Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/28/2001 SNovember 28,2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NAPLES, FLORIDA, NOVEMBER 28,2001 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 5:10 p.m. In SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: NOT PRESENT: Joyceanna J. Rautio Kenneth L. Abernathy Paul Midney Mark Strain David J. Wolfley Lora Jean Young Lindy Adelstein Russell Budd Dwight Richardson ALSO PRESENT: Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Susan Murray, Planning Manager Page 1 November 28,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission for November 28, 2001 to consider land development amendments. First item on the agenda is please stand and join with me in pledging allegiance to our flag. (The Pledge of Alliegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I'll call the role. Mr. Midney, absent. Mr. Adelstein, absent but excused. Mr. Budd, absent but excused. Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Rautio, here. Mrs. Young? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson, absent but excused. Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a quorum at this moment. We might run into a difficulty later if one of the commissioners has to leave; so we'll try to move this along as quickly as possible. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have many registered speakers for specific items? MS. MURRAY: Yes. Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Susan Murray, current planning manager for the record. This is your second and final public hearing for the LDC cycle II, the last LDC cycle of this year, and you will be expected tonight to take a final vote, and your vote and recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. Page 2 November 28, 2001 We had quite a bit of discussion at the last meeting, and I do have some registered speakers here on several of the issues. If you'd like to take them in order of the most number of speakers I have, or how would you like to do that? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Tell me which ones they are because we need to move through as many items as we can because we are in danger of losing the quorum, and we do need to vote tonight. MS. MURRAY: You have nine speakers for the boat dock ordinance. You have seven speakers for the Immokalee ordinance. You have five or six for the Gulf Shore moratorium, two for the vehicles on the beach, and one on the activities center number 9 interchange master plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, that poses somewhat of a dilemma. I think -- I'm trying to see how far into the summary sheet some of those are. MS. STUDENT: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MS. STUDENT: A lot of times at the second hearing, we don't necessarily have staff-- and Susan can correct me if she wants to do it -- you know rehash and make another presentation on the items unless there are some changes that need to be drawn to your attention and -- so that would enable the public to just kind of go into that, and then if you have any questions about those items after the public on each item -- I know that's how it's been done in the past, and it does seem to move a little more quickly, especially since we're concerned about losing the quorum. Susan, could you just announce when the Board of County Commissioners is supposed to have their first hearing on this? MS. MURRAY: That would be December 19th at 5:05 p.m. In these chambers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So then it would be -- probably Page 3 November 28, 2001 facilitate matters to go through the items as the summary sheet is and call the speakers as they are called for the item. Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, are we required to go in a particular order? Because if not, maybe we'd be better serving the public just to take them in the quantity of people that are here, nine, seven, five, and one or whatever the number was. MS. STUDENT: What usually happens, if there's public speakers signed up for an item, those items are taken out of order and dealt with, and then were there aren't any, they're just, unless the board has questions, summarily dealt with. And that may help us get through it rather quickly. Just a suggestion. You're the chair, Madam Chair, but it's up to you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO- Okay. Do we want to take them in the order of numbered speakers or on the sheet -- the fact that we have speakers? Any thoughts Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I think I'd go right down the sheet because if we have to quit at a particular time, then we can vote on all those that we've covered. It's going to be hard to keep track of what we've covered if we jump around. All you need to do is say, "The first item is rural agricultural district. Does anybody have anything further on that? No, move to the next," and on down the sheet and we've covered them. MS. MURRAY: Marjorie, would you say that they would need to take a vote after each item? MS. STUDENT' Usually -- I know we have a situation with conflicts, so we are going to break that out and vote on that separately. But usually what we do is just vote at the end, and in this case, though, we may want to take individual or votes on each section Page 4 November 28, 2001 since we have a desire to get through as much of this as possible because of the loss of the quorum. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think we can move that along pretty quickly. Mr. Strain, you still want to go with the nine, seven and -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm just trying to think of what's accommodating to the largest quantity of people here, and if we work through the more intense ones first and let them get done with their evening, we might be able to get through the remaining -- what we have to deal with without a lot of outside input, just to finish it up on our own. It might expedite it that way. And as far as taking them all at once or one at a time, I have questions with quite a few of them. If we were to take them all at once, I'd have to vote no. So I'd as soon we'd take them one at a time for my interest if that helps any input at all. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We're never going to finish. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I move that we take them in order of the number of-- for the first three in order of the number of speakers, and then go in the regular procedure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Young and a second by Commissioner Strain that we take the first three items with the number of speakers. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Page 5 November 28,2001 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: docks which-- MS. MURRAY: Page 30. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Page 30. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. Hold on. Those opposed same sign. Okay. The first item will be boat CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. That's the moratorium. MS. MURRAY: 43, and do you just want to go straight to speakers? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Well, we'll go -- first item we will take is on page 43, Section 2.6.21, Dock Facilities, Ross Gochenaur, current planning is the staff member. I think we might as well go right to speakers. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Disclosures? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We don't need disclosures because this is legislative. MS. STUDENT: This is a legislative matter, quasi-judicial. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that for the whole evening where there's no disclosures -- MS. STUDENT: For the whole evening. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: For the entire evening. We'd probably take a half an hour worth of disclosures with the amount of time I've spent on the phone. MS. MURRAY: First registered speaker is Mark Morton followed by Brenda Dorini. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And each person that's going to speak, please stand up waiting in the wings, or you can sit in the front row so we can move along. Page 6 November 28,2001 Mr. Morton, are you ready? MR. MORTON: I have some pictures to look at if you have one of those screens. MS. MURRAY: Hand it over here, please. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Why don't you go to that side. MR. MORTON: Mark Morton, I live in Coconut River Estates and wanted to address you as I did at the last meeting, kind of update you on what we have been working on in terms of our concerns with the way the dock wording is in the Land Development Code. So I just wanted to kind of go through -- kind of holistically, now, what that issue is, and there's a lot of people that are here that want to speak on the same issue. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We'll try to limit your comments to five minutes at the most. MS. MURRAY: Do you want to use the timer because Marjorie has it? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, Marjorie, you have the timer. MS. STUDENT: I do? I don't even-- MS. MURRAY: I'll show you how. MS. STUDENT: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You two confer about the timer, and we'll let Mr. Morton make his comments. Are we up? Nothing's on here. Technical? Who's watching in the back? MS. MURRAY: Katie. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We need Katie. Could somebody step out into the hall and catch Katie? We're not on. We need to be able to use the visualizer, the screens. We're not on. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The one behind you. (Commissioner Midney enter joins proceedings.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let the record reflect that Page 7 November 28, 2001 Commissioner Paul Midney has just arrived. Okay. We seem to have a photo up, and we'll worry about our area, and we'll look at the screen. MR. MORTON: Okay. What I want to go over quickly is the -- Coconut River Estates is a less than 60-foot-wide canal. Actually, it's platted 60 feet, and as I mentioned last time, it was constructed -- I guess it must be about 30 years ago, and it is in some places, probably less than 60 and that is because the lot lines on the south side -- probably the 15 to 20 feet as you head into the canal is actually a gentle slope, and then on the north side the lot lines are actually out in the water in a lot of cases or have a riprap built to them. I just wanted to give you some images of what this canal looks like. This is just looking down the canal. This gives you an idea here (indicating) of the canal. This is also looking down the canal. As you can-- hopefully, as you're looking at them, you can see that some areas there's some lots that currently don't have docks yet. There's others that do. There's an assortment of types of docks. There's people that are just mooring on -- straight on a dock. There's others that have davits. There's others that have lifts, different types of lifts, and it's a very old neighborhood with a lot of different styles. As you can see, most of the boats are in that less-than-25-foot range. There are some taller than that because we have a depth restriction in the Gordon River. Getting in and out there's some shallow spots that's pretty difficult unless you just kind of take your boat out there in high tide. This is another shot of the canal. This is another shot, and something I want to just note here. Here's a 60-foot cross-section, and between these two boats (indicating) there's probably somewhere between 22 to 25 feet of Page 8 November 28, 2001 navigable channel between the two boats, and that's important later on as we're dealing with the 50 percent criteria and the 25 percent criteria that's in the code. As I was talking about the north side, this is the north side, and as you can see, if you look at the dock in the corner, notice how the pilings go straight down pretty much to the toe of the riprap so that the depth is right there. So the depth of the canal is deep enough on the north side, generally, and the boats and the docks go right at the toe of the slope of the riprap. You see the same thing there as you look at this dock here (indicating). This is at fairly low tide. It gets lower than this, but this is close to I call like a mean low tide. Same thing again. You can see the one side (indicating). If you go to the -- here's a boat. Notice that it's only, like, four, five feet right off the riprap, and that's where it's floating. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is this north side or south side? MR. MORTON: This, again, is north side. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: North side. MR. MORTON: Same here (indicating). Our problem comes -- as I said on the north side we have a more naturalistic slope, less riprap, and also the canal was offset when it was constructed. If I wanted to get extra time, some of the speakers that follow me could give me their time? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We might give you that. They can yield to you. MR. MORTON: This is, for example, the south side (indicating). Here's a very natural slope. It's got leather fern at the toe of slope. It's got mangroves, etc. In the actual lot, the canal -- the 60 foot -- where the canal was supposed to be excavated is actually, if you look at this drawing (indicating), way up here. So on one side the lot lines are in the canal or at the slope, and Page 9 November 28, 2001 on the south side they are way up inside the lots. There's irregularities in how the south side also does in riprap. Here is the -- if you notice the riprap up here (indicating) is out in the canal, and then this gentleman here (indicating), whoever owned this property, decided to not fill out in the canal when they did their lot, and they stayed closer probably saving some money, and their riprap is back here (indicating). But the water at the toe of this is very shallow. Here the water (indicating) -- because the guy filled out is at the depths, but the other guy that didn't fill, he's got, you know, a kind of a receded area for the tide. And I need to show this one because it's my kids, and I know they're home and they want to be on TV. This is my son (indicating). He's at the toe of the slope of the one where you get the depth, and that's basically where the mean low water is, and you can float the boat. And here's my daughter (indicating) up at the kind of mean high water line, and you can see for this individual who owns this lot, in theory, the way the reg's written, their boat would kind of have to be in this area and, obviously, not going to have a boat there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is that a three-minute warning? MR. MORTON: Is that the three-minute warning? MS. MURRAY: Five minutes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That was five minutes. MR. MORTON: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mark, how do you legislate to cover this? MR. MORTON: I was looking -- do I get more time ifI get a question asked? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes -- MR. MORTON: And someone's going to yield. I was looking at the intent of the whole dock section. In the dock section -- I was -- as the chair of the Land Development Code Page 10 November 28,2001 many, many moons ago -- and I don't even know where the original language came from. That language has been in there forever. And I don't know what even the criteria -- how it was established. And when we modified the land code, we didn't even touch the dock language at that time. I guess it's 10, 15 years ago. Here we are today, and in this issue that the county staff is proposing, is a measurement -- basically the changes they've made is to allow measurement of your dock, where your dock protrusion can be, to be at mean high water versus the lot line because they've caught this issue. You know, if you measure from the lot line, the guy can't have a dock. So if you look at the language which is (as read): "individual private docks including mooring pilings, davits, lifts, and the like are permitted to serve waterfront property. Docks and the like are primarily intended to adequately secure moored vessels and provide safe access for routine maintenance and use while minimally impacting navigation within an adjacent navigable channel, the use of the waterway, the use of neighboring docks, the native marine habitat, manatees, and a view of the waterway by the abutting properties." If you take that as kind of the core essence of what the county's trying to accomplish with docks and back into it, you don't have a dock if you can't float the boat. So most people, in the essence of what the code should be, I think, trying to accomplish is people going out to get to the water that they can float in, and once you figure out where that spot is, then going through this other criteria. How does it affect your neighbor? Does it leave enough navigable channel? From the very beginning of someone getting a dock, they don't have one if you can't get to water where your boat will float. So what's happened in this particular area, as I showed you, on the south side you saw some of those narrow docks. Those folks could just Page 11 November 28,2001 build right at the toe of the slope, and they are in floating water. The people on the south side, they have to go further out to get to the water. And what's left behind is a 20 -- you know, 20 -- in some cases even 20 feet. What the county ordinance says is that you have a minimum of 20 feet for navigable channel, but that minimum can't be overread (sic) by a 50 percent criteria and 25 percent. The 50 percent criteria is 50 percent of the canal width -- overall canal width has to be left a navigable channel. So if you take this particular case and you say 60 feet, the navigable channel in that canal has to be 30 feet. So, in essence, when I just showed you-all those pictures of all the docks where it's about 20 to 25, many of them being there for a long time and have gone in over the years, the people are living there going back and forth, and they're at 20 -- you know, 20 feet minimum and some places 20 and maybe gets up to 30. The other criteria is 25 percent of the canal, you cannot extend your dock more than 25 percent of the canal. So if I take 60, again, 25 percent of that is 15 feet. If I would go back to those pictures -- and you even allow people to measure 15 feet from the mean high water, they still don't have a boat that's floating. So what we have is a situation where we have an established canal. There's boats and docks and people living there -- there's probably ten more lots that needs docks -- that is functioning, is working for the neighborhood. But with the way the Land Development Code is set up, basically, most of the docks on the south side come to be illegal, or if you wanted to go to the 50 percent, every place that's not 30 feet wide, somebody's got to move their dock back to get the 30 feet. So I was looking at this and saying, you know, what is -- the criteria seems to be to allow people to get to a place where they can have their boat and then overlay the other criteria in terms of if you Page 12 November 28, 2001 left navigable channel, do you have -- if you take into consideration of your neighbors, etc. And, frankly, we started talking to staff about it, and they're dealing with -- from the original language which was this 50 percent/25 percent, and they really believe you need the 50 percent, and you need the 25 feet criteria. It just puts us in a quandary because we don't see how it could work for our canal. So we're hoping through the land code changes you can really look at the dock language to be more friendly to the citizens from the perspective of-- the first criteria is can you get the person to navigable water, and then there's other things that have to meet. It may mean in some cases you can't because of other conditions, the person who has to dredge the canal, or -- I'm not exactly sure what that situation was. But in here we know that it functions with people going out to the water on the north -- on the south side. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is the canal that you're showing us as an example a dead-end canal? MR. MORTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you know if there's any differences in the code in describing a navigable channel versus an access canal used for mooring boats? I mean, there may be a distinct difference between those two uses or definitions, and I'm wondering if there is, that could help us. MR. MORTON: I don't think there is. Maybe Ross -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Maybe Ross. MS. MURRAY: I'll let Ross answer that. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services. The code makes no such distinction. It describes a navigable waterway. Whether it's a dead end or not, there's no distinction. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I mean, if you have Page 13 November 28,2001 navigable waterway, and it's as we have talked about it before this board such as Vanderbilt Beach where there's 100 foot wide and you've got a lot of boat traffic and it's canals feeding into that, there's a lot of difference in that navigability than there is in this one where it's a dead-end canal, and the only people using it, most likely, would be those people trying to get access to their boats to the main channel. Has anybody thought of using language in the code versus real, you know, traffic-congested or navigable waterways? MR. GOCHENAUR: A canal is a navigable waterway, and virtually all canals in Collier County are dead end. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And what I'm trying to suggest, maybe they should be looked at differently than a canal that's open to use for a lot more traffic or is customarily used for traffic. MR. GOCHENAUR: I don't see how we'd make that kind of distinction on a regular rational basis. The code had to address a generic situation as simply as possible. And this section of the code is already complicated enough that I have trouble explaining some of the criteria to people who want, for instance, dock extensions. We are trying to keep it simple. We based that 50 percent criterion on revisions that were made to the code about five years ago; that's when the 25 percent on either side to give property owners on either side of the waterway an equal amount of the waterway for their dock and the 50 percent for navigability. The research determined that the South Florida Water Management uses that for their canals where they allow boat docks for boat docks in aquatic preserves. The DEP requires that 60 percent of the waterway width be maintained for navigability. So in looking at a generic situation where we're trying to address the code for the entire county, that's basically what we ended up with without getting so complicated nobody could understand it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Young. Page 14 November 28,2001 COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Does staff have any suggestions on how to address this particular situation? MR. GOCHENAUR: The amendment that you see before you was our attempt to address that particular situation for small waterways to allow them as much relief as we could by allowing the measurement of true waterway width rather than measurement from the most restricted point and still maintain what we thought was the necessary minimum for safe navigation. We didn't feel that we wanted to be in a position where we would be able to -- where someone would be able to hold the county liable for approving standards that were less than -- what you would need for safe navigation. And I haven't been presented with any testimony to the contrary that less than this would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We need to move along. Do you have another point, Mr. Morton, or go to your next speaker? MS. MURRAY: Next speaker is Brenda Dorini. MR. MORTON: I would just say that this is a condition that I do believe you can make changes to the Land Development Code to accommodate it and cover safety and all those other issues. Actually, it's sitting there and the boats are there. People travel up and down, and I think that Commissioner Strain has a great idea. I think the dead end is probably key. Everyone's living with it, and no one's crashing into each other's boat, and nobody's holding the county liable. So I think we just sometimes -- as chairman of the code, the code is made very broad. As you get citizens' input into, you may have to add detail to it to accommodate what the citizens -- what the people are going to need. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And before you walk away then, some of your other speakers may focus on this, but are we going to create with this particular change to the Land Development Code a situation Page 15 November 28, 2001 where we are going to have a whole lot of variances? Or are we creating a code enforcement problem? MR. MORTON: You already would have the code enforcement, but you wouldn't even have a variance. Basically, the people on the south -- everybody would have to figure out which dock gets pulled back to make the 30 feet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You just want them conforming; you don't have to tear them down, do you? MR. MORTON: The way the code's written you cannot leave less than 50 percent of the navigable channel, and there is no variance or extension opportunity. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think pending the results of the rest of the testimony, it might be interesting to see if we could work out another paragraph to be added excepting dead-end canals and providing for separate provisions for those. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, I'm going to charge you -- think about that closely while you listen to these speakers. MS. MURRAY: Brenda Dorini followed by Marcie Wisler. I would like to point out while Brenda's coming up, there's also aesthetic and environmental reasons for the criteria we have for boat dock extensions, so it's just not a navigability issue. You might want to think about that too. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And would the next speaker please come stand toward the front or sit toward the front. And name the next two speakers so they're up here, please. MS. MURRAY: This should be Brenda Dorini followed by Marcie Wisler. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Marcie, move forward. Okay. You have the floor. MS. DORINI: My name is Brenda Dorini at 2376 Longboat Page 16 November 28, 2001 Drive. And to save us a lot of time, I'd like to yield to a more knowledgeable speaker, if that's possible. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's fine. That next speaker-- MS. MURRAY: Marcie Wisler, do you wish to speak? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You have to speak on the record. Please come up and the next person... MS. MURRAY: Peggy Jones. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have to move here a little faster, ladies and gentlemen. MS. MURRAY: Peggy Jones? JeffDorini? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Come up. If you'd just all migrate toward the front, and then you can decide who's the most eloquent speaker, and we'll work through this quickly. MS. MURRAY: JeffDorini followed by Steve Jones. MR. DORINI: I'm JeffDorini at 2376 Longboat Drive. We have a dock and a boat and everything, and I'd just like to say very briefly that as long as we can maintain a 20-foot separation and have navigable waterway, I think that would work great for our community. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How far up does your dock go? MR. DORINI: I don't have the exact measurements. Probably -- I have a dock and a boat lift that goes out about 19 foot. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker. MS. MURRAY: Steve Jones followed by Ed Follmer. MR. JONES: For the record, I'm Steve Jones. I live at 2441 Clipper Way in Coconut River Estates. I, too, presently have a dock and a lift in the canal. One thing that I want to make clear is that I think all of the neighbors that have showed up tonight are in favor of leaving just a 20-foot passageway down the canal. That's basically what we were looking for to relieve any issues that we have with the docks because Page 17 November 28, 2001 20 foot is about all we have in some areas anyway. In the almost nine years that I lived at this address, one thing that I want to bring to your attention is -- and several of the other folks can attest to this -- maybe five or six times in nine years I've had to pass another boat in that canal. You know, it's one of those situations where we all go out at different times and we have different days that we do things on. And I think that any reasonable, prudent person would give way to an oncoming boat. And that's normally what we do. It's a small area; it's a tight canal, and we've always gave way to oncoming traffic, moved off to one side. The few times that I have passed someone, I've had to park at maybe someone else's dock or hold onto their boat to let the other pass. There is just no other way to get through this canal, and it is a dead-end canal where there is no through traffic, so I think that issue should be addressed as Mr. Strain said. I won't take any more of your time. MS. MURRAY: Ed Follmer followed by Wilbert Lemasters. MR. FOLLMER: All right. My name is Ed Follmer, 2313 Clipper Way. I do have a dock and a boat lift. The total width of that entire thing is -- the dock is five feet. The boat lift is about 12 1/2, so we're looking at 17 1/2 feet. Even with the boat lift, unless I have at least a half tide, I can't even drop my lift down. It hits the bottom. I don't even get off my lift until I have a half tide. From mid tide up is all I can use my boat. Before I put the boat lift in, I had my boat on mooring whips. And you can ask any of my neighbors, they used to give me dirty looks when they went by, and the boat had been hit several times because I had to put the boat out so far at low tide to keep it from hitting the bottom. My particular boat -- this isn't everybody's problem, but I Page 18 November 28, 2001 happen to have an inboard/outboard, and those of you who are boaters realize that an I/O, you cannot raise the lower unit up above the level of the bottom of the boat. Consequently, when you got a low tide, you got the boat laying on the bottom with all the stress on the lower unit. Another reason for a lift is -- let's face it. It just keeps the maintenance way down. You don't have the barnacles. I had on two different occasions had to go for $3700 worth of repairs because barnacles got on the bellows of the I/O, broke them open, the saltwater got inside the lower unit and just ruins everything. But that's my personal problem; that's not everybody else's. But my point is this: If you have a five-foot dock -- my particular dock is five feet, and the back edge of it is right on the high-water mark. That dock's only five-feet wide. What if I bought a 1 O-foot-wide boat? Now I'm at 15 feet. I can't even dock that boat within that because you have to have three or four feet of line. There's a 3 1/2-foot tide here in the summertime, so 15 feet is just not a realistic measurement. We really need 20. If we had 20, people on the other side had 20, and there's 20 down the middle, that's plenty of room to navigate. Nobody's -- like previous people have said, nobody's had any problem with that. Nobody's slamming into anybody's boat. Nobody's complaining. All we want to do is be able to use our canal. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Wilbert Lemasters followed by Glen Wisler. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. Commissioner Young has a question for the last speaker. Sir? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a question up here for you. I didn't look fast enough. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: As you all are addressing this Page 19 November 28, 2001 issue, what specific change do you require that would help you specifically? MR. FOLLMER: I think rather than going with what's being proposed now is, by the county, is they are trying to leave 50 percent in the middle and 25 percent on each side. I think if it were -- on a 60-foot canal, if we used 20, 20, 20, which would be 33 percent, you'd leave 33 percent to each person and 33 percent down the middle, that would solve 95 percent of the problems. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: All right. Thank you. MR. FOLLMER: You're welcome. MR. LEMASTERS: My name is Wilbert Lemasters. I have lived in Coconut River Estates for 21 years. I'm one of the old timers in there, and you laughed a while ago when someone said probably within the eight years they've only had to stop one or two times to leave boats through. I have never, ever had to stop to leave a boat through. There's not that much traffic down that canal. Neighbors have gotten along very well in that section. There's no problem with that, and I'd like to see a motion made that if we can have 20 to 22 feet between boats in that navigable waterway, then that's the way we'd like to go. And we'd like to come to you guys and ask you for your help on that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Oh, question. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You've got to, of course, realize that when we make decisions like that that it affects everybody. It affects all the canals. And, you know, either that or make an exception for your canal. This is the dilemma because not everyone's canal is like that. MR. LEMASTERS: We understand, but at the same time, like I said, I bought kind of waterfront property or was hoping it was waterfront property. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sure. Page 20 November 28, 2001 MR. LEMASTERS: If I had to pull my boat back-- my dock back, I'm inground. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's a terrible situation just by looking at those pictures. It's obvious this is not your typical canal. MR. LEMASTERS: If that's the case and if we'd have to have that whole canal back in there dredged, and we'd have to come to the county or somebody to dredge a canal to get us into deeper water. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Glenn Wisler followed by George Seger. MR. WISLER: I'm Glenn Wisler, and I live at 2393 Clipper Way. And I feel that the 20-foot navigable part is a good part to have in there, but the 50 percent wouldn't work because the canal isn't wide enough to do that. And the commissioner that came up with the suggestion of dead-end canals, that sounds like a real good idea because it's just a little dead-end canal that we've got there. And it's probably a problem that not too many people have because of the type of canal that it is. I have a dock and a lift, and on a low tide the outside pilings of my dock are dry, and it's real close to 20 feet. My dock is about 7 and outside to outside of the pilings is about 11. So I'm about 18 feet of dock and lift. And we really need that 20 foot thoroughfare. My street is only 20-feet wide. On many days I go out and I have to wait to go around the lawn service guys up and down the street. It's not a two-way street when it's only 20-feet wide. Why do we have to have a 30-foot-wide canal? It doesn't make sense to me. Let's make it livable. We've been there for years, and we just want to get along and be able to boat. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think what you're saying is that you have somewhat of a neighborhood situation here for your canals that's probably different than the generic approach we're trying to take here. Page 21 November 28, 2001 MR. WISLER: Correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is that fair to say? MR. WISLER: That's fair to say. You know, the other canals that are going out to the river, out to the bay where you have a lot of boat traffic, it's a different situation. You could throw gates up across ours and give us an opener to open the gate. I appreciate your time. I don't know what else to tell you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. We have at least one more speaker. MS. MURRAY: That was your last speaker. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: This gentleman? MS. MURRAY: Is this George Seger? I'm sorry. MR. SEGER: I'm George Seger at 2489 Clipper Way. We're the seventh house from the end of the canal on the south side. So we've only lived here about five years at this location. I have never yet met a boat in the canal. I fish a lot, try to go out at least once a week. The 20-foot navigable waterway would be beneficial to just about everyone there. My dock is situated completely off my property. Our property stops at the top of the bank; the dock goes out. My outer pilings are two feet into the water. At low tide my boat is on the bottom. You know, I'd love to move out, but I mean I understand there's no dock across from me, so I don't have a traffic problem that way. But, I mean, I can understand where some of the other people have, you know, concerns. And if we have this navigable waterway of 20 feet, this will work for all of us. We can all live with it. We're a very close community, and -- I don't have anything more to say. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions? MR. SEGER: But this is why we bought this house in this location is because we are on a small canal, and we can get out to the bay. Page 22 November 28, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: your shirt? I like it. up? Mr. Seger, where did you get MR. SEGER: My wife got it for me for my birthday. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's a nice shirt. MR. SEGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Morton, do you have some follow MR. MORTON: I appreciate that. It really comes back to, again, I think when we talk about the county's overall standards versus trying to make something specific for one particular canal, and I think the idea of the receding bank which the staff has identified has been a problem around the county, and I think it's a great solution. You should be measuring from the mean high water from what the waterway width is versus the platted 60. So that's great language. The 20-foot minimum, I think a lot of it has to do -- and I'm very familiar with the land code -- is building kind of a hierarchy of what you want. And the first thing is the people would like to get to navigable -- floating their boat. Then it becomes what we prefer in Collier County, and the first thing we like to see is this 50 percent, 25 percent, and nothing less than 20-foot wide in a navigable channel. And maybe that's restricted to dead-end canals or something and then after that it's under various other conditions that you can get relief from the 50 percent, you might say, because it's a little bit more specific to people that have -- you know, you don't want to have people dredging the mangroves. It's an environmental thing. Susan was talking about -- some of those areas because it's a very naturalistic slope, the people -- it's better for them to just put their dock out. So I really think it really comes down to -- it could be -- as Ross said, it's very complicated. I don't know that it is all that complicated. I think the code is complicated and, simplistically, Page 23 November 28, 2001 people want to get to where they can float their boat, and then there's a list of things that you put below that in terms of navigable channel that you leave behind when you extend. Because I don't agree, by the way, with the 20, 20, 20, for example. In some places the people need to go out 20 to get to navigable water, but the person across the way only needs to go out 10 or 5. So I think that's really kind of the problem with the code generally with the whole county is that what we're saying to people is that we know you want a dock, but we'd like you to extend that dock out to where you can float it, but we don't necessarily want you to go farther just to get a longer dock, just to have a longer dock. The real point is for people to get to where they can moor their boat, the very first thing in the code. So I think that's where it goes sideways as we've lost sight of that's what we're trying to accomplish with the code. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mark, before you leave, I think you or maybe some of the other speakers has said 20 foot is acceptable. If you're now saying that the 20, 20, 20 isn't acceptable, then what is it you're getting at? MR. MORTON: I'm saying that in that canal there are places where if a person on the south side goes out to the 20 because the canal's only 55-feet wide, the other person's not going to get 20. But the other person doesn't need to come out to the 20 because of the -- they are in navigable water anyway. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, what I was going to suggest as a way to maybe help this situation is that some language be added in the cases of dead-end waterways that are 100 feet in width, a minimum of one third shall be maintained as navigable waterway. Now, would that fit your scenario and your particular canal scenario because it seemed to me it would, but I'm wondering if it will or not. Page 24 November 28,2001 AUDIENCE: One-third? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One-third, one-third, one-third, so you'd end up with 20 feet navigable. Whether that's 20 feet in the center or 20 feet off to the side. If the guy in the shallow side needs a boat dock 25 feet, and you're saying a guy in the south side then would need a smaller boat dock, then that would still work. Is that not the case? MR. MORTON: Or if they are offset. That happens a lot too. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. MORTON: Yeah. All those are potential solutions, and that would be good language to look at to see how it would fit. That's a good suggestion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm trying to craft something -- MR. MORTON: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- that we can get by here with tonight and then move it forward. That's why I'm asking you, would that work in your situation? MR. MORTON: I think that would. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Gochenaur, I would like you to at least comment on that possible change because I see the question in your eyes; now what are we going to do. MR. GOCHENAUR: Thank you. I appreciate that opportunity. I don't think we'd be willing to agree to that. I think that the standards we have to hold for the entire county have to apply to this situation. We are looking at a universal code. When we tried this amendment the last cycle, I got at least one phone call from a resident up there who was concerned that we were reducing it as much as we were. You can't please everybody, and you can't always account for everything nature wants to do with you. People can pretty much always have a dock and a boat, but they can't always have the boat and dock that they want. Sometimes Page 25 November 28, 2001 you're going to have a bigger boat than your waterway can support, and if we open the door to this sort of reasoning here, we're going to run into opposition, in my opinion, from other neighborhoods that have already criticized this code for being much too liberal in terms of, for instance, boat dock extensions. I do believe we have a viable code here that's based on reasonable research, and it does apply to the whole county. We have tried to accommodate this situation as much as possible, even though these canals are in a minority. Now, dead-end canal it might be, but most of the canals in Collier County are dead-end canals. And if people don't navigate in a dead-end canal, they can do just as much damage as they can in an open waterway with a no-wake zone, for instance, so it's not a speed issue. You can have no wake in a very broad waterway. I do think that we would have to stand behind the criteria that we're presenting now. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Isn't the criteria you're presenting you'd end up with 50 percent? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So all the suggestion is to go from 50 to 33 percent in canals that are dead end, less than 100 feet, which I wouldn't suggest doing it for just this subdivision, but it would be county-wide. So, therefore, it would be on a county-wide basis that I would suggest it applying. Does that help any? MR. GOCHENAUR: Virtually all canals in the county are 100 feet or less. Most of them are 100 feet or 80 feet. You have a lot of 80-foot canals. Is this necessarily something that we want to do? And, again, as Susan pointed out, it's not strictly a navigation issue. There are aesthetic issues. What we're doing here is trying to adjust the Land Development Code to account for a particular situation, and I just don't think we should try to bend it to the extent that that sort of compromise would bend it. Page 26 November 28,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Before I recognize Commissioner Wolfley -- but the opposite of that is if we know up front that we're creating a regulation that's going to create a situation where there's a lot of variances, or that we're creating an undue burden on a particular neighborhood that, I think, represents 50 properties or more, I think it's incumbent upon us to try to work something out to make it less expensive for the taxpayer, less burdensome for the county staff. So I'm having sympathy for what you're saying, Ross, because this is well written, and you've taken care of a number of items, but I still don't think that we can go forward with it just this way and recognize that Coconut River has a problem, and there's a lot of docks or properties that want docks there. MR. GOCHENAUR: You're leading me somewhere where I don't want to go, but I'm going there. I believe that there are code enforcement issues here that indicate that approximately 30 docks are either illegal or thought to be illegal in that they weren't permitted at all. They were permitted, and a certificate of completion was never issued. I don't want to be in the position where we can be accused of adjusting the Land Development Code to correct violations of the Land Development Code. And that's what I believe the problem is now. Not that docks can't be built that might or might not fit the county's regulations, but that docks have already been built illegally that apparently do violate both the building code and the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's an interesting comment because we have another one before us that we could say that we're making a specific Land Development Code change to help one particular area. Whether they have or haven't been cooperative is another issue, which we won't get into to. But I understand where you're coming from. Page 27 November 28, 2001 Commissioner Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, you sort of took the steam out of it, but what do we do for these folks? What are they going to do? MR. GOCHENAUR: We've been asked if they could apply for variances either individually or collectively to correct the problem after the fact. I've got a legal request into the county attorney's office. Right now the code says that a dock can occupy no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway with no potential for a variance. If the county attorney decides if a variance -- I'm sorry. Let me correct that. That a dock can go no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, period, that no extension would be possible. If the county attorney decides that a variance would be possible under those circumstances, they might be able to correct it this way, either individually or collectively, but we're still waiting for an opinion on that. A possible alternative would be to amend the code to allow for the possibility of a variance if someone wanted to go beyond that 25 percent. If we were directed to make that amendment, that's something that I think we could accomplish. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Or fix the canal. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe Ms. Student would like to comment. MS. STUDENT: I believe that we have opined on that issue before, and it was felt that the boat dock extension was the way to go except for the side setback variances. I personally feel more comfortable with language in the code with language that would allow for a variance or possibly -- I don't think -- if you want to call it a boat dock overlay for this area. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: A boat dock overlay. MS. STUDENT: That may be a problem from where Ross is Page 28 November 28, 2001 coming from, but I would feel more comfortable with the idea of the ability to have a variance -- specifically stated in there the ability to get a variance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: What did you think of Commissioner Strain's change? Does that affect you from the legal aspect? MS. STUDENT: No. I think that's a policy decision that staff needs to look at. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: A policy decision. Okay. Any other questions of Mr. Gochenaur? I'll recognize you, but you must come to the front and speak, so come on up quickly because we're running out of time here. Apparently, she changed her mind. Okay. Since this one is rather important, do we want to go forward? Would we like to make comments? Do you want to make some changes? Do we want to vote on this one specifically and then move on to the next item? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm ready to make a motion, but I'd have to ask the county attorney, since this would be my first time to one of these kind of hearings, how we can couch our motion to make sure it contains any changes we may want to decide. Is it done as recommendation or is it subject to? How do you... MS. STUDENT: Your motion is a recommendation. You are at a recommendatory capacity to the Board of County Commissioners. So the motion would be to recommend-- and it could take several forms. It could be to recommend it as it's written. It could be to recommend it, and you would enumerate the changes that you would want to see, or it could be to deny it in its entirety. Also, since we're taking separate motions tonight, on each one I need for you-all to make a finding of consistency with the comp plan since we're taking separate sections as opposed to voting on the whole. Page 29 November 28, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm new to that last piece you just said by consistency with the comp plan -- MS. STUDENT: -- comp plan, and boat docks really are not an issue with the comp plan. It deals with larger issues. As far as I know -- staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but staff can provide you with that information as to consistency with the comp plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any more comments? Should we go for this motion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'd like to make a motion that we recommend approval of Section 2.6.21, Dock Facilities, with the recommendation of the language change -- I don't know how to say this -- that contains the following information: In dead-end waterways less than 100 feet in width, a minimum of one-third should be maintained for navigable waterways. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have a second for the motion? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We have a motion by Mr. Strain and a second by Mr. Wolfley to approve the bulk of this particular dock facility information before us with the specific change on the dead-end waterway that he just stated and the finding of consistency with the comp plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Discussion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. I can't this quickly determine what the unintended consequences of this change might be. I would prefer to go with the staff's position amalgamating onto it the provision that variances could be sought in situations of this sort. I think that does the least damage to the code and solves the problem. So I have to vote against Mr. Strain's motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Young. Page 30 November 28, 2001 COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I agree with Commissioner Abernathy. I think we must support a uniform code, but there is an opportunity for a collective variance and probably that's the route that you-all should seek. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I don't think I can support -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: We still don't know whether there can be a group variance? The legal staff is looking into that? MS. STUDENT: I don't think that's what the -- the question wasn't as to the group variance. The question was to, as I understand it, variance versus boat dock extension. We had opined on that before. But in the situation like this, if there's some specific language written into the code -- that was without the specific language. But if there's some specific language written into that for the variance, then I would feel more comfortable with it. We have had situations where we have processed-- staff might be able to help me with my memory a little bit, but I recall -- I think there was a group or collective variance processed for some small lots that are called boat dock lots where it may have been a group conditional use. But it's not -- I mean, it has happened before where we've processed things in a group. Isn't that right, Ross, where we... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go ahead. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. Little Hickory Shores, the so-called boat dock lots up there, got variances to build boat docks to the property line. That is right into the setbacks so that they were set back zero into the property line. This was done collectively for a number of lots in the same block. So there is a precedence of sorts. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My concern with the variance issue is that we know that there are problems going to be created if we don't go to a different code for those dead-end waterways in a lot Page 31 November 28,2001 of cases. And if we know that, then aren't we just simply forcing the public to go through another round of submittals and approvals that are really time consuming and don't need to be done if we simply make the modification in this language here. And that was what my intent was, simply to save the public of having to go through something that obviously they are going to have to go through if this passes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's why I can support your motion because I don't feel like I want to vote to create a situation where we right now know that there's going to be a whole group of variances coming in, and I guess most people know how I feel about variances, which is I'm not a fan. So any other comments before I call the question? Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If you say that you start from the mean low-water line, that would still not get rid of this problem? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ross, I think you need to stand there until we finish. MR. GOCHENAUR: Sorry. I'm trying to be unobtrusive. That would not correct the problem. Typically, widths are measured from the mean high-water line. It's a condition of tidal waters. I don't think that would help at all. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I mean, these people who have to build their docks way out there now because they're too far away from the water, this wouldn't help them -- taking the measurement from that point would not help them? MR. GOCHENAUR: Specifically -- and it certainly would not help a unified land development code in addressing the conditions in the county overall, which is our intent here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Question, comment. I'll call the question. All in favor of the motion say aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Aye. Page 32 November 28, 2001 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Nay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have Mr. Abernathy and Mrs. Young against the motion. Motion carries. Moving right along. MS. MURRAY: Your next item will be the Immokalee District regulations, Overlay District regulations. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that is page... COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman, as soon as we get to the large public-participation items, I think we should revert to not voting on each item each time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Exactly. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That doesn't make any sense to me. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I agree. MS. MURRAY: That's page 13. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Madam Chairman, would we be able to comment on each item separately because I have comments on quite a few items? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Page 13. MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: speakers -- MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have some changes I noticed. Yes. You can comment separately. 2.2.29. Do we have registered Do we have comments from the staff?. How many speakers? Page 33 November 28, 2001 MS. MURRAY: You've got about nine. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Nine now? MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, I guess some more people have arrived. Do we want to follow the same format and let the speakers speak and then the staff present? I noticed we made a number of changes here. Obviously, somebody talked to somebody. MS. MURRAY: It's the same. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Although there are some individual items. MS. MURRAY: The changes were as you discussed with us, so there shouldn't be anything new there. We reworded Section 2.2.29.1 to make it more understandable. The next section below that was 60 days; we changed that to six months. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Correct. MS. MURRAY: And on page 18, I believe, or 19, there's a six- month provision there. We would like to change that to 12 months, so I just need to put that on the record now. We meant to change that to 12 and didn't make it in. Back to page 18, we took out the fees. And page 16, Item 5, we expanded that to 12 months. And page 15 at the top of your paragraph there, about two-thirds of the way down was expanded to 90 days. And that's pretty much what we had discussed establishing longer time frames. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And I noticed something also. Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT: Yes. For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. On page 14, Section 2.2.29, the reference to the Land Development Code in there says -- I think it's a typo -- 90-102. It should be 91.102, and I wouldn't want any issue to come up over that Page 34 November 28, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, that is 91. MS. STUDENT: It's like a grandfathering. It's a provision that relates to something that's nonconforming, so you need to have the ordinance number. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And while we're looking at typos, right above that 2.2.29.1, once again (as read): "the purposes of these provisions are," not purpose. We missed the "s" when you cleaned that language up. MS. MURRAY: Okay. As you will recall, this is basically policy that was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners to address substandard housing in the Immokalee area for the VR and MH zoning districts. Basically, this is a Land Development Code amendment to legitimize that policy decision that was made by the Board some time ago. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Let's have our first public speaker, and please do come up and line up or sit toward the front if you're going to speak on this particular item. MS. MURRAY: The first speaker is Vince Cautero followed by Duane Wheeler. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Give the next two names too. MS. MURRAY: After Duane Wheeler will be Carrie Williams. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Vince Cautero with the firm of Wilkinson and Associates. For the record, our professional address is 3506 Exchange Avenue in Naples. I'm representing Peach Trailer Park, Incorporated, and Pamela Brown tonight for the record. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to the staff again and your attention at the last meeting, and I am very pleased that the staff was able to talk to us and make some changes. That should be documented and a lot of good work. I want to compliment them for Page 35 November 28, 2001 that. The main concern that I have and that you'll hear, I assume, from some of the other property owners including our clients, still revolve around the final time frame. I realize that the county needs to place some kind of time frame on this for logistical reasons, but I would like to point out a couple of things pertaining to the last paragraph, this amendment, on page 19, I believe, of your document dealing with the implementation of the site plan and the building permits. My belief is that the provisions of the site development plan that would apply to this that are essential for the permits to be obtained would be fire protection and water and sewer. I say that because I believe those are the services that are needed to actually -- most valuable services prior to placing the mobile home on the particular lot. And it's also mentioned previously in the document and the staff is even encouraging people within a certain period of time to meet with representatives of the Immokalee Water and Sewer District and the Immokalee Fire Department. I think some language should be added to that section that would solidify that, and if we're going to talk about implementing certain provisions of the site improvement plan within a frame, that it be focused on those two. Quite frankly, if our objective as a community is to promote safe, decent, affordable housing units and eliminate substandard housing units, I don't think an issue like landscaping implemented within a certain time frame, that soon a time frame -- some people may believe it's not soon -- is really necessary. The 12-month time frame also to obtain the building permit and implement the total site plan may not be achievable by some property owners. I talked about that at the last meeting. There's also a concern that we have about that document being consistent with state statute about which calls for in Chapter 723, the finding other Page 36 November 28,2001 facilities that are suitable for people to rent or own specifically focusing on mobile home parks. There are some units that will be coming online within the next 12 to 18 months in Immokalee. We hope -- I represent some of those property owners now that are dealing with the construction of affordable housing units. They include two subdivisions at a minimum for Habitat for Humanity, some single-family lots that will be developed by the Community Development Corporation through the Southwest Florida Power and Alliance, a dormitory project being constructed by the Housing Authority. Additionally, a corporation out of Miami developing an affordable housing project known as Main Street Village. Right there you have a number of units that will be coming online, but none of those have zoning approval yet -- or one of them does, excuse me, Habitat and site development plan approval, the rest do not. So we're concerned about that time frame. I know that the county is very serious about the program and needs to put something in there rather than leave it open-ended, but our concern is that the 12-month period may be met in some cases; it may be not. I have serious doubts that full implementation of every site improvement plan for all of the infrastructure requirements and all of the building permits will be attained within a 12-month period after the approval of these documents. And that was the concern that I just wanted to relay to you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: May I ask what you're suggesting instead of 12 months? MR. CAUTERO: What I'd like to recommend to you is that only the building permits be applied for within that 12-month period provided that facilities are available in the community for habitation by residents or owners of these mobile home units, which is consistent with, in my belief, Chapter 723 of the Florida Statute. Page 37 November 28,2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Who's going to make that determination? MR. CAUTERO: Unfortunately, the state statute is unclear, but that would have to be a decision made collectively by, I think, the applicant and the staff. That's my belief. Obviously, an inventory would have to be taken at some point in time of the units, and I don't know what database is available to do that. That doesn't mean one couldn't be created, especially with the developments that are coming online in the Immokalee community. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: If you water down this 12-month provision, don't we run the risk of watering down the whole intent of these changes trying to bring Immokalee into more acceptable housing and living planes? MR. CAUTERO: I would say, ma'am, that the answer to your question is yes, but it really depends on what section you're watering down and what your intent is. I submit to you that changes to the housing conditions in Immokalee that have taken place over the last 30 to 50 years are not going to be changed in 12 months. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: We're trying. MR. CAUTERO: I know you are, and I compliment you for that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Stating the obvious. saying, Mr. Cautero, that the phrase here (as read): Then are you "and building permits for each unit obtained within 12 months," you want to say, "applied with"? MR. CAUTERO: I recommend that. I know that the building permit process is not something that is as long as necessarily a rezone change process, for example, which has public hearing requirements and so forth. There are differences to the processes. My main concern wasn't necessarily toward the building permit side of it and how long it would take. It was the fact that I represent some park Page 38 November 28,2001 owners, and I believe there are some other park owners in Immokalee that are going to be faced with a situation where some people could have to be or might be facing eviction. That is a very long and detailed legal process, and I don't know if you want to get into that tonight. And my reading of the state statute, and, of course, your legal staff would have to confirm this or render an opinion, is that housing needs to be available for people to move to. The statute pertains to mobile home park owners, the one I referred to. We're talking about owners and renters. I would think it would apply to both from a county standpoint to be consistent. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't think that you could do that because the population is in a flux all the time. No one has ever been able to count the number of people who need a house and who want a house. I think that would be very impractical. MR. CAUTERO: I'm not going to debate that. I'm just telling you from a housing standpoint that it might be the proper thing to do. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And you had said previously there are probably 90 of these parks that we're talking about? MR. CAUTERO: Well, that is what we had inventoried over 3 1/2-years ago. I don't know where that number stands now, and I said that at the last public hearing. That was my recollection of it. And it's also my recollection that we're talking about mobile home parks. That 90 number may not have correlated to what I've discussed recently with the staff, and that is, it is my belief, based on what I heard the staff say that we're talking about parks that are nonconforming would have no legal standing, that they did not meet our county standards at some point in time when their park was placed on the property. It may have obtained building permits for individual units, but there is no site development plan or site improvement plan, etc. That's my understanding of what we're talking about. At some point Page 39 November 28, 2001 we may want to get confirmation of that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions for the moment? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Your main concern -- there's a lot of good changes made to this document. The one change that you're suggesting -- I'd like to get staff's input on it -- is that the last page, you're suggesting the word "obtained" in regards to the building permit be "applied," change the word to "applied"? Is that your main goal? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir. That is, and I have a secondary concern, and that was that infrastructure improvements -- I think I understand where staff is coming from with the language to have all the provisions of the site improvement plan be implemented. Whatever the site improvement plan says you're going to do, you're going to do within 12 months. My concern with that is that we should focus on what I believe to be essential services within that time frame, and those are fire protection and water and sewer. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Something else, am I reading this right that there are six months in which to apply for the SIP, and after approval of that SIP, you've got another 12 months to get and apply for building permits? That gives you 18 months plus the review time of the SIP, which would probably be 20 -- because it's a two- or three-month process to review that. MR. CAUTERO: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So it's almost a two-year period. Is that-- that seems sufficient. MR. CAUTERO: That's an excellent point. Unfortunately, we're in that process right now, so we've got a head start on the six months with my clients. Other people that haven't submitted would have the 18 months, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So then the timing probably would work out except for the word change maybe from "obtained" Page 40 November 28,2001 to "apply," and I'd like to get staff's input on that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Susan? MS. MURRAY: Yeah. I'm a little concerned about changing that to "applied" for several reasons. I can see a code enforcement nightmare in terms of somebody applies for a building permit, and they drag out their application process quite lengthy, and they don't submit all their required information. And, well, then they finally do get a building permit, and they have six months to start construction, but they are eligible for another six-month extension, and I think from staff's perspective we would rather see just a definitive time frame to have -- the implementation of the site improvement plan, the infrastructure, the landscaping, the drainage and all. I think you pointed out a good point, Mr. Strain, that there is a greater length of time beyond the 12 months by the time you get through the whole process. I do need to stress to you that these are illegal, nonconforming structures that have been there for quite some time, so this is not something new that the county is proposing. The board had quite a bit of discussion about this when they adopted the policy, and this has been ongoing for a while now. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other comments? Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. What is the minimum size to be considered a trailer park? MS. MURRAY: A trailer park or the minimum size of a trailer? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How many units is the -- I mean, you're not talking about two or three trailers in somebody's backyard or something? MS. MURRAY: Well, the density is determined by the density rating system in the Growth Management Plan, and part of the implementation of this regulation legitimizes the density that's already out there. So I'm not sure I could really answer that because Page 41 November 28,2001 it's going to be a case-by-case basis depending on the park. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I know, obviously, 90 trailers is a trailer park. Is five trailers a trailer park? MS. MURRAY: It's not about a number. It's about certain characteristics and -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you can have one trailer in your yard -- MS. MURRAY: -- zoning district. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- and it could be that you would have to do a site plan? MS. MURRAY: No. I guess I'm not following your line of reasoning. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, because in Immokalee there are a lot of people who have shacks constructed in their backyard who might have a trailer in their backyard or two trailers. What constitutes a trailer park? MS. MURRAY: I'm not sure that the code really defines that. It's applicable to those illegal nonconforming structures in the VR and MH zoning districts that are mobile homes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mobile homes. The concern I had, Susan, was when I asked before from staff how many of these places are there -- we have conversations going on everywhere. MS. MURRAY: I'm just trying to get information to help you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's okay. We've got a conversation over there too. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. What was your question? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Previously I'd asked how many of these apply and, of course, Mr. Midney, I don't believe, was here. We were talking about this before. I'm concerned is the burden on the staff and the fact that we do have to be realistic to get this done. I recognize, too, and am very sensitive to the Board of County Page 42 November 28,2001 Commissioners stating these policies and translating them very adequately, but we still have an issue. How many are there? What will it do to the burden on the staff on the timing aspect of it? Can you handle it? And what does that do, then, to the property owners who are making every effort to comply? MS. MURRAY: Dora, do you want to... MS. VIDAURI: For the record, my name's Dora Vidauri and I oversee the Housing Initiative Project out in Immokalee. Right now we've considered it three units to be considered a park, and we could probably implement that into some kind of writing. But that's what it was originally considered to be, anything three and up would be a mobile home park. The staff is ready, available. We do have staff onsite in Immokalee. We opened an office back in April. And we're in the process of hiring a planner to oversee the plans for this. And I go back to what Mr. Strain had said, yeah, that we are giving them sufficient time. We have had plans in and have been reviewed and processed and have begun the work. One of things that we do with property owners when they do get a site improvement plan that's been approved -- for example, if we have five units on the property or ten mobile homes and he's been identified which units are substandard, some of them are completely substandard, we do allow, once the site improvement plan has been approved, the property owner can remove as many -- before the site improvement plan has been approved, and he can replace them when the site improvement plan has been approved. Meaning that if there's ten units that he's got to remove because they're substandard and he's only removed two, once the site improvement plan has been approved, he can put those in, and he's got that housing inventory and take two more out, and we work with that property owner in that Page 43 November 28,2001 sense with the code enforcement procedure. So we are working with property owners where housing inventory's not going to be down. And like Vince said, there is other housing coming online in the community as well. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you have a number of how many site improvement plans are in? MS. VIDAURI: When the inventory was done about two years ago, they were going on lot records, and we weren't getting an accurate count. So far we have ten open parks that we have active cases. Now, there's probably about 30 to 35 actual parks that we've identified, and we go back to park maybe 25 lots (sic), and they might have been considered to be that. And that's not the case. It's only one park so... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any more questions? MS. VIDAURI: And as far as the shacks and all that that we find behind housing and stuff, that's probably going to be a separate phase. Those are, like -- again, they are illegal, and they will have to be removed. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. If we don't have any questions for staff, let's move to the next speaker. MS. MURRAY: That would be Duane Wheeler, and following Duane, Carrie Williams, and Pam Brown. MR. WHEELER: I'm Duane Wheeler. I live at 1905 West Immokalee Drive in Immokalee. My concern is the footage of trailers. You say 480 foot or above is what they want for the trailer. I got trailers. I have some that's, like, 320, and I've looked through some HUD papers that says a mobile home starts at 320 feet. Another thing, it also says that it's a mobile home if it has water, electric, plumbing, or anything like that, and I can't see where they get 480. I think we should go with a standard of the whole state Page 44 November 28,2001 instead of saying that we're going to pick out a certain number and close a lot accounts (sic). Another thing is the time frame. I think the time frame should be a little longer because there are a lot of camps that needs to be inspected and checked, and if they don't have enough workers there, they are not going to be able to inspect the camps. And the time line, instead of six months after you get your sited plan, I think it should be longer because this will be hard to get anything done through the county because I've tried to get some stuff through the county, and with such an influx of people trying to get this done, and if you-all are going to have a certain time to do it, I think it's going to be a big bottleneck. That's the main thing, and other ones want to discuss other things. If you have any questions... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Did I hear you correctly in saying that you're objecting to the 480 square foot for the minimum floor area? MR. WHEELER: Yes. Because there's a lot of people that have trailers -- they're not campers -- that are real nice, have a bathroom, full bathrooms and all. They don't have this little shower -- the commode in the shower and all this. It's full-sized bathrooms, and I don't see why it should be closed down. A lot of camps have these, not just mine. A lot of other camps... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just want to make clear because I'll ask staff then where they came up with the 480 square feet. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that. Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the 480 looks like it says replacement units, so wouldn't that mean if you have a 320 and it meets code, it wouldn't be a replacement unit and would be allowed under this clause. And then if it were to have to be replaced, it would be at a 480. Is that how it reads? I guess that's a question for staff. Page 45 November 28, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's a big question for staff. MS. MURRAY: That would be how it would be interpreted. I'm not sure that you're going to find many that are going to stay in these home parks. I think the majority of them are going to be leaving the home park and being replaced. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But they could stay. If they were upgraded. MR. WHEELER: All right. We got some documents of, like, HUD and even the state of Collier (sic), different classes of trailer if you-all look at those. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. So the answer to the question is something that's 320 square feet as a trailer could probably stay because that's already there. We're talking about a replacement unit. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that might have to be clarified as we move further through this. Any other thoughts, questions of this speaker? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you, Mr. Wheeler. MS. MURRAY: Next speaker is Carrie Williams. After Carrie, Pam Brown, followed by Jay Whidden. MS. WILLIAMS: Hi. I'm Carrie Williams, and first of all, I'd like to say that I don't think anyone here has a problem with getting rid of the substandard housing in Immokalee. I know I don't. And I'm a park owner, and I'm a little bit different then some of the other park owners that may be here. I have a migrant labor camp, and you'll come across some park owners that basically own the land, and the mobile home parks are owned by the individuals themselves. So you have a lot of different scenarios that are being blown around out Page 46 November 28,2001 in Immokalee. The initiative I think is good that you're out there now after, I don't know, 30 years trying to do something about Immokalee. You've let it go, and you've let it go. And now you come, and you want us to clean it up in a year. And I think you're being unreasonable with your time frames. I really think you need to look at your time frame issues of what you're requiring some of the park owners and the mobile home owners themselves. These are not just affecting park owners; these are affecting individuals who own these mobile homes. They may get cited and have a year to replace that unit. Well, they may not have the money to replace that unit. So there's a lot of different issues going on that I don't think you're aware of. And the other thing that I have the problem with is if substandard housing is the issue, I think fire safety, yes, we should look into that and whether the person has water and sewer, but the landscaping issue needs to be just thrown out. I mean, most of these parks have been there for 30 years. There's plenty of landscaping that already exists. Now you are requiring to put more landscaping down. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So you're asking to delete the landscaping requirement? MS. BROWN: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. BROWN: And I'm also asking -- also asking you to look at the -- oh, another issue is the roads and the drainage. For instance, in my park the county is requesting that I pave one of the roads. Well, I'm not the only person that has trailers on this road, but yet I'm required to pay for the entire road? These are issues that are being brought forward that you're not aware of. But why should I pay to have the road paved when there are other mobile homes on this same road that ! don't own? They are Page 47 November 28, 2001 owned by individuals. And like I said before, the time frame, it's been 30 years or more and the county has turned a blind eye to Immokalee, but you want us to fix it in a year. And to me it's not economically feasible to do that. What you're forcing me to do is to shut down a park where I have 44 mobile homes, which means that's 44 families that will not have a place to live because there's not enough housing right now available in Immokalee for these people to go to. So I really think you need to look at your time frames. Yes. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: How long -- what kind of a time frame do you think is reasonable then? MS. WILLIAMS: Do you want me? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I do. MS. WILLIAMS: I would say a five- or ten-year time frame. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Oh, gee. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I don't think the Board of County Commissioners will support that. MS. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm just saying that you are coming out in Immokalee and you're wanting things changed in a year, and you've let them go for 30 years. And now the burden is on us and individuals who own their own mobile homes. It's on them. You're saying in a year that they've got to replace that mobile home? I think this is a bigger issue than you're aware of, and there's a lot of people that are affected by it, not just mobile home parks or migrant labor camps like I am. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We haven't let it go for 30 years. People like you have let it go for 30 years, haven't you? MS. WILLIAMS: I have had trailers. I've got permits to put my trailers in, so you tell me. I put in a trailer; I fix it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are they now substandard? MS. WILLIAMS: How do you determine substandard? HRS Page 48 November 28, 2001 says they are fine. They come in. They inspect my trailers every month. And there's a lot of instances HRS comes in and inspects you and says you're fine. You assume everything's okay, but if you have a door that says it's a 1977 trailer, and you fix it with a 1980 door, you're in code violation because you didn't replace it with the right kind of door. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does that make it substandard? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, it will make it substandard. You'll get written up on it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just wanted to ask you a question about the road. You say you have 44 units on a particular road? MS. WILLIAMS: No, within this -- there's three roads. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Three roads. Okay. And you're being asked to pave a road that would benefit other trailer owners, individual owners on your road. MS. WILLIAMS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Just out of curiosity, what road is that? MS. WILLIAMS: I think it's East Delaware if I'm not mistaken. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Who owns the land that encompasses that road? MS. WILLIAMS: Well, there's -- I own some, and then there's some other people that own all that. There's different people that own on that road. MS. VIDAURI: I just wanted to comment on the structure of a unit, why we consider it illegal because we actually put weight on the actual frame and things, like, are happening. Or they've added additions to some of the units. They might have been permitted, but when you add structure you've lost -- you've made it illegal -- MS. WILLIAMS: That's, like, if you add a back porch to a Page 49 November 28, 2001 trailer, then you've-- MS. VIDAURI: You change the structure -- MS. WILLIAMS: -- changed the structure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time. MS. VIDAURI: It's not meeting the building codes because it doesn't protect the person in the unit to begin with, and when we're having those types of violations that are occurring as far as structure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, nothing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But I wouldn't think that adding a door for a '77 model with an '80 model would be substandard. MS. VIDAURI: I don't think it's about a door. I think it's when we go from a 2 by 4 to a 4 by 4. The 1970 structure was built with a 2 by 4, and we're adding to the weight of that; that doesn't make it safe, and it doesn't meet our wind resistance and things like that. We do have a structure inspector onsite who does these types of inspections that are thorough enough. MS. WILLIAMS: But a 1977 trailer wouldn't meet today's wind codes; right? MS. VIDAURI: Not when they have that -- when they have a lot of additions -- MS. WILLIAMS: I'm just saying a 1977 trailer would not meet today's wind codes. MS. VIDAURI: No. MS. WILLIAMS: And-- MS. VIDAURI: And I think the codes are written because they want to get away from unsafe structures -- which is considered an unsafe structure -- would be unsafe. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Next speaker, Pam Brown followed by Jay Whidden and then David Carter. Page 50 November 28,2001 MS. BROWN: Hi. For the record, I'm Pam Brown. I represent Chaneys Trailer Park in Immokalee. The trailer park's been there for 51 years. I think it's the oldest trailer park there. All my people -- the people that rent from me are only renting the lots. They are not renting the mobile homes. I also agree with Carrie Williams. I think it's good that we are getting rid of some of the substandard housing in Immokalee, but I also think there's cases here that you don't know about. I know Mr. Wheeler approached the square footage, and I gave you some information about the Land Development Code here that refers to the Florida Statute and HUD. And then if you look at the Florida Statute it says to refer to HUD. When you get to HUD, it says that the is (sic) eight feet or more and is 320 feet or more square feet. Okay? I also -- there's a couple other things -- I don't know if it's being added on, but it's on page 18,-Item C and D. D is what I just addressed. I'm thinking with the time element -- I don't think this has been addressed to you, but if one person has ten trailers and they have a year to do within (sic) ten trailers, well that sounds okay. But if you have 40 trailers, and you have to replace 40 trailers within one year, that's a little bit more difficult as in Ms. Williams' case. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How many lots do you have.'? MS. BROWN: I have 25, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And tenants own all of the units? MS. BROWN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How is this going to affect them? MS. BROWN: I have three units right now; I already went ahead and complied with the inspection. I had Wilkinson and Page 51 November 28,2001 Associates -- they're doing a survey. I just had that handed to me tonight. There's three that say they are not up to the square footage. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Out of 257 MS. BROWN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are there others that are substandard for other reasons? MS. WILLIAMS: There are others -- there is two that's going to have to be removed. I don't have a problem with that. I understand that completely for the safety of the, you know, people who live in them. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What about the people that own them? Do they understand it? MS. BROWN: I don't know that they are, sir (sic). That's one of our problems here. I mean, you're telling people you don't have a place to go, and you're also -- I mean, I'm going to hit on this. Somebody else might say something, but, you know, when the police go to your house, they have to have a warrant to get into your house. We're letting them be able to go into people's houses and say this is okay for them to come in your house. How does that go to your rights? MS. VIDAURI: I'd like to comment. We do ask for permission. There is a consent form that the property owners do sign or the people that are renting. The other thing, as far as the square footage, if the park has been there 51 years, the Land Development Code could be more stringent than the State. And in 1982 it was 600 square foot, and I think I gave you a copy of that. MS. BROWN: Yeah. MS. VIDAURI: There was a 600 square footage before '82. MS. BROWN: But isn't this square footage from the '90s, the Land Development Code that I've got here? MS. VIDAURI: No. Page 52 November 28,2001 MS. MS. MS. MS. MS. done in. MS. VIDAURI: BROWN: I'm pretty sure-- VIDAURI: The 480 comes off the travel trailer. BROWN: No. We need to check this to see -- VIDAURI: But we -- BROWN: -- what year this Land Development Code was But we do have a form that the renters or the people in the units do sign, and I think we have each one of your tenants on your property have signed it. MS. BROWN: Dora, I would not have given them-- I would have told them, encouraged them not to do this because that's really -- you know, you're infringing on somebody's rights when you do that. MS. VIDAURI: Well, if we've asked-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We can't have a debate here. You've stated the facts of what you're doing, and you've stated yours. MS. BROWN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Are there any other points that you want-- MS. BROWN: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- us to look at real closely? MS. BROWN: I appreciate you listening to us, though, and I'm sorry we weren't here sooner. going to have on us. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We didn't realize the impact it was And depending on what we say tonight, your next opportunity will be before the Board of County Commissioners who originally created this -- MS. BROWN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- in response to what's happening. appreciate you taking the time to come here and explain a little bit more to us. Your next venue will be the Board of County Commissioners. Page 53 November 28, 2001 MS. BROWN: calendar. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Jay Whidden. Following David, Jimmie Crews. Okay. We already have the date and time on my Next speaker. Following Jay, David Carter. MR. WHIDDEN: My name is Jay Whidden. I'm here on behalf of Tara Park. We had received about three months ago, thereabouts, an inspector come in and requested that he wanted to go into every mobile home we own. So that put me at a tip-off that he was unaware of any of the situations that happened. We informed him that we do not own any mobile homes. He still wanted to subvert and go into people's private dwellings. We do not own the mobile homes. We do not have a dime in it. So when he didn't get his way, he came back later. And we have now been fighting this at the Immokalee level. In Tara Park there are over 100 mobile homes. Everybody owns their own mobile home. The reason we couldn't do this is that inspector came in and just found, conservative, 30 mobile homes that he considered substandard that would be these people's private dwellings. What they would do when they would be told that they either have to replace them or move out, they would move out. They wouldn't move the mobile home to the dump. They wouldn't do anything with it. They would back the truck up; they would load their furniture up; they would move. And it would be upon myself to move these mobile homes. At $600 a unit, that's $18,000. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It sounds like a business risk to me. MR. WHIDDEN: Well, basically what the county's doing is putting us out of business. Now, the six units that I had vacant last year, I left them vacant over a year because I don't want to just rent to anyone to try to make them nice. I'd rather just rent to nice people. Page 54 November 28, 2001 So I had six units that were vacant over a year. I finally got the right families who -- very nice -- and we worked with them. If I have 30 units vacant for over a year plus the $18,000, we're at $85 to $100,000. I can't take that hit. I won't take that hit. We have to have time on this, a lot of time. Any questions? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just want to make sure that I understood you. You said that you have 100 mobile homes in Tara -- MR. WHIDDEN: Lots. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Lots. MR. WHIDDEN: Lots. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And you do not own the mobile homes. MR. WHIDDEN: We do not own the mobile homes, but when you redtag these things, these people are just going to step up and they are going to move, and it's going to be up to me to move it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did you move them -- MR. WHIDDEN: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- or do you release them out? MR. WHIDDEN: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you've been taking them off your property over the last -- MR. WHIDDEN: The last six I took off the property. So if the puller finds out that you're making me do this, he's not going to charge me $600; he's going to charge me 2,000. You're, in effect, making legislation that is subverting our zoning because we have been in business since 1966. We have all the state documents to prove we've been in business. We have a Collier County occupational license dated 1966. We didn't drop in out of the sky. They knew exactly what we were since 1966. We were a mobile home park. And now they are coming in and saying, Page 55 November 28,2001 "You are illegal or nonconforming." This isn't right. You can't come in 30 years later and just change zoning around and say that now you have to straighten up. I work with people. I do give them an option. Whenever their house starts looking bad, I say, "Hey, you got to fix it up. You're going to have to clear it. You're going to have to paint it." But I give them options. And I give them up to two to three years. Some people I give up to five years. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So you have water and sewer infrastructure in your park. MR. WHIDDEN: Yes, ma'am. I have two fire hydrants. I have water, sewer. I got garbage pickup. We just paved the roads. What did we pay? About $50,000, Jimmie? We just paved the roads, and all that's for nothing. Throw it out the window. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just out of' curiosity, one of your issues was the amount of money that it takes to haul away these derelict buildings -- MR. WHIDDEN: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that due to a tipping charge at the dump, or is that -- MR. WHIDDEN: No, sir. That's just what the puller charges me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Is there any tipping charges that are on top of that or-- MR. WHIDDEN: Oh, yeah. You have to pay the -- it's six hundred bucks for-- also the dump trucks. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHIDDEN: Plus, you're going to have $150 to $200 of miscellaneous stuff to pick up. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of this gentleman? Page 56 November 28, 2001 COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Isn't there any way that -- what kind of standards have you established among your homeowners for keeping their properties up to reasonable living standards? MR. WHIDDEN: Very good question. Thank you. We ask that they keep the yard mowed. We ask that they keep the windows repaired. And the lease that they sign with us, they are to keep the outside of the mobile home clean and free of garbage. They are also to keep the place painted and washed down. And we also require them to put up lattice. And like I was telling some other people that the substandard housing that we're coming from, you could walk around and say, "That's within the property owners' scope of responsibility. It's the ultimate responsibility." But I would submit that I don't have any control over the inside of the mobile home whether they have hot and cold running water. See, we're getting into personal property. And it's not my property. I know Carl Cook in Immokalee has already taken out 33 gas tanks. This has affected him. He sells gas. So what we're doing here is affecting all of Immokalee, but not just the landlords. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Just out of curiosity, have you turned in a site improvement plan? MR. WHIDDEN: I turned in paperwork in 1987 that showed proposed lot lines, that showed actual lot lines; it showed every lot; it showed, not structures, but every lot. The only structures it showed was my office and what we call the wash shed. And I was told that that didn't count. And I also got a letter to this effect over a year ago, and I went and met with Michelle Arnold and Mr. Perico. And I've got a letter signed by them stating I was in full compliance with all federal, state, and county laws in regulation. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: But that was in 19877 Page 57 November 28,2001 MR. WHIDDEN: No, ma'am. That was about a year ago. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Oh, I thought you said '87. MR. WHIDDEN: Over this SIP. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm obviously missing something here, but we do want to hear from additional speakers -- MR. WHIDDEN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And maybe I can formulate some questions. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: David Carter followed by Jimmie Crews. Following Jimmie Crews, Robert Davenport. MR. CARTER: Yes, I'm here for my mother. Time frame that we're very concerned with because you're also looking at a point-- just like my mother. She lives off the income out of this park, and what you-all are talking about redoing these parks, my mother's got one in place that we have talked about redoing, and I have spoken to them at the housing development on it. But you're looking at putting $100,000 into an existing park and paving roads and breaking it down into lots and putting in landscaping and drainages. Well, I have a lot of problems. One, first of all, the drainage. Why should I pay to have drainage put into a mobile home park when the county doesn't have no drainage in front of it? You-all have a ditch out here that gets cleaned once every ten years, and when it's rainy season, which is going to be four or five months from now, you can't even dig out there to redo these parks. So your time frame right now from the time we get the permits to do it, we're going to be in rainy season which means I can't do no work on it till next December until the land drys back out. And why? Because ditches don't drain nowhere. The water stands. That is one of the problems you got out there and half the county out there or half of Immokalee. No drainage. But yet you-all Page 58 November 28,2001 want us to put in drainage. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How large are your parks or your mother's parks? MR. WHIDDEN: One's got about 20 units on it. She owns so many units. Some she does. We have various lots scattered out, but we have inadequate drainage out here. And I go right back to the same thing with a few of the other speakers are saying. You're looking at a problem that's 30 years old. My father put these mobile homes in before he died in 1981. Two years ago I went through this with you-all saying that the county said it was all put in illegal. Went through there, proved that the mobile homes has been there for the last 20 years. You-all was supposed to send me a paper. I never got my paper. Here I am again. Who's to say if we put out this $100,000 now to do what you-all want this year, what about two years from now? What are you-all going to want two years from now? When does this stop? If I go in and put in these roads and put in these hedges and relocate these mobile homes on the lots, three years from now what's the county going to want from us then? That is my question. Two to three years you-all want something different. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'd strongly encourage you to make sure that what you do you get in writing. That's just a responsible thing you should do so that you can chat and determine with the county exactly where your particular property stands. MR. WHIDDEN: Well, I would be more apt to do it if you-all put it in writing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Keep requesting. MR. WHIDDEN: Because I got a lot of people they told us a lot of things, but nobody's put it in writing yet. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Jimmie Crews followed by Robert Davenport. Page 59 November 28,2001 MR. CREWS: Jim Crews. I represent my mom. Margaret Crews is the owner of Tara Mobile Home Park, which Mr. Whidden, he's my brother-in-law. We went to the county a year ago because they sent out all letters -- there's 81 trailer parks, communities, mobile home communities they sent letters to that they were all illegal. A blank letter just to every mobile home park. "You're illegal." So we went in, Robert Davenport and ourselves went in and said, "Hey, we've been here forever. We have all the paperwork everything going back to 1966." They said, "Oh, sorry. It was a mistake. You are legal." They wrote us a letter that says that you comply with everything. Sorry our mistake. Miss Vidauri, however you say, is of no value. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Talk to us, and then we'll ask her the questions. MR. CREWS: says it's of no value. Miss Vudauri, when presented with our letter It doesn't apply to you. I mean, it doesn't cover anything that we're doing. And like Mr. Midney said, the shacks, they're not even attempting to correct those. They're only concentrating on the licensed mobile home parks and labor camps, which are already under inspection through the State of Florida. All the junk that we all know's out there isn't being closed down, isn't being addressed because we're going after the larger camps, the parks. We don't own any trailers. They ask for permission to go in every mobile home. I'm an auxiliary deputy with the Collier County Sheriff's Department. I said, "We don't have the right to walk in a trailer." Building and zoning, if there's something that's obvious, may have a health-and-safety issue. But just to walk up and say, "Hey, we want to look inside this mobile home." And let me tell you. Everyone they've been in that I've heard about has failed. Okay? Last year we were able to bring up six mobile homes replaced out of our park. We asked the county to help Page 60 November 28, 2001 us. We called code enforcement. They said that we're not going to deal with that. We had to go to those mobile homes, give them 12 months to leave them. We got stuck with them. We removed them, paid all those fees, took us a year to find good families that could afford to qualify for a mobile home. And they told us a month ago that we're illegal again, and we can't even replace anything right now until we get an SIP approved. But we're not going to get an SIP approved until we allow them to inspect every mobile home in our park that we've got no control over. Help me, folks. I'm going out of business because I cannot satisfy everyone here. I have to represent my tenants, and I have to work this thing in a time frame where I can be reasonable because if I can go to a judge with an eviction for a unit that I had declared unsafe and unlivable, then I can get a decision where the judge will say, "You've given them time. You've given them the notices." but I can't go to the judge and say, "Hey, the county condemned their unit. Make them move." They're going to go to Legal Services, and then we're going to be back with county lawsuits. I mean, this thing is going to snowball, and the thing is it's not affecting the units that I think you folks are most concerned with because we're easy. We've got licenses. We're not hiding anything. We've made improvements. But I can tell you they want an SIP approved before they issue permits. I've been told that. I've got one trailer now I would like to remove, but I can't because I won't be able to replace it. So it has to sit there boarded up. I lose the income on the lot. I won't get a permit until I comply, and it's up to my tenants whether I have the ability to comply or not. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And you have turned in an SIP or started to? MR. CREWS: We got a letter last year that the SIP plans didn't Page 61 November 28, 2001 even apply to our park. Now they say that letter, we disregard it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Could you answer that question? MS. VIDAURI: that it was received. That letter, Michelle's signature, just identifies It doesn't say that makes that park legal. I don't think that Michelle would make an exception to one park owner. MR. CREWS: Did I give her a time period to respond to us on that letter? MS. VIDAURI: I'm not sure -- MR. CREWS: I am sure, six months. I gave them six months to respond. MS. VIDAURI: Regardless of whether she responded, the Land Development Code says that it's still illegal -- MR. CREWS: Even your letters, folks, are no good when you get things in writing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. That's unfortunate. MR. CREWS: I know. I wish I'd have brought you a copy of the letter. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I wish you would-- MR. CREWS: I will bring you a copy of that letter because believe me, when we go to court, we're going to have that letter. And I'll look for 12 reasonable people to judge us. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Now, one quick question for you. You say that your mother owns the park; right? MR. CREWS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And so you're representing her; right? MR. CREWS: Right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And you maintain that you've done everything you can to be as legal as you can. MR. CREWS: We've -- up until a month ago were happily Page 62 November 28, 2001 ignorant of all this stuff. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Happily ignorant. MR. CREWS: Because we had a letter which you should always get because they sent out these block letters, 81 parks. "You're illegal. Nothing you have is on record in Naples." We came down and said, "Hey, what's the secret? Look at everything. Every unit we've got's permitted. We're a mobile home park, just what you think one is." Now, Mr. Davenport has a mobile home park. It's ten years old. He didn't think this stuff affected h{m. And I said, "No, it really does." Because these things change every few years, and we realize we have to change. That's why we condemn because we got no help from the county. We condemn as landlords that these units were unsafe, and we got no help from code enforcement. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. CREWS: Now they're willing to help put us right out of business. It took us one year to qualify a family for financing in Immokalee for a mobile home. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How long do you think this ordinance, which we're discussing now, should give you to be reasonable? MR. CREWS: We've got -- my brother-in-law said a 100 units. We're licensed for 97 units. If we're talking about a camp that has four trailers, it should be proportionate to your size, your ability to change, economic things. I can tell you tenants were paying fine before the 11 th disaster have been in trouble because they're getting laid off. Things -- I don't know what we're going in to. I would love to read out of my crystal ball what the economic situation's going to be in a year. I can't. It's -- I think it ought to be fair, and no one wants to keep substandard housing in Immokalee. We all benefit. But the shacks that are so obvious to all of us are getting unaffected. And when I get closed down and some of the other Page 63 November 28, 2001 camps -- legal camps -- get closed down, then everybody with a backyard's going to fill them with Ted's Sheds and rent them out because I've got a license. These people that don't, don't care. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And so you're suggesting that maybe we could come up with some language between now and the Board of County Commissioners -- maybe while we vote on it. MR. CREWS: Proportionate to the size. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. CREWS: To your existence. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. CREWS: It's obvious we can prove -- and I know my time's up, and I'm sorry. It's obvious we can prove that we've been an existing mobile home park for all these years just like the other lady. And we want to make some improvements, but we can't make improvements that wipe us out, and then you expect us or the county expects us to rebuild in a year because it took us a year to rent one lot because economically these people don't qualify for mobile homes. Anybody can get a car loan, but mobile home loans are difficult to get. They're like home mortgages. And we are unaffected by some of this stuff, but on a lot of it, it affects us greatly. And like I said, when the inspector -- very nice people. I love to work with the county people, and I'm not being facetious. I tell them, "Come through our park with that turkey on the door." Then I can go to the tenants that are giving me problems and say, "Hey, the inspector came by and told me about you. You got to straighten this up or fix this." Okay? We can work this thing out. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you want to comment? MS. VIDAURI: No, I'm fine. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Question? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm still confused over this letter. He's the second gentleman that said he received a letter saying that he Page 64 November 28,2001 was in compliance. When you responded, it seemed like he sent a letter looking for a response. What is this letter about again? MS. VIDAURI: The letter that Mr. Crews sent was -- MR. CREWS: Hand-delivered. MS. VIDAURI: -- to the code enforcement director, Michelle Arnold. And the way that the signature -- the way I -- it notes on the bottom of her signature was that she just received a copy of that letter. She was acknowledging that she received a copy of that letter. However, if she didn't respond within the six months doesn't still make the property owner legal regardless of the context of the letter -- MR. CREWS: The letter just said -- MS. VIDAURI: I can see-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Wait a minute. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time, sir. The court reporter can only handle one conversation and this is verbatim. Go ahead. MS. VIDAURI: I understand that he was asking for a response in that letter from Michelle Arnold or Ed Perico. And I don't know -- you're saying she didn't respond. I don't know. We don't have a copy of a response. Yes, we can say we might have been at fault for not responding; however, it doesn't make the property legal. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I was getting at. You didn't receive a letter of compliance -- MR. CREWS: Nothing that I -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You sent a letter requesting compliance and got an acknowledgment that you sent it. Is that what it boils down for (sic)? MS. VIDAURI: The letter was just saying that his property was legal. It was his context. The letter was his letter. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Page 65 November 28, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I was getting at. Thank you. MR. CREWS: Nothing that helps me, sir, the county will produce. I gave them -- when I received their letter that I was totally illegal, I just went to them and explained the points of their letter, five points. And, again, I pardon (sic) that I didn't bring it. I didn't know it would matter that much because it hasn't mattered to anyone else in the county that I talked to. When I got that, they agreed and said, "Oh, yeah. You're in compliance." I said, "Well, just sign the bottom of it." They said, "Okay." And on the letter I did say that if you find something that we've missed, then I'll give you a time frame of six months because we've been battling this, folks, every five years since I've worked for my father at the park. He died three years ago. We did our first -- what we could consider site improvement plan in 1987. The county accepted it. The letter that she acknowledges was not in our file with the county. They didn't even have a copy of it. It had been lost. The maps that we had previously made to verify our mobile home park with the lots drawn and everything they requested was not available with the county. They told us they only hold on to paperwork for ten years. That's why we can't prove anything. The permits they request that we give proof of permits, we don't own the mobile homes. The tenants draw the permits. So when a mobile home moves, they say show proof a permit was pulled. We never pulled the permit; the tenant pulled it. They say we can't produce the permit. They've got no responsibility to hold onto that permit. We lose the lot. This thing is really impacting us, and it's unfair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. CREWS: Thank you. Page 66 November 28,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You definitely got our attention. MS. MURRAY: Robert Davenport, that's your last speaker. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: While he's coming up here, I would hope that we have the staff look through the reports and the information that's readily available before this gets to the Board of County Commissioners. Anything that you could supply would probably be very useful to have at your fingertips. MS. VIDAURI: Well, let me just add that one of the things that we've come into and why this project is very crucial to this community is because there is a lot of illegal lots or properties out there. And one of the things that this project overall is an incentive for this community because it makes them be legal, and we are -- our standards that we're setting are minimized according to what everybody in Collier County is subject to. So I think this project in itself is an incentive to this community. I mean, we're finding mobile home parks in VR zoning that should have never been there to begin with. And if they come into our project, we're going to allow them to remain there. And we're also giving them the density, which is -- we've set the minimum requirements from setbacks and things like that. The other thing I know Mr. Strain was asking was is the county helping out in any such way? And we're helping out with the tipping fees to remove some of these substandard housing. So we are -- we have created some incentives. We are helping financially with the site improvement plan as well, which SHIP funding. So the county is working with this community to bring them into compliance. And I think it is a great project that's out there for them. It's an incentive. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Could the county be more helpful to some of these site owners and homeowners by paying for the substandard units to be taken away and by contributing or perhaps Page 67 November 28,2001 doing a partial -- well, by building the roads that you are requiring -- that we are requiring. MS. VIDAURI: We're looking into that, but we're not requiring them to pave the roads that don't belong to them. We're requiring them to pave the road that belongs to the property owner. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I understand. MS. VIDAURI: We can look into some more funding. I don't know if that is possible because we are utilizing SHIP funds for the tipping fees that we pay to the landfill now. But it is something we can look into to see if it might -- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: We do have the road equipment, you know. Maybe the county could make a move toward giving help to some of this -- it is a tremendous final burden for some of these people, and maybe the county ought to do its share. MS. VIDAURI: Again, like I've said, this site improvement plan, we've minimized the requirements even to include the plans don't need to be sealed with an engineer, which is a lot of money they're saving. We're helping out with the tipping fees. We're helping out with $200 per unit for a site improvement plan. So we are trying to put some incentives in there, and overall we're making them legal. If you have a park in a VR, it should have never been there. And history tells us -- we go back all the way to before 1970. These parks have been illegal, and we're going to allow them to remain there, and with the site improvement plan, it becomes a legal record with the county. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So you've clarified that you are doing some things. MS. VIDAURI: Oh, yes. Definitely. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Sir, your turn. MR. DAVENPORT: Yes, my name's Robert Davenport, and I own Davenport's Mobile Home Park. Davenport's Mobile Home Page 68 November 28, 2001 lot. Park owns three parcels -- four parcels. We own one parcel that's 103 units, and it has a PUD document. In the PUD document there's no minimum-size mobile home that can be placed there, period. the document number is -- I've lost it, but I can get it to you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. What year was that? MR. DAVENPORT: 1987. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: 1987. MR. DAVENPORT: I left it back there in my folder. Also, I have a unit -- a mobile home park with 18 units that is in a mobile home rental park zoning that has 18 units on two acres with nine units per acre. It's been there. Every mobile home in there was permitted. I submitted a site plan. When I originally started the park -- and I'm not real sure if that park's going to be legal or illegal at this point. But I have one park that has six units in it, and that's the one I want to talk to you about. Before I go there, though, I need to tell you that I rent mobile home lots, period. I do not rent mobile homes. I was in the mobile home/cabin rentals years ago, and in 1985 1 got out of that. I went strictly to renting lots. And, by the way, the PUD document is 87-7519C, October 27, 1987. And the one challenge with this one is on page 18, Item No. And I'm not sure how this applies. It says a 50-foot double-wide CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. DAVENPORT: I'm not sure how it applies. It's a 50-foot width or double-wide lot. And I got 121,122 lots that are 45-foot wide. And when we moved down to the park that I have, it's in the VR zoning district, which has 13 units in it. On the 13th of this month, code enforcement was called, not by me, not by code enforcement. A tenant themselves called because they were in a lawsuit with someone that they had bought the trailer And Page 69 November 28, 2001 from. The trailer was deemed uninhabitable. They could not repair it. And in that order they require a site improvement plan. I bought a permit for every unit out there that's in the VR zoning. I divided them in '86, '87 into 60-by-100 or 60-by-110 lots. I submitted a permit. About a year and a half ago, I submitted a site plan with that showing every lot there and the house that's there also. So at this point, I have a mobile home owner living in my park that has a mobile home that's condemned. My only recourse is to evict them if and when code enforcement comes to my door. I called -- I went to see the Immokalee Housing Initiative chairperson today. They told me I couldn't get a permit until I have a site improvement plan. Now, this mobile home has been permitted years ago, and it's on an individual lot in the VR zoning gave to me by Collier County. Now, we have a lot of facets there. I don't know all of the rules. But when Collier County gave me the permits in '86 and '87 -- and I'm not well prepared tonight, but I'll tell you that in my case I have from three to five units that's going to have to be removed. I have no problem with the tenants removing them. But the problem is coming in my case -- I have one lady that lives in her own mobile home, and it's not been condemned yet, yet. She gets six hundred and some dollars in change, her income. Her name is Granny. That's all I know her by. I do know her name, but I'm not going to tell you. They call her Granny. But in another place I have one, the lady is mentally challenged. They have about $700 a month income. And if code enforcement tells me to remove the trailer, I'm going to do it, but my problem is the -- I felt that I was in compliance. In 19 -- 2000, January 25th, 2000, I met with Michelle Arnold about the -- let me read it to you. (As read): "preliminary notice of violation." I confirmed my conversation. Here's another one of those letters that I confirmed the Page 70 November 28, 2001 conversation. I should have got a copy for everybody, but I don't. And I'll be glad to let you have it. But I met with her and gave her the strap number and everything involved in this mobile home park. And I confirmed our conversation, and I have not heard from her. Now, I'm in a position right now, I have six lots early on that I did a plan on. It cost me $600. I sent it in one day and got it approved that day. If I'd have known I had a problem then, I'd have been there that day. Your staff does not have the paper that I showed them that this is exactly what happened. The minimum setbacks -- let me move to 18, and this is an issue. I'd like for staff to clarify the 25-foot setback. Is that in all districts, VR districts or where? And I apologize to staff for not coming in today to talk to them about it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It says from all public road frontages minimum setback, 25 feet is his question. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. The question was what? To clarify this is the setback from the boundary of the park, and then you've got setbacks from interior roads to individual lots. MR. DAVENPORT: road, permitted and legal. commissioners. My park has mobile homes straight on the I will provide those to the county CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think you would need to discuss that with -- MR. DAVENPORT: Well, if it's not, I need to do something about it right now. I need to oppose it if that's the case. MS. MURRAY: It's 25-foot setback if it's from a public road. I'm not familiar with your park, so it's real hard for me to comment other than what you're telling me. If you have interior roads, your front yard's going to be 20 feet, side 5, and rear 20. MR. DAVENPORT: The mobile home that I did on the VR district, the VR district called for 20, 20, and 5. And that's the way Page 71 November 28, 2001 the mobile homes are put in there. MS. MURRAY: Right now the VR district requires 20 front, 5, and 20 rear. MR. DAVENPORT: How long do we have to comply with the rule? And this is where the real challenge comes for the park owners. We have -- I'm going to survive this thing either way it goes. Believe me, I'm going to survive it. But it's going to be a big hassle in the middle, and it's already been a big hassle in the middle. I'm already having to write one apology letter today, and I've probably got two to write. I mean, that's how upset I've been about this thing because I went through the legal process. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In your particular case, you said you had a PUD, and you gave us the number. MR. DAVENPORT: Yep. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wouldn't the PUD be exempt from these conditions except for the fact it's got to be habitable housing, but all these side yards, the front yards, the lot sizes, wouldn't those development standards be as dictated in the PUD? MS. MURRAY: If they are dictated in the PUD, which they normally are, then, yes, those would apply. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you may be relieved of all that issue if your PUD is clear enough on those issues. MR. DAVENPORT: But my challenge is, am I exempt from this ordinance or the thing or am I not? If they come in and find one unit -- and my understanding is I can fall in this category. MS. MURRAY: No. MS. VIDAURI: No. Not on that one property with the PUD, Davenport's Mobile Home Park, no. MR. DAVENPORT: What about the one with the mobile home zoning? Page 72 November 28, 2001 MS. VIDAURI: With the VR, yes. MR. DAVENPORT: The mobile homes on it next to Tara Park. MS. VIDAURI: If it's VR zoning, you would need a site improvement plan for that property. MR. DAVENPORT: I'm sorry, but you didn't listen. It was the one that's next to Tara Park is not VR zoning. It's mobile home. It was mobile home rental park when I developed it. MS. VIDAURI: Okay. MR. DAVENPORT: I have a VR zoning there also. MS. VIDAURI: I think if it's the property I did the history on, it's VR. But like I said, we need to meet at our office and discuss this to tell you-- MR. DAVENPORT: Which property did you do the history on? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We really can't have this back and forth. We definitely have a situation. You-all need to talk to each other a little bit more, and depending on what we decide here this evening, your next venue will be the Board of County Commissioners. And the more information you can give to them that shows that you're being reasonable; you've taken certain steps; I think that will be very helpful. MR. DAVENPORT: I apologize for not coming really prepared, but I think in all due respect to staff and ourselves, they've had a tough time, but we've had a tougher time because the very unfortunate thing about code enforcement, you know, we have to live with it and we can't move those mobile homes. We're there. We're not a moving target. And, unfortunately, staff is a moving target because they go and come. And it's not a put-down on staff. It's just that the documentation of all this is a real challenge for us. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And it's a real challenge for the county to come up with generic approaches that can apply and then put them together on a case-by-case basis. I think you heard me say that Page 73 November 28, 2001 earlier if you were here for the boat dock extensions. So I am sympathetic to what you're saying, but we still have the larger policy of making sure that we clean up substandard housing. And it sounds like you're making every reasonable effort from what you're telling us, and you shouldn't be so dramatically impacted. MR. DAVENPORT: But my problem is, I got neighbors. And when these people move out of some of these other parks -- it's not just me. It's everybody in the community. And the very unfortunate thing is when these people move out of what you call a substandard house, when you do 30 or 40 at a time, they are either going to double up or sleep in the car. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that presents another whole set of problems, right. Any other questions of this gentleman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you very much. MR. DAVENPORT: Thank you for your time. MS. MURRAY: That was your last speaker, Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Last speaker. Any comments? Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I lived in Immokalee for about 20 years, and I think that about 20 percent of the people in Immokalee live in a trailer, which is a lot. And I don't know, there's probably people that know better than me, but I'd say about a quarter to a third of the people who live in trailers own the trailers. And I could be wrong, but I think the intent of the Collier County Commission was against slumlords. And I see that there's a really big impact upon older people who are on fixed incomes or people who are low income who have bought trailers because that's all they could afford. They couldn't afford a house. I live in an old frame house that's 60 years old up on cinder blocks. I'm thinking to myself, if they went in and inspected my Page 74 November 28, 2001 house, it probably wouldn't pass either. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You probably just mined yourself in. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I don't think it's fair. I mean, should you only penalize trailers as opposed to people who live in wood-frame houses that might be in just as bad shape? It doesn't seem like it's -- you want to penalize who are least able. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, if I may say a few words. I was listening on the television while I was in my office trying to get some work done, and I heard my name being thrown around a little bit. So I thought I'd drive down here. I'm Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. I wanted to just kind of give the Planning Commission some history of this project, and it's not intended to just focus on mobile homes as it's been implied here tonight. It's a housing initiative, all types of housing. The Board of County Commissioners a couple of years ago wanted to address the many complaints with respect to the housing conditions in Immokalee and the fact that they have not been concentrated on for many years. And we came up with a program. Vince Cautero at the time provided a program that we could look at to the board. The board loved it because it was something proactive rather than a reactive type program. We developed the idea that rather than having some of these developments that exist go through what would normally be required of somebody coming in for a site development plan process, we would come up with a site improvement plan process and get a lot of these mobile home parks initially on the books and documented within the county. That's the process that we're trying to go through right now. A part of the program that was presented to the Board of County Commissioners also addressed multifamily housing. It also Page 75 November 28,2001 addressed single-family housing. Some of the single-family housing with the shacks in the backyards or the buses or all the other types of facilities that are being resided in by some of the people that live in the Immokalee community. Those things are going to be addressed. The board had to set some priority in terms of what to look at; therefore, they requested that we look at mobile home parks first. There was an inventory that took place that my staff went out and inventoried, tried to get an idea of where a lot of these parks existed in the Immokalee community. Letters were sent. They weren't sent once; they were sent twice to property owners because initially we sent out letters to property owners. We though t -- some of the mobile homes are placed in such a manner that it's haphazard. You have no idea whether or not a mobile home belongs to a specific park or-- you know, so there were some letters sent out incorrectly because we, in our inventory, thought there may have been ten mobile homes on a particular property where it turned out there were only five on one property and three on another and more on another. Hence the reason for sending out two letters. But at no time were letters sent from me that indicated anyone was in compliance with this initiative. There were regulations that were evolving. We were still trying to determine exactly what requirements we were going to require for those site improvement plans, so there was a lot of back and forth with staff. We held meetings with the planning department, the health department, the fire department to try to coordinate all those efforts and meet the health/safety concerns. I think the regulations that are being presented to you today are -- and we're trying to get even closer to straightening it out, so it's on the books for staff to know what to review these site improvement plans for. It's on the books so the public and some of the property Page 76 November 28, 2001 owners are familiar with what requirements are going to be asked of them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. And, Mr. Midney, I don't believe you were through with your statement, but that answered part of what you were saying. Go ahead and continue. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I would like to make some suggestions. This is not a motion but some things that I would like to see maybe in the motion. I would like to exempt mobile home owners from the ordinance if the owner lives in the mobile home, because I can just see -- I mean, I know people like Granny. It's going to be -- I just don't know what they're going to do. They're just barely scraping by as it is. They don't have any money to replace their home or make major repairs to it. And there's a lot of people like that. There's not just one or two. And I would also like to see the minimum size changed to 320 square feet because I've seen trailers that are nice. They're clean. They might only be for just for one person, and I don't see why a trailer that's in good condition that's 320 feet now would have to be condemned for that reason. And another change, I would like to see the landscaping deleted, as Mrs. Williams said, because it's going to be very burdensome as it is for all the other things. And the part about the roads, the paving of the roads, that it should apply only where roads are exclusively on the property of the park owner. If it's a road that's shared by other people, that it not apply. And, finally, to increase the time for the implementation of the site plan to one year from six months. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think we did. We did do that. That was a mistake in here -- Page 77 November 28, 2001 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So it is 12 months, and we think it's an 18-month period, but do you have a suggestion for a different time? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any more time? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'd like to -- I'm sorry, go ahead. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I wanted to ask a question of Michelle. It does seem to be apparent that there's a serious lack of communication between some staff and some of our owners who are almost desperate for answers to their questions. Do you maintain staff in Immokalee so that they are there for immediate answers? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Dora Vidauri is the supervisor of that staff out in the Immokalee area. There are two code enforcement investigators. There is a building inspector that's located out there, and there's two support staff people that are out there right now. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: And they are all there? MS. ARNOLD: They're there. They report there on a daily basis. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: And do all these owners know about that? Is that all part of your letters of communication with them? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I am assuming that they are aware that they are out there. There was -- I thought there was a notice. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Talk into the mike. MS. VIDAURI: Yeah, we've done several articles with the Naples Daily News. We've actually come out on the news. We've done some workshops. We just had our first workshop last week, and we have done speaking engagements. And we've actually even come Page 78 November 28,2001 out to even Naples to talk to some of the local churches with some of the issues that are coming about, so we are putting the word out. We are informing the people, and I think that's why we see a great turnout here as well. I know that we always offer suggestions to the property owners. We encourage them to come one-on-one with the staff. We are working really close with them in trying to make them comply so... COMMISSIONER YOUNG: One thing I'd love, and this isn't just as a planning board member, but you know how Immokalee has that farm owners tour? You can sign up on buses. I think we ought to have something like that available to commission members and to all interested citizens to go out and do a tour of the Immokalee area, visiting the camps, and seeing exactly what the situation is for ourselves. And we need a guided tour because you can't do it by yourself. MS. VIDAURI: I think that is a great idea. Actually, I've done it with just about half the Board of County Commissioners on a one- on-one to demonstrate and talk about the project more on a one-on- one basis. And I would encourage -- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Well, invite us. MS. VIDAURI: Yes. I will leave my number. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And I think, Ms. Student, don't we have to -- if more of us meet, it has to be a public meeting, or would it have to go one -on-one? MS. STUDENT: You would have to go individually. It's problematic when you all go together because it would have to be advertised. It would be kind of hard to have the public there and the press, obviously, if you're moving about by bus or van. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It would be tough to talk to each other too. We'd have to be silent almost the entire time if we were together. Page 79 November 28,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go ahead. MR. WEIGEL: I'd be happy to comment. David Weigel, county attorney. We have done this kind of a mission with the county commissioners before. It has to be done very carefully to comply with the Sunshine Law. The Sunshine Law does allow a subcommittee or members to go out together on informational forays, but the communication among each other on matters that come before the committee cannot occur, or you'll be meeting under the Sunshine Law and have to have all the requirements of the Sunshine Law, which are three. I could ask you to repeat them back to me because we've done it before. But the three are: reasonable notice ahead of time; public facilities so that anyone who wishes to see the dialogue of two or more members to occur must be provided; and minutes of the meeting being taken. And these things can be done in a traveling format where you travel either separately in caravans or together in a carefully monitored situation and come out and interact in a public way and then get back to travel to the next site. Things like that could be done. We'd be happy to accommodate you if you ever wish to do anything like that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And one last comment, Miss Brown? MS. BROWN: Yes, ma'am. When you-all do come out, we would like to see if some of the mobile park owners might be able to go with you-all, so we'd be more than happy to. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. Thank you for that offer. Okay. Commissioner Strain, and then we probably need to get this one resolved because we have a lot more on our plate here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm trying to do that in a way. Paul, your first condition or your first thing that you Page 80 November 28, 2001 mentioned -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Talk into the mike. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I thought I was. Paul, your -- the first thing that you said exempt if owner lives in mobile home. What do you -- I don't understand what you mean by that. The owner of the mobile home is usually the person living in it, so that means all the mobile homes would be exempt? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. If you own -- most of the mobile homes are rented. So I'm renting a mobile home in this trailer park -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the lot's rented, isn't it? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. said COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: they rent the lots -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the home. Almost everybody here I thought No. That's where I'm confused. Well, I'd say -- I don't know. I'd say about a quarter of the people are only renting the lots, and the home is theirs. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I think you were trying to get to Granny and the type of a person that actually owns that home -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- and they're on the lot renting. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right, which is about probably a quarter of the trailer owners in Immokalee, I would estimate. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's interesting because I didn't get that sense from the people that have spoken here yet this evening that they own the lots, and somebody has to place a structure, which is a mobile home or a camper-type thing on that lot. Page 81 November 28,2001 If you want to speak, you have to come up here, and I could recognize you so... COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one more point, but we can wait -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: up. Go ahead and say it while he's walking COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The other issue is that it takes a lot longer to build 100 homes than it does to build 4. And if they have to renovate 100 lots or a 100 spaces in a mobile park versus 4, there may be some need to look at a sliding scale based on quantity. I know, Paul, you didn't have an objection to the time, but it made a lot of sense because I've put in subdivisions, and I know the bigger they are, the more they take. And the time frame to get a big one done may be very difficult in what they're allowing. And I don't know how staff looked at that, but we may want to ask that question before this is over. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I think that would be -- if that's possible from a legal standpoint to do some breakdowns here, that would be helpful. And we could sort of make a stab at it, and it could be refined by the time it went to the Board of County Commissioners because I know the Board of County Commissioners is going to listen very carefully to what some of these people talking to us now are saying about how long it takes to do, say, a hundred of them, versus four or ten. Marjorie, we're okay with that? sliding scale? MS. STUDENT: Yes. As a matter of fact, I mean, cases are distinguishable in that we're trying to deal with issues of broad nonconformities that have been nonconforming under the code already. But in the cases with the signs where they were conforming before we adopted an amendment that made them nonconforming, we had an amortization schedule based on value. So I don't see a whole Page 82 November 28, 2001 lot of difference between that type of amortization schedule and a schedule based on number of units related -- you know, tied to a time frame in which the problem has to be corrected. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. Sir? MR. DAVENPORT: For the record, my name is Robert Davenport. I have 145 lots. Ofthe 145 lots, I have approximately 15 to 17 that should be in question. The rest of them are less than 15 years old. But there is a big variety of mobile home parks that only rent lots. There is a substantial number that rent lots and rent mobile homes. There's a big misconception about the migrant labor camps. Most of these would be considered as people owning the park and owning the trailer and renting it by the week or by the month. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What do you have? You have all lots? MR. DAVENPORT: I have all mobile home lot rentals. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No units. MR. DAVENPORT: I have two units. One is my manager's office -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Well-- MR. DAVENPORT: -- and one is my secretary's office where she lives. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And you made that business decision quite a few years ago? MR. DAVENPORT: In 1985. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. I remember that. Okay. Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I want to follow up. Would there any way to prevent in the language of the code a situation happening Page 83 November 28, 2001 where the owner of a substandard mobile home offered to sell it to the person living in it.'? Then the person living in it buys it and ends up inheriting the repair costs of the whole issue. And looking and trying to work Paul's language into something, that could happen, and I think it has happened out there from what I understand. And if that's the case, would it be creating more of a nightmare if we were to try to exempt the owner living -- owner- occupied homes? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You got a point there. Miss Vidauri? MS. VIDAURI: Just to cover on the time frame, on No. 5, I think we go into the substandard, and we would make it part of the submittal. Also, when we create a case, not all cases are going to get started on the same day. The time frame is going to be between the case and the investigator and what is said, but Item No. 5 talks about the removal of the units, and the time frame would be stipulated in the SIP once it's submitted. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: On page 16, Item 5; right? I don't have page numbers because I don't have MS. VIDAURI' the whole package. MS. MURRAY: Page 60, No. 5. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It has "in no event less than 12 months." MS. VIDAURI: And we can work on that, but the time frame could be established as part of the site improvement plan once it's submitted. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Can we have language added to this, and would you be in favor of putting that kind of language in this... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: What you're saying, Mark, is to delete the "in no event less than 12 months"? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. And with the intent that Page 84 November 28,2001 the purpose here is that is someone has 100 units, they need a little more time than a person with 4. And I think that is a very valid comment here tonight. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have a comment from our county attorney? MS. STUDENT: You need to have a standard in the ordinance. It just can't be at the discretion of staff. So if there's going to be a schedule, it needs to be, like, you know, zero to ten units, "X" amount of time, ten to fifty or whatever, "X" amount, and so forth. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That means somebody would have to craft that pretty quickly. I'm not sure I'm qualified to do that. Perhaps we have someone out in the audience that could sort of think that through and with how many people -- someone's pointing to Mr. Cautero, so we'll let him work real quickly while we ask any other questions here. I kind of like this idea of having some minimal requirements for landscaping or deleting it. I think that's a reasonable approach. I still don't quite know how to visualize what that would do to some of these parks, but as been stated, there's a number of people that say they've got a lot of landscaping there now. Perhaps you could... MS. VIDAURI: On the landscaping we have minimized the landscaping even to include the irrigation part of it. We've taken off a lot from what the Land Development Code calls for now so... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you think deleting it is a big problem? MS. VIDAURI: I mean, we're not setting the standards even to some extent with the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's true, we're not, and trust me, I'm not going to support Land Development Code standards for these mobile home parks. I don't know what the County Commissioners would do. But I'm not going to get that -- Page 85 November 28, 2001 MS. VIDAURI: If we start -- we've already set the standards, and we've minimized them away from what the standards are now. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But as a solution, might we offer that if there's any existing landscaping, it's taken into consideration into meeting the standard? MS. VIDAURI: A lot of the landscaping could be exotics and things like that. They're going to have to be removed anyhow. So we're going to be addressing that in a separate issue when it does come into cases. There'll be separate violations as opposed to the park itself. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm sorry. I didn't mean illegal landscaping. If you've got an oak tree there and it's 25 years old, do you have to place another oak tree right on top of it to meet the code? It says one every 25 feet. That's what I'm getting at. Would existing landscaping be able to remain and qualify as part of the standard or the minimum requirements? MS. VIDAURI: That's not my area. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MS. MURRAY: I can answer that. We will take into account existing landscaping if it met the code. Obviously, if it was exotics, it'd have to be removed, but existing landscaping can count to meeting this requirement. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Then where do we put that in here? MS. MURRAY: It doesn't need to be put in there. We already do that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MS. MURRAY: Yep. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You already do that? But then, of course, the owners need to have some assurance then. Right now they're feeling a confidence in cooperation with the county is not at the highest level, and we can't really solve that here tonight, but you might want to insert it Page 86 November 28, 2001 somewhere. MS. MURRAY: If it makes you feel better, we can certainly add it. That's no problem. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MS. MURRAY: We can reiterate here. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to make a comment on the landscaping. When we were developing this program, the board didn't want to exclude all landscaping, although they were open to reducing some of the standards. So to just delete it totally I don't know if the board is going to continue to support that -- would support that, but I just wanted to let you-all know that when we were talking to the Board of County Commissioners about various standards, they didn't want to eliminate the requirement for landscaping totally. There was a lot of discussion about, you know, limiting it to the more visible -- I mean, requiring it for the more visible areas such as the entry to the park and those types of things. So it wouldn't be like our normal SDPs right now where there's internal and open space and all of those requirements. We were limited maybe to the parking area. Is that the front of the park or at the entry to the park or along the side property boundary where it's unlike zoning districts. For instance, mobile home next to single family or something like that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And with the concept of lower standards to have something minimal that somebody has some discretion over to determine, but to be very clear that you are going to try to give credit for existing landscaping there. MS. ARNOLD: Right. As Susan said, that is a practice that is done all the time within the county currently, whether it's with this program or with a site improvement plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I want to believe that, I do. Okay. Are we ready to craft something here? I think we've Page 87 November 28,2001 discussed some specific changes, one the sliding scale that Mr. Cautero is still working on. We have the suggestion of the minimum size for square footage be reduced to 320. We want to ensure our intent that it's minimal landscaping and take into consideration what's existing that's legal and not exotics. And then the time frame has been brought up several times, but I'm not sure if I'm going to be the one to offer some change on that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Paul also mentioned the paving requirements should apply to those areas owned by the park, which I think would be more appropriate as well. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think we can throw that in there. That may need some further discussion, but it seems reasonable to me on the surface -- on the surface. It could be some impact that we're not aware of at the moment. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just have a gentleman speaking regarding the drainage and the last sentence of No. 1, Roads and Drainage. It says (as read): "Drainage shall be directed to a public road via the private road and/or easement.". Like he said, what if the public road does not have any drainage along it? What's the sense of it? Where's it going to go? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Could add the language "where available," and that would take care of it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Or if drainage exists along the public road or whatever. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's a good point. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I live in a similar situation. It just sits. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Sounds like one of the other items that we're going to get into here later, if we ever get that far, when it comes to recycle -- require something to go somewhere that's not going to have the proper impact. Page 88 November 28,2001 MR. DAVENPORT: Madam Chair, I didn't -- we didn't-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: State your name. MR. DAVENPORT: My name's Robert Davenport for the record. We didn't get an answer on page 18, No. C about 25-foot setbacks. I asked a question and we were in a dialogue, and that was not clear. So could you ask staff to clarify that one? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think it was clarified. Ms. Murray, state it again, please. MS. MURRAY: I'm just reading right from the ordinance (as read): "from all public road frontages, minimum setback 25 feet." So that applies to your exterior boundary of your park. MR. DAVENPORT: That is going to be a real big problem because the VR setbacks were 20, 20, and 5, and basically you're changing the VR setbacks if that's the case. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But isn't it the county's position that you're not supposed to have a mobile home park in the VR zoning? I think I understood that. MS. ARNOLD: The distinction is public roads. So where you have a -- MR. MS. standards It's being proposed changed. DAVENPORT: It is a public road. ARNOLD: The standards -- we're not changing the for the front yard setbacks of the VR district. It's 20 today. proposed at 20. And the rear yard is 20, and it's being at 20. Inside yards are currently 5. So it's not being But what is being contemplated is the setback on a public roadway is 25 feet. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And so one of my favorite words, "variances," it turns out that this gentleman we're discussing right this moment has a whole line of things that are right on the road and can't really move anything back without wiping out, say, 10 or 20 Page 89 November 28,2001 lots. Would he have the opportunity to come in and ask for a variance to this setback? MS. ARNOLD: I don't see why not. MR. DAVENPORT: I think we're confused because the property that's in question is a VR zone and I'm asking is this 25 foot, does it apply to VR zoning also. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: If it's frontage on a public road. MR. DAVENPORT: It is on a public road, and I set it 20 foot off the road because that's what the existing code was in '86 or '87. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you care to comment, Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT: I think there are a couple issues here. It appears from some of what I heard, some of these don't belong in VR anyway. So if it's an illegal land use, you don't have any vested right to anything, first of all. Secondly, this is an overlay. So an overlay is, you know, you have the basic zoning district and then you have an overlay. And so the overlay can vary certain of the standards in the underlying zoning district. That's what they typically do. So I would say, depending on what staff told me about this -- but if this is a mobile home that never should have been in VR, even if the county permitted it, there's no vested right to that, and you'd have to comply based on what I've heard here tonight. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Based on what you heard, so then it's probably not within our prerogative to really change that right now. Let this gentleman research it a little more and come up with -- MR. DAVENPORT: The other one I have is No. F is the 50 foot for a double-wide unit. I just have a problem with that because I have one park that if, in fact, I'm found to be illegal, that they're lots of 45. Under this overlay I might be able to keep it, but it still puts us in violation. MS. STUDENT: You know, the way this is usually corrected -- Page 90 November 28, 2001 not corrected. The way this is usually done, when you divide up lots you get a subdivision approval from the county. It appears that these lots were divided without any kind of approval whatsoever from the county, so there's no vested status. It was just done and the county never placed its imprimatur on it at all. If they had it might be a nonconforming on the record, but that's not the case from what I'm hearing. So we can put whatever standard and there's no vested rights to those lots because the county never approved anything based on what I'm hearing. I mean, if there's something different, let me know. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Marjorie, I think -- I would never quarrel with your legal interpretation, but I think that, you know, doing it in the black and white like that just doesn't apply after 30 years or whatever time frame that's been existing. And I think that maybe if we were to look at this overlay in the VR area where there are homes at 20 feet set with the intent that they met the VR zoning, why disturb those? It met-- MS. STUDENT: That's a policy. I have to advise you-all on the law, and the black-letter law is that even if the county doesn't enforce its ordinance forever and ever and something's illegal, passage of time does not make it legal. That's what the law is. However, the board is free to come up with whatever policy, whatever regulations supporting whatever policy it wishes to within some limits. I'm just advising -- there seems to be some -- some people have raised issues of vested rights, and I'm just trying to explain that legally and, you know, there's no vesting here from what I'm hearing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Instead of vesting, if we choose to change the 50 to 45, that's our prerogative? MS. STUDENT: Yes, if-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Item F-2, thank you. Page 91 November 28, 2001 COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Or we could minimum block with 50-feet double-wide units excepting in cases over 20 years. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You can't write that. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Over 15 years? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I don't think we can do that. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: No? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's not-- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: That's not legal? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, it may be legal, but I'm not sure we want to get to that much specificity because we're picking one person who's spoken to us, and someone said there's at least 81 of these parks out there. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Dangerous. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think we ought to close the public hearing on this issue, and it occurs to me that this has turned into sort of an individual problem-solving session, sort of like we're ombudsmen or something. There could be a different dozen property owners from Immokalee come in and quarrel with a different set of setbacks. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And if they come to the county commission and we've changed half of them and another group comes in and wants another bunch changed, we're going to have an awfully funny looking ordinance that won't really hang together very well. So I think we ought to take the broad-brush issues that have been highlighted, and get on with it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm ready for that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One question. Somebody was going to look at a time frame. Did that ever get accomplished? Page 92 November 28,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Time frame and we were looking at sliding scale. Mr. Cautero. MR. CAUTERO: I wrote up something rather quickly and had an opportunity to talk to a few staff members about it. For your consideration one year, ten units or less... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ten units or less. MR. CAUTERO: Two years, 25 units or less; three years, 50 units or less; four years, 75 units or less; five years, 100 units or less; and six years, 12:5 units or less. I haven't heard any testimony that falls into this category over that. I guess that could become proportional. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it seems to me that if you've got a little guy that owns four units that requiring him to do all four in a year is -- this is lack of proportionality there. I'd rather go with some percentage of units. If you want to take it over five years, then whoever it is has to do 20 percent of them the first year and 20 the second and so forth. If it's four years or if it's ten. Ten seems a bit long, but rather than talk in terms of these big numbers of units that takes a small guy and says you've got to clean up your house right out of the bag. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Vince, I know that you've been talking to some of the owners. I had looked at it slightly different. I just wanted to run the numbers by you to see what kind of reaction. Zero to 10 units be as stated in the proposed ordinance; 10 to 50 units, add another six months; 50 to 100, add another 12 months; and greater than 100, add another 18 months. That provides a total of 33 years -- I mean, 3 years for the longest -- largest facility. Is that -- how do you feel about that since you've got some experience with the owners out there? MR. CAUTERO: I think it's doable in some cases. It really Page 93 November 28,2001 depends upon how many are going to be moved and how many are going to be rehabilitated, and my experience is telling me that the latter is going to be very close to zero if not zero. It's going to be more move them, eliminate them, and put them in the dump, and buy new ones. I would think that maybe spreading it out just slightly would be more advantageous to us. The time frame is a little compressed, maybe another year or so. Spreading it out just a little bit more, but I think that your suggestion is a good one. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mark, what if you said -- my logic to your numbers -- if you're just going to talk about three years, why not let everybody do one-third the first year, two-thirds the second, and three-thirds the third? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And that's a good way of looking at it, but maybe with Vince's suggestion, if we go to the four years and do 25, 25, 25, and 25, that would work out a lot better. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I can live with that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And it sounds like we might have an idea. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'd like to get staff's input if we could -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- make a quick comment because we want to craft a motion that changes a number of things here. We'll have to be very specific so the Board of County Commissioners knows what we did -- MS. VIDAURI: And can you repeat that, Mr. Strain, what the numbers are again? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The -- depending on the size of the facility, 25 percent of the facility would have to be amended or corrected pursuant to the time frames of this ordinance as it stands now. Additional 25 percent one year after that, additional 25 percent Page 94 November 28, 2001 a year after, and the final 25 percent during the fourth year. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It doesn't depend on the size. It applies to the -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm sorry. Irrelevant to the size. used the wrong word. MS. VIDAURI: I think if we go into percentage, I mean, we might have a mobile home park with four units, and that's one unit one year, one unit -- I think with Mr. Strain's idea, it's a lot easier -- when we go into that 25 percent, I'll have somebody in a park with four units taking two years to comply -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's a good point. I'm sorry I didn't think of that -- MS. VIDAURI: And if we look at the numbers the way you said them to three years, I think that's reasonable even if we extend that to three and a half, but up to five might not be reasonable. We don't have a park that I know of that's got 200 units to begin with. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, if we were to amend-- go back to my numbers instead of using 6, 12, and 18, use 12, 18, and 24, we'd be there. MS. VIDAURI: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That would be the four years maximum. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we're looking at four years maximum. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. Paul, does that sound -- knowing your experience out there? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Can we give some sort of a-- COURT REPORTER: Verbal. Please, verbal. I need a verbal response. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We can't fall asleep up here. Okay. So we've got the sliding scale pretty much identified. Page 95 November 28, 2001 Any other comment on that because I would like one of these two gentlemen to craft this and walk right through it very slowly? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I still -- I don't think we've had discussion about -- the low-income owner of a trailer who has his trailer parked in somebody's trailer park. Are you going to require that low-income owner to revamp his trailer in a certain amount of time? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We spoke on it only in the concern that we don't want to see any quick sales from park owners to tenants all of a sudden they become owners and the park owner just passes liability onto the tenant. Maybe we could tie it to a date of a title transfer -- part of the passage of this code. And that way that might alleviate that, I don't know. I don't know the legalities. Maybe Michelle could comment on it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm not sure I want to get into that particular aspect, although I'm very sympathetic to situations where you might have developmentally disabled people. You might have elderly that don't have a very high income in those units. I'm not sure that we can craft that at this moment, but we need to be sensitive to it. Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: The whole researching of when the sale occurred compared to the adoption of this regulation is -- I don't know. It really prevents what we're concerned about. You still -- I think what Mr. Midney's talking about is the elderly person with limited income and, you know, is unable to upgrade the trailer to the standard that the county would require -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Not just the elderly. I mean, almost anybody by definition who's living in a trailer is there because they are low income. MS. ARNOLD: I know that the difficult part about the mobile homes are the current housing programs don't allow for rehab of the Page 96 November 28,2001 mobile homes -- I mean, allow for funds for rehab of the mobile homes. The way that the housing department tried to help with this whole process in the mobile home parks is to help toward the site improvement plan. So we do have funding that's available to the property owners a portion of which would assist with the cost for the site improvement plan. But the regulations, the state regulations, are such right now we can't extend that funding to the mobile home property owner unfortunately. And-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- money either (overlapping)? MS. ARNOLD: I don't know. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We're getting pretty far afield. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. We could talk to the housing department, but that would be -- you know, rather than exempting a property owner, we're talking about health/safety issues. And everybody, in my opinion, needs to live in safe conditions. And we're sympathetic about the, you know, cost of some of these improvements, and I'm sure that the housing department would be willing to work with some of these property owners to see whatever assistance could be provided. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm going to recognize Pam Brown. COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. I need a break. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I was just going to say we probably need a break because we've been at this for three hours here. So we're going to take a maximum ten-minute recess. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I believe we were just recognizing Pam Brown to make a statement. MS. BROWN: Yes. I just wanted to address, I think the Page 97 November 28,2001 problem that Commissioner Strain is talking about, like where if somebody is selling the trailer to a person, they'd be stuck with it. I wish we could come up with some sort of verbiage, you know, that would address that. Because we were talking -- Paul and I were both from there all my life (sic). The people that live in our park is in construction over here and landscaping, and they're doing the best they can. And I've been in there for a long time. So I don't think that I could come up with anything or other people would to cause that strain on people. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are we ready for a motion? We've pretty much taken all the testimony we want on this aspect of the public hearing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm prepared to make a motion. I've listed all the various items (inaudible). CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Abernathy, did you want to say something? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I want to be sure I can hear. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Speak right into that mike. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I will talk right into this. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And raise your volume just a little. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I make a motion that we approve the recommended changes to LDC Section 2.2.29 with a recommendation of the following changes: First is the minimum size of a unit be reduced to 320 square feet. The second would be to add language to assure that any existing landscaping that is legal continues to be counted toward the requirements needed. The third would be that the responsibility for paving an area would only extend to that area owned by the park that's in question or Page 98 November 28, 2001 that's come in for the SIP. Four would be that in regards to the drainage requirement that it would be tied in only where tie in's available to county sources. Five, a minimum width of 45-foot lots. Six, a minimum of 20-foot front setback instead of 25. And the last one is the sliding scale for enforcement. For 10 units it would stand as stated in the current language -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Slow down. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ten to 50 units would be an additional 12 months allowed. For 50 to 100 units would be an additional 18 months allowed; and for greater than 100 units, be an additional 24 months allowed. That's in addition to the base as stated in the proposed recommendations. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And the finding that this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And the finding that this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have just one minor clarification. The minimum setback you meant from all public road frontages. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That'll clarify that. Do we have a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Strain, a second by Mr. Wolfley to approve this particular section with the outlined items changed. Do we have any discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The only problem I have is with the one setback change. Based on Mr. Davenport's testimony, we're not even sure that he has a problem, I don't think. So other than that, I like it. Page 99 November 28, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that setback was the 45 -- no, excuse me. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Fifty to forty-five. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That was not a setback; that's minimum lot width. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Minimum lot width, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I still have a problem with people who are on low incomes who are suddenly going to have to undertake major changes to their home within a very short time period. I can't support the motion -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: addresses that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is there -- -- unless there's something that Is there a time period that you feel would be better than the 12 months -- actually, there's 18 months allocated in the current language. What would you suggest then? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think -- I would think that if the person is the owner of the trailer themselves and if they live there, that they shouldn't be singled out just because they're a mobile home as opposed to a house. I would like to exempt them completely. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then you're exempting potentially substandard housing forever? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Can't do that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's a hazard for them. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. But that would still be covered under existing Collier ordinances, I mean, just the way housing would, wouldn't it? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Marjorie? Page 100 November 28, 2001 MS. STUDENT: The only concern I have about this, we're trying to get at a problem with the mobile homes. And I'm just concerned about an equal protection argument here where we're treating similarly situated people, that being a problem with the mobile home irrespective of who owns it, differently based on ownership only and not a public health, safety, and welfare reason for treating them differently. That's my concern. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Paul, we are all very sympathetic toward, you know, the elderly and fixed income and so on and so forth, but this is going to put them in harm's way if you allow them to continue to live in something that's a hazard to their health. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, isn't it discrimination also if you discriminate against people in substandard mobile homes and not those who are in substandard permanent homes? MS. STUDENT: In answer to that, I think that's an unfortunate problem because we do have a housing code, and homes are supposed to meet that code. So that becomes an enforcement issue as opposed to any equal-protection problem with the ordinances. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But there's a much more restricted time frame where all mobile homes in Immokalee -- where there's more than three in a certain place have to become in conformity within a short period of time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: As this states, I think it's -- if we go with this motion and, you know, up to 10 units they'd have to come in compliance within-- by approximately 18 months according to this proposed ordinance. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I just don't see how these people can do it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think the record will reflect that there is a sympathy here, and perhaps the staff could attempt to craft Page 101 November 28, 2001 something further before -- when they go before the Board of County Commissioners because I can support this motion the way it's drafted. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Call the question. All those in favor say "aye." CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries, one against. Thank you for your time and effort. Thank you everyone for coming. Please clear the room quietly, and we will move onto the next item that had so may speakers, Item No. 3 of the evening, which would be the Gulf Shore Moratorium. MS. MURRAY: That's correct, and that's on page 30. MS. STUDENT: Yes. And I presented the item before. And the only thing I wish to say this evening because of time and meeting constraints, I had planned to add-- and I still plan to add the geographic boundary as being to the west of the Gulf of Mexico; to the east, the lagoon; to the north, Bluebill Avenue or it's westerly extension to the Gulf; and to the south, Vanderbilt Beach Road. AUDIENCE: We can't hear you. MS. STUDENT: I just planned to add the geographic -- further geographic description as depicted on the map of the boundaries of area, which is Bluebill Avenue or it's westerly extension to the Gulf of Mexico to the north; Vanderbilt Lagoon to the east; the Gulf of Mexico to the west; and Vanderbilt Beach-- I believe it's Drive. I Page 102 November 28, 2001 always get Drive and Road-- AUDIENCE: Road. MS. STUDENT: Well, Road then to the south. And I guess we can take public speakers if there's no questions from the commissioners. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: There's no questions from the commissioners. Let's move to the first public speaker, and please do migrate toward the front. MS. MURRAY: First public speaker is Bruce Anderson followed by Dwight Nadeau. Following Dwight is Joe Connelly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a change. MR. NADEAU: Well, good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm planning manager for RWA. I am a little surprised that there's a moratorium coming forward in this Land Development Code cycle. I don't know if this commission had an opportunity to see this amendment last time. MS. STUDENT: Yes, it did. It was advertised and it was reviewed, and I presented it last time, and this was directed by the Board of County Commissioners. MR. NADEAU: From what I'm understanding -- I don't really know this for a fact, but I don't know if the full board did direct -- MS. STUDENT: Yes. MR. NADEAU: -- the staff to move ahead with a moratorium. See, typically moratoriums -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Move closer to the mike, please. MR. NADEAU: See, typically moratoriums are based on a deficiency of public facilities, but there is case law -- and I know Marjorie is very strong about this. But there is case law for planning purposes that you can stop all development until we see what the problem is. Now, I can only presume that the problem is that there was an Page 103 November 28, 2001 administrative building permit issued for the Beachcomber. And we all know that the Beachcomber Hotel is a real problem issue. And, in my opinion, I don't know if a moratorium is the appropriate route to go ahead and just stop things to see -- to define what the problems are and then try and come up with a solution. Maybe a more appropriate way would be to -- in the next cycle or in the coming cycle do a Land Development Code amendment so that we know what the problems are so we can craft the proper language. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. I can tell you that Development Services Advisory Committee did recommend denial of this moratorium. MS. STUDENT: I'd like to respond, if I might? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Please. MS. STUDENT: First of all, at the final hearing from Cycle 2 or Cycle 2A but immediately preceding the cycle of the Land Development Code amendment, the board directed that this -- the full board -- voted unanimously to have this moratorium brought forward to it. Secondly, at the last meeting I identified some issues that exist and that were brought up at public hearings on the RT use that Dwight alluded to for problems with the districts, that being things like lack of U corridors, height of buildings, two-lane streets. In fact, as a beginning point, I walked the area this past weekend and made some notes and came up with some ideas. The idea is to have a study to bring forth some new LDC regulations for the RT District, and that is supported in the case law, and that is the idea behind it to avoid canyonization along Gulf Shore Drive. It's apparent to me from walking it, you get a pedestrian and you can't see much of the Gulf or very much of the lagoon. I mean, I couldn't even find -- barely find where the public access was to the beach. It's, like, a real skinny pathway. Page 104 November 28,2001 So these are old issues. It's an old zoning district. And the board felt it needed to be revisited, and these are some of the reasons for it and they were stated on the recorded at the last meeting of the Planning Commission. MR. NADEAU: Very good. Well, I still do have concerns about-- and I would urge you to make a recommendation to the board that you not move forward with it at this time. MS. MURRAY: Next speaker is Bruce Anderson followed by Joe Connelley. After Joe, Diane Ketchum. MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, Madam Chairman, fellow commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson, and I represent Van Dev, Inc., the property owner of the -- where the Vanderbilt Inn is located. Moratorium is a very drastic measure and should be narrowly drawn if it's going to be imposed at all. I'm here to request -- if you'll take a look, there's a map of the area in there -- in question. And if you would look at the northernmost portion of that map, you will notice that there is an RT piece that is isolated up there by itself, not connected to any other RT zoning. That's the location of the Vanderbilt Inn. We are requesting that this property be excluded from the moratorium because it is isolated, and you don't have the same concern about a domino effect like you would with the other RT parcels. And I have some specific language to propose to you that you add at the end of Section 2.2.3 5.2; where it talks about the geographic scope, that you add the following language at the end (as read): Quote, which abut other RT designated lands, period, end of quote. This way the moratorium is only imposed on those lands where a development domino effect could occur. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Anderson, before you leave, Page 105 November 28,2001 this is being proposed for one year. Are you telling us, then, that your client intends to do something there that's going to change that area in the next year that you can't wait? MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted to find out. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So you're asking to have that exempted. Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He wouldn't be here otherwise. MR. ANDERSON: In contrast to the approach that's taken with the ordinance, I feel like a meat-ax approach has been taken with the ordinance when a scalpel might have done just as well. So rather than be hypocritical, I've taken a scalpel myself. MS. MURRAY: Next speaker is Joe Connelley. AUDIENCE: We're switching too. MS. MURRAY: Diane Ketchum. AUDIENCE: If he can switch, we can too. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Diane Ketchum. MS. KETCHUM: My name is Diane Ketchum, and I'm president of Save Vanderbilt Beach Fund and board member of Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association, which is made up of more than 700 people who live on or near Gulf Shore Drive. I'm here tonight to speak in full support of this interim development control moratorium for Vanderbilt Beach. The people of Vanderbilt Beach want it, and we need it, and we need it for all of Gulf Shore Drive RT zoning. Mr. Anderson mentions that one little snippet is by itself up there, but so is the rest of RT that's past the houses. RT is not contiguous on Gulf Shore Drive, and we cannot support excluding any part of RT zoning for this moratorium, especially if people are Page 106 November 28,2001 considering tearing down hotels and making very high condos. We've said before this board and the Board of Commissioners what's happened on Vanderbilt Beach is redevelopment. We no longer have to guess what Gulf Shore Drive looks like. It's there. Every parcel is developed. What we must think of now is preserving our community. This is Collier County's last frontier. This is the last beachfront that can be redeveloped. Bay Colony, Pelican Bay, that's all isolated. That's -- WCI can do what they want in there. This is the last place left to give character to Collier County and to keep it the way we feel strongly it should be. What's happening is developers are coming in and they're tearing down smaller condos and motels and building things two and three times the size of what was there, increasing density. And nobody, not our government and certainly not the developers, have asked us what does the community need, what does the community desire? We've only recently learned of the county's last -- of the latest disregard for our community. It has now approved a condo building on three-quarters of an acre, this being the Beachcomber property, that will tower 103 feet and have a side yard of 15 feet. This will be the tallest building on the bay side on one of the smallest parcels. If you want particulars, I'll be glad to discuss that with you later. But this is another reason why we must stop this redevelopment now before Vanderbilt Beach becomes like the canyons of Fort Lauderdale. We need time to work with the county in reducing the heights of buildings on Gulf Shore Drive, not increasing them, and to decrease the density, not increasing that. This is coastal high hazard area. Gulf Shore Drive is a mandated evacuation road for any hurricane. And, Tropical Storm Gabrielle, we were totally under water. We couldn't get off of Gulf Page 107 November 28,2001 Shore Drive. The Gulf came over and almost met the bay. But this is beach property, and beach property is valuable property, and developers are making millions on our little strip of land. We have to say stop now. Stop allowing these developers to go after the almighty buck with no regard for our infrastructure, our roads, our sewers, and especially our safety. Let's take a year off and plan the redevelopment of Vanderbilt Beach the right way. Thank you. Questions? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, I just want to make one comment. You feel that the one RT at the end where the Vanderbilt Inn should not be exempted -- MS. KETCHUM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- during this one-year period because the other ones aren't connected, but the word is abutting, and it is one solid property. MS. KETCHUM: But we don't -- but all of RT zoning does not abut. In the middle of Vanderbilt -- in the middle of Gulf Shore Drive -- or Holmes, and that's zoned a different -- I think it's just single residential family. And then we start residential tourist again past the homes. So residential tourist is not abutting all the way down Gulf Shore Drive. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That is correct, but each place that you have the RT zoning something abuts another RT zoning. This is one single parcel that's set up there at the north part because we do -- I've seen these on the map, and I also walked the area to get a better familiarity. MS. KETCHUM: Right. I know our association represents members who live across the street from that parcel of land, and I'm sure they would like to very much to be a part of what the future development-- redevelopment of the Vanderbilt Inn would be. I think we need to take time to decide what the heights are going Page 108 November 28,2001 to be on Gulf Shore Drive before another project is allowed that's even higher than what the standard is right now. So I know their associations could not support (sic) excluding that parcel of land. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Joe Connelly. After Joe, Gordon Dix followed by Ben Gildersleeve. MR. CONNELLEY: My name is Joe Connelley. I live at 1060 Gulf Shore Drive. I, too, am in support of the interim development control as we prefer to call it rather than a moratorium, and we think for good reason. Because last year has been a very traumatic year on Gulf Shore Drive, as you well know, due to some very agressive developers, slick land-use attorneys, and a very complacent planning department at that time. We ended up with a hotel permitted, built, and it was turned into a condominium, and it's now in the hands of code enforcement coming to trial next month. If you went by there, you saw the albatross that La Playa has built on the bay side. Six-story parking garage and then the hotel on top of a convention center with the LaPlaya across the street from it bringing all additional traffic because they have this new beach club thing that's opened there. Signature Properties also was having a beach club. And the Beachcomber, although they are letting them consider submerged land and wedding tier (sic), which is illegal, looks like they are going to get their building permit. And, you know, that's more traffic. There is a -- of Vanderbilt Beach Drive, Vanderbilt Drive corridor study underway. And it was suggested by the commissioners, in fact, that Gulf Shore Drive be incorporated in the Vanderbilt Drive corridor, which is going to take about a year, and it's going to study the traffic flows and the effect of traffic and where Page 109 November 28,2001 the streets can be widened and where they can't be widened and just a whole -- what's going to happen to that area. So as a result of that study and Gulf Shore Drive being incorporated into it, we said to let's just wait a year and cool off and see what this study brings, and we'll all be more intelligent based on the results of that study. And we'll move forward from there, and that's why we support it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Gordon Dix followed by Ben Gildersleeve, then Carol Wright. Gordon Dix? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One moment. Let's get a microphone and bring it to him so we can get this correctly on the record. If you want to come over this way just a little. Perfect. MR. DIX: To avoid staying here until midnight, I agree 100 percent with Mr. Connelley and Mrs. Ketchum. I don't see any need for me to repeat their statements. I'm 100 percent for the moratorium. I think it needs a lot of study, and we should take the time to review it completely. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Would you just state where you live there, too, and your name. MR. DIX: Gordon C. Dix, D-i-x, 10573 Gulf Shore Drive, and I've lived there for 27 years. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Okay. We're going to take a two-minute technical break so we can change court reporters. (A break was held.) (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Next speaker. MS. MURRAY: Ben Gildersleeve, followed by Carol Wright. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And would you spell your name, sir, for the record. Page 110 November 28, 2001 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: B-e-n, G-i-l-d-e-r-s-l-e-e-v-e. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Yes. I'm Ben Gildersleeve. That's Thank you. I reside at 10573 Gulfshore Drive. In the essence of brevity, I would like to say that I think Mrs. Ketcham and Mr. Connelly have both said most everything that I believe in. I heartily support this moratorium. I think it's well conceived and really overdue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: No more speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No more speakers. MS. MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. Carol Wright. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Can't leave Carol Wright out. They are a little tired. They've been here for a long, long time for the last few days. MS. WRIGHT: I've been here, too, since 5:05, listening to the trailer parks. My name is Carol Wright, and I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association representing over some 700 members. I live at 9362 Gulfshore Drive. This moratorium is very, very important to us on Gulfshore Drive and Bluebill Avenue and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Many changes have taken place in the last few years but particularly this past year. All you need to do is read your page 30. It certainly explains what we've gone through. We truly need a year to prevent any more development while this study goes on or until it's completed, so I ask you tonight to please vote yes for this moratorium. And, also, I don't feel that any piece of property on Gulfshore Drive should be exempt for one year. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Now, you say you don't feel that way. Does your association -- has it addressed that specific issue? MS. WRIGHT: No. We didn't hear about that until Bruce got Page 111 November 28, 2001 up here. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. MS. WRIGHT: But, like Mrs. Ketcham said, we have a lot of people live up there in that area, so I -- I would feel that we have that support. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Your association would object to it? MS. WRIGHT: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I used to live in the Vanderbilt Beach area, and I know that Gulf Shore Boulevard (sic) there is two lanes, and the worst part is it empties on to two two-lane roads. If there was a hurricane evacuation I don't know how those people would get out. And I fully support the one-year moratorium in order to sort these issues out. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Philosophically I can't support a moratorium in general, but I walked the property. I've looked this over. And I'm going to have to do it with regret. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm curious as to why the DSAC voted against this. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Because they're developers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now, you can't quite say that the DSAC is totally developers. There's a variety of different disciplines that are there. But they definitely are like a board of directors for development services, and they are very much involved in all aspects of land planning. And I do believe that-- I served with Mr. Anderson on that group. And there are -- there's biologists and environmental people, but they are definitely very -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: In the minority. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The group of 15 focus on the technical expertise that they bring to the development services, and that's part Page 112 November 28, 2001 of the whole concept that set up Development Services Advisory Committee. And I think it's a good approach because it has taken a lot of people's time to get some of these issues worked out before you ever sit in a public hearing for four and five and six hours. It used to be very contentious at the Board of County Commissioners when industry people did not have an opportunity to talk and work out some of the details. And some of the stuff is so technical that you need people with expertise to work out the details. And I do believe Mr. Anderson would like to comment. MR. ANDERSON: I was at that DSAC meeting. I did abstain on the vote on this one. But their general feeling was that over the years there have been any number of studies of various areas of Collier County, and the studies have gone on and been successfully concluded and changed regulations, and never has a moratorium been imposed while the study was under way. And there was a concern about potential Harris Act claims and private property rights concerns. And it was essentially that the study could go forward without the necessity for a moratorium. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Marjorie Student. MS. STUDENT: If memory serves me correctly, the Harris Act doesn't apply to moratoria. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: They must have just discussed it. Any further comments? I think we're ready to close the public hearing on this particular item. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Madam Chairman, I can make a motion that we recommend approval of Section 2.2.36 for Gulfshore Drive moratorium and finding it consistent with the comp plan. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. Page 113 November 28, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Strain, a second by Mr. Abernathy for approval as written before us. Any discussion? As I -- I will simply say that I have grave concerns about setting up a moratorium for a specific area like this. However, I'm going to support it with regret. I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: With regret. Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Moving right along, I think we have one speaker on -- MS. MURRAY: Two. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now we have two speakers on Activity Center No. 9? MS. MURRAY: No. I have -- the turtles are next, beach -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, the turtles, the beach thing, yes. MS. MURRAY: Page 57. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I couldn't read my writing when I wrote that down. Page 57. MS. MURRAY: Moving at turtle speed here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You might lose your voice there. Let's -- MS. MURRAY: You have two speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Two speakers. MS. MURRAY: Would you like to hear them now? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. Let's hear the -- in the same format that we've been using, let's hear the first speaker. MS. MURRAY: Matthew Grabinski followed by Nicole Ryan. MR. GRABINSKI: Good evening. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good evening. Page 114 November 28, 2001 MR. GRABINSKI: Matthew Grabinski, for the record, representing the Ritz-Carlton. I'll try to keep this brief. But I would like to say that I don't think that this is about the turtles right now, although we've -- a lot of people have been trying to still focus the attention on that. Yes, this is about the beach events permit and beach use. And the turtles were a grave concern during the last LDC cycle, but all of those issues were discussed and subject to heated debate. And the BCC made a decision at their June 20th meeting. And at the end of that meeting, they requested staff to rewrite or clean up the annual beach events permit section of the code, after much discussion, and turn it into a notice procedure. And if you recall at the last meeting that we had two weeks ago, we spent a lot of time reading over the prior minutes, and I hope that I enlightened you a little bit and brought to your attention what exactly it was that the county commissioners were instructing staff to do and the fact that staff requested them to impose that burden on the hotel industry instead, which is why I'm in front of you today. (Mr. Weigel left the boardroom.) MR. GRABINSKI: The amendment that I drafted merely takes the annual beach events permit and turns it into a notice procedure. There are no other substantive changes to the code. And, therefore, unless you have questions, I would like to keep my comments at that. But as the sponsor of this amendment -- it is a private amendment -- I would like to ask that I be given an opportunity to address any comments that the public or staff may make. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'll give you that courtesy. MR. GRABINSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Next speaker. MS. MURRAY: Next speaker is Nicole Ryan. MS. RYAN: Good evening. For the record, Nicole Ryan here Page 115 November 28, 2001 on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. As I stated two weeks ago, The Conservancy opposes the proposed LDC amendment language changes, and we also support staff's opposition to these changes. And I will focus tonight not so much on the sea turtle but on compliance. Our concern about these proposed changes lies in the fact that taking away the county's ability to revoke a beach events permit essentially ties their hands. Effective action cannot be taken if beach violations occur if there's no ability for a revocation. A permit allows a revocation; a notice would not. Fines aren't enough. I go back to the question that I asked two weeks ago: Why should a business be afraid of the county's ability to revoke a permit unless they believe that they will accumulate enough violations to warrant the permit being revoked? And I think what we are talking about here tonight is the issue of compliance. Beach violations have occurred all along the beach during the past sea turtle nesting season. I held up a copy of the Ritz- Carlton's violations two weeks ago. I have copies for you and for the court reporter of this. Seventeen instances of violations from the past sea turtle nesting season, and these are furniture violations, but they're violations of the sea turtle permits that were discussed during the LDC amendment code just six months ago. And I also have a visual, and this photograph, I believe, was taken by either natural resources or code enforcement of the beach chair violations from the Ritz-Carlton. This photograph was taken -- and Alex Sulecki can confirm this. Alex Sulecki said that this was taken on June 25th. This was, I think, within a week of when the last LDC amendment cycle was approved. These same people that stood up here during the last amendment cycle and assured you that they were going to do it right did not do it right. And I don't want to just focus on the Ritz. There were beach violations from lots of the Page 116 November 28, 2001 condos and lots of the other hotels. And that's a list from code enforcement of all of the beach violation during this past sea turtle nesting season. So the point is with the current amount of noncompliance, it's not in the best interest of the county or the sea turtles to eliminate the county's ability to revoke a beach events permit. You, as the Planning Commission, have the ability to recommend denial of the proposed language. You also, I believe, have the ability to go a step further. You could, if you would choose to do so, ask staff to draft specific language for incorporation into the LDC that asks that a permit can be revoked after repeated violations if the county chooses to do so. And we would ask that you consider that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I do believe I'd like to hear from staff. We have a memo from Barbara Burgeson, if she would care to at least highlight the information. And I'd like Patrick White to just give us the highlights also of this memo that was just passed around dated the 26th of November. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. The memorandum that was issued -- this is the only copy that I have; I'm sorry -- that I sent to Ron Nino on November 20th was as a result of this council asking that we explain staff's position on the amendments before you tonight as presented by the Ritz-Carlton. Staff's position in response to the amendments -- let me just take the simplest one first. And in -- in this memo to Ron Nino what I've stated regarding concerns about changing the language to commercial, I've since then had more information that there are no commercially zoned properties on the beach. If we change that language to commercial, even the Ritz would not be allowed to fall under the annual beach events permit because the Ritz is zoned PUD. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you for -- Page 117 November 28,2001 MS. BURGESON: So we really don't want to consider that unless we want to exempt everyone on the beach from this ordinance. So we need to keep that with the original proposed language as it was discussed through the meetings of last LDC cycle, which was for the hotel properties on the beach. The second item of concern for staff was the issue of a permit versus a notice. We asked the county attorney's office for a formal decision or interpretation of that, and the memo that we've got from the county attorney's office, we received and e-mailed to you. This morning was the earliest that we could possibly get it to you. I'm not sure if everyone was able to receive that e-mail, so what we handed out tonight was a hard copy of that. I'm sure that Patrick could go through that a little more eloquently than I can. However, just to simplify it, the last page of Patrick's memo basically says in conclusion, although his analysis is more detailed than afforded by my memo to Ron Nino, the same concerns are essentially expressed, the concerns that a permit, one, cannot have more specific conditions placed on it to tailor it to that specific property; that a notice, although it's issued as a notice to Collier County, there is no way of confirming that we've reviewed that notice or gotten that notice. It has less -- less legal standing, so to speak, than a permit in terms of even protecting the property owner through the permit process. If they are issued a permit, there's more protection for them to have that permit. And our third concern is -- as was brought to your attention this evening, is that the language in the Land Development Code right now, even though it says the permit cannot be revoked, that's a single sentence in the Land Development Code. If we do have problems and violations in the future, that sentence can be removed and permits, as all other permits that are issued, would be able to be revoked. Page 118 November 28,2001 And we are concerned about the liabilities for Collier County with the special -- the Protected Species Act, the Endangered Species Act -- the protected species is the sea turtle -- that if there's violations that we cannot revoke a permit, that we may have some liabilities. And we understand there are other counties that have gone through that same situation, and there may be some liability issues there so -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any -- MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions of Ms. Burgeson? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just one. We have a list of violations that The Conservancy provided. Are you aware of any additional violations that aren't on this list, or have you seen this list? MS. BURGESON: That list is a list that was obtained from Collier County, so that should be a complete list. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's several pages. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We can't hear you. MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry. That list is a complete list. However, there's only, I think, one violation that may not be on that list that Alex put on today because it was under a slightly different category, and that is the photographs that you have in front of you. They were a result of a case that was opened, not-- not just for the fact that those stacks of chairs were too close to the sea turtle nests and needed to be moved, but they weren't supposed to be stacked there in the first place. They had a CCSL variance that required a specific storage area, so they were in violation of that CCSL variance. So that may not be on your list because it's a slightly different category. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think we need to hear from Mr. White, and then, Mr. Grabinski, I'd be glad to entertain a couple of comments from you. Mr. White, would you care to summarize this Page 119 November 28, 2001 in 25 words or less in salient points? MR. WHITE: Patrick White, assistant county attorney. I believe that the most critical information for this commission's consideration are probably the comments at the bottom of page 2 of 3, numbered 1, 2, and 3, in the sense that I believe those are pretty much what Barbara had alluded do, but bring down into nutshell form the considerations that the county, as I've indicated in the memo, ought reasonably evaluate because those are the things that will be lessened ability to achieve. One is a response that acknowledges that the required information was timely received, that being information that would be provided via the permit; two, that would be the lessened ability to attach more specific conditions to a particular use on a case-by-case basis in order to address unwanted impacts on sea turtles. It's probably worth noting that although there is an annual permit, it would be possible to fashion a means by which we could address the subsequent monthly notices for those events that may be a little bit out of character to attach those types of specific conditions. So I think there's a way to administratively achieve that end in a simple fashion. And, lastly, and perhaps most importantly, is that the county would lose the flexibility to assure compliance by the various property owners to ensure that continuing violations wouldn't be prohibited from being enforced against. We'd be put in the process, I think, where there'd be two steps required to come back to a place where if there were a continuing pattern of escalating -- or just the type of violations that weren't being abated, the county would have to change the regulations essentially in two steps: One to kind of get back to where we are today, to have a permit; and, two, to go the distance to change the provision that would preclude either some form of suspension or revocation. Everybody talks in terms of Page 120 November 28, 2001 revocation, but, indeed, there's also the idea that there could be a brief suspension, as was originally proposed in the first set of penalties that were considered way back in early June. So unless you have some specific questions ... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions? I think it's very clear. Mr. Grabinski, your turn. Make it short. MR. GRABINSKI: First of all, to address this list, okay, it's my understanding -- and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this list was obtained from Collier County Natural Resources from their daily sea turtle monitors that are on the beach each morning; is that correct? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is that correct? Somebody stand up and say yes in the microphone. Or Susan. MS. ARNOLD: Alex is shaking her head yes. MR. GRABINSKI: Okay. Because I would just like to know how many of these instances actually resulted in a code violation being issued. And the reason why I say this is that if you look at these, most of these, the majority, involve chairs being left out on the beach, which was an issue that was discussed extensively during the last LDC cycle and the fact that the Ritz-Carlton is a big hotel with a lot of guests. And they can pick up all their chairs at the end of the day, but the following morning if some of those guests want to get up and go for a morning walk on the beach and they pull a chair out onto the beach, that doesn't mean that there's going to be a hotel employee there 15 minutes later to pick the chair back up. And if that person's going to set a towel on that chair and walk down the beach for 20 minutes, the hotel isn't going to pick that chair up, just like if a person who lives in the Beachwalk community walks down to the beach at 6 a.m. One morning in the summer and sets their chair down on the beach and goes for a morning walk. Is that a violation? Page 121 November 28,2001 And that's where we talk about reasonableness, and that's why, while the natural resources may be monitoring how many chairs are being left out and when, a lot of these instances -- I doubt if any of them actually led to code violations. I certainly wasn't made aware of them. And I would -- due to the past two years' of time that I've been involved in this, I certainly feel that if there was a problem that county natural resources felt was in existence, that I would have somehow, as the Ritz-Carlton's attorney, been notified about it, or Ed Staros would have been notified about it, as the hotel manager, and he would have called me. And this is the first time that I've seen this. MR. WHITE: If you'll allow me to just interrupt, although Mr. Grabinski didn't make note of this, I looked at the list. And it certainly seems that given the June 20th date for the board's action on this matter previously, a lot of the violations seem to have occurred prior to that. And I wanted to point out to you that subsequent thereto there seems to have been only two, in case that wasn't something you'd caught. MR. GRABINSKI: Thank you, Mr. White. That is something I would like to point out, because after the June meeting, there were two. At one point there were two umbrellas left out on a -- near a counter, and on August 3rd there was one lounge chair and one plastic table on the beach. Is there really a problem here? And as far as those pictures are concerned, where a code enforcement case was opened up, those -- as ridiculous as this sounds, there was no code violation. There maybe -- there was an issue with the CCSL variance as to where the beach furniture was supposed to be, but we had a diagram, and we ended up meeting with code enforcement staff to all agree and decide exactly how far down the beach the beach chairs could be placed. And it looked like from the diagram, because everything wasn't drawn to scale, that everything was confined to this little area. But we specifically took Page 122 November 28,2001 the area to our southernmost boundary of the property line, and it stretched a lot further down the beach than the code enforcement officers originally thought. And as far as the chairs being stacked so closely to the sea turtle nests, the hotel employees actually asked the sea turtle monitor about their location and if it was okay to have them there, and the sea turtle monitor said, "Yes. That's fine. Don't worry about it." Now, he may have gotten scolded later on, but after that occurred and the subsequent -- and the amendments that were taken into effect and the hotel was able to use its ATV, one of the things that the hotel did was started removing a lot more of the chairs each night because it had the ability, finally, to do so. So I would like to point that out as well. To address some of the other points that were brought up, Ms. Ryan stated that a permit allows revocation. By keeping this a permit, it -- it would allow the county to revoke it. Well, right now the county code says the permit is -- the permit is not subject to revocation. That was the most important and critical issue. Of the dozen issues that were debated in the past two years, that was the most important issue. Right now if you leave this as a permit, it can't be revoked. So to think that by denying this change you're giving the county the right to revoke a permit, you're not doing that this time around. You're not doing that at all, and it will be heavily and seriously contested in the future if the county ever decided to look at that again. As far as staff's comments regarding their other reasons for not supporting this, I unfortunately am not as prepared as I'd like to be. I was not aware of the memo that Barb -- Barbara Burgeson drafted apparently -- which was drafted on November 20th. I had actually requested staff's written comments in a letter to staff on November 16th. And it wasn't until today, through a third-party memo, that I learned that on the 20th a memo regarding staff's objections and Page 123 November 28, 2001 concerns was drafted. And somehow, being the sponsor of this LDC amendment and a person who had expressly requested that they give me their objections or comments in writing, I was the only one left out of the loop. And I take objection to that, and I think it's very unprofessional. MS. MURRAY: I -- I apologize. I don't think there's anything in that memo that wasn't stated at your last hearing, Madam Chair. And you made the suggestion to me that we get the information that Barb presented, on the record, in writing. You're correct, Mr. Grabinski. That should have been sent to you, but I don't think there's anything different in there that wasn't stated on the record last hearing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And I -- I have to agree with that. But I just want to remind staff, it's much better to memo and e- mail everybody, particularly somebody you know you've been talking to for two years on this, that please try not to leave the gentleman out, because you certainly provided us with a lot of information here. And when Mr. Grabinski gets through, I want to do a quick little review of the history as I remember it from some of the hearings and then move on. But ! know he has another point or two to make. MR. GRABINSKI: Yes. Just to address some of the other comments, if staff has a problem including commercial property as opposed to hotel and beach resort property, no problem leaving it with the hotels. I really don't think there are many commercial properties that aren't hotels. If you start at the Vanderbilt Inn and just think down to The Registry, I think that the only commercial properties on the beach are hotels. So I don't have a problem with that. But as far as the other points that were made, again, the idea of the attaching additional conditions on the permit, the way the permit works right now is that it's an annual permit anyways, and once it's Page 124 November 28,2001 obtained the hotels merely provide a monthly notice. And so I think other than, perhaps, staff receiving a notice of a particular event and contacting the hotels and asking them to undertake additional measures, that that really isn't a -- an added benefit that would -- that the county would be able to retain easily by keeping this as an annual permit as opposed to an annual notice. Also, the idea of needing an acknowledgment of receipt, even county staff indicated that that was, in effect, a way to protect the property owner so that the county -- so that the property owner knew that the county was notified. Well, I think the property owners, in this instance, can take care of themselves and can easily request that a county staff member acknowledge receipt of an annual notice once a year. And, again, the third point regarding the idea that the county could retain the right to temporarily suspend or revoke the permit, again, is going to create a lot of controversy and some serious legal issues for Collier County if it decides to walk down that road. This issue was heavily debated for over a year. And at the end of the LDC cycle in June, we clearly requested and gave our reasons in the minutes -- and if you want, I can get you copies of those minutes -- and we talk about why a suspension or revocation of the permit cannot be tolerated and why a temporary suspension would not work. When you have a hotel that books a convention for GM three years in advance, five years in advance, to suddenly have General Motors come into town for a convention and it happens to be during a three-day suspension period is just ludicrous. Businesses cannot operate that way. And if you read the minutes from the June 20th meeting, the commissioners acknowledged and recognized that and were sympathetic to the business concerns. And so I will just leave my comments at that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And along that line, I remember Page 125 November 28, 2001 talking about this issue -- this group of issues for four or five hours in June, and I think it was my feeling that if the beach properties did not comply and found themselves having a variety of violations, that in one year we would come back and revisit stronger penalties with reference to any property that was violating; and that we're only halfway through, and I've got a lot of information here now to review. So I'm getting less supportive of the idea that we at least need a suspension or something stronger to get the attention of those people that work, apparently. Here we've only been given the Ritz right now, but there's a whole list here. So at this point I feel very comfortable outright rejecting what we've had presented to us here for this LDC amendment, and I want to support staff for that approach. Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just got -- the facts as I've seen them is that staff recommends denial. The county attorney said there's a loss of specific conditions and rights to the county, and Mr. Grabinski says there's no net gain or loss of substantive rights of use of his client. Well, based on those three things, I can't see why we should change anything at this point. There's nothing to gain. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy, did you want to comment? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I said, "That's right." CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Okay. MR. WHITE: IfI could make one comment. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MR. WHITE: I think it's important to put on the record from the county's perspective, certainly from our office's point of view, that the board did ask Mr. Grabinski to do what he did. And I think it's worth noting that what he did do accurately reflected, to the best of, I believe, everyone's determination, what it was the board had him Page 126 November 28, 2001 asked to do, and I think he did a very professional job of it. And although it may not come across from the entirety of what it is that the county's perspective is on this and the sunset we're -- I have a position recommending denial, I didn't want to let the moment pass without the opportunity to acknowledge the work that he's done. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I acknowledged that last time, and it is well written, but I don't think it's going to serve the purposes of where we are at this point. So thank you, Mr. White, for elaborating on that. Do we have a motion on this particular item? I close the public hearing on this one. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to move that we support the county staff recommendation to deny Section 2.6.33.3. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Did you say 2.6.34 and 3.14.37 Is that not what's on my -- MR. WHITE: Those are the correct -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. 2.6.34 and 3.14.3. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Second. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a sec -- let's see, I have a motion by Mr. Midney, a second by Mr. Strain for denial of the item before us. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. The last one must have been the Activity Center No. 9. Page 127 November 28, 2001 MS. MURRAY: Right. And if you would indulge me, I need to -- to talk a little bit before you take the speaker. I let my staff member not attend tonight because I thought this was fairly complete, and I was -- I have been reading this over, and I have some concerns. The first concern has to do with the applicability. And as I read this, this is to apply to all structures within the Activity Center No. 9, and that was not our intent. Our intent is to have commercial industrial structures comply that are located along public streets and not those buildings that would be located along internal public roads that aren't visible from -- I'm sorry -- internal private roads that are not visible from public streets, and that's not made clear in here. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Where are we, Susan? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We're on page 26? MS. MURRAY: Page 26. I thought I said that. I apologize. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Page 26. MS. MURRAY: And that's not made clear in here. As well, I have some concern -- if you're familiar with the White Lake PUD that came before you and ultimately went to the Board of County Commissioners and was approved with a wall requirement, we wish to carry that requirement to all the gateway properties identified along 1-75, and I don't -- that's not in here, and I'm concerned about that, as well. Those are the two I picked out immediately. And I would like to still move the amendment forward with your understanding that we'd like to clarify where these standards apply, and those would be to commercial industrial uses that front or that are -- abut or in view of public streets and would not apply to the commercial or industrial uses that were located on internal private streets that were not viewable from public streets. And we will craft language to make that clear. And also to have that wall requirement for-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Wall requirement. Page 128 November 28, 2001 MS. MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The one concern I had found is the fire station. Is that -- would that be one that would be exempted from the requirements as an essential service then? MS. MURRAY: No. That would not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I know ChiefPeterson was here earlier. I think he didn't get time to stay, but -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think he gave up. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- he may have had concerns about that. I had -- MS. MURRAY: I don't have him as a registered speaker, but you know -- and we've not heard from them, but we're open to suggestions. With that, I have the one registered speaker as Dwight Nadeau. MR. NADEAU: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record again, my name is Dwight Nadeau, planning manager for RWA. And I thank Susan for preempting some of my comments by adding the wall in the gateway features. That would be those areas that would be visible from 1-75. And those gateway features identified-- gateway areas that are identified in the adopted interchange master plan for Activity Center No. 9. I would want one point of clarification, and that would be on page 28 of your packet, specifically landscape buffers adjacent to road rights-of-way. It states, "In addition to the requirements of a Type D buffer." Well, a Type D buffer is -- in an activity center is 20 feet in width, and there are specific landscape requirements that go along with that. Am I to understand that in addition to that 20 feet in width, that there's going to be another 25 feet of landscaping associated with those areas? I certainly hope not. MS. MURRAY: Are you asking me? MR. NADEAU: Yes. Page 129 November 28, 2001 MS. MURRAY: MR. NADEAU: MS. MURRAY: MR. NADEAU: No. 25 feet width, total. 25 feet width in total? Yes. And in -- with my understanding of the code, that the buffering require -- landscape buffering requirements as identified in the applicability, or Division 2A -- excuse me -- 24, is that a Type D buffer in an activity center needs to be 20. Is there any particular reason why the buffering standard for gas stations which is currently in place in the LDC should be applied throughout all of these areas? Potentially it might be appropriate that if there's going to be a land-- a gas station, we comply with the code and have a 25-foot landscape buffer out in front. Is there any particular reason why we need to have that additional 5 feet that goes well beyond what the Land Development Code requires? I don't believe so, particularly with the addition, as you suggested, that it's going to be augmented with a wall in the gateway features. I would request that that buffer be reduced down to 20 feet in accordance with the Type D buffering and that when a gas station comes in, they comply with the code and have the 25-foot buffer. MS. MURRAY: I -- I'm sorry. We usually don't dialogue in these situations. So if you're asking me a question just -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Well-- MS. MURRAY: You know, normally if you have issues or questions, they usually come to us ahead of time and -- but I guess not. So if you're asking me, just let me know because I'm listening and thinking that's your recommendation to the board. MR. NADEAU: I'm asking the commission. Would it not be more appropriate to maintain the standard that is in the Land Development Code? And when we went through the two years of promulgation of this interchange master plan, which I was instrumental in, there was no identification that all of these PUDs Page 130 November 28,2001 were going to have greater buffering requirements than what was required by code. Now, we're going to comply, obviously, with the additional landscaping requirements. There are substantially more landscaping within these buffers. But to ask for the extra 5 feet beyond which is in the code may be a little onerous. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So you're asking that under landscape buffers adjacent to road rights-of-way, 1 (a) would have to be changed to 20, you're saying, minimum? MR. NADEAU: 1 (a) would be changed to 20 and that there would be a distinction clearly set forth that it is not in addition to the Type D buffer, which is already 20 feet. MS. STUDENT: I -- I have -- I have some language. "In addition to the requirements for a Type D buffer, exclusive of width requirements," because there may be some other things about that that they may want -- you know, staff may want to include. And if I'm wrong about that, please correct me. But I'm confused, too, when I read it, so that's why it needs to be cleaned up a little bit. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So you're saying after the Type D buffer, exclusive of width requirements. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. And also when it says "requirements of," it sounds like the whole buffer stuff is required. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm losing you. MS. STUDENT: It just seemed to read better to say "for." CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, I'm sorry. "In addition to the requirements for a Type D buffer, exclusive of width requirements, the following requirements shall apply"; is that correct? You want to change the "of" to a "for." MS. STUDENT: trying to clear that up. MS. MURRAY: understand what the intent is, and I can certainly draft it. Yeah, if that's okay with staff. I was just Whatever makes it more clear is -- is fine. I We Page 131 November 28,2001 wouldn't support a reduction to 20 feet. We wrote 25 in there for a reason, and that was because the Activity Center No. 9 is the gateway to Naples, and we feel like the landscaping, the signage, and the architecture are the main features that people are going to look for. We are looking to enhance the landscaping along the major public streets for that reason. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions of Mr. Nadeau or each other or staff'?. MR. NADEAU: IfI may, there are gateway standards in the interchange master plan already, specifically in Section 3, the design standards, the boundary gateway features. And I'll paraphrase, but I'll read specifically intensive plantings that introduce massing and layering, boundary gateway features. And I go to the implementation strategy, and it says the entry/exit gateway features, landscaping, directional signage, and lighting elements, will occur within the public rights-of-way with implementation to be provided by the county's Capital Improvement Element. So in addition to the landscaping that's being applied to me, there will be also landscaping that the county committed to as a part of this document. Therefore, I still don't see the reason for the extra 5 feet. It is a gateway feature. We built this document and this plan to be an interaction between the development community as well as the county. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any thoughts, ladies, gentlemen? MS. MURRAY: I don't have any more to add other than, you know, this is a designated feature of this activity center and that we feel that the additional width in addition to the landscaping that's called out in the plan is -- meets the intent of the plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Do we have any other speakers? MS. MURRAY: No. That was it. Page 132 November 28,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions on this one? Okay. Since we've just followed this pattern, let's vote on this one, and then we can start moving along. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I make a motion we recommend approval of Section 2.2.35 as proposed, finding it consistent with the comp plan. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: However, we need to follow staffs recommendation to add the wall requirement. MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And clarify exactly where the standards apply. Did you put that in your motion or not? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, I did not. And if you want to try to help me phrase that, I will be glad to. I know Marjorie had two suggestions. If that's what you're talking about adding, I have no problem with that. MS. MURRAY: I understand Marjorie's suggestions, and we'll work to clarify the language. I think I made it clear that the 25-foot width was not in addition to a Type B (sic), but was in total. And we'll certainly make that legally clear. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. That's fine with me. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Sounds good. I have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yep. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Strain, a second by Mr. Abernathy for approval of this item with the clarifications by staff and the -- that's all I want to say. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) Page 133 November 28, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. We have now completed the items that had public speakers on them. MS. MURRAY: No. One more. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, we have one more? MS. MURRAY: Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yeah. We do have one other person in the public still here. MS. MURRAY: I have two page references here, page 10 and page 94. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What was the second one? MS. MURRAY: Ninety-four. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ten? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ten is the middle of-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ten is in the middle of something, access geometry. MS. MURRAY: It was unclear to me on the sheet. Maybe Mr. Anderson can clarify what exactly he wants to talk about. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: If you go to page 8 in your packet -- MR. ANDERSON: Pages 11 and 94. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. But we're -- we're dealing -- okay. We're going to deal with page 11 first, and I do have some comments. We start on page 8 and go through 11 in what we've got attached together here. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I -- for the record, my name is Bruce Anderson, and I'm here to address specifically the issue of access points which are depicted on PUD master plans and the proposal to no longer recognize those as binding in any fashion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I figured you'd show up this time. MR. ANDERSON: Access points for PUDs are often Page 134 November 28, 2001 negotiated with the county as part of transportation commitments or negotiated with neighboring property owners, and those PUDs should be honored and enforced. I mean, you've seen it happen here at your Planning Commission meetings before. People are concerned about, "Well, are you going to have access here or there?" And you work that kind of thing out, and people rely on it. If you want to change the rules and apply them in the future to new projects or to previously approved projects that seek an amendment, fine. But attempting to apply it retroactively is fundamentally unfair, and it's a breach of the PUD agreement between the property owner and the county. Members of the public, including the PUD property owners, have taken action in reliance on these access points depicted on the PUD master plan. The county itself has considered access points on PUD master plans so important that changes in the locations of access points are deemed a change that requires review and approval by the Planning Commission. It's that important. However, after I pointed that out at the DSAC committee meeting, staff is now proposing to go ahead and eliminate the language which would require Planning Commission approval for such a change, after I pointed that glitch out to them. The location of access points has real economic consequences, and there has been no analysis of the fiscal impact to property owners and, ultimately, to the county for when those access points promised in a PUD are revoked. In conclusion, if you want to change the rules, do so prospectively, not retroactively, and that way you can avoid any economic consequences to the property owner and the public because everyone will know up front at the time of the PUD approval that they can't rely on the access points shown on the PUD master plan. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So are you saying that that language at the top of page 11 changes existing PUDs? Well, I'll ask that of staff. Page 135 November 28, 2001 MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe, transportation planning department director. The intent of that is -- yes, because for the most part, the majority of the documents that we have reviewed today not only -- although they include a master plan which may have shown a specific location in regards to an access point, the majority of the PUDs also still contain references to the county's ability to modify or change or require modifications of those access points as they deem necessary and consistent with access management policies in place at the time. This just clarifies it within the specific context within the Land Development Code. We have run into problems of where older PUDs have come forward and are extremely inconsistent with what current standards are. Reliance upon old numbers -- when we have continuing land use changes, traffic pattern changes, we are looking at the safety and operations and the capacity integrity of the overall system, and we need to let those mesh. Especially since it is a conceptual nature that we are looking at at the time on the master plan, that we need to be afforded the opportunity that we know -- when we know specifically what will be going into a development, to be able to make educated decisions based on professional technical knowledge of what is going on there, as to where those access points should be and what type of access points they should be, whether they're just right in, right out; or whether they're just an inbound or an outbound; whether we should have full median openings; whether they should be restrictive to the point of not having any median openings at certain locations. At -- what Mr. Anderson is requesting is that anyone who's had a PUD who has a master plan that shows an arrow in a specific location on a map that is of a bubble diagram nature that says they can have development up to X square feet, be able to measure out and say that's 332 feet from that intersection that I can have that full median opening, regardless of what the access management policy Page 136 November 28,2001 says today. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Dawn, you said that most of these PUDs had language in there allowing the county to fool with these things. What if the PUD doesn't have that kind of language? MS. WOLFE: Then this is what helps us cover that fact, because there's -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Isn't this the thing we went around with Don Pickworth some time back? Didn't we go round and round on this with Don -- Attorney Pickworth at a comer property? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And his access. He was very eloquent. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You must remember that. It's been in the last couple of months. MS. WOLFE: It's been a long week so far. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Anyway, I -- MS. WOLFE: I apologize if my memory past Monday isn't very good. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It was this very point, that those were the access points that had been granted in the PUD. What, then, is sacred in the PUD? Can only departments that have problems with the PUD come in and-- and come up with language like this? MS. STUDENT: I beg your pardon? I'm -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Dawn is covering her area of interest with the ability to disregard what's in the PUD if it's not in accordance with current standards. Can other county departments that have interest in PUDs come up with similar language? And if so, what can a person rely on in a PUD? MS. STUDENT: Well, I have seen the language that Dawn alludes to, and in many PUDs -- and there are many of them out there -- I would dare say even in a majority of the PUDs, there's language Page 137 November 28,2001 about not being vested for an access point and -- in the PUD itself. I've always taken the position -- and this is going out there a little bit, because case law tells us that PUDs -- a local government can't write a PUD for a property owner and say, "Well, we just rezoned you to PUD, and here's the regulations for it," because they're consensual in nature. I've taken the position that you could do a PUD amendment, because the issue had come up that the local government could do one if it was in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. And I think what Ms. Wolfe is saying here is that there's some public safety concerns about setting the access because of changing conditions. I guess the other route would be for staff to identify those PUDs where they are a problem and bring them back to the board to have the changes made. But I am of the opinion if there's a public health, safety, welfare issue, that the local government is not barred from touching that PUD. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And when you get to the site development plan, does the rules change then? I mean, can a developer then start building based on what his site development plan shows? MS. STUDENT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So there is a point at which some certainty attaches to the process. MS. STUDENT: Yes. And I think that what's being said here is the conditions change, and you -- all we have to do is look around us to realize the traffic conditions have certainly changed in this county. And I think it's reasonable to be able to look at those changes and -- and revisit it. And I said I'm going out on a little bit of a limb here, but I will tell you that for purposes of DRIs, there's a provision written in state law for development of regional impact that if there's a public health, safety, welfare issue, you know, it's not vested for Page 13 8 November 28,2001 anything if one of those comes up. And furthermore, there's another provision -- and I can't quote it totally off the top of my head-- that's pretty standard in our PUDs that talk about the PUD having to develop in accordance with, you know, state or local laws in existence at the time of building permit or in existence at the time -- and that apply to the particular development that they are -- approval that they are seeking. That would be site plan, subdivision, or otherwise. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So we might not even need this language. MS. STUDENT: So there's some, you know, divesting -- well, I don't -- I can't say that it's on all PUDs. That's -- that's the issue. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Madam Chairman'. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, at the risk of sounding like I'm agreeing with Bruce -- MR. ANDERSON: You could do worse. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know. I am concerned about -- and I don't know, Dawn, how this was thought out in your department. But when a PUD's built or designed in a bubble plan even, the site plan is, a lot of times, centered around the entrance, and the entrance is an access point. If that changes much or that comes under different conditions after the PUD's approved, it may change the site plan to the extent there may be more reapprovals required of that. And I don't know how -- if that's -- if you've thought about that should be addressed. And second to that is, on a lot of larger projects, a TIS is required and how that TIS application would then have to change in relationship to anything your department would do based on this new language. MS. WOLFE: The first one, that's part of where we're trying to Page 13 9 November 28,2001 get at. Because we don't have the level of detail at the site development plan stage -- we have that at the site development plan stage that we don't have in the conceptual, generally bubble diagram of a PUD. At that point we can make the explicit determinations including have there been changes to the roadway, have there been lanes added, has there been geometry changes at the intersection that could preclude the safety and operational characteristics of the public roadway system if you move forward with what has been a shown access point, either -- of a specific nature that would be in conflict with that. We -- and the fact of the matter is, I don't -- I have had a question to the county attorney's office in regards to what has necessitated a PUD amendment in the past, because certainly there needs to be some level of flexibility in that specific location of that access point. And I was informed, because of the way the LDC was written, that if I moved-- that if it explicitly says that driveway shall be 660 feet south of the intersection, then if we now say because of a wetland it needs to be 750, we have to go through and do an amendment. Well, Bruce did bring that to our attention at the DSAC meeting. However, it was something that I had questioned the county attorney's office on before because that is a more technical issue that when you have more detail, whether it be land use, site design, wetlands, environmental considerations, there needs to be a level of flexibility, especially under access points and roadways. I think there was one that came through quite recently where the internal roadway just bubbled slightly off of a project off of 951 which required them to come through with a PUD amendment just for realigning a road around a wetland. And that's not necessarily something I think we should come back constantly for things of that nature, which are of a technical Page 140 November 28, 2001 nature, once you have helped us establish the condition by which it should develop. And those conditions should be consistent with what is the most reasonable access management policy and standards in place at the time that they come forward with their actual development plan, not when they say, "This is the rezoning, and we're going to do this some day up to this maximum level of development." We've been caught in positions of late of controversy over whether or not access points from a PUD give absolute rights and vested rights to median and access locations. This will help clear up the fact that medians are not a property right, but they are a functionality of the roadway and that operation and safety characteristics need to take priority in determining where the specific location of primary access points to development are going to occur, if they will create a safety or operational conflict on the main line of a public road. That's what we're trying to ensure here by making this change, that is when we know what is going in under the SDP process, that we establish those locations. I certainly can understand Mr. Anderson's and his client's position on this. But from protecting the public safety, health, and welfare, we are recommending that this be applied to all cases and not just those that come forward in the future. MS. STUDENT: And if I may, any text change to a PUD document requires it to go through the entire process before Planning Commission, EAC if warranted, and the Board of County Commissioners. Then if you have a substantial change -- and there are ten criteria in subsection 27356 whether or not it's a substantial change. If it is, that also has to go back through the process with the Planning Commission and the board. If it's not a substantial change, it just comes to the Planning Commission. And these deal with changes on the map, I might add, because the text changes take care Page 141 November 28, 2001 of everything else. And then there's some language that talks about what minor changes not otherwise provided for and might be -- and then there's -- I'm sorry. That's in 27356. The substantial/insubstantial's in 27351. And then there is a list of some things that are insubstantial. And so that, I think, just generally answers the question of what -- you know, what the different processes are and what goes through the full-blown process, and all text changes do. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So if we leave this in, we -- MR. ANDERSON: I'm in agreement that the county can change access point locations based on public health, safety, and welfare considerations. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: I do not dispute that. What this language does is relieves the county of the obligation to demonstrate that at a public hearing and just does it blanket without regard to any specifics. That is the danger. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think that was partly what Mr. Pickworth was trying to say, if I remember right. And I did want to ask you real quickly, Dawn, to follow up that, you said that there were a number of PUD documents in existence that there's a concern about. Do you have a number of how many projects there are? MS. WOLFE: I do not have a complete number. We have a sampling of them that I've been going through. The majority of them contain the condition which says the county reserve -- the county has the right to change, modify, or close any median location and that the access locations would be consistent with the most current Land Development Code policies and access control policies in place at the time of development. And that means regardless of what prior conditions may be set as to the -- what is shown on the master plan for the PUD or what may be a preceding statement of "you can have Page 142 November 28, 2001 one full median opening at this location." The other side of that -- and I think to continue in answering Commissioner Strain's question in regards to TISs -- is existing PUDs did not have to meet the level of detail under a traffic impact statement or a rezoning petition that would establish that they, in fact, have met the test of health, safety, and welfare that -- in not being consistent with current standards, that they wouldn't create the problems. They would not create a hazard. We are trying to set forth the fact that we need to preserve the integrity of the roadway as well as the safety and welfare in operations. But the fact is traffic impact statements that have been submitted on the older PUDs did not provide that level of detail to ensure that those locations would not create problems or create safety and operational issues in the future as time changes, because they haven't come forward. We're not saying that what's on the ground today won't stay there, but we still have the right to modify them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Don't we have some sunsetting provisions for PUDs? And I don't think I understand the corollary between how you could have all these old ones with inadequate traffic impact statements and they haven't had an entryway or an access point built, and we're suddenly seeing these come through. I'm confused. MS. WOLFE: I think we're getting at that with another LDC amendment in this cycle, which is the three-year sunsetting and reevaluation. MS. STUDENT: That already -- that happened in the last special cycle. MS. WOLFE: So they will be coming forward now. And a lot of these that are of concern will be reevaluated and reconsidered at that time, and at that time we'll ensure that conditions are placed in them that allow the county to say that the access point -- so it may be Page 143 November 28,2001 a moot point on the majority of them in the near future. However, we still feel that this is appropriate at this time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But you -- are you really removing the obligation to demonstrate that there's a public health, safety operations issue there -- MS. WOLFE: No, we are not. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- as Mr. Anderson is suggesting? MR. ANDERSON: They are in a public hearing, which is where the access points were fixed in the first place. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Well, then-- and that is -- that's, I guess, part of my concern. It needs to be done in a public hearing. You need to have more people talking about it rather than less people talking about it if it's really that uncertain and it's that much of a problem. We'd support you. And if it's going to come back anyway, I'm not sure that we need the sledgehammer here, because I think I objected to this or questioned this last time. Why isn't anybody here talking about it? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did you object on the basis of its retroactivity or going forward? Because going forward-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Retroactivity. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- it seems like a good, quality cleanup for the system. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Going forward. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Going retroactive I -- I still -- I am concerned about the unfairness that it may be to some existing situations out there and that those might not -- might be easily dealt with with the public safety and welfare issue that Marjorie's pointed out to us. MR. ANDERSON: And/or PUD sunset review. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I -- I really feel it's somebody's responsibility to tell us how many of these documents really are Page 144 November 28, 2001 going to be impacted because we talk about impacts all the time. I know it's a big job. MS. WOLFE: The one issue that I -- I think is looking at it in the retrospect and being able to say, "Well, these are problems. We need to be protecting the integrity of the roadway system." Safety and operational conditions, what they're -- what he is alluding to is the fact that, "No, we are guaranteed these locations. If our PUD says it's 330 feet from the intersection, we're going to get it 330 feet from the intersection, and you can't say anything about it, regardless of what analysis goes on." CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I don't think that -- MS. WOLFE: And that is the argument that has been made to date on -- on these issues. MS. STUDENT: There's a difference. If the PUD says that in the text, then that PUD has got to come back for an amendment, because any text change -- if it's on the map, that's different. I mean, if it's that specific without, you know, some divestiture language and some further delegation to staff to change it -- I mean, if it has the other language in it, that's -- that's different. But it almost seems to me that each PUD that's an issue needs to be looked at to -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Anderson, since you're the one who started this discussion, how do you suggest changing it so that we don't have it retroactive or that it comes before a public hearing or goes into the sunset provision? What are we saying here? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because I don't want to beat this up too much longer. Do you have language? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was simply -- couldn't we just make a recommendation that it applies nonretroactively, but only for new projects going forward from the date of approval? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But I think it has to say something. Page 145 November 28,2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I thought a recommendation could -- MR. ANDERSON: Just add a sentence to each of those sections that says "These provisions shall only apply to PUDs approved after the effective date of this amendment." COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's sort of-- sort of self -- circular because they're not going to approve any PUDs that don't have language in it that saves the county their bacon. MR. ANDERSON: Right. But everybody will know that they can't reply on those access points. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's going to be in the PUD. MR. ANDERSON: If the county -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If she has her way -- MR. ANDERSON: Sure. Then that would completely eliminate the need for any language at all. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There isn't any sense in putting this in saying it's prospective only because prospectively the county is not going to approve them if they don't have that language. So you either approve it or drop it, it looks like to me. MR. ANDERSON: I don't disagree. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further thoughts here? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm puzzled. So now it's either approve it or -- if it's approved as is, then it's going to be applied retroactively. You're saying the only other option is to recommend denial. MR. ANDERSON: Or to add the language that Mr. Abernathy correctly observed is kind of circular. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Why can't you simply say that this is not retroactive? I mean, is that something illegal or not legalese? MR. ANDERSON: No. That's fine. These shall not -- these provisions shall not be applied retroactively. Page 146 November 28, 2001 MS. STUDENT: I think the point of that -- what -- the point that was trying to be made was that new PUDs are going to have some language in it that -- so this just kind of, if you put that in it, is just surplusage almost. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It neutralizes itself. MS. STUDENT: Because it's going to be in the PUD anyway. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. MS. STUDENT: So it becomes sort of surplus, I guess. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. But if you say that this shall not apply retroactively, we've taken care of the issue that we've been beating up here because you're only applying to old PUDs, not new ones. I'm not an attorney. I just want to go home. MS. STUDENT: I'm trying to -- it's late, but I'm trying to figure out if it's not applied retroactively and the PUD has language in it that says it's not vested for that and the other -- I'm -- without looking at an example, I'm not quite sure how -- and I need to do that -- how it's going to work. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, then maybe we should just give the concept -- our recommendation to the concept, as Mr. Strain said earlier. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Or we just do what some of the others have done in other areas, just no action. Do we have that option? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: What do you mean no action? I'm not clear. MS. STUDENT: No. I think if something's before you, you need to vote it up or down. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So -- and I just want to make a couple of comments. We did an amazingly great job of coordinating all the different words and statements and all. However, I did notice Page 147 November 28, 2001 on page 10 a couple of minor details. Page 10, the first paragraph, we seem to have a confusion over of right-of-ways, rights-of-ways. What is the phrase? And I was always taught it was rights-of-way. And you'll see that in the bottom of the paragraph on the top and then the last part of the sentence on 2.6.38.4.1. And then you flip over to page 11, and then we have internal realignment of right-of-ways. So if we can just agree what the phrase is, it would be helpful. Isn't it rights-of-way? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Its rights-of-way. MS. WOLFE: Actually, in the context of the statement of the -- referring to the standard itself, it is right-of-way. I apolo -- this actually was probably Ron trying to read my handwritten notes and whether or not there was an S on it or not. So we can get that fixed. In this context it should be right-of-way in the first paragraph. And under -- and the same thing -- it is correct under 263841. As I said, it was -- I provided these to Ron, and it may have been him trying to read my red line. So that's just a scrivener's on that part. We will correct it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But I will say that I did look up -- I have a published document that used to be the construction standards from '82, and it very clearly, right in the title, said rights-of-way. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. Rights -- the plural is rights-of-way, and the singular is right-of-way. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And so -- MS. WOLFE: Well, the most current document I have in regards to the construction standards says right-of-way. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You guys work it out when it gets -- MS. WOLFE: Because I pulled the document out for that purpose. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I don't think Mr. Anderson -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that retroactive or not? Page 148 November 28, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I don't think Mr. Anderson said anything about page 94. MS. WOLFE: It's the same. That is the site development plan section. It's a -- basically a sister context to that, that it was to be consistent between the zoning language for PUDs and the site development plan. The language is virtually the same. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Since we had a speaker on this, to follow our format, do we want to do a motion on these two items? Do we have any-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll be glad to make a motion, Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you, Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Marjorie, I hate to bother you with another question, but one of these has a whole long list of LDC sections as a reference. Do I have to repeat every one of those? Page 8. MS. STUDENT: You mean in your motion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. MS. STUDENT: You may -- why don't you just make your motion stating whatever it is for the sections set forth on page 8. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'll make a motion for the sections set forth on page 8, and it continues through page 11 and also page 94, that we approve these LDC amendments with the provision that they apply -- they do not apply retroactively. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And then I'll find -- with the finding -- that they're finding also consistent with the comp plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Strain, a second by Mrs. Young for approval of these two particular sections. I think the second one on page 94 was Section 3.3.5, just to clarify that, and it was on page 94 and 95, for approval. A second by Page 149 November 28,2001 Mrs. Young. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. We have one dissenting vote on those two items, Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Just on the first because I think it's a nullity. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's on the record. We have no further public speakers. And Mr. Anderson -- Elvis is leaving the building, and it's only two minutes after ten, if there's anyone still watching out there. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What are you going to do with the rest of the night, Bruce? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now we can go back to page 1 -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let's start tonight. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- where we tried to start earlier. MS. MURRAY: Why don't we just -- I'll roll through these. I'll just read the section into the record. If you have -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Please. MS. MURRAY: -- questions or comments, stop me. Do you want to take a vote after every one? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. MS. MURRAY: Are we still -- MS. STUDENT: I don't think we need to for the rest of it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have a conflict of interest on one of them? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. We need to take that separately. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Should we just do that one right now? Page 150 November 28, 2001 MS. MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And then you can read real fast. MS. MURRAY: Which one is it? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I've got to find it in here. It's the -- MS. MURRAY: What is it in reference to? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's the -- concerning the dual lines and the potable water. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I have a lot to say about that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here it is. It's page 86, subdivision regulations, dual water. I will be abstaining from discussion and from voting on that item. And I filed my conflict paper with the court reporter. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we want to go to page 86. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Strain, would you please state the nature of the conflict. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It involves the use of potable water or the nonuse of potable water, and I work for a individual that -- for a project that uses substantial amounts of potable water. And, therefore, it would have a direct impact on the project. MS. MURRAY: And I need to state for the record there's a handout on that. We're not working from your document. I asked Mr. Strain to pass that down. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MS. MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I hope he did. A handout? A one-page handout. Did you pass it down? one COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's already been passed. MS. MURRAY: Blue handwritten page number at the bottom, page. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you have yours, Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What? Page 151 November 28, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: might have you done this so I can -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Vanderbilt thing. Your blue handwritten page. When It happened during the CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, gosh. Sorry to hold this up. Should we do a group hug and share the two pages we have? It only got two down. Did it stop at your side? (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We'll share here. (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We all have it. MS. MURRAY: The highlighted areas are the additions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Cheatham. MR. CHEATHAM: Yes, ma'am. For the record, my name is Joseph Cheatham, wastewater director for Collier County Public Utilities. I'm bringing forward tonight the LDC amendment Section 3.28.3.25 (sic), which deals with dual water systems. We're proposing that for all new development, that dual waterlines go in: One for potable usage and one for irrigation use. We're recommending that these lines and pumps and other appurtenances not be maintained by Collier County and that potable water will not be permitted for irrigation unless other sources of supplemental water are not permitted or available, which means, in some cases, some developments may not have a supplemental source of water to use other than potable. In some cases the South Florida Water Management District will not permit supplemental water in certain cases so that the dual lines will be required, but they still could use potable water if there was not a case where they could get supplemental water for their use. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, I certainly want to commend you Page 152 November 28, 2001 on listening to what we discussed this morning and apparently discussing this with Mr. Cook, because I just want to put on the record that if the county is not willing to -- what do you call it -- provide adequate supply of effluent and there are 74 customers right now on a waiting list and we're looking at a variety of changes and you can't get -- consumptive use permits are not given lightly by the South Florida Water Management District, our previous language would be probably not only difficult to enforce, but I certainly would hate to see a subdivision of 250, 300 property owners suddenly discover that they can't do anything with their landscaping because they don't have the right to use potable water. So I want to thank you for this. It looks good to me. I've talked to a number of people about this issue, and I think the wording here makes sense. Give us the dual lines; focus on the concept of conservation of water; the reuse of water, particularly when it's made available; and avoid the problem of saying, "You've got to have another source," and there may not be one. MR. CHEATHAM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So thank you so much. Anybody else have any comments? Since we follow that format, do we have a motion to approve this item the way it is now rewritten? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I move that we approve and forward Section 328325. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion for approval. Second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mrs. Young, a second by Mr. Midney for approval of this item. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And the finding that it's consistent with the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' Thank you. I forgot. I'm getting slow Page 153 November 28, 2001 here. And a finding that it is consistent. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are we adjourned? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: In your dreams, which may be shortly. (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let's get back to page 1. Oh, my gosh. Look at all these pages. Now we will test Susan's ability to read rapidly, but not too rapidly, so the court reporter can accurately take a record. MS. MURRAY: Okay. I'm working from your handout spreadsheet, page 1, Section 2.2.2, Section 2.2.3, Section 2.2.12.4.3. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Excuse me. Are we supposed to interrupt you if we have questions? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, well, go back to the first one then. MS. MURRAY: The very first one? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. MURRAY: Section 2.2.2. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. It references LDC Section 2.6.9.1, and it says in that section -- just part of it -- "the following uses shall be deemed permitted uses in any zoning district." Then it goes on to say that they want to add the language again -- or add the essential services referenced again directly in the rural agricultural district and the estates district because it was omitted, apparently, the first time. I also went back and checked. Because it said it would be deemed a permitted use in any zoning district, I looked at the RMF Page 154 November 28, 2001 districts, and it's not listed in any of those. So why are we redundantly issuing it -- or listing it in the agricultural and again in the estates when we're not doing it to all the RMF districts? MS. MURRAY: You're right. And we will do that in the future. That'll be next. I caught that, but it was too late to bring it to your attention. This was kind of a circular thing. It was brought to my attention. I directed staff to make the amendment. I didn't check that it was not in the other districts, assuming it was, and realized it wasn't after we had kind of been through most of this process. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But if 2691 and 2692 clearly state that it can be a permitted use in any district, do we need to be redundant and put it all over again? MS. MURRAY: I would like to because we have a lot of difficulty with people going to the section of the code where the list of permitted uses is listed, and they don't think to go to 2691. And there's been a lot of confusion with -- not only amongst staff but the public as to where these types of uses are permitted. So in the spirit of being redundant, which I don't like to do, I would like to do that in this case if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I'd say in the spirit of easier understanding of our Land Development Code for those who dofft work with it at all hours of the night. MS. MURRAY: Exactly. MS. STUDENT: Legally there's no problem with that as a cross -- it could act as a cross-reference. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. As long as the attorney's fine with it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we can go to page 2 now, Commissioner Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Actually, 2 I had the same Page 155 November 28, 2001 comment on as 1, so we can go on to -- MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MS. MURRAY: Okay. 2.2.15.4.3, 2.2.15.4.4, 2.2.15-1/2.4.3. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have questions. keep doing this but -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go for it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Talk fast. Page 3. We are at something. Page 3. 2.2.12.4.3, 2.2.13.4.3, 2.2.14.4.3, I don't mean to COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In the change paragraph, if you go to the fourth line from the bottom, it said, "This reduction is based on the premise that any greater reduction will have the opportunity for legal challenge." And I'm wondering when you get to the page 4, you talk about minimum yard requirements, and you're referring to side yard and rear yard and leaving it at 15 feet instead of half the building height. If you had left it at half the building height, wouldn't your side yards have been at 17 1/2 feet? MS. MURRAY: Okay. Where -- I'm sorry. Start -- I'm thinking ahead of what you're asking because I think you're mixing up the -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm finding that we're making the -- the side and rear yards less stringent instead of more stringent by going from 17 1/2 feet to 15 feet, and I'm wondering if that was intended. MS. MURRAY: No. I'm not sure that's the case. In all of those zoning districts, it's -- there's a minimum of 15 feet. One-half of the building height is measured from each exterior wall with a minimum of 15 feet, and the maximum building height in the majority of those cases, except for the C-4 district, is always going to be a minimum of 15 feet because the building height is, like, 35 feet in C-1 and 50 feet Page 156 November 28, 2001 in-- well, 35 feet in C-1 would be the example. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But if that's 35 feet and half the building height is your setback, then it's 17 1/2 feet, so you've reduced the setbacks in commercial by going to 15 feet, then, is what I'm getting at. Is that the true reading of this? MS. MURRAY: Yeah. I guess I'm not-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't -- I thought we were always trying to do the opposite. MR. NINO: That was indeed the intent, and the reason is very simple. It's administrative simplification. Ron Nino for the record. Most -- not all buildings are 35 feet. The requirement of one-half the building height for that front yard setback requires the planner to review every application for that one item, and they very well miss it. Where we usually deal with plan -- we usually deal with site plans, and oftentimes building plans come in that we may not review particularly for -- well, we just may not review it, or we -- we run the risk of making a mistake. And it's not worth it for 2 1/2 feet, I suggest to you, for, in some cases, up to 2 1/2 feet. If the building height is 30 feet, then the setback is one-half, 15 feet. So that is a-- it's really for simplification. The few times that it might be 2 1/2 feet, it's just not worth it from an administrative point of view and the likelihood of making an error. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. In 221443, Ron, it takes a side yard, one-half the building height is measured from grade with a minimum of 15 feet. I'm wondering, was it 25 feet before? Front yard is 25 feet. Yeah, the front yard was 25. MS. MURRAY: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If it was one-half the building height from grade -- I'm -- I was trying to understand what you're getting there, because you had it from an exterior wall. And I was wondering if there's a reduction here as well in the setback. Page 157 November 28, 2001 MR. NINO: There is -- there is a reduction -- there isn't a reduction. What this intends to do is eliminate the wedding cake -- the opportunity for wedding-cake design features where the building goes up, you knock it in, so that you achieve that one-half, and it produces the wedding-cake design. The board definitely said we don't want any more of that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This was referring to the wall that's at grade. MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Now I understand. And that's -- that's the only questions I had on that one. MS. MURRAY: Thank you, Ron. Sorry about that, Mr. Strain. My brain was not working. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mine was -- mine's fogging up too. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Are we ready to -- we already went over page 6 and page 8. MS. STUDENT: I guess the next one, 2.2.20.3.7, it's a -- I explained it in the last meeting, but something wasn't handed out at the duly advertised Planning Commission meeting that should have been handed out last time. We still put it through the process, and this is just, you know, to really readopt it, to fix it. It references to the new impact fee ordinance. MS. MURRAY: We've already gone over page 8. The next would be 2.2.28.8.9.1. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I got a question. It's talking about reducing the front and rear yard setback requirements for the Immokalee Overlay Subdistrict. But the language that's crossed out down below -- and I may be reading it wrong. It says front yard and the 7's crossed out and 1 O's inserted. Would that be a reduction in the setback or an increase in the setback? Page 158 November 28,2001 MS. MURRAY: That would be an increase. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And then No. 2 it reads, "otherwise 10 feet" on the last part of it, and it used to read 0. I mean it was 0, and now it's otherwise 10 feet. So I think you've increased that. And on the last one, the rear yard used to read 0; now it reads 5. So that would be an increase as well. So it would just read differently, is all. I'm not objecting to it. I just -- you just may want to clarify. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So, as you're pointing out, we're not reducing them; we're increasing them. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're increasing them, yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We're increasing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good point. MS. MURRAY: We already dealt with page 13. That's Section 2.2.29. Page 20 1 need to bring to your attention. This is an addition from -- you did not see this last time, 2.2.32.3.2 on page 20. I will tell you, however, it was an omission in the last round. If you recall, we eliminated tow-in parking from the C-1 through C-4 zoning districts, and we accidentally forgot to take it out of this section as well. So we're taking care of that now. The next section is 2.2.33.16, 2.2.33.22 and 23. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a question on that. On page 23 Item D says, "The minimum size of bedrooms used for rental purposes shall be 100 square feet." That's rather small. I know it's for a bed and breakfast. Previously the smallest unit I could find in that whole zoning district was 700 square feet. Does this have an effect of raising density and then, thus, causing parking -- additional parking -- because I couldn't quite understand what they meant in Item E. I was wondering if anybody has an answer to that. MS. MURRAY: Marlene. Page 159 November 28,2001 MS. FOORD: I'll try. Marlene Foord, principal planner with the comprehensive planning section. The 100 square feet you're referring to, the size of the bedrooms, that is just a standard that's based on some other conditional uses for bed and breakfasts in other districts. It was just put in there because it's a similar number. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Would they be able to -- I mean, I know 100 square feet is less than 700, so you can fit more in. Would this have an effect of raising the density in the sense of the use of the property, more bodies present then at the property? And has the parking in E been correlated to that? And that's what I couldn't understand. MS. FOORD: It would raise the density to the point that you would have, temporarily, additional people in there. The number of units, however, the unit itself, the home, is still the same. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is a bed-and-breakfast unit considered one unit as a unit of count in regards to a parking space, or do you know? MS. FOORD: That's a very good question. I believe so. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Two spaces plus one space for each two bedrooms. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what worries me then, because if you've got one space for each two bedrooms, you should have one space for each bedroom, and that would have a radical change in the parking need for this project. Is that what we should change? MS. FOORD: How would you recommend we change that? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One space -- I would say that we would go for one space for each bedroom. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would you speak up just a little louder? I'm starting to -- Page 160 November 28, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. saying there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Barbara. I'm sorry. Me? I can't catch what you were I'm worried mostly about CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're whispering. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One space for each bedroom is what I would think you'd want that to read. If you count each bedroom as a need for that unit, and then that would read correct then. MS. MURRAY: This is two spaces a unit plus one space for each two bedrooms. So the way it reads now, you'd have a minimum of three spaces per unit if it had two bedrooms. MS. FOORD: Right. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: And I wondered why? Why do you have that extra space? In other words, if you have two bedrooms, presumably -- oh, well. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're going in the opposite direction, you and I. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yeah. I'm opposed to you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let's not walk down that road or that parking space. MS. FOORD: I think what we're looking at in a bed-and- breakfast establishment, too, is not only the people that are staying in that B and B, but also those people that work there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's why the initial two are required. MS. FOORD: They need to have -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And then for each bedroom you should have -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: People that work there. Page 161 November 28, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And for each bedroom you should have one space required so that way if you have a different guest in each bedroom, which you most likely will have and they'll each have their car, then you'll have enough parking. That's what I was getting at. Does that sound reasonable to you guys to put in? MS. MURRAY: You know, I'm not going to object. You know, you could assume that some people would probably travel together and may stay in separate bedrooms. I won't go there but -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Or they might meet somebody locally, and they need to park their car. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But, see, now, if this changes something that this board agrees to, do we have to vote on this issue separately than the others and they can handle it right now? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: What is your change? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The -- they only have one -- one car space for every two bedrooms. If it's a bed and breakfast, you're going to have different people -- I mean, you're going to have people in each bedroom who may not travel with one another. They may each travel by separate car. It would seem logical you would need one space for each bedroom, then. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: COMMISSIONER STRAIN: bedroom. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: two. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Correct. to -- I mean, that-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: change the language on. It's looked at as the unit in itself. Yes. So you need one space for every Instead of one for every Yeah. You're not going So just tell me what you want to COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I already did. MS. STUDENT: If you've reached consensus, you can just put Page 162 November 28, 2001 it in with the rest of them. I don't think you need -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Consensus? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Everybody's consenting to Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I consent. MS. FOORD: Can I just add one more thing before you -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Sure. MS. FOORD: -- come to that consensus? As Ron pointed out, this, again, is lifted from other bed-and-breakfast conditional uses that are in other districts, the City of Naples being one of them, that have been very successful and have worked. The other thing I wanted to point out is that in this particular area -- this is the Bayshore Mixed Use Zoning Overlay, and we have on-street parking that's permitted in certain areas. And I think why we put this in there, not only because it's similar to what other districts have, but because we expect that some people will be using that on-street parking. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Parking on 4 l's a real problem. MS. FOORD: Well, this is off Bayshore Drive, and most of these would be in the residential districts which are off of Bayshore Drive, the side streets. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I mean, I would recommend making a one space per bedroom as -- since you guys look at each bedroom as -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Bayshore, it ought to be one per three bedrooms. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The opposite. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have a consensus here? If Mr. Strain would restate his exact thought, we'll do something. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We change Item E to read two spaces plus one space for each bedroom. Take out the word "two." Page 163 November 28,2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Take out the word "two." CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Remove "two." We are removing "two"? Everybody agrees? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. MS. FOORD: That's also the next section as well, 22.3. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. They're mirrored images of one another. I would recommend it that way. MS. MURRAY: Ready to move on? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ready to move on. MS. MURRAY: Okay. We've-- I'm working off of page 3, and we've already covered page 26, 2.2.35 and 2.2.36, so the next would be 2.3.4.11. Now going to page 4, 2.3.4.12.2, 2.3.5, 2.6.11.4.2, 2.6.11.5.7. We've already dealt with 2.6.21. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What page are you on? I'm sorry. MS. MURRAY: I'm on page 6 of your -- of the matrix. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, I've been following on these big pages because that's where I have my notes. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You have to do them both. That's what I'm doing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm working on it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Your summary sheet to your piles of paper left in front of you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'm ready to roll. MS. MURRAY: All right. 2.6.33.3. We've already dealt with 2.6.34 and 3.14.3. MS. STUDENT: And Section 2724 is a provision to make one part of the code that was amended last time -- there was an inconsistency between two parts -- the two parts of it then because the other part wasn't fixed, so this is to make the two consistent. That's all about the number of cycles or -- that you could -- amendment cycles you could have in a year. Page 164 November 28,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that is page 63 and '4 and '5; correct? MS. MURRAY: Yes. MS. STUDENT: I am trying to get to 63 to make sure it corresponds, but I think so. MS. MURRAY: Okay. I'm now working off page 7. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. And I just -- 27281 had the same issue as the other one earlier. That's just a readoption because the thing wasn't handed out. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Top of page 7, Section 2.7.3.4. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I wanted to go back to this previous one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Page 63. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Page 63, "Hearings by the Planning Commission on applications for rezoning of land shall be held at least 24 times a year," we don't do that. We take off a couple of times during the summer. Should we lock ourselves in to something that we're not doing? MS. MURRAY: I -- I think your meetings are regularly scheduled 24 times a year. And, of course, you also have meetings where you may not have petitions. So I -- I don't know, Marjorie, if you have an opinion about the fact that we do schedule 24 meetings a year, and then you decide whether or not you're going to take off-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Then we cancel. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. -- if that's an issue. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's pretty -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But, you know, it does say "shall be held." MS. STUDENT: Maybe it would be better to say "may." CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: What about saying "may be held"? Page 165 November 28, 2001 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm in consensus with that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Big difference between held and scheduled. Thank you, Mr. Abernathy. Now are we back to page 66 at page 7 on the summary? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good eye. Good eye. MS. MURRAY: Section 3.2.6.3.4, 3.2.9.2.12 and Division 6.3 as it's referenced for plats, Section 3.2.6.4.3, Section 3.2.6.4.5, Section 3.2.6.5.3, at the top of page 8 Section 3.2.8.3.1, Section 3.2.8.3.2. We already dealt with 3.2.8.3.25. Section 3.2.8.3.26, Section 3.2.8.4.1, Section 3.2.8.4.3, Section 3.2.8.4.16, paren, 5. Section 3.3.5.2, we already dealt with that. Section 3.3.5.5.7, Section 3.3.5.8, Section 3.3.7.1.2, Section 3.5.9.3. Top of page 10, Section 3.6.5.6.10. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Question. Is Stan still here? MS. MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Stan, I had one question I forgot to ask you earlier. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't know whether to say good evening or good night. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's going to be good morning in a little while. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Can equipment be placed on the pads that you're requiring to be elevated? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The well equipment? That was the only question I had. So there's no problem with that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No problem. Stan Chrzanowski, Page 166 November 28, 2001 development services. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thanks, Stan. MS. MURRAY: Sections 3.15 and 3.21, Section 3.16.4.1.2.1.1, Section 3.16.4.1.4.1.1, Section 3.16.4.1.6.1.2, Section 3.16.4.3.3.1.1, Sections 3.16.4.5.1.1.1 through 3.16.4.5.1.1.5, Sections 3.16.4.11.1.1.1 through 3.16.4.11.1.1.4, bottom of page 11, Division 6.3, definitions. And lastly-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one question about page 115. I hate do this to you. You're almost done. MS. MURRAY: Page what? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 115. Actually, the second page, top of the paragraph, there was a small typo, but I also have a question. "Depth of required front your" should be "yard." Then in the second paragraph it references, however, in Golden Gate Estates subdivision unimproved perimeter and bisecting easements. Where's Marjorie? I hate to do this to you. Weren't the bisecting easements in Golden Gate Estates eliminated in '99? MS. STUDENT: I don't -- Mr. Tom Palmer in our office worked on that, and I think they may have been, but I can't swear to a certainty. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If they were, at some -- if you think there's a correction needed to page 116 at some point before it goes to the board, you may want to look at that. That's the only reason I referenced it. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Stan Chrzanowski. The bisecting easements were eliminated. MS. STUDENT: Thank you, Stan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They're referenced on page 116, and that's why I'm not sure they need to be there. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It got to be a hassle with all people trying to build over them and having to get letters of no objection and Page 167 November 28, 2001 all, and they just all were eliminated. MS. STUDENT: Stan, wasn't it Tom Palmer that worked on that? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think it was him and John Houldsworth, yeah. MS. STUDENT: Okay. Thanks. MS. MURRAY: Bottom of page 12, it's referencing page 122 in your handout. The revised is on the sheet 96344 A to P. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That concludes the review. MS. MURRAY: You need to vote. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now we need a vote, and it must be finding in consistency. Who would like the honor to make the motion? MS. STUDENT: You don't have to state all those sections. You can just state the aforesaid amendments which were numerically listed by Ms. Murray. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll make a motion that we recommend approval of all the remaining sections which were recited by Ms. Murray based on my finding that they are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy, a second by Mr. Strain to approve the rest of these items numerically listed. Do we have any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Same -- excuse me. Those opposed, We are done. Thank you very much. Page 168 November 28,2001 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:32 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY PAMELA HOLDEN AND BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARIES PUBLIC Page 169