built up here at Page 21 November 15, 2000 the Gordon Bridge. If they want to build these, let them build them at the Gordon Bridge, not in Goodland. We prefer the brown roof motel over here two over one, if it's spread out. Now, we tried to negotiate with Mr. Yovanovich and Wayne long before on Dolphin Cove, and we told him at a meeting between our executive board, our president, Mr. Graham and myself, that we would back off of two over one if he would reduce Dolphin Cove to three over one. And he told us no way. They got a permit and that's what they're going to build. And I can't see anybody building something like that, and the only one in Collier County putting four floors in 35 feet. And I think you people have to go along with us and trust our judgment and not the developer -- I mean, I'm sorry, the property owner, because she don't develop. It's what the family's been doing for years, they buy a piece of property, jack the price up and sell to somebody else and let them develop it. And they're making good money at it. They just made close to -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, that's irrelevant. MR. FULLMER: But anyhow -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: We're all Americans. MR. FULLMER: -- people in Goodland wants Goodland to stay the way it is. We don't want the gingerbread. We'd rather have this. MS. HOLLAND: May I have 10 seconds? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Briefly. MS. HOLLAND: I want to note that when Mr. Bellows, Mr. Nino and Mr. Mulhere speak about what we want in Goodland, they always use the word height. And somehow height has been translated into floors. Height has been our number one main issue in Goodland. Floors -- height got translated into floors through this process. And we're still talking height. Mr. Bellows, Mr. Nino, Mr. Mulhere say height. That's the issue. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Just a second, let me clarify something. They can build 35-foot two-story over parking, they can build 35-foot three-story over parking. And I think that's the height issue. They certainly don't have to tell us what it's going to look like, but they can go to 35 feet with two stories. Briefly. MR. CAMACHO: Stephen Camacho. I think there's some conflicting interests here and Page 22 November 15, 2000 conflicting conversation. The main objective that Goodland -- and I think I speak for everybody, is density, population. This gentleman, Mr. Priddy, he hit it -- he hit the nail on the head. Once again, I want to reiterate what I said, and maybe I didn't bring it out properly. There's a way to do this. There's Barefoot Beach, there's Hideaway on Marco. I think if the proponents of the development crunch the numbers, they can get the same return on the dollar, keeping it a single-family 35-foot dwelling with zero lot line or very little lot line on two acres. I think they can reach their return and keep the ambience with an old Florida style, private, less impact on the boat docks, less impact on the environment, as far as that goes. You're going to have to have a lot of boat docks with this density as well. And so I think it's an option that should be looked into. That's all. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: In regard to those boat docks, has there been any expression of interest by The Conservancy or any similar bodies in regard to what effect this would have on the environment? MR. FULLMER: Yeah, they get a free dock. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No testimony from the audience, please. MR. NINO'- We're not really-- Ron, we're not really addressing that issue. We're addressing an issue of-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Of height. MR. NINO: -- of establishing a maximum number -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Not height, but floor. MR. NINO: -- of floors. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Mr. Yovanovich. The last guy may get shot here. Patience is wearing thin. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. That's fine. I understand that, and feel free to shoot. I'm going to have to respond on behalf of my client and the comment about her family and her family's name. That was a cheap shot regarding what the Fiske family does, buying up property, jacking it up and selling it off. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That is academic here, as you know. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. And I just felt that -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Monetary is not a part of our issue. Page 23 November 15, 2000 MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand that. I just felt that this -- since this group is not familiar with Sandy Fiske, I think you're familiar with the family. And we need to state on the record that is not what that family does. The family has been a good family in Collier County. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. I will allow any further questions from the commissioners. If not, I think we close the testimony part of this. It's my understanding we need a motion strictly on 2.234. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: On what? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: On the Goodland zoning overlay. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I just need to advise again that if the vote is to adopt the overlay, then the moratorium falls out. And then -- you know, as an alternative. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I move that we create a Goodland zoning overlay district that reduces the maximum building height from three levels of habitable space to two levels of habitable space for property zoned village residential VR in Goodland only. And then in addition, the minimum lot area for single-family and mobile home lots in the VR district should be reduced from 6,000 square feet to 4,275 square feet, and the minimum lot width reduced from 60 feet to 45 feet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'll second it just to put it in play. I'm not convinced I'm going to vote for it, but I think I can still second it. This -- I'm torn between these two alternatives. I don't think either one is very good. I don't know how we got here precisely, because it seems to me Mr. Camacho has an issue that isn't covered by this, lots other than these 45-foot lots. And there are other issues swirling around. I'm not sure this is what the people in Goodland want. And -- or at least not what all of them want. It seems to me if Goodland, we don't hear from them very often, they ought to be a package together that expresses all of their desires at one time and go forward with it. This proposal does weigh heavily on this one developer that we've heard again and again, and doesn't necessarily give all the relief to the people of Goodland that I understand that they want. On the other hand, I think a moratorium is a rather draconian remedy. Marjorie, maybe I can ask you.' How much latitude does the Page 24 November 15, 2000 BCC have in amending and toying with this proposal? Can they-- could they implant 30 feet in there if they wanted to in the height? MS. STUDENT: With the appropriate, you know, staff recommendation and staff foundation for it they can. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But not just on the basis of evidence at the hearing? MS. STUDENT: Yeah, evidence at the hearing as well. Which gives staff an opportunity to give its professional opinion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, maybe that's the best -- if this is the vehicle to get it in front of the County Commission and let them resolve all of this, maybe this is -- it certainly beats a moratorium, I think. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I can't support a moratorium of any kind, so -- MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, if I may, remind you that Ray at the outset said that our direction from the county board was to do a comprehensive study. Time did not permit that. As a matter of fact, as Ray pointed out, the hearings in Goodland were not that clear in terms of the magnitude of their objectives. What did come out of that process was what we think is perhaps an interim -- an interim measure, and that was the aspiration that the community limit the number of habitable floors to two floors. Since then we're now hearing that they want that strengthened with a 30-foot height limitation, and perhaps no multi-family housing of any kind. That could very well have all been the discussions back a year ago, but it simply did not come to fruition. And you don't have to vote on either one of these, for that matter, if you think it would be better that the community go back and develop a more holistic overlay district that meets the objectives that they're now discussing at these meetings. I want you to appreciate that we simply did not have the time within this window, nor were the discussions at the civic meetings leading us to any overwhelming consensus of anything more than this height limitation, this -- I mean, number of habitable floors limitation. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, in this interim between -- if we were to send this back and say come back later, the developer could go ahead with his plans, could he not? So Page 25 November 15, 2000 people in Goodland would lose that -- MR. NINO: That's true. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- part of the struggle. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And that's fine. I do think we do need to pass a recommendation on to the Collier County Commission. And I want to interject a comment here before I give my idea. And I would hope that an event as coagulated to the folks of Goodland, irregardless of what we do tonight or what the Board of County Commissioners does, you need to carry this thing forward for an overlay of all the property on the island. It needs to be done in an orderly fashion. I know Ray spent many of his personal hours probably down there. Having said that, I'm not going to support the motion. I've been down there. In fact, I've been down there since the last meeting. I've driven -- I've been in Goodland many times. I have to agree with my colleague, Mr. Priddy, I would -- I suspect that even if it's two stories, they're going to use up most of the :35 feet. You're going to have the same amount of people there, you're going to have the same amount of traffic, irregardless. I would rather look at a three over with a footprint like that. And I realize neither of the buildings are going to look like anything -- any of those (sic) Days Inn drawing that's up there. Anybody else, before we vote? We've got a motion by Commissioner Young, second by Commissioner Abernathy. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Nay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: 4-1. Having done that, Marjorie, we do not need to take up the moratorium; is that correct? MS. STUDENT: Well, the motion to approve, as I understood it-- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Failed. MS. STUDENT: -- failed for the overlay; is that right? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes. MS. STUDENT: So what the board was looking for was -- Page 26 November 15, 2000 that didn't go through for some reason, the alternative, the moratorium. So I think to give a complete packet to the board, what you need to take action on -- you know, vote on that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That's what I wanted to know. I need a motion on 2.2.35. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we not have a moratorium. COMMISSIONER PEDONE-' Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Pedone. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Nay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: 4-1 also. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, if we may go on to the second item that has some registered speakers. And we're dealing with Page 70 and 109, annual beach events permit. And Page 109, vehicles on the beach amendments. Since your last meeting, Barbara Burgeson has made some amendments -- has facilitated amendments to this as a result of information we received. And Barbara, how about the exemption paragraph? Didn't we exempt some paragraph, or was that accomplished at the last meeting? Oh, I'm sorry. That being the case, nothing has changed. Our recommendations still stand as the material that's before you. We do have two speakers, Justin Finch and Carl and Ann Johnson. MR. FINCH: For the record, my name is Justin Finch. I'm the manager of Gulf Sea Adventures. We're the beach concession located behind the Vanderbilt Inn. We're at the northernmost end of Vanderbilt Beach. I wanted to comment on the proposed amendments to the vehicle on the beach regulation. In the beginning of the proposal it states, the reasons for adding these amendments are, quote, to allow beach front hotels to use vehicles to set up parties on the beach, and to have their concessions to use vehicles to move Page 27 November 15, 2000 their equipment up and down the beach. Unfortunately this is not the result that these amendments will allow. In my paper -- it's changed in the paper you have before you. I believe it's Article 5.4 in yours. States, permits shall only be issued for ATV's when staff has determined that due to the distance and excessive weight of the equipment that it would be prohibitive in nature to use push carts or dollies. As I interpret this, my concession meets these terms. On an average day in season we can move approximately 3,000 pounds in just chairs and umbrellas alone. I can tell you firsthand that this -- moving this volume of equipment is prohibitive using only push carts. According to the senior environmental specialist, we do not meet the conditions of this article. By her definition, the only concession that qualifies is The Registry Resort. In my opinion, this article is vague and open to inconsistent interpretation. If the author's reason for these amendments was to allow concessions to use vehicles to move equipment, why is it only written to apply to one concession? I ask that the board change this article or not allow it and allow all concessions to have an equal opportunity to partake in the advantages of using these vehicles. In the proposal I received, it states some concerns over the operational impact from the use of these vehicles, specifically. It may be seen as an imposition to the public and may also be considered less aesthetically pleasing. At my concession, the ATV would be used in the morning for between the hours of 8:00 and 10:00 a.m., depending on the time of year. That would allow 40 minutes for beach cleaning and raking and 20 minutes for equipment setup. At that point the ATV is stored off the beach and concealed from public view. At our closing time, which would vary between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., I would use the ATV to clear the equipment from the beach. By limiting our use of the vehicle to low traffic times, this would prevent it from being considered an imposition to the public. Another point of concern I have is Article 5.7, just below that, prohibiting vehicle operation during sea turtle nesting season. Now, I understand the need for protection of sea turtle Page 28 November 15, 2000 nesting sites, but county code already permits use of the ATV's for beach raking during the sea turtle nesting season. With operational restrictions, the vehicles could be able to operate with the added task of equipment transport without endangering nests or hatchlings. Restrictions such as limiting traffic to the area furthest from the water, 20-foot boundaries from turtle nests, limiting vehicle speed to five miles per hour, and limiting the types of equipment that could be moved with an ATV during that nesting season. Now, during the past year I've spent $6,000 to comply with the senior environmental specialist's recommendations. This shows I'm more than willing to work with county staff members to help resolve this situation. But to totally refuse us the right to move equipment during nesting season is unfair and contradictory to the codes and practices already in use by Collier County. In the mornings the turtle inspector comes out and ropes off the turtle nests. For the rest of the day, these nests are left unprotected. Despite warning tags on the nests, this is an unresistible attraction for children and some adults. For my staff and myself it's a daily event, preventing people from interfering with these nests. I've seen similar efforts by the staff at the Ritz Carlton and the La Playa. Also this past year we've distributed literature on sea turtles to help increase some public awareness. I know we can not only coexist but can be considered an asset to the sea turtle population. I ask that we get the opportunity to show that this is possible. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any question? Any response from staff? MS. BURGESON: In response to that, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. The proposal as we have it submitted right now would allow hotels such as the Vanderbilt Inn additional use of vehicles, although they would not be ATV's. At this point they are not permitted vehicular use, even the push carts, to move their concession equipment. So this amendment would allow them to use the carts or the dollies. And in discussion about the sea turtle nesting season issues, Bob wanted me to remind the board that because we had Page 29 November 15, 2000 no one participating in this round of amendments that might have been interested or involved in those issues, that we could address that in the future with another cycle of amendments, if we wanted to discuss the potential or the possibility of additional vehicles during sea turtle nesting season. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: How are we letting one person use vehicles to move around on the beach and not others? What's -- I'm not understanding that. MS. BURGESON: The language that we put in here to allow for ATV's was when the distance and the weight made it prohibitive for them to use push carts. And the only reason that staff came up with the -- the initial reason was an example such as The Registry where they come to the public beach facility at The Registry and they may need to bring their kayaks all the way down to the pass. It would be prohibitive for them to take kayaks on push carts a half a mile down to the pass. It wasn't to allow concessions to go from the top of the beach down to water with their equipment. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, any further questions? And this also is not only talking about vehicles on the beach, we're also taking in annual beach permits at the same time; is that correct? MR. NINO: Is Carol Ann (sic) Johnson here? I'm sorry, Caroline -- Justin Finch, you just spoke. I have a Carl and Ann Johnson registered on this issue. MR. JOHNSON: I just -- MR. FINCH: I will state their opinion. MR. NINO: Okay. Then there isn't any more. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. I will entertain a motion on 3.1 -- 3.14.3 and 2.6.34. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll make a motion to forward each of those, recommending approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah, I'll second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Abernathy, second by Commissioner Pedone. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Aye. Page 30 November 15, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: 4-17 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: 4-1, yeah. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ron? Yeah. MR. NINO: Yes, we have an issue relative to the Bayshore overlay. Have there been any changes, Debrah, since the first meeting that you need to advise the members of? MS. PRESTON: For the record, Debrah Preston, with the comprehensive planning section. We did hand out a new revised Bayshore overlay at your last meeting. And since that time, the only other change that we've made, and this is due to legal opinion, is that under prohibited uses we had to change the name from adult entertainment to sexually oriented businesses, as defined under our Ordinance 91-83. And also, I'd like to note that on Page 48 of your packet, under 2.2.33.23.14, staff would like to make a statement in there that says "or as consistent with the comprehensive plan." We currently have a comp. plan amendment being reviewed by DCA that would allow for some additional density in this area. And until that is adopted, we will not be able to have the up to 12 units per acre until that comp. plan was adopted. Those are the only changes that I'd like to bring to your attention right now. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Okay. Ron, do we have any speakers on that? MR. NINO: Yes. Elmer Wheeler and William Kerrigan. And Deborah Russell. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Go ahead. MS. RUSSELL: For the record, my name is Deborah Russell and I live on Lakeview Drive. And I am imploring you not to recommend approval of this amendment as it's been presented to you for the primary reason that this amendment that was presented to you by handout at the last meeting has a provision in it that was never ever presented at any of the neighborhood meetings. Page 31 November 15, 2000 And I ask you to look on Page 45 of tonight's packet. And if you'll look at Section 2.2.33.19, conditional uses marina, subsection B, increased building height to a maximum height of 100 feet in the waterfront subdistrict. At every single meeting, neighborhood meeting, which the first meeting started in June, what was presented to all of the residents is that the maximum building height would be 42 feet. The one exception to that would be in the commercial districts, if they had mixed use residential, they would allow a building height of 56 feet, but only if there was going to be residential use. Now, people want to know how some of these giant boat barns have gotten built in Collier County. And I submit that this is how they have gotten built. If they -- if the owner right now wanted to build a 100-foot building on that site, I don't know if it would be allowed under current zoning. I would submit that at least there would have to be hearings, there would have to be notification. That's not what has happened with an allowing of 100 feet here. And I have sent -- I sent E-mail messages asking how did this happen? And the response that I got, well, I don't know. I asked the marina owner, what are we talking about with 100 feet here? And his response was, "Well, I don't really need 100, all I need is 65." What was presented to us was 42 feet. And I do not think this plan should be approved, allowing 100-foot height building in the marina area. If you'll look down at the landscape buffer requirement for the conditional use marina, it includes a six-foot buffer wall and plants up to 24 inches in height. Now, how much of a buffer is that going to be when, if you'll remember, that this zoning overlay is on residential property. It goes right next to a house. Yes, you're going to have a 20-foot buffer, but you might have a 10-story building there. This plan was presented as being low intensity commercial use. We already have a marina there. I have no objection to having a nicer looking marina there. The marina was there when I bought my house there. But I do object to sliding in a 100-foot maximum building height that's never been presented. The first time that came out is when those plan -- the Page 32 November 15, 2000 amendment was passed out to you. I asked for a copy of that. When I spoke two weeks ago, I hadn't had a chance to read this yet. Then I would like to reiterate my other concern. What's been brought up is the fact that what we are passing has to be in conformance with our comprehensive plan that we have. If we're going to have low intensity commercial use, let's keep it low intensity commercial use. And I'd like to bring up again what I mentioned two weeks ago, is we're still not addressing the drainage problem. Let's not be in a rush to do this. If we're going to have a zoning overlay, let's do it the right way so that six months from now we're not in the same problem that we faced with the Goodland group tonight. Because only some of the issues were addressed. I think if we're going to allow more intensive use on residentially zoned property than what is currently allowed, then you need to address whether or not there is adequate infrastructure in place, and there is not. The neighborhoods flood. And the idea that we can address it on a case-by-case basis doesn't cut it. And my own house is an example of that. We have 60-foot wide lots. When the lot next to me was built up, there's supposed to be a swale. When you have a 60-foot lot and you have a seven and a half foot setback on each side, you don't have enough room in seven and a half feet to have a swale to drain off the water. What I would suggest is that we go ahead, that you not recommend this, that you send it back to them and ask them to first of all have the planning department address the draining issues. And second of all, not to go ahead and have a provision in here that is contrary to anything that was presented to the residents of the area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. STUDENT: I can address part of the history about the change in the height. It came from the Development Services Advisory Committee. Correct me if I'm wrong. And there was a legal concern about the Burt Harris Private Property Rights Act. And there have been cases brought over on the East Coast under that act where there have been changes and reductions in height limits. That would be a -- that was a legal issue. And they may well have a Burt Harris claim. Page 33 November 15, 2000 But it was put in there as a conditional use so there would be further public hearings on the increased height, it wouldn't just be done. And part of the criteria for the conditional use are compat -- one of those is compatibility, consistency with the land code and comp. plan, noise, odor and glare effects on adjacent properties, and the impact on property values of adjacent properties. It would go through a public hearing, it would go to this board, it would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which is the Board of County Commissioners. So it's not like it's just a done deal. And it was to protect the county legally to permit this. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Marjorie? MR. NINO: But are we -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: One question at a time. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If you're talking Burt Harris, is the building height there now 100 feet? I was told that in talking with staff that MS. STUDENT: there was -- MS. PRESTON: standard. MS. RUSSELL: In C-4 zoning, 100 feet is the current But that's only in C-4 zoning. That doesn't apply to the residential lots. And what we're talking about doing is we're talking residentially zoned lots where we'll allow commercial zoning. Now, so this would allow 100-story build -- 100-foot buildings on lots that are currently zoned residential. And one of the reasons I am so concerned about this is on two of these lots right now, they have been -- within the last month, they have been completely bulldozed of all vegetation. Now, this was -- the work was begun without a permit. There is now -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ma'am, I know you're emotional, okay, but the Chair will recognize you if -- but that is not an issue that you're just talking about right there. MS. RUSSELL: Okay. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to defer -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let us finish our discussion. I'll give you a chance to maybe speak again. MS. RUSSELL: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay let's go back to Commissioner Page 34 November 15, 2000 Abernathy. MS. STUDENT: I'm going to have to defer to the planners on that. It was my understanding that where this was going in, that there was already a present requirement or provision that would allow the 100 feet, and that we were taking that away. And because we were taking that away, that can trip a Burt Harris claim. Which there are cases of this over on the East Coast in the City of Miami Beach for the very same thing. So it was to legally protect the county. Now, I -- it was not my understanding that this would apply in the zone that heretofore this wasn't permitted anyway, but that it was in the C-4 that would allow the 100 feet. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you, Marjorie. MS. PRESTON: If I could -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Debrah, would you address that issue? MS. PRESTON: Sure, if I could clear up. On the map that's on Page 36 of your packet for the Bayshore mixed use overlay district, the conditional use provision would apply in the waterfront district now, and that does take into account one lot, I believe, and a couple of lots in this one down here by Lakeview that is currently residential. The concern at the DSAC meeting was that because of the marina type uses, that we were also limiting to certain areas. Because right now in C-4, all along Bayshore Drive you could have a marina all along Bayshore. And what we're saying is right now you can only have a marina type use in the areas that have a "W" on it for the waterfront district. It does extend one lot back. We had talked to several of the marinas and we felt that the 42 feet seemed like a suitable height for them. And then when we went to the DSAC meeting, they brought up the issue of the Burt J. Harris, and also that because it was waterfront, if someone wanted to go to 44 feet, because some of the standard barns that they have for boat storage might be a little bit taller than 42 feet, were we then jeopardizing them from the two feet that they might need. So we decided to go with the conditional use provision. That way it would have to go through a public hearing again in order to get any additional height. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Clear it up just for me. What can they get with a permit without coming before us? Page 35 November 15, 2000 MS. PRESTON: In the areas that are currently zoned C-4, they could have full marina type uses and go up to 100 feet. This does change the boundary and allow for some additional commercial in the areas that are currently zoned multi-family RMF-6, by one lot. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And that's 40 foot wide? That's -- MS. PRESTON: Oh, the additional? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, the -- MS. PRESTON: Either 40 or 45 feet. How wide? 60 foot. 60 foot. And it's only the ones COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: that are next to the "W"? MS. PRESTON: Right. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. MR. NINO: Would it be possible -- Ron Nino, for the record. What would you think, Debrah, of a modification that would say on -- that the 100 feet applies only to properties currently zoned C-47 MS. STUDENT: I think we have a legal problem there. Because if you're allowing marinas in a different district and you say well, you used to be zoned C-4 so you can have this, and some guy next door wasn't zoned C-4 and he's still a marina, but you only get that, you've got an equal protection problem there, unless you've got a darn good reason, based on not history, but based on something having to do with the configuration of the property right now where you could justify that difference. You have a constitutional equal protection problem. MR. NINO: On the other hand, we have a residentially zoned property now that's limited to 35 feet in height and is looking at an increase in height to 100 feet. And I suggest that the complaint has a lot of legitimacy to it. MS. STUDENT: You can do what you want, and we might have a Burt Harris. How it will turn out, you can't predict those things. And then again, we may not. But that was put in there, again, as I -- for the reasons that I stated. MS. PRESTON: And I'd like to correct that this 100-foot conditional use is not just in the waterfront, but it is in all of the neighborhood commercial area. So that it would be anything that's zoned "NC" or "W" on your map, which would protect the C-4. And then there's that one lot that we've expanded to go into Page 36 November 15, 2000 the neighborhood commercial that right now is zoned multi-family, which doesn't have a height limit, but does limit it to three stories. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm still confused. MS. PRESTON: Confused? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You've got to have a conditional use marina to get to 100 feet? MS. PRESTON: That's correct. And also, in the neighborhood commercial district there also is, if you want the increase to the 100 foot, which protects you for your Burt J. Harris Act, you'd have to go through a conditional use. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So it has to go through the public process. MS. PRESTON: Right. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. And I know you did this two weeks ago, but once again, would you address the drainage? MS. PRESTON: Yes. We're trying to work on that as separate project from this. Because without the overlay of course people can come in and develop right now under the current standards under C-4 or multi-family or single-family, and that doesn't change the drainage situation. We are looking at talking to the Department of Transportation to come up with a typical section for those local streets and to design a plan; and of course the cost estimates and how that would be funded to either put in swales or to put in curb and gutter along those local streets. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Because I know that's not what you're looking for, but I know they're working on it. And that's just a promise. MS. RUSSELL: I understand that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You have to come up to the speaker, would you, please. MS. RUSSELL: I understand that it is being worked on. And my point is, well, let's not intensify the use of the property until we have a solution in place. I don't think the answer is to go ahead and allow more intensive use of property and then try and figure out what the solution is. I think that responsible government, if you're going to allow more intensive use of property, has a responsibility to make sure that the infrastructure is there first. Page 37 November 15, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: If-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- I'm understanding this right, while we put this off and work on the drainage, the man can go build 100 foot without asking permission from anybody. MS. RUSSELL: But not on the residentially zoned lots. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Right. But we could still end up with a 100-foot building without fixing the drainage, without anyone coming back before government of any kind and asking, they just go pull a permit. MS. PRESTON: That's correct, for the properties that are currently zoned C-4. And those are located next to the properties that are currently zoned RMF-6, which mostly are being developed with single-family homes right now, because the lots are too small to allow for anything else but a single-family home. MR. NINO: The -- Ron Nino for -- the overlay district doesn't exacerbate the problems that's already there, unless you rush to the conclusion that because it has the magic of an overlay district, that developers are now going to rush into this area and develop at a far faster rate than it would have developed with that conventional zoning that's in place. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. WHEELER: My name is Elmer Wheeler, and I live on Lakeview. And again, this 100 feet is all new to me also. Every time I've been to the meeting, and I've tried to make every one of the meetings, they've shown me this beautiful picture of Bayshore, which it looks beautiful and that's what I want, too. You know, any kind of new development. And every time they show me a picture, it looks like Fifth Avenue, you know, down in Naples. I said, well, this is beautiful. Well, this 100-foot building that they're projecting, you're never going to see anything like that on Fifth Avenue. So again, just they want two more pieces of property that are residential to be added onto something that's going to have to be voted on also. So just the 100 foot is my problem. And I see that it's all new, but just to let you know that I see a problem with this also. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any questions? Thank you. Page 38 November 15, 2000 Any more speakers? MR. NINO: No, we don't. I don't believe we do. So what is your -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, with that, we'll close the public portion. I'd entertain a motion on 2.2.33. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I would move for approval -- recommend for approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: As is? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: As is. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Second? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy, second by Commissioner Abernathy. Discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: 4-1. Ron? MR. NINO: 4-1. We have a last item for your consideration; that is 2.4.4.7 (sic). Let's see what page that is. MS. STUDENT: Landscaping, I think, Ron. MR. NINO: I beg your pardon? MS. STUDENT: I think it's landscaping. MR. NINO: Yeah. 2.4.7.4. Page 57 of your packet. Mr. Hoover -- yes, there's another one. I'm sorry, there's another one after this. This has to do with -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just -- am I the only one that -- MR. NINO: Page 57 has to do with -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: 57? MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry. MR. NINO: Has to do with amendments to the landscape section dealing with buffers. Apparently in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan there is a provision that specifies the type of buffer that's required at a neighborhood shopping center; the effect of Page 39 November 15, 2000 which is to screen the view of what's happening on the property from the outside, which has some public safety issues related to it. And it affects Mr. Hoover's project, and he raised the issue at the board hearing and was encouraged to attempt to have the issue rectified through the landscape provision of the landscape ordinance. And Bill, would you like to speak to it? MS. STUDENT: And that was raised yesterday. MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And this doesn't? MR. NINO: It doesn't. Excuse me, Nancy, did you have a problem with it? Or you don't know about it? MS. SIEMION: Actually, I just found out about it. So - MR. NINO: Nancy Siemion is our landscape architect, so we rely on -- MS. SIEMION: I'd be happy to share with you what I know about it in the last couple of hours and my concerns. I understand that you're trying to make sure you have the ability to view the property from the roadway for security purposes, and that's good. However, I don't think we need to throw away landscaping that helps a commercial project blend well into the Estates neighborhoods. And I think we can work on that a little bit further, if that's okay. MR. HOOVER: Okay. Bill Hoover, for the record, of Hoover Planning, representing Wilson Boulevard center PUD that was approved yesterday. I think the Planning Commission looked at this maybe a month ago. And you sent this to the board with a recommendation that the six-foot wall fence or hedge required along Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard, we try to get rid of that. We've had -- we've met with the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. They voted, I believe it was 21 to 2 approving our project, but also trying to get rid of this. We've had two members of the Sheriff's Department at that meeting. They strongly opposed a six-foot screening in the front yard because as they drive by -- they're putting a new Sheriff substation out there. They have to drive inside the center to see if a robbery is going on or a drug transaction or -- the civic association was concerned about loitering. Page 40 November 15, 2000 We don't have a problem putting in trees in there, hedge, whatever is customary. We just don't want to have a six-foot wall in the front yard that I think is totally inappropriate, as a planner. MS. STUDENT: I need to chime in here, too. We need to do something, because the board directed that this be done and come to the Planning Commission tonight. And we have a legal problem where when new stuff comes up, that it's got to go through the Planning Commission to get a recommendation to the board. So we've got an exigent circumstance here, I guess you could say. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: We're going to take care of this in just a minute -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Just a second. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- and let staff work on the other part of it later. MR. NINO: Yes. And Nancy has a rewording of it. Could we go to the next issue and come back to this, Bill, and you and Nancy get together? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We will temporarily set aside 2.4.7.4. Next issue. MR. NINO.' Who is the person who had an issue on fences? Okay. I'm sorry, I must have -- yeah, William Kerrigan. Item -- MS. STUDENT: It's probably 2 something. MR. NINO-' Item 2 -- Page 61 of your agenda. You'll recall that staff brought to your attention the current requirement, which is a requirement that was instituted about five years ago by the then current planning manager that said that the so-called structural member side, or was more popularly referred to as the bad side, had to be constructed inward to the property, rather than exteriorly to the neighbor. If you drive around Collier County, and I've noticed hundreds of fences that were built in the -- I guess prior to that regulation that indeed have the structural member side to the neighbor, neighbor's side. I personally subscribe to the proposition that if I'm buying the fence, I want to look at the good side. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Amen. MR. NINO: And I'm not so sure in today's marketplace, the way fences are manufactured, that quite frankly there is any good or bad side. There is a structural member side and a Page 41 November 15, 2000 smooth side. And I think about the comparison of you go into a so-called modern restaurant today and you look at all the air ducts. They're all showing there. Nobody thinks they're ugly. It's part of the ambiance of that facility. However, we did have some concerns about how properties projected themselves along public streets. And the amendment that finally came out of this process is one that says where the fence is facing a public street, the smooth side shall face the public street and the structural member side may face the property owner, the next door property owner, on the interior lot lines. That is the amendment before you. Staff has recommended it. The DSAC subcommittee and DSAC didn't have a problem with it. And Mr. Kerrigan wishes to speak to that item. MR. KERRIGAN: William Kerrigan. I live in Poinciana Village. I'm president of the Poinciana Village Civic Association, and I'm also treasurer of the Property Owners Association of North Collier County, which Poinciana is a member of. And this is how we've heard of this, through Jim Henderson coming to Poinciana Village and Michelle Arnold coming before the property owners, One thing, I think one fallacy Mr. Nino has said, he said well, fences look good on both sides now. Why even bother to change it? If the hardware side looks great, well, you know, don't show it in front of your neighbor. If it looks that good, keep it on your side. I'd like to show you a couple of pictures. I wouldn't want this facing me. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Give it to Mr. Priddy on the end. MR. KERRIGAN: But that's on Goodlette Road. And I have no problem with the county trying to do something about that, you know, facing it. But, I mean, let's not, you know, go into our neighborhoods and have that kind of fence facing your neighbor. I mean, this idea that well, if I buy the fence I want the good side looking at me. Again, Mr. Nino says, well, both sides of the fences when you buy them are good now. So if the hardware side is so good, don't impact your neighbor. Be a good neighbor. So please, do the right thing, keep things the way they are. Keep the hardware inside there. Page 42 November 15, 2000 The only thing I could see you might be doing is causing people to -- that doesn't have a fence gets the hardware on him, he has to go buy a fence to shield himself from that. That's not fair. That's not right. So please, let's keep things the way they are. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. NINO: Let me say that -- I forgot to mention that one of the motivating factors behind this is that the current regulations delegate to the planning services director the discretion of deciding that for whatever conditions that there are, may be special conditions on lots, and under those special conditions, that office can rule that you can build a smooth side to the inside of your lot. The problem is, given that opportunity, we have gotten a lot of requests, and it ends up amounting to if he pays $200, you might get an administrative variance to build the good side in. Well, we're not in the business of doing that. And if any regulation is oftentimes abridged under an administrative variance, then there's something wrong with the regulation. As you've heard me say before, if you're always going to grant a reduction in side yard from 10 feet to five feet, or whatever, then there's something wrong with the regulation to beginning with, or you wouldn't be granting the variance all the time. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Ron, what about PUD's, do they specify if people build fences within their individual lots? MR. NINO: No, they don't. Typically they only address height. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Couldn't they? MR. NINO: They could, yes, they could. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If people want a certain uniformity and think this is a higher class way to do it, it would seem to me the homeowners assoc -- well, that would be a change in the covenants then, wouldn't it? MR. NINO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But they don't address it nOW, MR. NINO: No, they don't. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Are we changing this then merely because of the number of variances requested? Page 43 November 15, 2000 MR. NINO: Well, it's a contributing factor. It's a contributing factor. And our observations, what seems to be the preference of the marketplace, then our observation of -- that there are far more out there historically that are the unfinished side facing the street. And for all we know, this fence here is probably a product of the ordinance as it was 10 years ago, or even seven years ago. It's only been the last five years that the ordinance was changed from the bad side to the good side. MR. KERRIGAN: And that's a good reason why it was. MR. NINO: However, I would have you appreciate, we're not changing that. The ordinance -- the amendment as it stands says if it's along a public thoroughfare, the finished side will face a public thoroughfare. COMMISSIONER PEDONE-' But it doesn't state if you're putting up a fence between you and your neighbor, you don't have to put the good side facing your neighbor. MR. NINO: Under the current amendment, yes. Under the current amendment. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: And on this -- MR. NINO: Under the current amendment it says that. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Okay. MR. NINO: Under the current law, the current law is no, you cannot face the structural member side outward from your property. It has to face inward. MR. KERRIGAN: Collier County -- many neighborhoods in Collier County depend on the Land Development Code for -- they're older, like Poinciana Village. We were permitted in 1969. We don't have -- we have covenants, but basically we depend on this, the Land Development Code, to protect our homes and all. I mean, if somebody has to jump through a few hoops to get the member side over, and it looks good and all, well, let them do that. But I mean, don't change it now. I mean, you know, we depend on Collier County to do that. I mean, you know, we can call this the uglification act of-- neighborhood uglification act of 2000. I mean, please, don't change this. There's no real reason to do that, just to make some variances easier to get. Come on. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Takes the heat off the planning services director, right? MR. NINO.' I have nothing more to add. Page 44 November 15, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further comments? Questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I got confused somewhere along the way. This change will allow a fence builder to put the structural side out any place except on a public right-of-way; is that it? MR. NINO: Exactly. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: It could be on his neighbor's yard. MR. NINO: Exactly. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If I were building a fence, that's exactly what it would be. Any further questions? If not, I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I move that we do not pass this section, since I would consider it to be a bad neighbor policy. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion by Commissioner Young, second by Commissioner Pedone. Any further discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? Nay. 4-1. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: We ought to help the building industry by making them put two smooth sides. MR. KERRIGAN: That's right. MR. NINO: Nancy and Bill, have you-- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: And the landscapers, by putting up CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moving right along. Back to -- I've lost my place. MS. STUDENT: Landscape, 2.4. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We're back to the buffer, aren't we? MS. STUDENT: 2.4.7. I think they're going to be submitting some language, though, so -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: 2.4.7.4, landscape buffering. MS. SIEMION: Hi. Good evening. I'm Nancy Siemion, landscape architect with current planning services. Page 45 November 15, 2000 And Mr. Hoover and I did discuss this issue, and we have conceptually agreed on some language that I'd like to share with you, and here it is: Buffers within Golden Gate Estates neighborhood centers shall be exempt from the six-foot high hedge wall requirement when located adjacent to a right-of-way. A double row hedge of at least 24 inches in height at the time of planting, and attaining a minimum of three feet height within one year shall be planted. A continuous meandering landscaped area, an average of 10 feet wide, shall be landscaped with additional shrubs and ground covers, when adjacent to a right-of-way. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You agree with that, Mr. Hoover? MR. HOOVER: It's a little lengthy and flowery, I guess is maybe the right word, but we don't have a problem with that. We just needed to get rid of that six-foot wall in there. And the landscaping out there, we have 75-foot landscaped area on the two back sides, so if we have quite a bit on the two roads, that will fit in fine. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? I will buy dinner to the commissioner that can repeat that in their motion. I need a motion. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I move the motion we recommend approval, I guess it is, as stated. MR. NINO: As stated by staff. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Pedone, second by Commissioner Priddy. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried. MR. NINO: Do you have anything else you'd like to discuss? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes. MS. STUDENT: We need to have approval of the rest of the LDC. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question first. I'm looking, and I apologize for not being here on the first evening. But I'm looking at the Immokalee Main Street overlay district, and I'm seeing a line drawn down the center of lots one more time. Tell me I'm looking -- that that's not correct. Page 46 November 15, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Tell us what page you're looking at. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, it's Page 29 in the old handout. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Page 26 now. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Page 26 now. And more specifically, the lots that would be along 846 coming into town, the ones on the left-hand side or to the north, it seems like that overlay district runs right through the center of those lots as -- and maybe that's -- MR. NINO: But are we changing it over what it currently is? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well -- MR. NINO: There is an Immokalee overlay district currently in effect. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And -- MR. NINO: Russell, it mirror images the -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The old one. MR. NINO: -- the old one. So it's really not an amendment. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: It's not a change. All I'm asking staff to do is verify if this overlay line goes through a lot, rather than a lot line; the next time we do this, that you bring it back and change it to where we're not splitting the lot line with some overlay -- MR. NINO: Okay, got you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- is all I'm -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any other issues? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I move that we forward this package to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, based on our straw votes. MS. STUDENT: Well, those are recommendatory votes. And I also need a finding of consistency with the comp. plan. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I said recommend. And I find that those are consistent with the comp. plan. MS. STUDENT: Thank you for clarifying that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's been moved by Commissioner Priddy, second by Commissioner Abernathy. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) Page 47 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: tomorrow morning? November 15, 2000 Carried. You will all be back here MR. NINO: Tomorrow morning. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I think we are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:05 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GARY WRAGE, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 48