Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/09/2002 S (LDC Amendments)January 9, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NAPLES, FLORIDA, JANUARY 9, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: JIM COLETTA JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D. FRED COYLE DONNA FIALA TOM HENNING ALSO PRESENT: Tom Olliff, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Susan Murray, Current Planning Manager John Dunnuck, Public Services Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA January 9, 2002 5:05 P.M. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY 1 January 9, 2002 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) '774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS: SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT: SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: ARTICLE II, ZONING, DIVISION 2.1. GENERAL; DIVISION 2.2.. ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES, CONDITIONAL USES, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS INCLUDING THE ADOPTION OF THE IMMOKALEE NON-CONFORMING MOBILE HOME PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT, THE ADOPTION OF THE ACTIVITY CENTER #9 OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND THE ADOPTION ON INTERIM DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS IN THE RESIDENTIAL (RT) DISTRICT LOCATED IN THE VANDERBILT BEACH AREA, AND AMENDMENTS TO THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT, IMMOKALEE OVERLAY DISTRICT, SANTA BARBARA COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT AND BAYSHORE DRIVE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT; DIVISION 2.3. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING; DIVISION 2.5. SIGNS, DIVISION 2.6 SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS; DIVISION 2.7. ZONING ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES; ARTICLE 3, DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, DIVISION 3.2. SUBDIVISIONS; DIVISION 3.3 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS; DIVISION 3.5, EXCAVATION; DIVISION 3.6, WELL CONSTRUCTION; DIVISION 3.14 VEHICLE ON THE BEACH REGULATIONS, DIVISION 3.15 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES; DIVISION 3.16 GROUND WATER PROTECTION; ARTICLE 6. DEFINITIONS, DIVISION 6.3 DEFINITIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DEFINITIONS FOR THE TERMS FRONT YARD, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TRACT; REPLACING EXHIBIT B ENTITLED TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGN STANDARDS WITH A REVISED EXHIBIT B; REPLACING EXHIHIT C ENTITLED FINAL SUBDIVISIONS PLAT REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS 2 January 9, 2002 WITH A REVISED EXHIBIT C; REPLACING EXHIBIT E ENTITLED ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN MAPS WITH REVISED MAPS; SECTION FOUR; READOPTION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS, MORE SPECIFICALLY READOPTING THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE 2, ZONING DIVISION 2.2, ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMITED USES, CONDITIONAL USES, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS; AND DIVISION 2.7, ZONING ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES; SECTION FIVE, ADOPTION OF AMENDED ZONING ATLAS MAPS; SECTION SIX, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION SEVEN, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION EIGHT, EFFECTIVE DATE. 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 3 January 9, 2002 Item #2 January 9, 2002 ORDINANCE 2002-03, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91- 102 COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ADOPTED WITH CHANGES- SECTION 3.15 CONTINUED TO JANUARY 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) MS. MURRAY: Good evening. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good evening. m · ' S. MURRAY. I m Susan Murray, current plannine manager and I'm also the coordinator for the LDC amendments ton'~ght. ~e' have other staff here as well who will be making presentations or are here to answer your questions about any of the related amendments. And I just have a few housekeeping items to go through before you get started so you can follow along. This is the second hearing for the second 2001 cycle of the LDC amendments, and tonight is the night that you will be making the final decision on most of amendments before you. And I'm going to call out a few that you will not be making a decision tonight. If you recall -- and I'd also like to say this for the benefit of the public -- we have another meeting scheduled at 5:05 p.m. On January 23rd in this room, and that is for a second reading for some of the amendments this evening that you have before you because of requirements of the code to do that. So with that, just for the record, I'd like to go ahead and put on the record those items that you will not be hearing tonight or that you'll not be voting on tonight. And we'll remind you as we get to that, too, so you don't have to memorize. The portions of Section 3.15 that are in your packet, and those Page 2 January 9, 2002 are on pages 98 through 101, are being requested by transportation staff to be withdrawn at this time. And they'd like to bring that back to you, and I think they'd also like to request you grant them the ability to have a special LDC cycle later this spring. So that's pages 98 through 101. You will be doing a first reading on some impact fee information, specifically, Section 3.15.7.3.1.2, and that is Handout D, and you've got a number of handouts in front of you. All of them should have a letter on them, A through E, I believe, and then there's one letter that does not have a letter on it. And that would be Handout D, and when we get to that, we will discuss that. Sections 2.6.3.4 and 3.14.3 on your summary sheet -- and if you remember how we usually work through this, the first 12 pages are your summary sheets that summarize all of the amendments and also provide you with the information, the recommendations of the various committees that have already reviewed these amendments, as well as your recommendation from the first public hearing. So back to Section 2.6.3.4 and 3.14.3; it's on the Summary Sheet No. 7. It's the beach events and vehicles on the beach, and this has been withdrawn at the request of the applicant, and I did give you a copy of their letter in the handouts tonight. So you will not hear that. COMMISSIONER FIALA' What page is it on? I'm sorry. MS. MURRAY: It's on the Summary Sheet No. 7, but it's actually not in your packet. We just took it out of your packet, but it's still listed on the summary sheet. And then I provided you a letter from the applicant. And then there'll be a number of changes I'll need to read into the record. I won't do those now. I will call them to your attention as we work through the amendment cycle. And I believe that's all I need to put on the record at this point and ask how you'd like to proceed. Typically, you take the items with the most registered Page 3 January 9, 2002 speakers first. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that would be the most appropriate way to proceed. MS. MURRAY: Okay. And, John, I'm sorry. Do you have a count yet? MR. DUNNUCK: Good evening, Commissioners. It looks like the hot topic, once again, is the Vanderbilt Beach/Gulf Shore Moratorium followed by the boat dock in the Coconut Creek area. And then the final item is the parking -- residential parking are the three items that I have speakers for at this time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What was the last one again? MR. DUNNUCK: The residential parking provisions for the communities in the urban area. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And did we take into account the people from Immokalee, the trailer park? Have they turned in their speaking slips too? MR. DUNNUCK: None at this time. AUDIENCE: I'm coming. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Proceed. MS. MURRAY: If you wish to hear the moratorium first, that is Handout E that is in front of you, Handout E. And Marjorie Student, the assistant county attorney, is to make that presentation. MS. STUDENT: Thank you, Ms. Murray, and good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. And the moratorium ordinance has been substantially been rewritten pursuant to the board direction at the other meeting. And there are a few other details and some typos that we cleaned up in your Handout E, and you will see that there is the Disaster Recovery Ordinance appended to your handout. And that is because it is referenced in the moratorium ordinance because the Disaster Page 4 January 9, 2002 Recovery Ordinance establishes a build-back policy for all structures regardless of the amount of damage. And those references -- that was an issue, if you recall, at the last meeting, the issue of building back in the event of a casualty loss, and that covers it. So that is why that is also part of your package. It's Section 8 of that ordinance, which, I believe, is 98-62 contains the build-back policy of the county. So that is there for your reference. And I will go on and walk you through what was changed. A purpose and intent section was added and --. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can you tell me what page you're on? MS. STUDENT: It is Handout E. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. MS. STUDENT: And I'm on page 1 of Handout E, Section 2.2.36.1, and that sets forth the reasons for establishing the moratorium, and those factors were already presented to the board at the previous hearing and also to the Planning Commission. And it is really at the top of a side sheet, but the purpose of which is to memorial this in the ordinance and set forth the reason for the necessity of the study. I won't read it or anything because we have talked about the idea of the canyonization effects if properties are redeveloped to their maximum height. The unique area, the Vanderbilt Beach -- or the uniqueness of the area, that it is on a narrow spit of land between Vanderbilt Lagoon and the Gulf of Mexico, and the fact that it is served by two-lane Gulf Shore Drive, and the idea that the current development standards allow maximum height of 10 stories or 100 feet. And because of its location close to the water that a lot of redevelopment pressure is taking place there, and also the fact that because of the rise in land values in the county, people are tending to Page 5 January 9, 2002 build to the maximums that are permitted by the ordinance. And also the idea of the need for view corridors and the setbacks in regulation to building height and the like. So those were all reasons, to avoid the canyonization effect in that area, that the study is necessary. And it's all set forth in purpose and intent. The duration remains the same. The geographic scope I expanded as I -- I didn't expand the scope. I just provided a more detailed description of it as I had stated on the record at the last meeting. And then the prohibited uses is changed because there were some uses that the board wanted to see that people could continue with. And what has happened in that Section 2.2.364, the uses that are going to be permitted are not only not appearing here, but they are referenced in another section under an exemption section. And also -- and so the exemption section is where we had a lot of changes. I also want to put on the record, too, that this ordinance and its changes have been reviewed by our outside legal counsel in Tallahassee, Nancy Lenanne. And she finds -- she made one little suggestion that I'll bring up in a moment, but she finds no problem with this ordinance, and she has reviewed the couple iterations we have done since we received board direction at the last meeting. The first exemption that's new is all building permits listed -- there's a typo in there. It should be subparagraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5, and also the items listed Subsection 2.2.36.6. The first item is what you could call the vesting provision, and I'm sure there will be comment on that, and that's in Item No. 2. And Item No. 3 is something that staff requested be added (as read): "That any development order required by the Collier County Code Enforcement Board or deemed necessary by the Code Enforcement department director or his or her designee to abate any violation or alleged violation of the Land Development Code." And, again, that was a staff request. Page 6 January 9, 2002 This was -- No. 4 is pursuant to board direction for minor accessory uses, and that includes pool enclosures, chickees, swimming pools, cabana, boat docks, and other minor accessory structures not exceeding 3 5 feet in height. The reason the 3 5 feet was selected is that's generally the maximum height for a residential -- single-family residential structure. Number 5 is noncommercial boat-launching facilities. That is akin to a boat dock, and that was listed as a conditional use in the RT district. And because it was listed as a conditional use, it's broken out separately from the accessory uses in Paragraph 4. And then, again, when you look back at Paragraph 1, it includes building permits for all these things. That in the continuation of existing uses there's a general language of what existing uses include and those uses for which all permits have been issued pursuant to board direction we included routine repair or maintenance of an existing structure or remodeling of such existing structure that does not result in any structural addition or modification such as an increase in height or building footprint or an increase in density or intensity. And No. 3 has to do with the replacement or repair of an existing structure in the event of a casualty loss, and that is a provision that relates back to the Disaster Recovery Ordinance that you have appended. And if you, again, go back to the previous page, the building permit for all these things also includes the contents of this subsection. And then there's the provision for map. Because of some computer issues, you have a map in an earlier submittal, and that has not changed. We've added a map number, but it was not possible to get that in. So I feel that these are the changes that the board directed, and if there's any questions, I'd be happy to address them. And I might add that Ms. Lenanne suggested -- and staff can help here -- that if the Page 7 January 9, 2002 board wishes to keep the exemption language in the proposal of Paragraph 2 concerning the completed applications, it was suggested by Ms. Lenanne that we include a definition. And I've spoken to Ms. Murray about this, and she can provide us with a definition if it's the board's desire that the provision be kept in here as worded. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to hear the definition. MS. MURRAY: The definition would be (as read)' "Any application which has been deemed sufficient by staff and has been assigned an application request number." That is our procedure we have now in place. We do a sufficiency review before we route the plans out for review, and the indication of the assignment of an application request number is the notation that says the application was deemed sufficient. MS. STUDENT: And I also just want to add, again, for the record that in the past what the county had passed two moratoria to implement the final order from the governor and cabinet and the growth management litigation. And this document that was tried and true, this document was prepared along the lines of that one, and Ms. Lenanne also reviewed those other two previous moratoria that were done and found no problem with that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a question. We're concerned with density and intensity and the other things that really have been excluded that you can continue, if you want to, put some gingerbread on the outside of your building because you want to remodel your front entrance, that doesn't preclude you from doing that, if I'm understanding this. It doesn't preclude the recreational facilities could not be taken care of on these properties providing it's in the site development plan. And that this is a study. There are not predicted outcomes. We don't know the outcomes. It is a study to assess intensity and density along with things like traffic, etc., that affects this community. Page 8 January 9, 2002 MS. STUDENT: And it would also --. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So I just want to -- I just want to make sure I understand it and everyone understands that this is what it is. It does not say that something's going to be changed. It says you study it to determine what, if anything, is to be changed. MS. STUDENT: And there's more to it as well. There's the issue of height, which gets to the issue of density and intensity. There's the issue of setbacks, which also gets to the issue of density and intensity, and their relationship to the height of the building and the necessity for adequate view corridors from both the pedestrian and motorist level as they drive through the area so they can appreciate the natural amenities, being the lagoon and the Gulf of Mexico. And also the canyonization effect that you can get by a number of buildings along the same line at great heights. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. That answers my questions. Thank you. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about Nancy Lenanne recommending this language. What about -- and this is defensible language? MS. STUDENT: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if the board was to change this language, would that put us in jeopardy of further lawsuits? MS. STUDENT: What language -- what item would you be specifically referencing, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any of these items. MS. STUDENT: Well--. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we were to extract any of these items, would we be setting ourself up for the lawsuits? MS. STUDENT: Well, I think we need to have the purpose and Page 9 January 9, 2002 intent in the ordinance to establish a basis. We need to have a list of prohibited uses and those --. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. MS. STUDENT: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The exemptions. MS. STUDENT: Okay. If that were removed, there is a problem with the lawsuit. There could be a problem with lawsuits, and that's a risk the board may wish to take. Without any exemption language -- and I think you're talking about the part were you have the submission -- the vesting provision I call it -- or the submission of the applications for certain types of development approvals. Without a bright line in an ordinance, then it's left to the courts to decide under the principles of equitable estoppel whether or not a property owner may or may not be vested. And, in fact, a property owner may wish to go the Court to have that determination made. When you put the language in the ordinance, it gives you a bright line and some certainty as to who's on which side of the line. The board also have has the ability to move it further forward or back, however you look at it, in the process. And in talking this over with Ms. Lenanne, if it was -- the board could do final site plan or final plat approval as the case may be, but it was Ms. Lenanne's opinion that there may be some litigation exposure there if that were done. And what Ms. Lenanne did tell me in reviewing this -- because, again, bear in mind, she reviewed and helped us with the other ones -- that this language is fairly standard for a moratorium ordinance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: One other question. I finally found what I was looking for. Do we make some assumptions up front that we establish an overlay district? Is this a preconclusion prior to the study taking place? Page 10 January 9, 2002 MS. STUDENT: The overlay -- no, I don't think it necessarily -- it would be an order to do it, to have the study, to establish an overlay. I don't know that this necessarily means that -- because of the study it's determined that there doesn't need to be anything done, that we have to do an overlay that already says what the code says. But it envisions that that may happen as a result of the study, to have a special overlay for those RT areas in that district because of its unique nature. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Again, I am being very cautious to make sure we don't expose ourselves to a lawsuit and still accomplish the objectives in intensity and density and the factors that affect that. This is my highest concern here in this exercise. I want it to happen, but I don't want it to happen with our checkbooks out writing big checks to people because we forgot to do something in the wordology, or if somebody comes back and whacks us. And if you're assuring me that this is defensible, then I won't have a problem with this. MS. STUDENT: Again, Commissioner, it was reviewed also by our outside counsel, and every iteration was reviewed by her, and she's comfortable with it with the one notation I made about the definition. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions on the part of the board? MR. DUNNUCK: You have 28 registered speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it might pay at this time to poll the board to see which direction we're going with this as far as the acceptance of this ordinance. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to support the interim control study. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And, Ms. Fiala, did you want to Page 11 January 9, 2002 make a statement at this time on which direction you're leaning at so we can help the members of the audience as far as where we're heading with this? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm ready to listen to everybody. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. I wish I had my mind made up, but I don't. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. That's fine. Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER HENNING: We were here last year during spring to talk about this. Let's do a study in the Vanderbilt Beach area to see if the infrastructure will support what is permitted out there. And I'm fully in support of the study time that we're going to make to do this, and I think this is the responsible thing that this board is going to do, so I'm all in favor of it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm in favor of it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I am too. With that, just so that the audience is aware that the way the commission is going, if you are opposed to this particular document or this ordinance, this is the time to speak up if you're for it. And if you find that the speakers before you have already said what you're going to say, you may wish -- so we can keep moving forward and reach the final conclusion. With that, would you call the first speaker and the follow-up speaker? COMMISSIONER CARTER: We might remind the audience, Mr. Chairman, that it takes four votes to pass any LDC amendment, and all of you are bright folks out there. You just counted. You know you've got four. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's a polite way of saying it without -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the number goes down with Page 12 January 9, 2002 each speaker; right? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I've been here to see that happen. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not necessarily true tonight, I'll tell you that. Go ahead with the first speaker. MR. DUNNUCK: First speaker is Joe Connolly followed by Diane Ketcham. MR. CONNOLLY: Happy New Year, Commissioners. For the record, Joe Connolly, and I live at 10633 Gulf Shore Drive. As you know, we all support the interim development study; however, we think there should be no exceptions. If somebody has a property and they plan to develop it or sell it to somebody that's going to develop it at a later date, that's fine. They'll have to wait a year if they can't live with the code as it exists. We don't believe in adding 25 feet in height to accommodate somebody on a project which has no developer. Pretty pictures, good idea maybe, but the guy that comes along with the money, you have no idea that he's going to go along with that plan, and that's the Vanderbilt Inn part of it. The other one, I think we have a setback problem on the Vanderbilt Resort. We have a setback problem on another thing, as you know, and I know you can't talk about it, but I can. Because the Belaggio Grand was turned down twice by the planning department because of setbacks, the so-called wedding cake, which you're being sued for. And the attorney's department in their infinite wisdom chose to approve the Belaggio Grand with the wedding cake setback. That property can support at 30-foot setbacks, which is approved, a 60-foot building, not a 100-foot building. If they want a 100-foot building, they got to have a 50-foot setback. Now, then, the lawyer says, "Well, the LDC code I was interpreting." We don't need his interpretation. The code says the setback is 30 feet or half the height of the building, not from the fifth Page 13 January 9, 2002 floor, from the ground floor. No question. So, you know, here we had all these problems with the planning department that's been straightened out, and thank God for Susan Murray and other people, and, now, the attorney's office is going on a rampage. This is a change in zoning. You are the only ones that can approve a change in zoning. The lawyers cannot. We also don't appreciate -- because we're calling this to their attention, and the only way we had to was file another lawsuit -- them threatening us, and they did so by saying they were going to bury us in depositions, inconveniences, and expenses. Now, you know, we're taxpayers. We're paying their salary. And we don't appreciate that kind of pressure being put on us. So in closing we ask you to support the interim program and no exceptions. Thank you very much. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can understand your enthusiasm supporting one of your members, but I'm going to ask you to refrain from the applause. MS. KETCHAM: Ah, one more time --. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll make an exception in your case. MS. KETCHAM: And the Belaggio Grand, people should realize, is the former Beachcomber-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for the county attorney before we continue on with people that we're in litigation with. Can you give us advice, and should we be hearing about the Belaggio land? MR. WEIGEL: Well, the Belaggio matter, which is in litigation right now, a suit filed December 27th, we haven't been served yet with the complaint. But in any event, it's not a quasi-judicial matter coming before you, but it is in litigation. So as I've indicated to you Page 14 January9,2002 as a board collectively, your conversation about matters in litigation should be limited or done with the advice of counsel, and you've got counsel here tonight in case you wish to engage in any dialogue with any people connected with the lawsuit. The people that are here tonight who speak for the lawsuit or are behind the lawsuit speak with or without the advice at their own desire and peril. So they can continue to talk as they wish. MS. KETCHAM: Can I ask a favor? The last time I got cut short and had, like, a minute and thirty. This says a minute left, and I know -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please start the time over. MS. KETCHAM: That's Joe. want to get cut off again. Hello, again, Commissioners. I'm going to be brief, but I don't In case you haven't memorized my name, it's Diane Ketcham, and I'm president of Save Vanderbilt Fund and on the board of Vanderbilt Beach and Bay. First, I'd like to add my congratulations to the board's new chairman, Jim Coletta. We on Vanderbilt Beach have found you to be a responsive and caring legislator, and we are delighted that your fellow board members have made you their chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. KETCHAM: So congratulations to you. We can only hope that your legacy and that of this board is one that will bring Collier County back to the people. And, of course, that's why we're here tonight. We, the people of Vanderbilt Beach, want a building moratorium, but we want a moratorium with no exemptions. We want a chance to have input in what the future redevelopment of our area looks like. For too long the developers have mandated to us and, unfortunately, to past boards of commissioners what they want. The Land Development Code was changed several times in RT zoning to Page 15 January 9, 2002 benefit the developers with no input from us. And look at the results. Well, tonight we hope you can take a major step in restoring the citizens' faith in government. And that is who is here before you today. We are just citizens concerned about our community. None of us get paid for the hours we have put in coming before you time and time again. None have been reimbursed for the money we've had to put out in lawyers' fees to get our laws enforced. And if we just allowed the developers to have their way on Vanderbilt Beach to build the canyons of concrete and sell the units for millions of dollars, many of us could probably make money on our investment. But this is not about profits for us. This is about preserving the character of our community. This is about what Naples will look like for our children and grandchildren and yours. If you allow the canyonization of Gulf Shore Drive, it will be your legacy, and it's a legacy that no one on this board can be proud of. Someone has to stand up and say, "Enough is enough." Well, for the people of Vanderbilt Beach, tonight is one of those nights. We ask you to pass a moratorium with no exemptions so that we can help in controlling destiny in our region. Your Planning Commission voted unanimously for a moratorium with no exemptions, but now you may hear from some that site plans that were just submitted should be exempted because they have some kind of vested rights. We are asking you to get rid of that provision. These site plans have not been approved. What are their rights? Are you going to accept that anybody who steps before and says, "I want to build a Taj Mahal on Vanderbilt Beach, and I get it into you before January 9th, and I file that," it can be allowed? You may hear about being sued under the Bert Harris Act, but your assistant county attorney, Ms. Student at the Planning Commission meeting that the Bert Harris Act would not apply when Page 16 January 9, 2002 a study is being done as it is here. You may hear you're going to be sued regardless of the Bert Harris Act if you don't exempt these buildings. But government cannot be frozen by the threat of developers' lawsuits. You must act for what is best in the county. What you decide tonight is not just about what happens to this narrow beachside street known as Gulf Shore Drive, a street that thousands of us use as the only evacuation route. What you decide tonight is about the future of Collier County. We hope that you will send a clear message that this county belongs to the people, not the developers. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Diane. MR. DUNNUCK: Carol Wright followed by Bruce Anderson. MS. WRIGHT: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Carol Wright, and I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association. We feel that this moratorium is very essential on Gulf Shore Drive so that a study can be performed to see just what impact we can withstand. We are a two-lane road and a coastal high-hazard area with a body of water on both sides. We are inundated with traffic right now and have been for years. We also have become aware of the canyonization of the neighborhood, and this is particularly due to the new La Playa parking garage and renovations. If you would drive down this road, you would see what we mean, and I hope you've done that. The Vanderbilt Inn wants to put in a 125-foot condo, which they have confirmed will actually be 137 feet, which is more than what the LDC permits. They have promised 40 new public spaces, a beach access, public restrooms, and a thousand-member beach club. How long can this go on? The beach club will surely intensify our traffic. However, all Page 17 January9,2002 the other amenities I have mentioned is what I call blackmail or bribery, because if you don't give them this height, they are going to take all those amenities away. And, really, who would want to buy a condominium and have all the public access in the bottom of their parking garage? Where will it all stop unless there is a moratorium? We all know that the whole county is upset with all of the development in Collier County, and this is one way to say, "Hey, let's take a look at this area. Let's do a study and see just how much that one-mile piece of road can handle." We don't want to feel or look like Fort Lauderdale. As you know, this picture was in our paper just this past week. We really don't want to look like this, but this is Naples right here (indicating). As for exempting the Vanderbilt Inn and the Vanderbilt Beach Resort from the moratorium, we say, "No way." Everyone should play by the same rules. Let's don't show favoritism. Don't start off on the wrong foot. Why have a moratorium and allow exemptions immediately? Everyone in the RT zoning needs to be included. You were voted to be on this board by the public, all of us here tonight and many more. You work for the public, us. We voted you in. You were not voted in by developers. You do not work for them. So, please, vote for the moratorium. Do not exempt anybody. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mrs. Wright. Next speaker. MR. DUNNUCK: Bruce Anderson followed by Michael Moore. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm a little confused here, Mr. Chairman. There are no exemptions. I don't know how to make this clear. I think the county attorneys and everyone has tried to make this clear. There's no such thing as an exemption under this. Page 18 January 9, 2002 There are property rights like two individual parcels, one who's applied for a permit for change that has not asked for any variances. That is a right, the same right that you have to be in this room, to live in the buildings that you occupy. That's not an exemption. That's the fact that we're adhering to the law. I'm speaking as a judge now. I may not like it, but that's reality. The other one is asking for a variance. This board has a right to deny a variance. And when that comes to us, that's a decision this board will have to make. But they have a right -- and as a judge I have to tell you, whether I like it or not, those rights exists. The moratorium I am for, but I can't deny somebody's rights who have followed the rules. You may not like that, and you may say, "We'll get another commissioner." Fine. You have a right to elect anybody you want, but it's not going to change the law; it's not going to change the kinds of decisions a commissioner has to make. So I beg your indulgence to please understand that all the other issues we are dealing with. And we support you. And that's what these board members are saying. For whatever it's worth, Mr. Chairman, that's where -- unless I'm wrong, Mr. Weigel, that's what I understand the process is, and in my quasi-judicial role I must adhere to that. MR. WEIGEL: Well stated, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I represent Van Dev, Inc., the owner of the Vanderbilt Beach Inn property. Even though I am the lawyer, I can count to four, and I will not try to talk you out of imposing the moratorium that's about to occur. I do have a couple of questions, though, that I would like to ask on record. Page 19 January 9, 2002 Who is conducting the study? Who in the county has chief responsibility for conducting this study so that we know who the contact person is and that this study is just not a figment of somebody's imagination, that there really will be one? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: The study will be the responsibility of the Community Development Division at this point. And the new administrator, Joe Schmidt, would be the responsible contact person. MR. ANDERSON: Will property owners be involved and how? And, also, will the study -- would you -- will the study include how to pay for any diminutions in fair-market value that may result from any of the new regulations that would get adopted as a result of the study? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I assure you that this study is going to include everything that is fair and equitable to all parties concerned. And, of course, we can't authorize a study until we get through this process here tonight. MR. ANDERSON: And then I guess my last question was, if someone has filed a sufficient application but because of inadequate number of staff people available, that the bureaucratic process of assigning a number has not occurred, will that application be considered complete? I believe it should be. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can't -- I wouldn't want to comment on that. I'd rather have legal comment on that. Mr. Weigel or Ms. Student? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just take it through the fast- track system. That's a year less than the regular system. MR. WEIGEL: I'll try to respond right now, and that is you have before you tonight a moratorium ordinance proposal with all its elements as well as definition read into the record by Susan Murray. The specific application to an individual applicant, whether it's hypothesis or past fact, I think really isn't subject to our comment Page 20 January 9, 2002 right now or assertions or any fact-finding that needs to be done in regard to availability of staff, insufficient staff, the manner of submission, all of those things that go into a review of process. And this is not a hearing for review of process at this point. And I think we would reserve our administrative, with the assistance of legal opinion, to the facts as we review them outside of this forum tonight. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. MR. DUNNUCK: Michael Moore followed by Terry Ketcham. MR. MOORE: Good evening, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Michael Moore. I'm here representing the Vanderbilt Beach Motel, Inc., which also happens to be the business that's been run by my family and my father, Michael Moore, Sr., for the past 30 years. I'd just like to second what Mr. Anderson said. We certainly can read the writing on the wall. Why we don't agree with the moratorium -- and I might point out that my father is a member of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association, and at least one member of that organization does not support the moratorium -- we would ask that we be permitted to be a part of this study as well. We've done some of our own investigation over the last week or so that this has been proposed, and I think the public really needs to understand that this area does have a lot of development already on it. There are some areas in the Vanderbilt Beach area that are mostly residential that may not be changed at all in character, even if this moratorium were not to go into effect, and that the average height of the buildings in the area is approaching seven stories, really. We'd like to be part of this study. We think we can add a lot to it. We've been on that beach almost longer than anybody else. We're all for preserving that area for the benefit of our grandchildren. My Page 21 January 9, 2002 father's grandchild was born recently. She's going to grow up on that beach just like I grew up on that beach. And we want to work together and make sure that it's preserved in a good fashion. At the same time, we ask, again, that the commissioners respect our family's property rights and recognize that we do have the rights that Commissioner Carter was discussing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Moore. MR. DUNNUCK: Terry Ketcham followed by Dr. Richard Bing. AUDIENCE: I waive. I support the moratorium. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to restrain yourself unless you're signed up to speak. MR. DUNNUCK: He's waiving. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I thought you wer E -- MR. DUNNUCK: Dr. Bing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought it was a heckler from the audience. AUDIENCE: Just one of your fans. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. DR. BING: Richard Bing, president of Vanderbilt Gulf Side Condominium Association. Congratulations, Commissioner Coletta, on your new appointment, and thank you, Dr. Carter, for your civility enforcement of how you ran the meetings. You brought up a very good point about the objectives, Dr. Carter, when you talked about density and intensity really being the issue that we've been facing along with the result of congestion and so forth from the height and setback issues. And Commissioner Henning said something at the beginning of the meeting about we've been discussing the "M" word for about a year for this area. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to say, "Well, if I'm an owner or developer, I'll get my application in for what I want to do, if I have Page 22 January 9, 2002 some vision, before the moratorium takes affect. If we're following due process, I can work with my people while that's going on, get it in under the door, and really make a mockery of what we're talking about." If these two people are allowed to go ahead while this study goes on with new standards being written, then what's the point of the moratorium. To me, you have to think back to when did we start talking about the "M" word, and that's when the applications have to stop being approved. If these applications aren't approved, there's no vested right just because I applied for something. Until it gets approved under new rules, it shouldn't be approved. So whether my semantics are wrong or not, Dr. Carter, it seems to me that we got a dilemma that you people are going to have to resolve. You may be threatened by either side by litigation, but, to me, if you're interested in representing the majority -- or the vast majority of the property owners on Vanderbilt Beach, we already have way too much development. The density of "Fort" La Playa, the Dunes, etc., have not impacted us fully yet. And yet we're talking about exempting more people from thinking about the issue that we already have. So, please, think about the majority of the property owners. Do not exempt people until we establish what the real rule should be for development in the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MR. DUNNUCK: Bonnie Bing followed by J. W. Callison. AUDIENCE: I waive. AUDIENCE: I waive. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Robert Doody followed by Rita Doody. AUDIENCE: I waive. AUDIENCE: I waive, also. Page 23 January 9, 2002 MR. DUNNUCK: Sally Masters followed by Liz Menish. AUDIENCE: Waive. MR. DUNNUCK: Bill Menish followed by Jack Popowich. AUDIENCE: I support the moratorium but waive. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was a waive. MR. DUNNUCK: Robert Murphy followed by George Brunn. AUDIENCE: I waive, but I support the moratorium. MR. MURPHY: Good evening. My name is Robert Murphy, and I live at 11116 Gulf Shore Drive, which is the condominium complex named Vanderbilt Landing. We're right on the comer of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Bluebell Avenue. Bluebell Avenue, for those that don't know, is the extension of Immokalee Road. And where that intersection meets is actually the beginning to the entrance to Wiggins State Park, And it's also the comer of the piece of property that is now being proposed by the Vanderbilt Inn to become a high-rise membership location for 1,000 people. If you could sit on the comer that we sit on and watch the congestion that takes place weekend after weekend just from people attempting to go into Wiggins State Park, and we attempt to get out of our driveway and go somewhere, to the market or go off Vanderbilt Beach and do some shopping, it's a constant effort for us just to move in that area. To place another complex on that same comer that's now going to have 1,000 members coming down to use that facility, we can't visualize being able to live on that comer with that additional traffic and that additional flow. We haven't seen yet what the traffic is going to be like trying to get to La Playa, which as you know, hasn't open yet. And once it opens with their members they are either going to come around our comer, or they are going to come around the comer by the Ritz. But that traffic load hasn't been seen yet, and we already are overbearing Page 24 January 9, 2002 with traffic. So as far as the rights of the Vanderbilt Inn to go ahead with their project because they got their paperwork in earlier, the issue of that location is one of the reasons we're all here tonight. That location is just going to impact the whole beach so much that to allow it to go ahead just because they got their paperwork in a little bit earlier than anybody else, we feel would be a major mistake. I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MR. DUNNUCK: George Brunn followed by Edward Hoff. AUDIENCE: Waive. AUDIENCE: Waive. MR. DUNNUCK: Joyce McArthur followed by Earl McCarther. AUDIENCE: I support the moratorium, waive. MR. McCARTHER: Good evening, Commissioners, and congratulations, Mr. Coletta, on your election as chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. McCARTHER: I think that may be a double-edge sword. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you state your name, please. State your name for the record. MR. McCARTHER: I'm sorry. I'm Earl McCarther. I'm the president of Vanderbilt Landings Condominium Association, which is located directly across the street from the proposed condominium structure for the Vanderbilt Inn. I have written to everyone of you on at least four different occasions via e-mail expressing my opinion about the moratorium. I support the moratorium, and I would ask you to deny a variance request from Van Dev, Inc. The issue has only been raised in the last 20-odd days when it was anticipated that there would be a moratorium, that we would then Page 25 January 9, 2002 submit an application for a variance and then offer in that some public benefit. I don't think that public benefit is any way near the value of an additional 25 feet on a building and the cost of those condominiums and the reward to the developer, and that is the other issue. This is a variance by the owner to make sure that the property is more saleable now than it would be without the variance. And so I urge you to deny the request for the variance for Van Dev Corporation and allow the moratorium to go forward to create the study results from which you can now make better and more informed decisions in the future. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. McCarther. MR. DUNNUCK: Gordon Dix-- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I really appreciate -- because he truly understands the situation. It is a variance, and it would not be dealt with in this meeting. That is a regular Board of Zoning Appeals discussion that will come to the planning council, come to the Board of County Commissioners, and that will all be dealt with on that basis, if I'm correct. You are absolutely right, sir. That is a very legitimate concern and a separate issue, and the moratorium will not affect an up or down on that decision either way. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So let me repeat one more time just to make sure. I need to do this in my basic language. So if we approve the moratorium as it stands right now with all the exemptions and everything, that variance still is not approved until it comes before us for a hearing separate from this moratorium, separate from the exemptions. COMMISSIONER CARTER: If I'm wrong legal counsel please correct me. MR. WEIGEL: No, you are correct. Variance and conditional Page 26 January 9, 2002 use come before this Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that also true with other places that would like to have the moratorium lifted on them? Would they be able to come back? MR. WEIGEL: I'm talking about specific property, I'm talking about the process itself, and the requirements of the Land Development Code and the quasi-judicial, decision-making process, which requires this board following the Planning Commission to review the variance and conditional-use applications. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker. MR. DUNNUCK: Gordon Dix followed by R. Oster. AUDIENCE: Waive. MR. DUNNUCK: Marjorie Callison followed by Jack Stevens. AUDIENCE: Waive. MR. STEVENS: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jack Stevens. I live at 10663 Gulf Shore Drive. I would think you commissioners would be a little bit tired of hearing attorneys threatening you in the name of Bert Harris. I believe that you have the LDC in front of you, all of you. And I don't think anybody would be here if we went by the Land Development Code. It says 100 foot, 50 percent of the building is a 50-foot setback. It's not 20; it's not 30; it's not 10. We wouldn't even be here. The place like -- the Manatee would have never have happened; La Playa wouldn't have happened. The Beachcomber, the whole piece of land is covered with footings. So many violations to the code in variances of which I live within 300 feet. I've never been notified in writing, as your code states it should be. And I just think that if you people went by the rules, strict rules, you wouldn't have a hey-day here with attorneys that seem to be running this whole show. We are the citizens, and we are really starting to feel that our backs are against the wall. And some of the choices are -- I think we Page 27 January 9, 2002 ought to have a march. But thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I thought we've been supporting you. You know, we've gone out with the -- when we had the dock issue, that was the first time I met you, Diane. And we were concerned about the docks extending, and we were able to prevent that from happening. And then the Beachcomber, I mean, we're getting the pants sued off of us, and yet we supported your concerns. So It's interesting --. MR. STEVENS: Yeah, but the Beachcomber went right ahead. We all thought it was being delayed, and it was going to be studied, and it was going to meet the code. And the next thing we know the shovels are there, and they're digging. And I feel that this went on with -- against what we understood it to be. And it's just that these things that happen -- and, you know, a 100-foot building. If it's allowed, fine. We got no complaint. But with a 50-foot setback -- and they're counting 50 feet that's in the bay, I mean -- you know, it's just totally -- we had no choice, really had no choice. And I feel that, you know, the old planning department you had -- I don't want to open that up -- but I sat here, stood here -- they said I didn't know what I was talking about. Well, I do know what I'm talking about. And I just feel, like, what's happening is that -- you people are really trying to accommodate us. I know that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. STEVENS: And I hope you're in charge -- give us the moratorium and forget these lawsuits, Bert Harris. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we would all like to forget the lawsuits. MR. DUNNUCK: Phyllis Gryskiewicz followed by Clifford Chaffee. Page 28 January 9, 2002 AUDIENCE: Waive. MS. GRYSKIEWICZ: Good evening. I'm Phyllis Gryskiewicz. I live at 10633 Gulf Shore Drive. There has not been a density picture like I saw this summer when Gabriel went through. The Gulf of Mexico was meeting the Vanderbilt Bay. The water was flowing. I get up during the night and see the water flowing cross Gulf Shore Drive into the bay. You all know that the property on the other side of the bay was flooded like it's never been flooded before. In August there are not too many residents there. It was hard to drive through the street because there was a lot of water on Gulf Shore Drive. Evacuation would be a terrible problem if it happened, like, in October and November when there are more residents down there. But if you can picture the Gulf of Mexico running through our parking lot, the vacant Beachcomber property was full of water, and it ran right to the bay, which was up to the level. And so the density is the problem. And any emergency, there's single lanes both ways. You cannot get through. So I rest my case. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, ma'am. MR. DUNNUCK: Bill Eline followed by B. J. Boyer. AUDIENCE: Waive. AUDIENCE: Waive. MR. DUNNUCK: That concludes your speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Dunnuck. Any other questions of staff?. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't have any questions of staff, but I think it's clear to me what the moratorium entails. And unless I'm directed otherwise by legal counsel, I can support this moratorium that is as it is -- as written to accomplish the goal of a study focusing on intensity and density. And after the study Page 29 January 9, 2002 recommendations will come forward, I'm sure, to this Board of County Commissioners with total public participation from the community. And at that time the board then will make the decisions on that study. At this point we have taken the critical, initial, first phase, and that is the study. And that's what I've been an advocate of and support that without any reservations, and I made my points on the other in my quasi-judicial role. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And did you want to put that in the form of a motion? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Ms. Murray, how do you want to do these this evening? How do you want to do these this evening? Do you want to take this one, have us pass it, or just get the nod of four votes? How do you want to handle this? MS. MURRAY: Just pass it now as each one comes up. MR. WEIGEL: And, Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Carter, if I may, if the board entertains a motion to pass, to adopt this ordinance, I would ask that you all state on the record as part of your motion and second an adoption that it is this ordinance amendment as written and the definitional statement that Susan Murray has read into the record at the beginning of the presentation here. And she'll be providing a written copy of that record to the court reporter of her definitional statement so that a written as well the oral statement that will be transcribed will be of record. I just want you to know that it's all inclusive; it includes her definitional statement that is operational to the ordinance. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move including that operational statement so everyone clearly understands how we proceed and go forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion on the part of Page 30 January 9, 2002 Commissioner Carter and a second by Commissioner Henning. Discussion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: So my only concern in the beginning was whether the variances would go through with this moratorium or whether they wouldn't. I was happy to hear that we have every right to hear them separately from this, and so that swung me over. So you can count me in. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the only other alternative is that if we're going to revise this, we have to send it back to the staff and have them redo it. So I agree with you, and I'll support it. MS. STUDENT: I just need to state something for the record that Ms. Murray pointed out to me. And the reference to the variance and specific properties are actually to conditional uses. And I'd also like to ask the board to include in the motion of finding a consistency with the Growth Management Plan as required for all amendments of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will include that in the motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll include it in my second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you both. Is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else from legal? MR. WEIGEL: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's call the question. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 31 January 9, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5 to 0. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: The next item would be the boat dock amendment. And if you look at page 48 of your large handout, that's where the text change starts. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What page is it again? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forty-eight. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Forty-eight. COMMISSIONER COYLE: She said 48. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The new language, yeah. (Short pause while people vacate the meeting.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: almost there. MS. MURRAY: All set? We're almost there, Ms. Murray, Okay. For the record, again, I'm Susan Murray, Current Planning Manager. And we're working off of page 48 in your large document. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excuse me just one second. May I have your silence, please, in the room. Thank you. Please begin again. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, Current Planning Manager, and we're working off of page 48 in your large handout that you got. And this is in reference to the boat dock section, and I'm going to be brief. I know you have a number of speakers. I also have my technical boat dock person here, Ross Gochenaur, as well to answer questions. But I'll give you a brief overview of the changes we made. Specifically -- bear with me just a second here, please. Working from page 49 on paragraph 2.6.21.1.1, we added the language -- if you can find that paragraph -- about three quarters of the way down, in reference for man-made canals, 60 feet or less in width. And, again, this is at your direction and also at the recommendation of the CCPC, we added the language that after No. 2 it reads -- and this is existing text -- (as read): "At least 50 percent of the true waterway Page 32 January 9, 2002 width as depicted by the survey is maintained for navigability," and the following is what we added (as read): "with the following exception: On man-made canals 60 feet in less of width, which are not reinforced by a vertical seawall or bulkhead, at least 33 percent of the true waterway width must be maintained for navigability." And that was added at your -- that was the direction as we understood it from you, and also from the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER HENNING: MS. MURRAY: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. Let's say that I go out -- I live in that area, and I'm going to build a dock 50 percent of the area because my neighbor across the canal doesn't have any dock. Would that still be in compliance? MS. MURRAY: No. You would have to leave at least 33 percent of the true waterway width open. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But if my neighbor across the canal -- I'm sorry. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. That would be defined as the true waterway width, which is in the center of the canal. Is that what you're asking me? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Definition of true waterway? MS. MURRAY: Yes. I believe that's correct. Let my technical staff handle that. MR. GOCHENAUR: services. In the case of what we're proposing here, the true waterway width would be that determined by a survey. You can have true waterway width determined by a plat or by a survey. What we want here is the actual waterway width as measured from mean high water to mean high water as determined by a survey. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning Page 33 January9,2002 At the recommendation of the Planning Commission, we extended the protrusion of dock from 25 percent, which we recommended, to 33 percent of the width of the waterway. That means each person on each side of the waterway gets his 33 percent, and there would still be 33 percent left in the middle of the waterway. Again, this is less than we would recommend, but this is what we feel was your direction. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask just one more question. Being that I don't own a boat and don't know anything about boating, I can ask these questions; right? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You sure can. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that mean that the water -- I went down and took a look at the site. I looked at it from one end, and I looked at it from the road, and I looked at it from the back, and just to kind of get a feel for what we were talking about -- and the tide was rather low when I was there. Not low, low, but kind of low. So there wasn't a whole bunch of room in there. I was wondering when we're talking about this waterway, does that mean one-third on one side, one-third in the middle, and one- third on the other of the water that I was looking at? MR. GOCHENAUR: It would be one-third of the water at mean high tide, which would be determined by a surveyor based on sea level and tide variation. So depending on when you looked at it, you could have looked at it at mean high tide. Low tide, it would have been a narrower waterway. That's not the point from which it would have been measured. It would have been taken from the survey, mean high tide, determined in relation to sea level. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: One more question of clarification. There are a couple of residents who have raised their concerns about the fact that while they do not have a boat dock, the Page 34 January 9, 2002 neighbor across the canal has a boat dock that protrudes far enough so that if they built to the one-third dimension on their side, there would not be enough navigable water in the center. Under those circumstances what would have to happen? Would the person on the other side of the canal have to shorten their boat dock? Is that the way that's going to work? MR. GOCHENAUR: I think the short answer to that is yes. If the person-- if we approve this 33 percent of the width and the person on one side of the dock has a dock that currently protrudes more than that 33 percent, he has two options. He can either apply for a variance to keep it there, or he can cut it back to the 33 percent that his neighbor across the canal would be allowed. The idea here is the equitable distribution of rights, which is very important. So that's how that would work. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, as we're talking about equitable, I noticed -- in my limited knowledge of this area -- I noticed that a lot of the rip-rap that's going down, some seems to extend further than others. And can they take out some of that rip-rap in order to comply with this one-third rule, if that's where we're going, in order to be equitable? MR. GOCHENAUR: Theoretically, with the proper permits, a property owner can dredge or remove rip-rap or extend the waterway toward his property line or onto his property line. Theoretically, that can be accomplished, and that would affect the waterway width as measured by a survey. The dredging option is always possible for property owners. The removal of rip-rap, the same thing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. None for me. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Proceed then. Page 35 January 9, 2002 MS. MURRAY: Again, on page 49, paragraph 2.6.21.2.2, about a third of the way down, we've added the language after (as read): "Whichever is lesser with the following exception: On man-made canal 60 or less feet in width, which are not reinforced by a vertical seawall or bulkhead, dock facilities may protrude to 33 percent of the width of the waterway provided that the procedures outlined in 2.6.21.1 are observed." And then down to page 48 -- sorry to jump around here. Paragraph 2.6.21.1, there was comment about words -- excuse me -- surrounding versus neighboring, or was it adjacent? Excuse me just a minute. I'm sorry. I misspoke. "Abutting" was the original language. As you recall, I think there was a public speaker who has some concern over that. It's our recommendation that you change that to "neighboring," and that would be for paragraph 2.6.21.1 and 2.6.21.3.2.4, and we've done that through this amendment. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good. MS. MURRAY: So those are the changes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have one question on language on page 50, 2.6.21.2.6. It's talking about other government agencies and Florida Department of Environmental Protection and U.S. Corps of Engineering and their permitting. Does the Corps and FDEP require permits on residential docks? MR. GOCHENAUR: I'm not quite sure about permitting for state and other agencies. I know that the requirements vary depending on whether the waterway is man-made or a natural waterway. Our recommendation is that anyone who wants to build a dock checks first with the state and federal agencies to make sure nothing's required. Typically, on a man-made canal, there aren't any requirements Page 36 January 9, 2002 besides those that the county levies. But as a matter of course we always recommend that they check with other agencies. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there some kind of approval that they have to give back to the county stafl? Do they get checked with that? MR. GOCHENAUR: What we require, typically, if we feel the issue is in question -- if you have a man-made canal such as those in Vanderbilt Beach, there's no question about whether or not there are any Corps jurisdiction there. There's not. But if this issue is at all in question, if there's any question about whether the waterway's man- made or not -- for instance, Vanderbilt Lagoon is man altered -- we automatically ask that they get an exemption from the Corps and also the DEP in order to be allowed to build what they want before they get their permit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- and I guess my only concern is, you know, we're overregulating. But I see the intent of that, and I also want to thank you for all the work that you've done on this. And I know-- a lot of work. Appreciate it. MR. GOCHENAUR: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Boy, you have put in a lot of work. I know that we've been addressing the Coconut River Estates or whomever because they were the ones that brought this to us, but we have to think of the other areas in the county, also, that this might affect. Will this in any way harm any other canals or boaters or docks in other areas? Because this -- when we vote on this, we're going to be voting on all those areas; is that correct? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. This is not for Coconut River, Vanderbilt; this is Collier County. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And so I want to make sure Page 37 January 9, 2002 that we're taking all of these areas into consideration rather than just the one area. MR. GOCHENAUR: If your question is about the percentage of the waterway width and that reduction, staff strongly opposes this. We feel that the reduction between the 25 percent of the docks that can protrude and the 50 percent that you should have in the middle of the waterway is the minimum that you need for safe navigation. We conducted a study of other counties and municipalities. We found that those that addressed the issue, this specific issue, in terms of percentages either went with what we have or were more stringent. So I can say, yes, it could affect other canals, and in my opinion, that effect would be adverse. We do not recommend it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's a good point, and I'm wondering why we have not included the restriction about dead-end canals that further restricts this particular application. It provides us greater protection for the other canals in the county, if I remember correctly. In this particular case, a dead-end canal doesn't have a lot of through traffic. Consequently, the requirements for navigability are not as severe as a canal that is a through canal and has a lot of traffic. And I believe the owners of property on this particular canal specifically requested that a dead-end canal of their type be excluded from the more restrictive requirements. So would it be at all helpful in your mind if this particular requirement for docks of 60-feet width or less be limited to dead-end canals? MR. GOCHENAUR: Frankly, I don't think it would be helpful, but I don't think it would be detrimental. When we did the research Page 3 8 January 9, 2002 on the waterway width, no one addressed the issue of a dead-end canal for the reason that virtually all man-made canals are dead end. You've got a few canals -- most canals simply are man-made and terminated at a given point. They don't convey traffic from one point to another. If you feel that that's important, if you decide to approve this and you'd like us to add that language, we can do it. It wouldn't harm anything, but no one else seemed to think that that had any effect one way or the other. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't want to complicate the issue. It's just that I recall that the homeowners were saying that "This is a dead-end canal. Please provide an exception for dead-end canals because of the navigability waterway requirement." If it does not help you with respect to regulating the navigable width of waterways in the rest of the county, then I would suggest we forget it, and just leave it the way you've written it now. MR. GOCHENAUR: All right, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One other question I had was, can we ever limit this particular vote to just the Coconut River people? MR. GOCHENAUR: I don't see how we could, since as you brought out, this ordinance really addresses the entire county. What we're trying to do is address general situations as much as possible, and I think it would be hard to single out a community this small and make an exception for it since the issue isn't really the fact that it's a small waterway, the issue is illegal docks. A lot of people have small canals, and it's like having a small car or a small building lot. If you have a small car, you can't complain if you can't get six adults in it. If you have a small building, lot you can't complain that you can't get a 2500-square-foot house on it. It's a Page 39 January 9, 2002 small canal. We have to kind of learn to live with that so... COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought it was such a unique situation... COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I can help you out, last weekend I drove over to Coconut Creek and viewed that, and then I went over to the Bayshore area and looked at those canal ways. I don't feel that they are going to be affected. I know Henderson Creek (phonetic) used to live on it. That's another area that will not be affected. I don't know of any other area -- Isle of Capri, I mean, those waterway widths are quite wide also. It's not going to affect the City of Naples because they govern themselves; so I'm not sure what canal in your district would be affected. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Same with Marco Island-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't really much care about my district so much as the whole county. And what I was going after was what I understood that other canals could be adversely affected. Is that what I understood you to say? MR. GOCHENAUR: There are not a lot of canals that would qualify for this. There aren't a lot of man-made canals that aren't reinforced by seawalls, but there are some. There are some areas in East Naples where there have actually been seawalls built and the water lines receded away from the seawall. This is a fairly complicated issue which is why we didn't want to look at it in a microsense, and we didn't want to get into this particular area, but in drafting the languages we thought you intended-- what I tried to do is now as much as possible to this particular situation, but also acknowledge that there could be other situations in the county that could have the same circumstances Page 40 January 9, 2002 where people had built docks legally and weren't affected and now would be subject to the same relaxed standards as we're applying in Coconut River, which is, again, why we have some issue with it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe the public input might help us to. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I've been signaled from the audience that we might get a little closer to our microphones or speak apl COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Other questions from the commissioners? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not at this moment. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is your presentation concluded yet, or do you still have some more? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. I'm done unless you have any questions. I'll be glad to answer questions after you've heard from the audience. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: speakers do we have? Thank you. And how many MR. DUNNUCK: Sixteen registered speakers. First speaker is Edward Boot followed by Brenda Dorini. MR. BOOT: My name is Edward Boot for the record, 2360 Long Boat Drive. I would like to go with what you've got going with the LDC, and I'd like to give my time to Mark Morton. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is the board generally in consensus as what's been presented is acceptable? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've got a nod here. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Henning, how do you feel? COMMISSIONER HENNING: However you feel is fine with me. Page 41 January 9, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARTER: He's on one of those trips again. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want my five minutes? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we have one, two -- three, looks like is leading very strong for supporting what's here right now but... COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think the one-third, one-third, one-third is good. I just didn't know how that would affect other waterways, and would it affect them adversely. Would the docks go out too far? Would boats -- they don't have much travel in Coconut River. They were saying the last time they were here that there was never two boats that passed each other, so they wouldn't have as much of a problem, but would they have a problem on Bayshore with some of the -- and, you know, there's not only the one side. They have pretty big canals over on that side, but there's the other side of the bridge where the canals are smaller and, you know, it's more difficult for them to pass. Will that adversely affect them over there? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What bridge are you talking about? COMMISSIONER FIALA: The Haldeman Creek bridge. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I went over there -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which side did you go to? The view side or the other side? COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and I actually went into the trailer park too. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. HENNING: In and around that area. FIALA: Down-- HENNING: Haldeman Creek. FIALA: On the east side of the street? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: You ought to go for a boat trip Page 42 January 9, 2002 with Commissioner Henning so you'd know more. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We'd have to take our lawyer because we can't talk. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make sure that with this -- I mean, I'm for supporting this neighborhood completely. I was just wondering if we would adversely affect -- here's where I'm really going with this -- if we'd adversely affect any other creeks or canals in the system by worrying about this one. Maybe we could isolate this vote to this one neighborhood. That's where I'm going with this. I just wanted to make sure we didn't step on a landmine while we were trying to solve the problem. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's very commendable of you to be concerned about this one application, but I believe staff already said that they couldn't see any problem at this point. I do have one question from staff. If something has already been legally permitted and it doesn't fall within this jurisdiction of the words because of this change, are they going to have to make changes? MR. GOCHENAUR: You mean a dock-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. A dock that is legally permitted. It's been permitted. It's been in place for a number of years. They can prove it's been permitted. Are they going to have to modify their dock to meet this new ordinance, or are they exempt? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. If they fell within the parameters that we described, that particular kind of waterway, to gain that 33 percent rule, you would have to go through an administrative variance. That's not something we impose on somebody. That's something you would have to apply for. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Another, well -- one more time. A legally permitted dock that's already in existence would have to be modified or apply for a variance? Page 43 January 9, 2002 MR. GOCHENAUR: No. It wouldn't have to be modified at all. What we're doing is relaxing the standards here, so any dock that was legally permitted according to a more restrictive code would be in great shape now. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the ones that in problem-- having the problem right now are ones that were never permitted? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. That's exactly right. I'm sorry I didn't quite understand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you already said that. I just repeated it again. I did hear that, but I just wanted to say it out loud and get a nod of the head, and that's what I got. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And did I hear you correctly? Would this adversely affect anything else? Maybe I'm not hearing right. MR. GOCHENAUR: Would it affect -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Adversely affect any of the other canals in the system. MR. GOCHENAUR: If a waterway conformed to the standards we described, if it was 60 feet or less, if it wasn't reinforced by a seawall, then people on that waterway could apply for the variance to be granted those reduced standards. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But do you know of such a place? MR. GOCHENAUR: Not offhand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I draw some sort of clarification once again. Regardless of the fact if it's one place or another, has it been legally permitted or not, I think is one of the biggest questions. If it's some place and it doesn't conform, and it's not permitted, then it should conform to whatever's required by the ordinance to be a legal dock. We can't reward people that have built docks or any kind of Page 44 January 9, 2002 edifice without a permit by saying, you know, because you're in such and such an area and you don't have a permit -- you never had it permitted; now we're going to make an exemption for you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's what we're doing with this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. We're changing the dimensions of the ordinance, but they are still going probably -- you know, if they are going to have to amend their docks to make them fit in -- and if I understand correctly, they are still going to get an after-the-fact permit? Is that correct? MR. GOCHENAUR: What they would be doing would be applying for an after-the-fact administrative variance to be granted the relaxed standards that we're describing here. If they meet the criteria that we have in the amendment for this administrative variance to measure from the mean high water line rather than the most restricted point and to use 33 percent rather 25 percent, they would pay the fee; they would be granted the variance. It's administrative. The issue's not in question. They meet the criteria; they would get the variance. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Other questions, or should we proceed with speakers? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Go with the speakers. MR. DUNNUCK: Brenda Dorini followed by Mark Morton. AUDIENCE: I'll waive. MR. DUNNUCK: Mark Morton followed by Jeff Dorini. MR. MORTON: Good evening, Mark Morton. I live in Coconut River on Clipper Way. I would like to pass out some language that I think is very similar to staffs, but we haven't seen staffs, and we don't have it to look at from back (sic) to know what they're proposing. But we'll give you what we had come up to see what you-all think. And if we Page 45 January 9, 2002 could just walk you through it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I won't have time to read this and listen to you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala brought up a good point. I don't know if you could hear it or not, but this isn't a lengthy document by any means, but quite often we're handed at the dais large numbers of documents at one time, and they are entered into the proceedings and become part of the records. And it should be made clear that we haven't had a chance to read it and dissect. But being a short document, I'm sure you're going to go through it in great detail -- MR. MORTON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- within your time allotted--. MR. MORTON: Yeah. It's real simple. If you would go to code 2.6.21.1.1.; that's what the staff-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One second. Would you start the time, please. MR. MORTON: It's 2.6.21.1.1.1, starts with permitted dock facility protrusions as well as extensions of docks. That's the section I'm referring to. If you look what we have on the second portion of that, it starts to talk about the planning services director may approve an administrative variance. What we're asking with the language here is a couple different things as sort of cleanup. One is that I think everyone is in agreement that the mean high water mark on this type of water body is a place to measure the canal from. So instead of going through an administrative variance to do that was what were proposing is that the planning director can approve a mean high water measurement especially when the canal's been sloped without going through a $400 variance request and take care of it as part of the permit, and I'll clarify it as we go along. Page 46 January 9, 2002 The other thing is the survey request a -- that the signed, sealed survey can't be any more than 60 days old in the language that staff proposed. You know, if somebody's putting their thing in and their survey's 90 days old and still totally reflects exactly what's out there and what's the condition on there, I mean, it's still a good survey. It's still valid. So we were just saying as a current survey that shows the existing conditions just to make it easier on the property owners. The other thing that we did, if you go into the language further into it, it says that at least 50 percent of the true waterway as depicted by the survey. We were using -- we wanted to add a paragraph down below that will address the 60 and less canal width, and so you have to refer from these other paragraphs down to that. So I'm not going to get into that detail, but that's what that does. The basic gist of it is if you go to the third thing that we proposed on our sheet that I gave you, what this says is that is for lots in a canal or waterway that is less than 65 feet in width, has sloped banks, and is dead end, dock facilities may occupy no more than one- third of the width of the waterway and must maintain a 20-feet-wide navigable channel. Now, we're hearing tonight that the staff can live with this third, third, third for the channel. We were feeling from the last meeting that they really wanted to at least keep that 20 minimum. And that's what that language was reflecting, as both are measured from the mean high water line. So you're on a natural slope so it means you're going to measure from the high water line, so that becomes kind of a given. A dock extension may be granted to allow a protrusion of more than one-third the width if the channel is offset allowing for a dock facility to be less than one-third on one side and greater than one- third on the other side as a (inaudible) utilizing the criteria that's in the code. Page 47 January 9, 2002 If you go to the criteria that staff evaluates a dock protrusion, you have to meet four out of six things. And four out of six, if you look at that, I would submit that people in a condition where someone hasn't used -- they've only come out 15 feet and someone needs 2 more feet to make their third work to get the navigable water, that they would meet this criteria. I think the good catcher here is that the person -- the neighbors, the person across the way or on each side has to approve this, and it has to go through -- dock extensions have to go through the Planning Commission. So the person kind of gets their day in court, you might say, to ask for the little bit more. They have to meet very specific criteria. And the only correction was in the section where you guys were talking about surrounding neighbors, that change that was being made. I think the only thing you want to clarify in there, it's not surrounding dock. You have to say surrounding neighbors, owner, because the person may not have a dock, and that's where that case -- I think Commissioner (inaudible) and Henning were talking about where someone wants to go that extra foot into the third, he has a way to go do it, but he's got to go through a lot of extra work to get that. If he comes in at the third, he gets the 20 foot and a third, he's approved. He can be approved. And he just submits his permit with the mean high water line survey that shows here's how it is. So I think this language is a different way to approach it, but I think it's a little cleaner, and it takes away the variance and addition $400,000 -- $400 cost. Any questions? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have questions of staff, but go ahead, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's very difficult, I think, for us to take the code language that you've given to us and compare it word- for-word with the language that staff has provided and expect us to reach some conclusion. Page 48 January 9, 2002 So I would like to ask staff if you've had the opportunity to read what Mr. Morton has given you. Can you give us an assessment as to how it varies in intent from anything that you have already done.9 MS. MURRAY: Off the top of my head, absolutely not. I wouldn't stand up here and give you any of that advice without studying and contemplating this. And I'm going to take a deep breath because I'm a little frustrated that -- you know, we made it quite clear to Mr. Morton. I know Mr. Dunnuck did on the record that we were willing to work with Mr. Morton for any proposed language that he had, we would certainly consider it. We never heard from him. We drafted the language that you-all directed us to do. We thought that was acceptable to Mr. Morton and assumed since he didn't contact us that it was acceptable. And I think it was very clear on the record as to what your direction was. These ordinances are not words on the page. As Ross indicated to you, there's quite a bit of study and research that goes into them before we bring them forward to you in a recommendation. And I can't go point-by-point through this. Quite frankly, I can't tell even by looking at it where it differs from the ordinance that we've proposed. So I guess what I'm suggesting is if you're serious about considering this language that you would either adopt the language that staff has given you tonight per your direction or not adopt this section of the ordinance, and we could bring it back at a later time to you after we've had time to research it. Another concern I have as well is that when we start getting into private citizens wanting to make amendments to the code for their specific benefit, we do have a procedure in place that requires them to pay a fee and make application. As you recall, that was what Matt Grabinski did for the turtle ordinance that was supposed to be before you tonight and that he withdrew. So I'm a little concerned about that Page 49 January 9, 2002 has well. This is pretty substantive, and without having time to research and study I'm very hesitant to give you a recommendation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I for one raised some objection when I was handed this document at the last minute. And, Mr. Morton, you've been through the system a thousand times. If anyone knows how it works, you do. I'm a little disappointed in receiving something of-- such detail and so much language at such short notice. MR. MORTON: You know, if it was put in a strike-through underline format compared to the code, it's real minor. I mean, it's a few word changes. So I can see in its current format how it would look like. There's a lot more to it than there really is. So, yeah, I would apologize for that. And it's -- you know, we have a neighborhood group, and we all have to go through the language and look at it and talk about it and decide what we're going to do and not do. And it's a difficult thing through the holidays and everything to get there. You know, it's a tight frame to make it happen, so we gave it our best shot, and I think this is a good solution. Is there any way to go to the 29th? Could this one item be continued to the 29th, and we can have staff look at this language, and we say, "Yeah. This will work"? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You mean bring up the whole ordinance for the 29th? MR. MORTON: You're doing that, aren't you anyways? You're going to bring the transportation ones up? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we have a number of new ones we're bring up -- MR. MORTON: Right. I'd hate to have to keep referring this on and on just because of the lack of this document in a more timely Page 50 January 9, 2002 fashion. MR. MORTON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: feel? How's the rest of this commission COMMISSIONER HENNING: I give Mark a lot of credit for trying to slip that one through. MR. MORTON: I think it really, truly does clean up. I think it does. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Talk about blunt. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've tried to look at this, Mark, very quickly, and I don't see much difference. Now, certainly I guess someone who sits down and reads it in great detail might find some difference, but in -- as far as intent is concerned, it appears -- what the staff has done, it appears to me to meet the requirements which we pretty much spelled out at the last board meeting. So I would be inclined to proceed with this rather than postpone it. I think the -- what marginal benefit you might get by studying it for another couple of weeks would not be worthwhile. Am I wrong? MR. MORTON: I just think there's an administrative variance process that's left in here that is more complicated than simply submitting your revised permit or updating your permit or submitting a permit, and it meets the code. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear you, and I'll tell you how I feel on it, and I know this isn't going to make you happy, but these were never permitted in the first place. And taxes haven't been paid on them for a number of years. And I don't think a $400 fee is unreasonable considering everything that's taken place to this point in time. The fact that we're willing to make all sorts of other exceptions to try to meet the needs of the neighbors out there, I think the message is very clear. If you're going to build something, you build Page 51 January 9, 2002 it with a permit, and it's registered on the tax roll. And that's our responsibility in government. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well said. MR. MORTON: Any person coming in to pull another permit for people that don't have a permit or are illegal that are legal and want to revise it, when they come in, they have to pay the four (sic) just to get the mean water determination when we're all saying that the guy's got to submit a survey that shows using mean high water. That's all I'm talking about is that there's a charge to look at that, but you're required to submit a survey showing the mean high water and use that number as part of your regular permit. When a person comes in for a permit, they're going to have to do that, but we're adding an extra piece to it saying they also have to get a variance to be allowed to use the mean high water measurement, where the language saying you can use the mean high measurement (sic). CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you interpret that, please? MS. MURRAY: I don't know ifI can, but I think Ross probably can. He has a few comments. MR. GOCHENAUR: I think I can address that. The $400 is typical for an administrative variance because it takes a lot of staff time to look at this thing hard and correctly. We don't want a current survey; we want a survey that's current within a specific time. We want to know exactly where the mean high water line is on each side of the waterway so that we'll have a true and accurate measurement of the waterway. That $400 compensates Collier County for processing your administrative variance, whether your dock is legal or after-the-fact illegal as yours is. I've taken a quick look at this thing, and I apologize for shooting from the hip here, but I've noticed that there are some major discrepancies. In addition to the exemption of the current survey, Page 52 January 9, 2002 which we want within a specific period of time, what this third paragraph allows for is a meandering waterway width maintained for navigability. I can't believe we could take this seriously. Imagine zigzagging down a canal in the middle of the night 20 feet wide. I can't take that seriously. Anything anywhere is going to tell you that your waterway width maintained for the navigability is right down the middle. This is a blatant attempt to bend the code to accommodate illegal docks. It's that simple. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you made a point. One thing I'm curious, is the $400 variance fee enough to cover our cost? MR. GOCHENAUR: I don't think so. This is a typical -- this is the fee schedule amount for an administrative variance. It's less than a full-blown variance because it doesn't require the staff work, the review, or your time. But this takes a good deal of our time to look at. And, finally, the word "equitable" seems to be missing from this document. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you think between now and the next cycle we might want to review what happens with this $400 fee as far as it being adequate to be able to cover costs? Maybe we could do a cost analysis of it so that we know where we stand in the -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: That doesn't have anything to do -- sorry, Commissioner. In my knowledge, that doesn't have anything to do with the Land Development Code meeting. That's policy, and that's something board gives direction. Mr. Olliff can bring you back for a review of all schedules. I personally think that it's the eleventh hour. I'm not willing to go with different changes myself in this process. It needs to go back through the system at some further date. If we can find efficiency and expediency by doing some of these things, fine. But tonight? I don't think so. Page 53 January 9, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to state to my fellow commissioners it smacks to me of the same thing that we heard between permit and notice. Just one little word doesn't make much of a difference, but it made a whole heck of a lot of difference. And I have to go with staff and say they've researched this, and with you-- you even mentioned that, you know, a lot of these, they've never paid taxes on. And they are illegal in the first place. And I don't think we ought to pat them on the back and say, "Good boys. Here you go." So I think we ought to hold with this and hold with staff and back them up. CHAIRMAN COLETTA' No other comments? We'll proceed other speakers. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next speaker sounds great to with me. MR. DUNNUCK: Jeff Dorini followed by Gary Horton. AUDIENCE: Waive. MR. DUNNUCK: Gary Horton followed by Glen Wisler. MR. HORTON: Good evening. I'm Gary Horton, and I live at 2409 Clipper Way. I won't take much of your time. I have two quick questions. I bought a house and existing dock. Since then the dock's fell down. I don't know what to do with it. I'm afraid to touch it. The second thing is I was given a citation which looks like a ticket that a police officer give you for driving on the wrong side of the road or something. Well, I don't know what to do with this. If there's an extension of this, this is going to carry on and on and on. I think there's a drop-dead date on that ticket, and I don't want to be in violation of that. And that guy over there might take me to jail. Got any answers? Page 54 January 9, 2002 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we're going to vote on this tonight. MS. MURRAY: I suggest you talk to -- as far as your violation goes, Michelle Arnold would be happy to help you with that. And you're welcome to come in and talk to the planning staff about your dock and the state of your dock. MR. HORTON: I inherited that dock. Can I just remove it? MS. MURRAY: You certainly could remove it. I thought you said it had fallen down so... MR. HORTON: It was sound -- I mean, it's not floating away, but it's still attached to the ground. But I was told I had to have a permit to remove it, and I don't want to get into this permit -- MS. MURRAY: I don't believe you do, but why don't you come in and speak with us, and we can find out your specific --. MR. HORTON: Thank you very much. MS. MURRAY: -- and tell you which direction to go. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MR. DUNNUCK: Glen Wisler followed by Marcie Wisler. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Both waive. MR. DUNNUCK: W.C. LeMasters followed by Steve Jones. MR. LEMASTERS: Good evening, Chairman. My name's W.C. LeMasters, and I live at 2249 Clipper Way. I've heard a lot of back and forth here tonight about back taxes and stuff like that. I do know that just a week ago the dock on the opposite side of me was permitted and passed, and he got his document papers. Now, his dock's been in there two years less than mine. I've been in there for 21 years. I had Abbott Piling and Construction put my dock in 22 years ago. At that time I thought it was permitted and legal. I did not know that it had not been permitted. I did not know this until just recently when I was -- got a citation. And I went over to the Collier County building, and I asked Page 55 January 9, 2002 them what to do. The lady over there told me to have it surveyed. Do not fill out the permit as you answered the question and wait until it was voted on tonight. That is what I have done. I went and had it surveyed. I got the survey at home. I've been waiting until the county commissioners voted on this. The other thing is in the last three weeks since we had the last meeting here, I have rode up and down the canal to look at the waterway. Myself, I feel that the 33 percent would work for everybody in there, 99 percent of them. I think that everybody has pulled their docks in as tight as they possibly could without putting their boat down into the mud. Every one of them with outside pilings are in the mud. You saw pictures. The other thing that I would suggest that in the future that we do have a one-third, one-third, one-third. I think it will work for just about 99 percent and make everybody happy. I am not a type of person that would cheat on my property tax. If I owed property tax for the last 20 years, tell me. I will pay it. I don't mind getting back into that, but I do know that the guy across the canal just had his permitted, and they didn't say anything to him. His dock is out into the waterway as far as my dock is. We have, like, 22, 23 feet between us. Have no problem navigating that canal. Like I said the last time I was here, I've been in that area for 21 years. I have never ever passed a boat in that area. Maybe I'm not going out boating enough. Maybe I'm not having enough fun. But I'm a working man. I cannot afford to tear down a dock or build another dock. I just don't have that means. We are working-class people in that area, and I love the area, but -- and if we would go from mean high tide and one-third, one- third, one-third, I would think that would be plenty of area in there and have a 20-foot-navigable waterway in between. I don't see any Page 56 January 9, 2002 problem with that. Cars drive up and down my way. Highway, that road that goes down in front of my house isn't even 20 feet, and they zip up and down there all the time. Anybody that can't run a boat up a 20-foot navigable waterway shouldn't be driving a boat in the first place. And the boats can't be that big to go back in that canal. If you go up in that canal with a big boat, you can't turn it around. You'd have to back out. The other thing is if I would think if we pass the law that we can have one-third, one-third, one-third, with a 20-foot navigable waterway in between, and if there is somebody that needs to come out, that needs to have a variance a little bit, a foot, foot-and-a-half, that we could see that and help them out. I mean, that's what we're all here for; that's why we're all humans; that's why we try to help each other out. The neighbor across the street from me, I would love to help him out as much as I could, and him me. And I think that's what makes good Americans, and that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. LeMasters. MR. DUNNUCK: Steve Jones followed by John Shepard. MR. GOCHENAUR: Mr. Chairman, if I could just interject something here for that gentleman. It's been the planning department's policy that any dock that can be demonstrated to have been on the property appraiser's card prior to 1990 or for which he can present any substantial evidence existed in the same form it does today prior to 1990, we consider legal nonconforming. So if he hasn't taken the opportunity to try to find something like this, if he could submit that to us, to me, we'll run it through the building department, and that could be a legal nonconforming dock. And that applies to all the docks on this or any other waterway. So Page 57 January 9, 2002 there may be some docks out there that could be considered legal nonconforming by our standards. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I hope when these people come in that you ask all these questions so that the impact on them will be as less as possible. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. I'm hoping that anybody who's not aware of that we can make aware at the time that they come in. We're not going to take their money unless we absolutely have to. We're going to make this clear to them what their options are. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Sir? MR. JONES: For the record, I'm Steve Jones. I live at 2441 Clipper Way. For once -- I've been up here a few times already, and for once I actually had several pages written out that I thought I could work through in my five-minutes time. And that's probably all gone by the wayside with staff's recommendations of the changes that they want to make to the Land Development Code. It was my understanding also at the last couple of meetings and going back to the Planning Commission meeting that staff was going to work with us. And I don't think that there was any -- in Mark's defense I never heard anyone say, "Mark, you need to work with the staff on this." This has been a community problem, and we worked with it as a community and tried to deal with our neighbors as best we can. There again, I don't think anyone ever thought of a tax issue, and for that maybe I should apologize. What I would like to see is a copy of the staff's wording. We were never provided with that either, and I think that's a fair request to have a copy of that. Going back over, I believe, it's been approximately a year ago that Ross can testify to the fact that not only myself but several of my neighbors met with Ross and tried to Page 58 January 9, 2002 bring this issue to light then and tried to get it all settled in a timely legal fashion. And for whatever reason that never happened, and Ross was kind enough to call me back on a couple of occasions and let me know that it had been turned down or for whatever reason. I think the general consensus of the neighbors out there is that we also would like to see it settled. If further changes need to be made, then it would need to be done at a later date. In my opinion, like I said, there again, I would like to see staffs wording of this recommendation. That's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MR. DUNNUCK: John Shepard followed by Bill Powers. MR. SHEPARD: Good evening. My name is John Shepard. I live 2261 Clipper Way. I live on the south side of the canal. I lived there for about a year. I do not have a dock at this time, but I feel it's important that this decision is definitely going to affect me and the people that do not have docks at this time, more so probably than the ones that do. Since I moved in, I was told that there's going to be a code change; there's going to be a code change. So I patiently waited for the code change so as to build my dock when the new code change comes out. Well, I guess this is going to be the new code change. At least I'm hoping this will be the new code change. Okay? Some people didn't. I'm not talking about the people who built these docks 22 years ago or anything. I'm talking about the ones that recently did this, okay? I guess my No. 1 concern tonight that I'm here is people blatantly violated this thing recently. Not everyone, just a very few people. And I feel that they tried to get a bunch of other people involved in it to make their docks conform for one or two people that have blatantly violated, and they are trying to get you guys to make a decision to help them out and bring everyone else on to their side. Page 59 January9,2002 I don't think this ought to be on sides. I think it ought to be a very simple solution to the whole problem that everybody can live with, okay? I just want to make sure tonight that certain people aren't grandfathered in because certain people told me that's the reason they did certain things was to be grandfathered in. I don't know how that works, if there is such a thing as grandfathering someone in who's done something recently, or what have you. Otherwise, I'd have jumped on the bandwagon and built my dock before tonight. And I'd a had what I wanted to. But I choose to do it the right way, and I plan on doing it the right way. My No. 2 reason is to provide what I think is a simple, fair solution to the problem which, in effect, is one-third, one-third, one- third. Twenty feet during the actual center of canal, okay? I'm not as good as Mark Morton. I can't write anything. I drew a picture, okay? And I do have copies of these right here I can pass out real quick. But I think providing a footprint, you know, that a buildable area where I can build a dock, and my boat or my dock cannot protrude past this area is what's going to be fair. And it's the same on both sides of the canal. You got to understand that this is Naples here. Our property values are going up day-to-day. And, you know, eventually there's going to be teardowns in the neighborhood. Yeah. A lot of these peoples have lived here forever, and they want to stay here, okay, Coconut River, but eventually the property's going to reach a level where someone's going to sell. And the new people coming in might not agree to the agreement that the previous neighbors had. So you need to have something that's going to last. I mean, otherwise, you're going to be right back in the same boat doing the same thing, you know, five years from now, okay? Once again, like Ross Gochenaur said, a safe waterway is a straight waterway. You can't be zigzagging up and down a canal, especially at a slow speed, okay? Page 60 January 9, 2002 That's my simple solution is that, but, you know, then there's also an issue of the water depth, you know. People saying that this might need to go out further to get the boats to float or what have you or anything like this. But I look across the canal at my neighbor who supposedly lives on the deep side, and it looks to me like he's just as shallow as I am on the south side. So apparently I live on the shallow side, but I can't tell the difference. Mariners for years have been basically working the tides to get out, and that's going to continue to go on. In closing, I just hope my solutions are clear with the pictures rather than wording. And most of these people want to do right, and I think the one-third, one-third is going to pretty much set everyone straight down the canal, outside of a few people. And I just want to be sure that certain people aren't given an award for violating the rules that I'm going to have to follow that I waited to follow, okay? That's all I said. Do you have any questions of me? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You did a great job on that, and that's pretty much what we are going to adopt. That's what I understand, a third, a third, and a third. COMMISSIONER FIALA: One picture is worth a thousand words as they say. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good. MR. SHEPARD: Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Bill Powers followed by Stefan Loeffler. MR. POWERS: Good evening. Bill Powers. I live at 2488 Long Boat Drive. If I may, my next door neighbor sent this and asked if I could read it if that's all right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: however you like there. MR. POWERS: (As read): It's your time, sir. You can spend it "Dear Commissioners: I would like Page 61 January 9, 2002 to request that this letter be read by Bill Powers. Thank you. My name is Gene McDonald. I'm sorry I can't attend, but I have a dental emergency. I'm a retired high school teacher from Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and a retired Division 1 college baseball coach at LaSalle University in Philadelphia. My wife and I own a home on Long Boat Drive with a dock and a permit. Regarding the water out back, I would like to see 20 feet of straight channel to the Gordon River, 10 feet each side of the middle. A safe channel is a straight channel. Everyone should have the same rights." Signed -- you may have this if you like. My hope in this matter is that everyone on our canal have an equal opportunity for dock and boat lift space. I also believe that a straight channel down the center of the canal should be maintained for navigation. Though he cannot be here tonight, another of my neighbors, Dr. Brian Walker, told me that he supports a 20-foot channel down the center of the canal as well. The concept of being able to float a boat -- well, the canal is shallow everywhere. At very low tide I show almost as much canal bottom as my neighbor across the way. If you have to dredge, that's life. The actual waterway width measured at mean high tide varies. The channel for navigation should not vary, and, in my opinion, should be maintained at 20 feet with no exceptions. Failing to obtain a permit or installing docks and lifts where a permit could historically not be obtained is one thing, but any found in violation of the final -- there's a question mark there -- version of this code should be made to make changes to come into compliance. I don't believe that one property owner should have the right to dictate what his neighbor across the canal can build. Several times I've read the code, I've failed to find a passage that reads, "He who first violates is first served." Page 62 January 9, 2002 I was a part of the delegation that met with planning staff, Mr. Gochenaur, earlier last year concerning the unfairness of the code for those living on the south side of the canal. I'm on the north. Staff rewrote the code to give everyone the same rights and privileges. I thought they did a fine job. The past cycle these were voted down for some reason. So here we are. As I said before, I wish only equality for those on the canal. Some of my property's in the canal. Property lines on the north are receded from, you know, out into the canal. I don't wish those with larger backyards, some of those on the south side, end up with docks bigger than I can legally build. And that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MR. DUNNUCK: Stefan Loeffler followed by Hans Loeffler. MR. LOEFFLER: For the record, my name's Stefan Loeffler. I reside at 2392 Long Boat Drive. Good evening, Commissioners. Right now I'm one of those property owners that just recently built my house on Long Boat Drive. I don't have the money right now to build a dock. I've got a dock across from me which basically protrudes out to the center or almost to the center of the canal that will limit me later on, if that dock gets a chance to stay, of building a dock. And that's not the reason why I bought this property in this nice neighborhood not to have access to the water. I suggest if the code will be amended to go with the 33, 33, 33 percent rule measured from mean high water to mean high water or the actual canal width with a minimum of 20-foot straight waterway down the middle measured from the actual center of the canal. This amended code is going to be a standard for the entire community, so we should keep in mind that only a straight and wide enough canal is going to be a safe one to navigate. One thing overlooked in this entire issue between Long Boat Page 63 January 9, 2002 Drive and Clipper Drive is the actual problem. It's really not a boat dock issue. Most cited docks or a lot of the cited docks are actually built to code or to the standards prescribed in the old code we had. Homeowners were just acting in good faith either having built their docks with respective dock builders assuming they would get the proper documentation, proper permits and so on, which apparently they didn't, or bought existing homes on Long Boat and Clipper Drive with existing docks not having the permit and not checking into it far enough. The actual problem that we are facing right now are boat docks and lifts which were built recently -- somewhere around August of 2001 -- that protrude into the canal so far either to restrict other homeowners from building the same size structure in that canal or restrict safe navigation of the canal. Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I really don't want people to lose their docks or be penalized for an act they did in good faith, meaning people who bought houses with existing docks or had a dock builder come in and build the dock assuming they would do the right thing. But if someone knowingly and intentionally violates the code, constructs a boat dock and/or lift after being told they can't obtain a permit for the structure, and then comes up with reasons like it might be more expensive for me to build a dock to the specs, or just didn't want to go that route, don't want to comply to current code, and things of that matter, should not be rewarded with having the code changed to his wishes and be allowed to keep this illegal structure. I cannot emphasize enough that all homeowners on the north and south side should have the same equal right to have the opportunity to construct a dock and lift of the same size and nature and have the same amenities in that community. I hope that the County Commissioners will come to a conclusion to protect the people in this community that they will have the equal right, and we Page 64 January 9, 2002 all can come back together again and be a community like we used to be. I have one thing to add. It was said several times tonight that we all worked on this proposal as a community. I, myself, can say that is not true since I and several other members of this community have been excluded from meetings to work toward this proposal. But I am for a 33, 33, 33 percent rule. Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Hans Loeffler followed by George Seger. AUDIENCE: I waive. MR. DUNNUCK: George Seger followed by Peggy Jones. MR. SEGER: George Seger, 2489 Clipper Way. Good evening. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Good evening. MR. SEGER: We were very proud and happy to move into our house on Clipper Way five years ago with our dock. I'm not one of the ticketed people as far as I know. Our canal is a very small canal, but at the same time it gets very tight. And people have built docks recently. There have been -- well, right from the start when we moved in, there were docks that were very tight to begin with just before a turn. So I don't know if they were permitted or not; that's not my place to ask. But we've always been able to get through even when they've had boats on each dock. There are still navigable water. There is not 20 feet of navigable water in that particular spot. We've got two turns to get out into the Gordon River. The water is very, very shallow in that area, so we have to swing very close to the shoreline to make it through this area. I'm hoping that the ordinance -- I have not seen it, but I hope that it is equitable to all. And I just want to say that I love living on Clipper Way. I like the river. There are some problems, but they are very, very small. We are a very close community, and we enjoy each other, and I'm sorry there is some dissent between neighbors. I'm sorry about that. I wish you well. Thank you. Page 65 January 9, 2002 MR. DUNNUCK: Peggy Jones followed by Linda Follmer. MS. JONES: Hi. I'm Peggy Jones. I live at 2441 Clipper Way. I'm on the south side. I would like to say that I can't remember exactly the date, but before Christmas they did have a neighborhood boat singing thingy, and there was at least four boats, I believe, maybe three, but there was no lights in that canal, and those boats, I know, passed each other at our dock. And they went down to the end and turned around, and they were all on that waterway at the same time. And they had children on those boats singing. So I would think that if it is a danger that they wouldn't have had the kids on the boat in a dark waterway singing Christmas carols or whatever. They were there. They asked that we as homeowners go out and, you know, applaud the kids and let me them know that we support them and appreciate their singing, which I did. I'm sure they didn't see me, but that's immaterial. But there's a lot of places on that canal even coming into the canal from -- oh, by the marina and over in -- behind the airport in that area. You can't go straight. I don't personally navigate our boat because I'm not going to answer to the captain for a broken prop. But I guarantee you that in some areas if you go straight -- and one area is, I believe, if you got him up here and he even has the prop, he can show you. It kind of looks like a handle now. There is areas in that waterway that have rocks, whatever. The area has changed because of growth. When we bought there, it would take approximately -- I don't know -- 30, 35 minutes to get out to the Gulf. We always try and leave before nine o'clock so we can get out before the no-wake zone so the manatees are safe. However, things back there have changed even since Nature Point came in and they started building there. That was a full -- well, if it wasn't, I don't know why the sign said, "Resume safe speed," and Page 66 January 9, 2002 if you go by that sign real close, you'll hit there too. But that is all idle zone now, so things do change in this community. And you can go back and see pictures where Coconut River Estates didn't even So there's got to be change with growth and just the way things exist. are. And Collier County is -- you know, I'm very proud to live here in Collier County and in Naples. And when we have guests here they talk about how everything's manicured and everything. And we take great pride in our neighborhood, and we're not -- some of us are not in compliance, and some of us are in violation, but we're not wanting a crown or an award for doing so. And like was mentioned before -- and I've been very confused -- that I was one of the ones that went over to the county building thing and talked and was -- I didn't talk -- but was there when Ross -- when they met with Ross, and he took them in the conference room. And he said he could sympathize with our situation and that he would try and work and get this changed last year. For some reason it went through the planning and then to the commission and then it didn't go through the second time. But that's neither here nor there. There's a lot of things down here that confuses me, and I just can't understand where -- last year you're going to work with somebody, and then a year later you're completely against somebody. And like I said, there has been changes back there. We can't go normal speed back behind where Nature's Point is. And there is going to be change, so, whatever, and I have no qualms of paying the taxes or whatever kind -- whatever, but I'd like to see it changed. Thank you. Bye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mrs. Jones. MR. DUNNUCK: Linda Follmer followed by Harry Field. AUDIENCE: Waive. MR. FIELD: Hello. My name is Harry Field and I live at 2585 Page 67 January 9, 2002 Clipper Way. Again, I'm on the south side, and if you saw the paper this weekend, my boat was the one on the left-hand side kind of high and dry. I understand and respect the amount of work the staffs done in researching their part of this amendment, but I also ask that you consider the addition that Mr. Morton has written up with the help of the rest of community. For example, if this went into effect and the addition recommended by our community was not a part of that, I'll own a really great mud hole behind my house because on the north side of the canal from me one lot to the west is an open lot, one of the few open lots left on Long Boat. And if a dock were to be put in within the guidelines suggested, well, we couldn't do that weaving thing that we wanted to do because of the nature of the waterway in my area, I'll be completely locked. A dock in compliance as proposed will block out my only means of access to get out. I have to hug that canal to get out as it is now. So the No. 1 reason I bought the house that I bought now and not somewhere else -- it's a great community, really nice people, but I bought it so I could use my boat there. And, again, if this isn't part of the consideration, if someone builds on that piece of property, I own a house with a really nice mud hole behind it. So I ask that you consider that, and thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MR. DUNNUCK: B. J. Boyer followed by Dick Leyden. MS. BOYER: Good evening, B.J. Boyer from the Vanderbilt Beach Association. And I've been here several times over docks in the Vanderbilt area. I know that I'm not a stranger to you. After the December 19th meeting, we did, another board member and myself, met with Ross and we did go over some of the wording. The main thing that I have been trying to change since last May or June is the word "adjacent" or "abutting" or whatever and go Page 68 January 9, 2002 back to the word "surrounding" as it was in the code last May. As you remember, we took a long time and many hours in trying to get docks in the Vanderbilt Lagoon reduced from 60 feet, and the main thing was because a neighbor could not -- I mean, the dock would have gone right across their property. So that was the purpose. If that word "surrounding" wasn't in the code at that time, we would not have had a leg to stand on. Now, when we met with Ross and he came up with the word "neighboring," I thought, okay. You know, I'm thinking neighbor, surrounding, whatever. However when I did take it up with some other people, "neighboring" means the same as "adjacent," "adjoining," "abutting," "bordering," whatever. So I know that they meant well by saying "neighboring," and I like to think of neighboring as everybody within so many feet. But I know who gets up here and talks about the meaning of words, and I know "neighboring" is going to mean the same thing as "abutting," "adjoining," "adjacent," whatever. So even though I agreed with Ross when we were meeting with him, after someone else points out to me the true meaning of neighboring, then here I am again. So is it possible if they use the word "neighboring," can they have it within so many feet, like it should not impact properties within so many feet? I mean, maybe that would take care of someone that is across the canal or across the lagoon or whatever. Ross, I don't know, I mean... MR. GOCHENAUR: The term "neighboring," "abutting," "adjacent," "next to," "surrounding," property owners is in relation to the effect of the dock that's proposed on the view of nearby people. We originally wanted to use "abutting" because we felt that the property owners on either side of the lot where the dock was going to go would be the ones affected by the view. Page 69 January 9, 2002 View is very, very subjective. The broader the scope of people who can comment on it, the more input that you get; that is very hard to analyze objectively. After meeting with n.J., we compromised on using "neighboring" because it's a broader term than "abutting," but not quite so broad as "surrounding" where if you look at it, we're surrounded by everything else. Technically "surrounded" could be property owners on the other side of the street, property owners on the other side of the canal, property owners on the other side of the subdivision. We felt that "neighboring" was a reasonable compromise to give people most affected by the proposed dock an opportunity for input. I thought that was fairly clear what the intent of that was, not as specific as "abutting," but not as all encompassing as "surrounding." When B.J. let me know that she decided that word wouldn't work either, my response to her was that I would leave it to you, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Gee, thanks. MR. GOCHENAUR: I would recommend our language as I always do as a compromise, but if you have strong feelings -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think Commissioner Fiala has the answer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no. Not the answer, just a question. My question is: On the Vanderbilt Lagoon area, when I went out to take a look at it when they were having problems with the docks out there, there was this house that was tucked in the back, and they were building a gorgeous home back there. And somebody else wanted to build a 54-foot dock. But actually -- I bet he was ten houses down and way locked in the comer of the lagoon, had this 54- foot been allowed this guy would have never been able to manipulate around. And if these other five docks from a new condo had been allowed, he wouldn't even been able to see out. That guy in the back Page 70 January 9, 2002 of the lagoon, is he a "surrounding" or is he a "neighboring"? MR. GOCHENAUR: It depends on how close to the property -- what we're trying to do is solicit input from people who are truly affected as opposed to people who either don't like a dock or a boathouse -- and some people don't like them on principle -- or people who simply don't want to see it from across a waterway. View is very subjective. I would call that "neighboring." COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it's a matter of interpretation? MR. GOCHENAUR: Basically. It's very hard to be objective when you've got something as subjective as view. Again, we felt "neighboring" best described people close to the dock and most affected. MS. BOYER: Ross, honestly, there are some pretty sharp people that come up here and speak against some of the things that we don't want or do want. And I say that an attorney would take "neighboring" apart. MR. GOCHENAUR: Well, view is easy to take apart, and that's part of the problem. That's why we're trying to look for more objectivity here. The whole purpose of revising these criteria was to make things easier for the Planning Commission to analyze. The vaguer the criteria, the harder it is for them to come to a decision. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mrs. Boyer, I'll allow you one more response, and we're going to have to move on. One more question. MS. BOYER: Okay. Well, then since the notice has to go out to people within 300 feet of this variance of a dock extension, then could the people within 300 feet be considered "neighboring"? I mean, could that wording be put in there? MR. GOCHENAUR: If we do that, we avoid the intent, because people on the other side of the street are going to be within 300 feet of the property. It is very hard to get too specific with something like this. We want the people who can actually see the dock and be most Page 71 January9,2002 affected by it. The people most affected are those on either side, their diagonal view. As you go further on either side of the property, if you were on a canal, I would say the neighbors on that water frontage from one end of the canal to the other end of the canal would be considered neighboring. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I help you with this? MR. GOCHENAUR: Certainly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When it comes down to the end and decisions are going to be made, these things will all be weighed at the time the decision will be made if you have somebody raise an objection; correct? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the closeness of that person would have preference over somebody that was a half a mile down the canal; is that correct? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would say, Commissioner, it involves the word do they have standing, and you're not going to write an LDC that answers every question. If you put "surrounding" in there, there's enough lawyers that will pick that one apart. You can put "neighboring." You can put "who shot the moon," and they'll tear it apart. I think we're having a semantic, in all due respect, Ms. Boyer, that "neighboring" will work, because the ultimate decisions go through the system and probably end up in some commission's lap where they will have that opportunity through the guidance of legal counsel to determine what in the hell does "neighboring" mean. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can tell who's the senior member of this group, right, as far as time spent here. Mrs. Boyer, I thank you very much for your input. MS. BOYER: You're welcome. COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, can we take a Page 72 January 9, 2002 break to switch out court reporters? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Certainly. We'll take a five-minute break. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hope you remember what you were going to say. MR. LYDON: I've had a lot more time to work on it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may begin. MR. LYDON: Oh, all right. I'm sorry. I was looking for somebody else. For the record, I'm Dick Lydon. I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association, which task will end on the 15th of January, and I hope I shall not be down here bugging you quite as often in the future. Let me see if I can get one little thing straightened out here. Ross just made a statement that really bothered me. He was afraid if we got surrounding people to be involved in this, or some other terminology, it would be difficult because others might WO1Ty about the view, and it would make it difficult for the staff. That's right. Make it easy for the staff. To hell with the public. Let's get down to the point where we're doing business with our customers in this county. Let's do business with our customers. Our customers are the voters, those of us who pay taxes. And I think this could be easily solved. Abut we didn't like. Neighbor means the same as abut. Why don't we just say within 300 feet? That takes the whole thing out of it. It makes it real simple. And that way we can take it up to the next meeting, because we're going to redo the Coconut Creek operation two weeks from now. I reckon between now and two weeks we could get "within 300 feet" instead of "abutting" or "neighboring" or something else that the lawyers can have all kinds of fun with. You can't have much fun "within 300 feet." Thank you very much. Page 73 January 9, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Lydon. Next speaker? MR. DUNNUCK: That concludes your speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Questions from the commission? Mr. Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only concern that I have is going down there on Coconut Creek, one example would be somebody has a boat lift. They've got a dock. They have a boat lift, and they get into more than the third of it. Is the boat lift with a piling considered part of the dock structure? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm satisfied for what you have amended and brought forward to the Board of Commissioners, and I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Comments from any of the other commissioners? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't have any. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I made all my comments as we went. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion to approve from Commissioner Coyle, and a second from Commissioner Fiala. Anything from legal before we -- of course. There's always something from legal. MR. WEIGEL: No. I'll just say that as you approve these individually, as Marjorie Student indicated to you earlier, that you're making a finding of compatibility with the comp plan and things of that nature. And, Susan, unless you and Ross indicate otherwise, Page 74 January 9, 2002 they can either go through this exercise for each one of these -- we did it with the Vanderbilt RT district moratorium -- or we can make sure that it is appended at the end to apply to all of the ordinances that are approved tonight. MS. MURRAY: It's probably easier and more clear to the public, because those interested parties will walk out of here knowing your final decision, if you make that now, so that's my recommendation. MR. WEIGEL: So with your motion you should include the fact that you're making a finding that this is compatible with the Growth Management Plan, with the Comprehensive Plan. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, that was my motion. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whatever you said. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And certainly that was part of my second. MR. WEIGEL: Very good. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm glad we got that straightened out. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let's call the motion, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll call the question. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Five ayes have it. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FIALA: One-third, one-third, one-third is good. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One-third, one-third, and one-third. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's called neighborly. MS. MURRAY: I believe we're up to the residential parking section. Page 75 January 9, 2002 MR. DIYNNUCK: Right. The board can make a decision right now. We've got four speakers for the residential parking. We had late additions with the Immokalee initiative, where we have six speakers for that one. The board can make a decision where they want to proceed with it at this time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would think the Immokalee people have a long way to drive. We should probably hear them first. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If it would be all right with the board, the Immokalee issue, I think, is going to be a pretty cut-and- dry one, for the most part. Are they here? If it's going to be more than a moment, we're going to reverse the order again. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we just get started on this one? I think it's a real simple issue, and it's a matter of timing, when it's going to be implemented. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Maybe I'll do that, Commissioner Henning. Proceed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's do the parking. MS. MURRAY: The parking. Okay. It's Handout B; B, as in boy. And you'll see the amendments that were made are -- should be highlighted in yellow. And there are also some highlighted in red, but I will tell you that those were in your packet at the first hearing that you heard this on. And I want to clarify something, because I'm a little concerned. Commissioner Henning, you had kind of asked me last time, when we were talking about an implementation time frame, to find out how long it would take to build a driveway. And the impl -- the implication -- I guess what my concern was is that I thought maybe you-all might think that this is going to require somebody to put a driveway in. And this is going to allow individuals to designate an area outside of their existing driveway that can be either pervious or impervious. A driveway is impervious. Pervious would include Page 76 January 9, 2002 things like your-- it could really include, like, a stabilized subgrade with grass growing through some pavers and things like that. It could include rocks, gravel. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That wasn't the intent of my question. The intent of my question was what was the cost of it, because some families need to save up their nickels and dimes to do that, and that was kind of, like, a consideration of when we should implement it-- MS. MURRAY: I guess-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- in my mind. MS. MURRAY: Okay. I guess my main concern was I wanted you-all to be clear that this doesn't mean that for folks that don't comply right now -- and the time frame we have proposed is 90 days -- that they're going to be going out and building driveways and that will make them comply, because as it's drafted, you can comply with pervious surface area, which includes things like gravel. And I'm not sure if that's what you -- I just want to make -- make sure that's clear to you, that it includes both pervious and impervious surface areas. Okay. On the first page, you'll notice highlighted in yellow, we also felt that you did not want this to apply to residential structures in the estates zoning district. And to that end, I've added that this shall apply to automobiles stored in connection with residential structures which are located within the mixed-use urban designation of the Future Land Use Map. That should exclude estates, and that should also exclude agriculturally zoned properties outside of the urban area. And I took that to mean if you weren't interested in the estates, you would not be interested in the ag zoning district as well. Now, there are ag-zoned properties within the urban area, and I would submit to you that eventually those would be developed with residential structures at a higher density than they either are developed now or in the future they would be developed, if Page 77 January 9, 2002 undeveloped, with residential densities. So that was an addition. On the second page, I believe it's page 39, is the area I think you're most interested in, and that is the time frame. I added Section 2.3.5.1. And I have not run this by the county attorney's office. I don't want to put them on the spot, but in a -- in a nutshell what we've done is that nonconforming situations -- so in other words, when this regulation is adopted, you will create nonconforming situations out in areas such as Naples Park and Golden Gate City, I'll use as an example. And what is written in here basically says that nonconforming situations that were otherwise lawful prior to the effective date of this section of the ordinance shall comply with this ordinance or any subsequent amendment to this ordinance within 90 days of its effective date. And that was a recommendation, I believe, that Michelle Arnold was working on that was brought forward, and that's what we're presenting to you today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And staff doesn't have a problem enforcing that within that 90-day period? We have enough people to -- MS. MURRAY: I believe -- and I don't know if Michelle's here and wants to speak to it. But she has devised a preliminary plan whereby we would be going out and notifying individual property owners through various means, either through notification on utility bills or door hangers or whatnot. And I don't know exactly what her procedure is when she goes out and cites people for code violations, but I believe she does provide a notice and some public information before she actually writes a citation. she wants. COMMISSIONER HENNING: MS. ARNOLD: She said it all. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I'll let her speak to that if Said it all. Great. Page 78 January 9, 2002 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just had a question. Just to clarify, if the automobiles should be owned by the occupants and say, for instance, the occupants are illegal -- like, for instance, Michelle has gone out into an area that I serve which is called Naples Manor and found 12 mattresses in one area -- and each one owned their car and they were all occupants of that two-bedroom condo, then what? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. We are going to be bringing at your -- to you at your next hearing an issue that will address what you're referring to, the minimum square footage or the minimum occupancy so that-- that's a different standard that we would apply. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So now this occupant -- even though we have 12 occupants and they all own a car, are they all allowed to keep the car out there? MS. ARNOLD: Only if they meet the minimum occupancy standard that we're going to be intensifying at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But we don't have in place now. MS. ARNOLD: We do have one, but it allows for quite a few occupants, and we're recommending -- we will be recommending that we modify that, so it would reduce that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So back to this No. 5 then, so if those 12 occupants each have a car, they're all legal to occupy those 12 vehicles on this property as long as it's on, what? MS. ARNOLD: If it's a single-family residence, as long as it-- the surface is not in excess of the 20 percent of the front yard and they can fit all 12 vehicles on that 20 percent of the front yard, they would be permitted. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. What-- MS. ARNOLD: If they can't, then they -- they'll have to find elsewhere to park those vehicles. Page 79 January 9, 2002 COMMISSIONER FIALA: One of the -- one of the cute things that I saw was -- I mean innovative things; maybe I should put it that way -- innovative things that I saw, I actually saw a line of cars that were coming home that night, in another dwelling by the way, and they -- they were pretty neat. They just drove right across the front yard. They had a nice little path, and they drove right around and into the back yard, and that's, of course, where they parked their vehicles. They weren't out in front, so I guess they were legal there; right? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Because it wasn't front yard, and it really didn't look bad. You know, they all kind ofjust had a nice parking lot in the back. Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we go to speakers? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think we're done yet. MS. MURRAY: I need to make one more clarification. I apologize. Under Section 2.3.5 where I was talking about within the mixed-use urban designation, I need to clarify that and make sure that that is properties which have that designation, not within that boundary. It's a semantical thing, but it will accomplish what you directed us to do. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the wording is in here, or do we want to add it? MS. MURRAY: Yes, ma'am. I just -- I had it in there, and I just need to -- I had just added it. It's highlighted in yellow, and I just needed to verbally put on the record that I want to change it and make sure that it's clear that it applies to properties that are designated as mixed-use urban, not all properties within the boundary, because there are some estates properties which are designated as estates in the Future Land Use Map, but are within the boundary. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's true. That's a good Page 80 January 9, 2002 catch. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have six speakers; correct? MR. DUNNUCK: You have four speakers on this issue. Vera Fitz-Gerald followed by Loretta LeLeux. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald, Naples Park. The thing is that -- one thing is that -- our fear is that the time to conform will be watered down. We want to make sure that there's a specific amount of time to be -- to conform to this and that it isn't just going to go on and on and on like some things go on and on and on. I want to make sure that that happens. And the wording for pervious surface, that worries me because the front yard is a pervious surface, and it's just going to have a specific -- be specifically defined by something that this is the driveway? I wish that it would be more clear that -- that the area where you could park has to be a defined driveway, has to be defined some way. I'm not sure this wording is that specific. And when someone has to widen their driveway to accommodate all these cars, do they have to have a permit? I assume they do. And another question I have, this worries me about them driving around to the back yard. My God, if they can just turn around and drive around to the back yard, this is useless. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, if you-- they mentioned the fact that there's an ordinance coming out very shortly that's going to address the amount of people that can be in any one dwelling -- MS. FITZ-GERALD: I know. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- depending on square footage. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I know. But you know and I know and God knows that they're all going to be cousins when you get there, and they're -- all the cousins are going to have cars. Page 81 January 9, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: God works in mysterious ways. MS. FITZ-GERALD: So that-- those are the questions that I'd like to see addressed. And I'd like to know how well-defined this driveway is. I want to know if it means that they can drive around to the back and park in the back, and therefore, my neighbor behind me, abutting neighbor, is going to have a whole -- a parking lot in the back of the house. I need to know that they can't do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mrs. Fitz-Gerald, let's go ahead and get staff to respond to your questions. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: The first one, as far as defining the driveway, we've written that in here. That shall occur on specifically designed surfaces, but we can certainly clarify that. And I -- I would agree with that, that I think it needs to be clear that it's a specifically defined area. The second question, if I remember correctly, was whether or not people could drive around to the back yard and park. Yes, they could. This does not prohibit that. If you remember, the intent of this was to look at the aesthetics from the front yard and from the street, not from-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They can drive across the grass to get to the back yard? Just a question. MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I hope we wouldn't have code enforcement officers saying, "Well, don't worry about it. You can just pull your car in back." We want to correct this. We want to correct the neighborhood and the overcrowding. So we hope we don't try to get people to bend the laws. MS. MURRAY: And I didn't hear the third one. I'm sorry. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Well, the third one -- no, the middle one, Page 82 January9,2002 the second one was they're going to need a permit. And I saw a lot of head nodding, so I assume they're going to need a permit, so that's okay. MS. MURRAY: I checked with Johnnie Gebhardt this afternoon, and a driveway is not considered a structure. There's no inspections required, and you do not need a permit to put a driveway down. MS. FITZ-GERALD: So we'll never know whether it is proper, whether it's a proper driveway or not. MS. MURRAY: Well, the code enforcement would know when they went out through the neighborhoods, but no, not through the permitting process. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Okay. Well, I want to just tell the commissioners -- Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform you all -- that we'll have to be back in the next year in the next cycle so that we can eliminate back-yard parking. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, if it wasn't for that, we wouldn't have a job. We've got to always ensure there's something coming down the pike. I mean that as a joke, of course. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I really think that it -- nobody pays me to come here. I really think that -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You just did a wonderful job. You helped us to amend this to meet one part of it. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I know. But I would just like to see that back-yard parking is not allowed. You can't -- if you get driven off the front yard, you shouldn't be able to go around to the back. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know what the impact would be to that. I mean, I imagine there's people that have driveways that go around to the back yard or they park their boats, maybe their second car. Now, you know, we're going to have a problem with that too. I don't think you're going to be able to come to anything that's Page 83 January 9, 2002 going to be fair without really doing harm to those people that are abiding by the law with maybe just two cars and a boat. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Especially in the estates, I would think. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, no. The estates isn't affected by this. MS. FITZ-GERALD: No. They're exempt. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They're exempt because of the acreage. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think Ms. Murray has something to -- MS. MURRAY: I was just agreeing with you, Commissioner, that, you know, you have boat parking in the back yard, and there are paved driveways in Naples Park that I'm aware of that go around to the back yard as well. So, you know, we can take a look at that later if you so -- so direct us, but right now this was directed towards the front and the street. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Yeah. Well, please direct them that we cannot turn the back yard into a parking lot. We ask that. Anyway, and the other one was the time to conform. And Susan has written this as 90 days, which is fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Mrs. Fitz- Gerald. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest in the next go-round we look at that, get an assessment, see if that's going to be a problem. I think Michelle Arnold will be able to help us with that. See what happens with this for a while. And if we do get into back yard parking that's causing difficulties for any neighborhood, then let's look at what we might have to fine-tune it with. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think staffs been duly notified. Page 84 January9,2002 MR. DUNNUCK: Loretta-- MS. LeLEUX: For the record, Loretta LeLeux, Naples Park. The only concern I have about back-yard parking is because Naples Park, you know, is a grid area. So when you live on a comer, your back yard is very obvious to the street. I happen to live on a comer. My neighbor across the street parks a boat -- no, two boats and a car, and that's what I look out, which is really the front of my house. So it would be nice if I didn't have to look at a parking lot in his back yard, but that would be a concern mainly for the comer lots, because it's very visible to everybody. That's all. Other than that, I think this is going to be a big help. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker. MR. DUNNUCK: A1 Newman followed by Pat Lucci. MR. NEWMAN: Good evening, gentlemen, ladies. My name's A1 Newman, Naples Park resident for the past 10 years. Our biggest concern was with this pervious and impervious parking would get these people off the grass, get the ruts out of their lawns, and also cut the swale parking, which we have a lot of in Naples Park, as each one of you know. Now, with this back-yard thing that just came up, I can just see the ruts going back to the back yard, going across the front yard, going into the back yard, because none of our driveways go to our back yards. They go to the garage. So they will have to -- and we only have 7 1/2-foot setbacks. So if a guy with a big boat or something decides to put his boat in the back yard, he's going to have to acquire his neighbor's permission because he's going to be on his neighbor's land. And with a 7 1/2- foot setback-- a lot of the cars are a little on the big side, and there'll be ruts right up to the neighbor's line. And if it's a -- like somebody mentioned, a 12-car house, those 12 cars going in and out of that grassy knoll will be -- it'll be a mud hole. So I would like you to take Page 85 January9,2002 a real good look at if they are allowed a back-yard parking, have a -- some kind of impervious or pervious -- some way to get back to the back yard. Just don't let them drive across the lawn to get to the back yard. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That was just the question I was going to ask staff. If we're going to permit back-yard parking, is there a way we could require that pervious or impervious surface be required in the back yard and/or side yard for access to the back yard? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I add a note to that too? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Possibly it may be a rare occurrence where they're going to go to the back yard, but how about something where if-- in lieu of that particular surface, that the grass is maintained in a pristine condition that matches the rest of the yard rather than something that's rutted? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, and to add to that, speaking of Loretta's suggestion, possibly -- this house that I was telling you about, you really couldn't tell that there was a car back there. I mean, I just happened to watch them go back there, and they were in a line, and then they were done. The front of the place looked fine, and they had a fence all around the back so you couldn't see it. So I wonder if there's some way to block that from view, especially from a comer view. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And is there any way that we can have certain colors on houses, and they can't be pink or purple or anything like that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Only the even number houses can park on-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought those were the -- Page 86 January 9, 2002 MS. MURRAY: I think what I'm hearing is -- and let me clarify that. Right now back-yard parking is not prohibited. I think what we're anticipating is if people can't park in the front, they're going to park in the back. And can we amend the code to require some type of stabilized surface to access the back or something in the back? We could do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did you see any potential problems trying to do that? MS. MURRAY: Cost, time frame. I don't think 90 days is sufficient to do all that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Commissioner Carter had the right idea. If it creates a problem, deal with it then; otherwise, don't bother with it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see our code enforcement person there. MS. MURRAY: Why don't-- we could-- I'm sure Michelle will have some statistics on how this change in the ordinance has impacted parking in the back yard, and perhaps at a later date in time, we could bring that information forward to you. Or I'm certain the neighbors would be talking to you, as well, if they see problems as a result of the change in this ordinance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want to leave it where it is right now? It's probably the best way to try to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter is right on track with it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Next speaker. MR. DUNNUCK: Your final speaker is Pat Lucci. MS. LUCCI: I waive, agreeing with all of the above. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's all the speakers. Questions? Page 87 January 9, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARTER: I make a motion we approve the LDC amendment. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got a motion from Commission Carter, a second from Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: A hand up from Marjorie Student. MS. STUDENT: We always have to add in these, consistency with the comp plan. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And consistency with the comp plan. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's in your second also? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Five to zero, passed unanimously. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, if I might indulge just one moment, I would like to thank Naples Park and Vera Fitz- Gerald for one of the finest homeowner meetings I've ever attended as a commissioner, last night. We did it in the round, and they are totally ecstatic about the opportunity to move forward with the community development plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So we -- and I've got other information I'm sending to you, Vera, but thank you. It was a great meeting, and you -- we are proud. You've made us proud, Vera. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. I handed out a document to you that highlights Page 88 January 9, 2002 some of the changes that didn't make it in the -- the document that was submitted to you previously, and it was just something that was missed, but it was agreed to at your last meeting. And the first one is on the second page Section 2.2.29.2. We had agreed to change it from 6 months to 12 months. On the fourth page, the language in paragraph 5 -- there's some language in paragraph 5 that was stricken through. It doesn't change the -- the meaning of that paragraph; it just clarifies it. There's still a 12-month requirement for the removal of substandard units. And, again, there was a clarification in paragraph 7, and that information's highlighted in red in your document for you. On -- on the following page under roads and drainage, this lang -- there was some discussion about not requiring the connection to private -- the public road system if there wasn't sufficient system available for these. And I talked to our engineering staff, and it's being recommended that we add language to the end of the paragraph under roads and drainage to read, "Drainage shall be directed to a public road via the private road and/or easement conveyance, unless it can be proved that the on-site percolation rate exceeds the on-site retention requirements." So if they can provide on-site draining -- drainage, they wouldn't be required to connect to a system that's not there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Unless it can be -- say that one more time, would you? MS. ARNOLD: In their engineering plan that's required for the site improvement plan, if they can show that they can meet the on- site drainage requirements, they wouldn't be required to connect to a system that is miles down the road, so this would be a little bit more cost-effective. And then on the following page, on paragraph d, we had agreed previously to change that minimum floor area for mobile homes to Page 89 January 9, 2002 320 square feet. And then on paragraph f we'd agreed previously to change the double-wide width requirement to 45 feet. And finally, I wanted to identify the modifications that were included in this version in response to your recommendation to come up with phasing -- a phasing schedule, and that identifies a 40 -- a 54- month period for all of the projects, for the maximum amount of time frame for implementation for projects. And if you have projects that are extending beyond 18 months, you'll have to have phases identified specifically in your site improvement plan. And at each phase you'll have to identify in the site improvement plan exactly what you're going to have accomplished by that particular phase. And I didn't want to specify specific things per phase because each park is going to be a little bit different. So I hope that this meets the board's intent. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I believe we have speakers and Marjorie. MS. STUDENT: I just need to add something. I've discussed this issue with Ms. Arnold and also the county attorney, Mr. Weigel. There is a provision in Florida law, Section 23083 that talks about not -- government not taking any action that would result in the displacement of a mobile home owner without them having a place to go to. So there are a couple places where -- in this proposal where it talks about their violation, and if it can't be rehabilitated, they'll be removed. And I think we need to add some language to the effect that we have to comply, you know, with the state law on this, and we'll work with Ms. Arnold. And there are at least two places I see where this may be needed, in 2.2.29.2 and also in 2.2.29.4, paragraph 5. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That is a big relief to me, because that was one of the problems I was having with this whole process. If we make a firm promise that we are going to do something, then I Page 90 January 9, 2002 think we have met many goals in this objective. We're going to be bringing this subject up at the Immokalee meeting coming up later this month, this very subject and what we're going to be able to do for the residents there. Owners of the trailers and they rent the space on the lot, when their home is condemned, they have no other resources to fall back on and no place to go. And we'll start the process at that meeting seeing what the resources are within not only the community of Immokalee, but what we have within the county as far as our SHIP fund, our HUD funds. We have Fred Thomas available to tell us what he has, and we'll see what we can come up with in some sort of fashion that we can guarantee that nobody will be displaced. If we do that, I am very happy with what we accomplished here. MS. STUDENT: And that's not to say that we can't do code enforcement. It's just the idea that we know that there's an adequate place for the family or the mobile home owner to go to. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's only common sense, to follow that law to the letter -- that law to the letter of the law. And with that-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what would happen, then -- just out of curiosity's sake, what would happen if this person has bought this mobile home -- maybe I shouldn't be asking it now -- and they're still paying on it? I mean, it's a rattrap and nobody should be living in it, but they're still paying on this thing and we condemn it and it gets towed away, do they still have to pay for that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think at that point in time what we're going to be looking at hopefully will be low-cost loans for houses that will help offset the money they'll still be paying. I don't know how deep that situation goes, and hopefully the research will bear it out. But the idea is not to leave anyone behind. COMMISSIONER FIALA: If I can ever help you-- Page 91 January 9, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, thank you so much, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER CARTER: You know what? If it's a rattrap and it's a long time and it's not worth anything, you can walk. Who's going to sue you if you don't have anything to get? I mean, that's -- that's a private issue. But the probability of winning that one anywhere is like snowballs in a place where it's a little warmer than this boardroom. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know several attorneys through different organizations in Immokalee that will help get involved with such situations as you mentioned. Now we're going to -- unless there's some other questions of staff, I'd like to move on to the public speakers. MR. DUNNUCK: Vince Cautero followed by Jay Whidden. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't forget that little button we got. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Vince Cautero with Wilkison & Associates representing Brown's Mobile Home Park; Pete's Trailer Park, Incorporated; Betty Carter; Terra Mobile Home Park; and Robert Davenport. We just wanted to thank you and the staff for all of the change that were recommended to you this evening and the staff's hard work, including Michelle Arnold, and we urge your support of the changes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. MR. DUNNUCK: Jay Whidden followed by Pam Brown. MR. WHIDDEN: For the record, my name is Jay Whidden. I'd like to take a moment right now to thank you for what you just did on that state law and thank Michelle Arnold because she's done a wonderful job out there, wonderful job, her and her whole staff. I had wrote down some points here, and one of them is not particularly in the SIP process, but it was in some of the information I had gotten when it first came out. And part of it was the inspection Page 92 January 9, 2002 of a substandard -- what was considered to be a substandard mobile home. And one of the standards that was in there -- and I think Michelle can correct me or something here -- it said that the first person that -- occupying the dwelling had to have 150 square feet, and then every person thereafter was a hundred square feet. Is that -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. That's the minimum occupancy standard. MR. WHIDDEN: Okay. Minimum occupancy standard. I want to mention to you we -- you and ourselves and everyone needs to be very careful with this because in some of the situations, you may have a perfectly good mobile home as far as from -- from front to back. But you may have a mother and father and five or six kids, and it's only a two- or three-bedroom mobile home, so they would exceed that minimum. So as long as -- and it's not a structure that we rent out. It's where they -- it's a privately owned home. They may exceed that minimum. We need -- MS. ARNOLD: And families -- the definition of families is exempt from that provision. MR. WHIDDEN: Okay. Great. Great. I was thinking that maybe also a provision needs to be inserted that the park owner wouldn't come under any penalties if the implementation of this goes forward where, for example, the code people come out and they say, "Okay. This is a substandard mobile home." And if we don't own it, that's a privately owned home, and those people don't want to cooperate or anything and I have to take them to court -- because my only recourse is to take them to court. And if it takes me eight or nine months, I don't -- I think it would be unfair for me to be held to this -- to the time frame as far as -- as long as I'm in litigation. MS. ARNOLD: And if-- if there is litigation pending, we would suspend or, you know, hold off enforcement until that's resolved. Page 93 January 9, 2002 MR. WHIDDEN: Of course, you-all were talking about you're going to be out in Immokalee to try to find out where people can come up with some funding. That was one of my other questions. And that really -- even if you need to ask for volunteers -- we've got a lot of people from Immokalee over here -- we're willing to help find out where we can go get some money for these people to help them out. Replacement of a mobile home, I think it should be worded somehow in this that the replacement of a mobile home should not be held up because of an SIP that's being -- where the paperwork's in house, the paperwork's already submitted, it's going through its approval. And I had brung this up to Mrs. Arnold. In the case where you have a mobile home that bums down or something but it is a legal lot or it's a legal unit and it meets all the setbacks, the way it's worded now is we get rid of the -- the charred remains or whatever, we can't rent that lot back out or lease that lot back out because the SIP hasn't been approved. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Michelle, is that the way it reads now? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. That's my interpretation, that because it's a pending -- it's pending review. There may be situations where the desired replaced (sic) mobile home would not be able to be relocated in the exact position where it was removed. So you have to wait to see whether or not the plan would allow it before you issue a building permit for that replacement permit. Now, you know, possibly if it's -- it's clear that it's something that is going to be allowed, I don't know whether or not we could -- I'll -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What would be the downside of allowing it? MR. WHIDDEN: Maybe too close to -- to, like, another structure or something like that. It wouldn't meet the setbacks. Page 94 January 9, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. If it doesn't meet something within the requirements that are being presented to you tonight. MR. WHIDDEN: Another question I had was the impact fees. Where we are a rental mobile home park, where we rent lots, we lease lots out, as say -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Time's up. No, just kidding. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't stop. The impact fees are -- that's something that I'd have to hear from legal. I don't think that we have the ability to be able to be waivering (sic) them, you know, per se. What are the impact fees? MR. WHIDDEN: Well, about 4 or $5,000. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And this is for the lot or for the home? MR. WHIDDEN: -- I need clarification. It's -- as far as I know, it's for mobile -- for a I understood that if I take a piece of raw land and I clear it and I put a mobile home there, I got to -- obviously I got to pay impact fees. In the mobile home park business, the way it has been worked in the past -- say, for example, a family's going to move and pull their mobile home to Clewiston or something. Well, we had -- under the old provisions, we had six months to re-lease that lot without any impact fees. And sometimes it may take seven or eight months to lease the lot. Or you may be going through -- where someone abandoned the mobile home, you have to go through a legal -- you know, go to a judge to get it declared abandoned so you can get it pulled out. That may take six months. It may take seven months. So we may exceed that time limit where we would have to -- when we got ready to bring one back in, we'd have to pay -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in other words, if there's a mobile home on a lot with the impact fees paid, that as long as that home remains there or another one replaces it, there is -- there's no new Page 95 January 9, 2002 impact fees. MR. WHIDDEN: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But if the lot is empty and a new trailer comes in six months later, there's a whole new impact fee structure. MR. WHIDDEN: We had some clarifications where that-- what you just said is true, and then we had some clarifications from other people in staff that said that's not true. MS. ARNOLD: If they go through this process with the site improvement plan, as part of this program, the board waived the impact fees. So if-- once they get the site improvement plan done and they develop their plan -- or their park in accordance with their approved plan, they can replace -- there's no time limit on the replacement of-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: fees? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we waived the impact What's the other question? COMMISSIONER HENNING: When did we start doing that? MS. ARNOLD: As a part of this project, that was one of the policies. The board waived the fees, the impact fees. MR. OLLIFF: For replacement mobile homes. MR. WHIDDEN: Two more real quick. In Rule 5 it says if any tenant -- it says prior to approval of an SIP, they will identify all substandard mobile homes, and I agree with that. But in Rule 5, if any of the tenant -- not myself as the park owner, but the tenant -- refuses to grant them permission or whatever to come into their privately owned home -- as long as I'm trying to work with them, I'm submitting the paperwork, I don't think they should hold up the approval of the SIP, the site improvement plan. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know how we -- Page 96 January 9, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: And it shouldn't. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It shouldn't? MS. ARNOLD: No. MR. WHIDDEN: And the last one is any mobile home -- and I'm just putting this loosely -- that had bought -- somebody had bought a permit, and it was inspected. And now we go through this process, and they come out, and they say, "Okay. The rear of the mobile home is 2 feet too close to the property line." It obviously has to be moved up 2 feet. Whether it has to be moved up 2 feet or 10 feet, it's going to run anywhere from $1,000 to $2,000, depending on how far and who's going to do it, because it's not just moving it forward and, hey, go back to your life-style. You have to add electrical line in there, because you've stretched -- you know, you have to -- whole new electrical, whole new water, whole new sewer. And, of course, I understand it has to be tied back down to current codes today. That's -- that's no problem. But if it's -- if the mobile home is worth $6,000 or $5,000 and somebody has to pull it forward 2 feet or 10 feet and it's going to cost them $2,000, it might be cost- prohibitive. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Michelle, you're shaking your head no? I guess we got a lot of things wrong on this. Maybe we changed a lot of things that -- MR. WHIDDEN: Can I -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, a part of what we were asked to do is to bring these parks closer into conformance with the codes that we have on the books. So if we're going to allow them to keep it right where they have it, we're not changing anything. We would be just leaving the parks existing the way they are today, and we wouldn't need to adopt these regulations. MR. WHIDDEN: I understand what she's saying, and I just have a suggestion. If the mobile home is not substandard, it's a good Page 97 January 9, 2002 mobile home, and it's privately owned by that family and it's -- it is -- say it does need to be pulled forward 2 feet or 1 foot, perhaps maybe they can grant them an exemption until that mobile home is finally removed from the park. It's not substandard; it's just too close to the buffer zone. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we just keep it the way it is and not even have this amendment? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You mean not change any of them around; leave them just where they are placed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just forget this amendment. What we've been trying to do is clean up Immokalee. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're not going to forget it. We've got too much time on this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, okay. ! just don't want to give a lot of exemptions to this because the whole -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you. There's a limit to what we can do. But I want to see where we are on it, and I want to understand where it is from both ends. MR. WHIDDEN: Not -- Mr. Henning, not granted an exemption for the duration of time until the sun explodes in the sky. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand. MR. WHIDDEN: When that -- when that mobile home pulls out and when the new one comes in, it would have to meet the new standards. It would have to -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You mean the new mobile home, the one that was substandard, or just a mobile home? MR. WHIDDEN: No, sir. When you have a mobile home that's sitting on a lot and it's not substandard but it's too close to the buffer zone. MS. ARNOLD: I have a solution. Because we have phasing schedules, if some of those mobile homes that meet the minimum Page 98 January 9, 2002 standards will be removed eventually, perhaps that could be one of those last mobile homes that's moved and moved in the final phase of the development. MR. WHIDDEN: That would -- MS. ARNOLD: And so you would have to identify that on your site improvement plan, that this is one of those mobile homes that would be moved in that final phase of development. MR. WHIDDEN: I appreciate your time. You guys done a wonderful job. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So have you. Michelle has. Michelle, thank you so much for all the time you and your staff have put into this. MR. DUNNUCK: Pam Brown followed by Duane Wheeler. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mrs. Brown, how are you this evening? MS. BROWN: Tired from waiting. I appreciate you-all listening to us so well. I appreciate Michelle Arnold's help and the Planning Commission. And I'm basically here to say thanks for listening to us. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Duane Wheeler followed by Robert Davenport. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good evening, Duane. MR. WHEELER: How you doing? I'm glad you changed seats. I'm Duane Wheeler. I'm from Immokalee. I just want to tell Michelle and everybody on the zoning and on the board that you-all done a good job, that you've been working with us, and thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Robert Davenport followed by David Carter, who's your last speaker. MR. DAVENPORT: For the record, my name is Robert Page 99 January 9, 2002 Davenport, and I'd also like to thank you. The one concern that I have -- and we've -- you've got -- I have spoke with about it -- is the people that own-- I own a mobile home park, and I only own two units. The tenants own the other units. And I know I have two or three, so we have problems to get two or three corrected. But working on the funding problem to replace the substandard homes is going to be a big issue for us. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Your final speaker is David Carter. MR. CARTER: I'm David Carter. I represent my mother, Betty Carter. I appreciate you-ali's time and all, and I appreciate Michelle Arnold on what she's did on helping us. We got a bunch of problems solved. There are only a couple things I'm concerned with of replacing the substandard homes. When they declare one substandard, that it is replaced, if the people replace it -- or say I own it and I got a family living in this and I decide to put in a new home for them, to get the paperwork done and getting the inspectors out there quickly to get this rehooked back up, because I'm going to have a family. What are we going to do with them for two or three days that it takes to get this inspected on the replacement? That's a consideration that needs to be took in a little bit on this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So you've got a problem that goes over a period of maybe two to three days -- MR. CARTER: Yes, sir. Well, just like, for instance, my neighbor put in a mobile home in front of us, and he's going on a month now just trying to get his mobile home inspected, and that's what I'm bringing up. When we have -- when you-all declare one that's substandard -- say I decide to put in a new mobile home -- of the inspector or somebody kind of working quickly because we got families in these homes. They have no place to go. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, because of the Page 100 January 9, 2002 situation with the families, to be able to move in an expedient manner. And in the meanwhile, I don't know what accommodations could be made for these families during that period of time, but a three- or four-day period, I'm sure that something from Friendship House to Farm Worker's Village or some sort of accommodations could be made. MR. CARTER: Well, if this goes to where we can do, like, a couple of units at a time, from time to time we got a spare unit to where I could move them over there for, like, a week or something. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you have a schedule that you have to follow. MR. CARTER: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And, you know, how you work that is going to be with you and, I guess, code enforcement for that percentage of units back and forth. I'm sure you could probably come up with some way of doing it that's going to be agreeable to everybody. ! don't think that's a big problem. I mean, it's a problem, but I don't think it's that big of a problem. I think our biggest objective with this board is to make sure that we provide decent housing for everyone and that no one's without a house. And so it works -- I think we've made that clear tonight, especially with the state ordinance, making sure -- we're not even interpreting it. We're just putting it in there and going to follow it. I assure you when it comes to this, we'll make sure that whatever resources are available will be used to meet this need for that short duration. MR. CARTER: Thanks, you-all. You-all have a good evening. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: That was your last speaker. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. You know, it is very refreshing to deal with people tonight like we have been dealing with. Page 101 January 9, 2002 We have so many satisfied customers. It is extremely rare, but it feels good. MS. ARNOLD: And if I may, I appreciate the thanks that I got, but I wanted to extend the thank you to Dora Vidauri and her staff out in Immokalee as well. They've worked really hard on this as well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. I'll make sure I get a letter of appreciation out to her, too, in the name of all the commissioners. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And she's sitting right there. (Applause) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No applauding. Okay. Let's see. Do we have a motion on this? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Somewhere I missed something about impact fees. In all the material that I have, I somehow overlooked it. I just can't find it. So if you can explain that to me, what we are doing with impact fees. MS. ARNOLD: When we came to the board with this policy, the fees were waived for replacement mobile homes. And I think there was a finding that was made that it wouldn't -- because there wasn't an added impact, the impact is already there on the system, we wouldn't be making impact on the community's facilities; therefore, we wouldn't need to charge those impact fees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we doing that in all areas of Collier County? MS. ARNOLD: I-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No? MR. OLLIFF: No. That was a decision the board made specifically for the Immokalee initiative program. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, we do have other areas -- people live in mobile homes for a reason, is because it's Page 102 January 9, 2002 inexpensive, and that's what they can afford. Now, I heard Commissioner Coletta's comments about, well, we need to find some money to replace some of these mobile homes that -- that are not safe, and that is more money. And the impact fees are there for paying for infrastructure. If we're talking about CDBG money or whatever it is, that's taking it away from other areas in the county as being blight. And I understand what you want to do, but we can't take care of all the problems in Immokalee. We have the whole Collier County to consider. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll be honest with you. I think we can take care of all the problems in Immokalee, and I think we can realistically take care of all the problems through the county or Immokalee. It's approaching it one -- one situation at a time. And to throw up our hands and say this isn't doable -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not throwing up my hands. What I'm saying is the money that -- the $2 million that we get from the feds is for Collier County; it's not just for one area of Collier County. And if we're using that money to replace these mobile homes in Immokalee, we can't use it for lighting, like, in North Naples where they're considering using that kind of money for that area, or Golden Gate or parts of East Naples. That's what I'm saying is-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. I understand. Your observation is basically very correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, in order to support this amendment, I need to hear that we're not going to just focus all that money to Immokalee when that comes up. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can assure you of one other thing too. Each item will be coming up before us individually, and when it comes time to consider what we're going to do in Immokalee, I don't see it as being anything that's that -- I don't see new trailers being Page 103 January 9, 2002 bought per se. I see certain special types of loans being set up for these people to be paid back over a period of time according to their means, but it's not going to be draining all our resources. I'm sure this commission wouldn't allow that to happen when we got the whole county to consider. We haven't put anything in this ordinance that commits us to exact dollar amounts. In other words, we're not going to make gifts of dollars, if that's a concern. I'm sure what it is -- HUD money is generally put out in such a way that it's paid back over a period of time. They're special grants that come from the government. MR. OLLIFF: And the funding decision for the CDBG program is a separate one that'll be made by this board. And so the board, just like it did this past year when it looked at it for the first time, will review all of the applicants. I will tell you that I believe that the largest lion's share of the applicants this past cycle were from the Immokalee community, but there were a number of other applicants that were also from, I believe, the East Naples community as well. So I think the board's decision on how to spends its CDBG money is coming up later on in the spring, and that's a decision that the full board will have to make. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just wanted Jim Coletta to commit now. MR. OLLIFF: I know. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. I'm doing just fine, Commissioner Henning. I enjoyed that little exercise. Any other comments? Questions? Then I'm going to take -- that's my privilege to make this motion, that we approve this with anything else that's required as far as the Comprehensive Plan, that it complies with it. I'm sure Mr. Weigel's going to tune in in just a minute to say if there's something else we need to add to this. I'm making the motion to approve this. Page 104 January 9, 2002 MR. WEIGEL: you're doing a great job. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: apply for your job. Not really. Right. And even though I didn't hear it, I think Thank you very much. I'm going to I wouldn't want it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Consistency with the -- MR. WEIGEL: Do you have any question at this point other than the motion to approve with the compatibility of the Growth Management Plan? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's my motion. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion from myself, Commissioner Coletta, and a second from Commissioner Fiala. Is there any other discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anyone opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have four in favor and one opposed, and the one opposed is Commissioner Henning. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: I believe you have two registered speakers on the access management issue, which is page 90 of your handout. And either Dawn Wolfe or Norm Feder will be here to cover those amendments. MR. FEDER: Page 91, you've got some language that basically is looking to clarify that when we have a development that comes in Page 105 January 9, 2002 and seeks rezoning or establishes via PUD, a planned unit development, that at the time that they come in, they are providing very general information. They are identifying that on a tract of land, they're asking for a level of density relative to, in some cases, 1 of 18 to 20 uses, one category; and if it's a mixed-use PUD, as well a percentage of the land to be used 1 out of 8 or 9 uses. So the specific use on that land, what will be used on it, is not defined. Generally a level of density, but the traffic impacts and development that will come out of that is usually not very well defined, and we don't have impact statements. Beyond that, you don't have the information where on that property that activity will take place. And lastly, you don't have information on when, other than a five-year or, more recently now, a three-year period of time. What we're asking you to do is adopt the language as we submitted it to you. I just received some language that at least one of the speakers, Mr. Anderson -- I give him credit for being able to state the obvious, which is essentially that you have police powers, and we retain that and that you're going to go to three years on a PUD, so a preliminary concept for three years is still a statement of where we are today. We're proposing to you that we adopt the language provided and that you, as a board, direct staff to go back, look at each PUD, not only for the issues of access where there may be some need for refinement and to look at that and to get to the level of specificity -- in some places we have it, in some major DRIs and PUDs. In some cases we don't have any of that information, so they come back to you, additionally at that same, time allowing us to look at each one of those PUDs for the level of impact or to assess that level of impact if we don't already know; as well, look at any items that the county is obliged to address or the developer and itemize those, if they have not yet been addressed, so we know where we stand; all of that to Page 106 January 9, 2002 develop that baseline for your future checkbook, which we're going to be talking to you about later. If there's any questions after the presenters, I'll be happy to go into more detail. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I guess we go to speakers. MS. STUDENT: Okay. In Mr. Dunnuck's absence, he's asked me to announce the speakers. And the first is Bruce Anderson followed by Don Pickworth. MR. ANDERSON: Somebody left their medicine bottle here. Good after -- good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is that Prozac or what? MR. ANDERSON: I don't know. I didn't look long enough. One of the objectives during the zoning process is to evaluate impacts on our road system and attempt to alleviate or mitigate those, to the extent possible, by the design of the project and the location and the type of the access points. These access points and types of access are carefully reviewed, or supposed to be, during the zoning process by county staff and are subject to approval by the county staff, the Planning Commission, and you, as the county commissioners. Further, the location and type of access points can literally make or break a project and substantially impact property values in the project. Without some assurance of the acceptability of access points, certain projects wouldn't even be planned or zoned for the uses that have been approved in them. I appreciate Mr. Feder giving me credit for recognizing the obvious, that you -- the law does clearly provide that the county has ultimate control over the number, location, and types of access connections to its own rights-of-way; and that in the event there are changed conditions, in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, the county can change those access points depicted on a PUD master plan. Page 107 January 9, 2002 My point is there's already a procedure in place to do that in the Land Development Code. It's LDC Section 2.7.3.5, and it applies whether the property owner or the county transportation staff feels that the master plan needs to be amended to eliminate an access point. There are public hearing procedures to be followed to do that. At a time when the county is trying to encourage greater public participation in the zoning process, why in the world would we be taking plans that were approved in a public hearing process and are presently required to go back through a public hearing process if there are any changes, why are we proposing to cut the public out of that process and have it done simply in a staff member's offices? I would also remind the commission that you very recently shortened the time period for PUD sunset reviews so that the county can revisit and -- and revise provisions in the PUD, including access points on a master plan. I would point out to you that access points on PUDs are often negotiated with the county as part of the transportation commitments, and/or negotiated with surrounding property owners who have concerns about the PUD going in in the first place. Those PUDs should be honored and enforced. If you want to change the rules and apply this new -- this new requirement to new projects or to previously approved projects that are seeking an amendment or at the time of PUD sunset review, fine. But attempting to apply it retroactively is fundamentally unfair, and it's a breach of the PUD agreement that the property owner entered into with the county. Members of the public, including PUD property owners, have taken action in reliance on those access points depicted on the PUD master plan. If the transportation planning department is insistent about modifying the Land Development Code, we would suggest that they could integrate a review procedure into the recently amended PUD sunset provisions of the Land Development Code. The county is Page 108 January 9, 2002 going to be reviewing new PUDs every three years, and those that have not commenced construction on the third anniversary of their approval are ripe for modification of their PUD access points. I'd like to distribute some proposed language that would accomplish that. And I would just ask that if you want to change the rules, you do so prospectively, not retroactively, and that way when people come in for a PUD in the future, they and the neighboring property owners will know that these PUD access points that everybody was relying on, they can't rely on them anymore. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask you a question? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How does -- how does it take the public out of this process? How does it prevent the public from participating in it? MR. ANDERSON: Because now if you modify the access points on a PUD master plan, that is considered a change to the master plan that has to go, at a minimum, to the Planning Commission. This -- this would take that away. And when a-- an access point shown on a PUD master plan is modified, it doesn't have to go through any kind of public hearing process. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: Well, I believe that what I understood Mr. Feder to say was that PUDs would be evaluated -- and maybe I missed something -- but with the idea of bringing them back through for an amendment based upon transportation staffs evaluation and that there may be a need to revise the access point. MR. FEDER: Yes. For the record, Norman Feder. Yes, with a caveat, only where we have provisions in a prior PUD that have specific access conditions cited in them. And if we evaluate that and if, as in many cases we face continuously, we have very little data in support of those access decisions, then we would come back to you Page 109 January 9, 2002 and seek modification after working with the developer and any of their agents to try and evaluate it, and then bring it to you for consideration for any modification which, as is noted, is already provided for for either this board or for any agency of-- or department or division of county government to bring back recommended changes to a PUD. What we're facing is even in a development of regional impact where I have a situation where there's very extensive analysis of impact, far greater than many we faced in the past and are trying to work with with traffic impact studies now, even in those cases where I have that issue of knowing what will be placed on it -- because they define specifically what -- knowing exactly where it'll be sited on the property and knowing when -- because they've got phasing plans and a schedule of when they're going to develop -- even with all those provisions of knowing what, where, and when, every one of those, for at least the 15 years I've been around and dealing with them, has a citation in it that says access points are for planning purposes only and don't get determined until they come in for the access permit. Here I've got PUDs where I've got bubble diagrams, shows a bubble. This is basically what we're going to put in this area. They don't tell you what they're going to develop on that property. They don't tell you where on that property they're going to develop it, and they don't even tell you when. And we've had them updated where they got renewed automatically almost and -- I don't want to say that, but they got reviewed after the five years and reestablished and reupped. And then they come in and say, "On my bubble diagram, it shows that at least a quarter down, I've got an access point here and a median opening," which is not even a property right "and a signal. And if you look at a quarter down, I've got 800 feet of frontage," which I'm sure is not the case in any that Bruce is on, but I have a lot Page 110 January 9, 2002 of these that come in front of me. "Then, therefore, 200 feet down from that major intersection, I get a full median opening and a signal. It's my right." No, it's not. It makes no sense at all. We're trying to just state the obvious, that those aren't to be relied upon as access connections until such time as they come in for permits. Background conditions are changed, issues are changed, and we didn't know what was there. Who could have decided that issue to agree to access points and to those provisions? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me ask you a question, if I may. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If this was put into effect five years ago, how much of a -- ten years ago say, what kind of a change would we have seen out there today? MR. FEDER: I would hope that I would not be coming to you and where I have six-laned roadways and, therefore, have maxed them out and came to you, like I did in December, and told you I'm going to have to go back and recapture the capacity on those roadways because that's the only alternative we have -- I've already got the lowest level of service you can establish, I have no alternative corridor to establish, and I've already gone to my maximum lane standards -- I would show you Airport Road out in front of us as an example of some of those issues. We have folks coming in to us, and they already have the commitments of access everywhere down the line. They cannot give me general information and not want to give specifics because they need to work with the market, find out what it can bear, sell off to someone else after they get approval, whatever, and then expect me, the government, to give them specific commitments. That doesn't jibe. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're paying Mr. Feder money to be able to advise us, and his advice is we should be following -- if Page 111 January 9, 2002 someone followed it ten years ago, we might not have this problem today. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's what we're here to try and do, clean up the mistakes of the past; right? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a few questions. If I understood you correctly, you're concerned primarily with the retroactive nature of this -- this -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're not concerned that we're going to apply this for the future. I mean, you understand that we have the right to do this for the future, and it's not going to cause you any serious financial loss. MR. ANDERSON: No, because people will know what the rules are then. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, I understand Mr. Feder's concerns, and I'm -- I'm a little confused because I'm -- I'm not as familiar with the PUD process as I am about the PD process in the city. Now, you've presented developments in both places. Please refresh my memory. It seems to me that every PD I considered and voted on in the city was a complete development document, complete with architectural drawings, with elevations, and very detailed descriptions about what -- what this development was going to be. What I would like to find out is, why is it different in the county? And I guess I'd like an opinion both from you and from Mr. Feder. MR. ANDERSON: Nobody wants to touch that. MR. FEDER: Bruce, go ahead. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: I've worked for the county for almost 14 years, and in that time period I've reviewed every PUD that's come to the county, so I think I have an understanding of the way the county Page 112 January 9, 2002 does it. And what I'd like to explain to support Mr. Feder is in many of those PUDs, you might have an access point on a map, and it clearly says, in most all the PUDs, if not all, that that map is conceptual. So as being conceptual, it's just a general idea. It's not a specific anything with the idea that it can be adjusted later at site planning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But-- MS. STUDENT: Also-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you see, the advantage of a PUD is that you have an opportunity to negotiate with the developer to achieve something of benefit to the community. If you're trying to develop or negotiate from the standpoint of a document which is not specific and you have no idea of what it's going to look like and, in fact, it might not look like anything for three years, how in the world are you going to negotiate something that makes sense for the community? And -- and I guess what I -- I'm getting a little off the point here, but I think it relates to this issue. I think what we need to do is deal with the overall issue of PDs -- or PUDs and what we expect from PUDs, because then if the developer were to come forward with a PUD document that was, in fact, detailed, that did tell us what they were going to have there, that did provide us information for an accurate traffic analysis, then we could -- we could start dealing with things like access roads and interconnectivity and things of that nature. MR. FEDER: And a surety of when. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Is that correct? Is that a -- MR. FEDER: And surety of when. But even then in a DRI, it's hard to do that if you don't know the -- but obviously you'd have much more information than you have today, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so that's something we might Page 113 January 9, 2002 want to talk about in the future, but it doesn't address this particular problem. I can -- I think the system stinks. Okay. I think it's really bad, both from the developer and from the -- from the government's point of view, but I can understand why someone who comes in for what -- what has been traditionally a PUD and gets approval on it and says, you know, I've asked for three accesses here, why they have a reason to expect three accesses somewhere, maybe not within 600 feet of the intersection, but somewhere. MR. FEDER: I would submit that we have minimum access standards. They should have a feel from that as to what they will probably qualify for. They have, by state law, reasonable access, which doesn't even mean direct access, to their property. They've got a flame of reference to look at. But until they want to get specific as to what they're doing on that site, your PD analysis and some of those issues, how can anyone take a general item -- which is a PUD process as we use it here, which is really a rezoning, a list of permissible uses here and this list and this list -- and somehow from that come to an equation, well, I can agree to specific access points? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. But a PUD should never be used for rezoning, and I think we both agree on that. But so what you're saying is that they can come in and get a level of approval for some kind of a development. MR. FEDER: For the last year, we have not -- we have put in the provisions that Bruce is agreeing we should look at in the future, or you see language here. The issue at hand is a lot of the older PUDs that didn't have a lot of specific information -- some of them did. Some of them have that PD level of information, if you will. Some of them came out of a DRI process, but there's a mixed bag out there. We're faced, unfortunately, with people coming to us and saying, "The board approved this PUD that had this general map and, therefore, infers access points. We are granted and you have to give Page 114 January 9, 2002 us"; or in some cases, specific language, 1 10 feet and 12 inches south of this intersection will be a full intersection. What we're asking you to do is first of all establish language that makes it clear that unless there's a lot more information -- back to your PUD and the current PUD process -- that there's no vesting or assumptions there and cannot be with that level of information; secondly, directing us to go back and look at all the PUDs. And where we have some that have specific language, specific implications, look at it and see if we have enough documents to support it; or, as Bruce clearly stated, exercise the option to come back to you as a board and recommend to you that we modify that PUD document because there isn't enough information to have that level of "1 12 feet and 2 inches south of." COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we're getting closer. So if- - if-- if Mr. Anderson comes in or has a PUD approved, and he -- we want to change it, we want to say you don't have an access point, then what he has to do is come to you and identify the access points that he needs and-- MR. FEDER: As soon as he comes with a preliminary site, final plan, we're going to go through -- we'll know what's being built there, and we can answer those questions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then if you choose to deny him the -- the access points that he thought he was entitled to, does it come to us to make a decision? MR. FEDER: ! think he's agreeing that we can do that later on. But what I'm telling you, the reality is that -- the process is that people come in and infer that they've made commitments, reliances, and everything and, therefore, it's problematic if they don't get what they thought they got in the original PUD, with no information. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, I don't have a problem saying no to somebody if they have a very general -- general Page 115 January 9, 2002 plan, and they-- MR. FEDER: That's all we're trying to do here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But I do -- I am very much concerned that they have the right to come in and appeal to -- to this board to -- to deal with that issue. MR. FEDER: They do and they always do, sir. And, again, what I was saying is we would go back, look at those PUDs by your staff direction, bring back those that we think we need to modify that language. And at that time you'll decide if you agree with us in modification of the language or-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff, do you want to weigh in on this? MR. OLLIFF: Let me try and help a little bit. We believe that we have the right to make those access determinations today unless the PUD document specifically starts talking about distances and has specific commitments that the county made as part of that PUD ordinance. We're simply trying to get the board to confirm that because the language is not black and white in our Land Development Code. We believe already there was not a commitment made on those old PUDs about those access points. The development community will tell you they think those access points were granted as a right as part of that PUD. We don't believe that. We're simply trying to get you to verify and support the staffs position on this. On those few and rare instances where there's a PUD where it does specifically reference some access point with number of feet, yards, miles, whatever it may be, we'll continue to stand here and tell you that we don't think the board or the transportation planning staff had enough information to be able to make that kind of commitment. And we want to go back and look at all of those old PUDs and bring those back to you and let you know whether or not we still think that commitment's a good commitment or whether or not we think that Page 116 January 9, 2002 PUD needs to be amended to remove that commitment. MR. FEDER: Which, by your Land Development Code as was cited today, I could do at any point in time and bring to you. What we're telling you is we need this language. You need to make it clear to the community that this is the approach we're going, and then go back and do just that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any problem at all in going forward. My only problem is going back a little bit, and I just need to understand the process a little more clearly. MR. OLLIFF: And we're fighting this fight every single day down at Horseshoe Drive for every site development plan that comes in for an old PUD. They come in and show an old, vague map that was attached to a PUD approved a decade ago. That PUD showed tracts where a whole laundry list of commercial could be built anywhere within that tract. And then here's a multifamily tract and a residential tract and a couple of points where they're showing access points, and they're saying, "Measure that off. You committed to this." MR. FEDER: And we're sure they spent many dollars in engineering fees and the like, relying, quote, unquote, on those access points, assuming those access points, coming in and doing all that effort, and then come in and say, "You can't change it on me now." MR. ANDERSON: But the county can change it if they -- if they prove changed circumstances and base it on public health, safety, and welfare. That's all we're asking, that it have to be done in a public process. Here this won't have to be done, and it applies retroactively. If there's a way to get at the older PUDs in the PUD sunset review that I'll throw that out as an additional compromise, then let's make it automatic that if someone comes up for PUD sunset review and they get extended, then this new language applies, and they've lost any -- any right to claim they had reliance on that old -- Page 117 January 9, 2002 on that old PUD master plan. MR. FEDER: And that exists today. What we're saying is nothing different. Understand, we said, and we just went through with you, that we're going to come back to you with anything we would recommend change. That is a public forum. It's not something that's going to be done on Horseshoe without discussion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have any idea how many of those PUDs are sitting out there that we've got to review? MR. FEDER: The worst part about it is we need to review every one of them. If we're going to set up a checkbook system, we need to find out what commitments we have out there. I can't give you an itemized -- what those commitments are, which ones have been met, what the overall traffic impacts would be from those. Many of them we don't have traffic impact studies for, so we're going to have to try and do some analysis on them. We're going to have to do it anyway. As I pointed out, we could do it without this. But the Land Development Code ought to make it clear that the process doesn't -- the process isn't the ability to come in with no information provided, get commitments on access points, and then infer later that there's some responsibility on government to prove something has changed. I can prove everything has changed every time. The answer is, whatever they did, they didn't do the 19 of the 20 things they could have done, so they changed something, the one they choose. I mean, that's crazy. We're going semantics here, and the semantics tells me I can exercise police powers. That I have the right to change when it's in the code already or at the time it sunsets, which is obviously a provision made in there, is a nonstatement. The only thing we're saying is you cannot rely on access points in a PUD. We're going back and working through that process. Those people that have gone through, analyzed, got information, we can utilize that. We need to Page 118 January 9, 2002 look at them anyway, and that may be fine. There may be some modifications. We've had some that have gone through the DRI process, but there have been minor modifications. Even DRIs have that provision, for planning purposes only. There's a reason for that. And to use it for speculation to commit the inference of a signal and a median opening and access points is something that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't have to convince me that the logic is sound. Okay. I understand exactly what you're -- MR. FEDER: And as far as those in the past -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm just trying to make sure we apply it in a fair, fair manner. MR. FEDER: And what I said is we'll come back to you with any we propose change on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And-- and one -- I think it's one final question. When do you think you will know how many of these outstanding PUDs we will have to review? MR. FEDER: We're going to start going through the process. We have to set that baseline, as I said, for the checkbook. I will get some feel for it. I hope somebody has a better feel than I do for how many are out there and what's in them, and so that's why I'm saying -- asking you to ask staff, because it's going to be more than myself and my staff that's going to need to look at this issue. MR. OLLIFF: There's roughly a hundred that are zoned and unbuilt PUDs. Out of those I would venture to say very few of them have specific language in the PUD ordinance that talks about access points or transportation turn lanes or any of those other type commitments. Most of them are fairly vague and have map locations. If you approve what we're recommending to you today, we're not going to bring you all of those that are vague. We would only bring back to you those that have specific language that we think need to be Page 119 January 9, 2002 rereviewed. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff, if this passes, will we be sending notices out to all these PUDs in a short period of time so that they're not under the misapprehension (sic) that it's business as usual? MR. OLLIFF: That's part of the point of doing this, is to make sure that the development community has sufficient notice so that they don't think there's an overreliance on those access points on that vague PUD map so that they're going out spending money doing engineering design work based on that. So as soon as you approve that, we can certainly get into the mail information about this Land Development Code change that lets them know that so they don't rely on it. MR. ANDERSON: That notice, respectfully, should have been sent out about this hearing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got one more final, final, final question here. Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How and when can we go about the process of making PUDs specific? MR. OLLIFF: You don't have to touch that one. This is -- that's a decision for the board to make. And there are some -- some legitimate and good reasons why the process is the way it is, and we probably ought to let you go through that development review meeting that I think we're trying to set up for you. If the board wants to get into the level of detail that the city does when it goes through rezoning-type hearings, there are some additional up-front expenses on the landowner's part. And, frankly, it's going to take a significant amount of time on the board's part to go through, on every single rezoning, the level of detail that you're talking about at a PD-type level. The way our system is set up, it's vague with vague approvals up front. Specificity comes later. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With vague results. Page 120 January 9, 2002 MR. OLLIFF: Exactly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which bothers me. MR. OLLIFF: And there are pluses and minuses either way, but we want to walk you through that process and let you look at it. But the board would need to make some fundamental changes to the LDC in order for that to happen. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then we'll reserve the rest of our questions until after the last speaker. One more; right? MR. DUNNUCK: Your final speaker is Don Pickworth. MR. PICKWORTH: I don't have anything more to add. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, darn it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure -- and I've really been tracking with Commissioner Coyle on this. He's raising all the questions that have troubled me forever and ever, and that's how to get your arms around this thing. There's no vested rights here. We have the ultimate authority and control. That's the message and getting it out there. I want to find out what this bag of-- can of worms looks like. And if we have to make other decisions in that process, I am comfortable going there and saying, "Let's figure it out." But I also have a concern about new PUDs coming in. What level of expectation are we setting for people to do this kind of development? What are we saying to them so they don't end up saying, you know, what am I supposed to do here? MR. OLLIFF: We've been putting specific language in all PUDs ordinances probably for the last four months I would guess, if not longer than that, that specifically says access points, turn lanes, transportation-related issues cannot be relied on at the rezoning level, and staff has the prerogative to be able to make those kinds of decisions based on planning standards, models, transportation impact statements at the site development or the subdivision master plan Page 121 January 9, 2002 stage. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And can we -- then if we come up for a review of a PUD, can we not incorporate that same language in there and say, whack, here it is? MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely. MR. DUNNUCK: And I just want to add one little point. One of the things we did on the -- on the board's direction was when PUDs are now coming in for minor amendments, we're sending them through the full review. We heard that loud and clear from the Board of County Commissioners that we're not just going to review that amendment that's being proposed, but we're going to take a look at the entire PUD and kind of open it up administratively and give transportation the opportunity to take a look at the issues that they may have, because that's been a key -- key source of contention over on Horseshoe Drive, as Tom stated, for about the last year and a half. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions from staff?. Anyone care to make a motion at this time? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to accept -- accept this -- ordinance? Is that what it would be called? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Land Development Code change. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Land Development Code change. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Land Development Code change. And what are the proper words I have to add at the end? MR. WEIGEL: And that it's consistent with the comp plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And consistent with the comp plan. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion. Second? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from Commissioner Fiala, a second from Commissioner Henning. Any other discussion? Page 122 January9,2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just something I want to emphasize before I vote. I -- I can accept this thing only -- only if the petitioners have the opportunity to come back in and argue their case about why they need those access points. Okay. I want to make sure that -- that the public input is not going to be circumvented by this process. Is that a fair statement? MR. OLLIFF: If somebody's got an issue on a site development plan, do they have the ability to appeal the staff decision to the board? MR. DUNNUCK: Yes, they do. MR. OLLIFF: Then through the appeal process, I would tell you yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The appeal -- in other words, if-- the staff will make a decision. If the petitioner disagrees with it, then they can bring it back. Does it go through the Planning Commission before that, or does it come directly to the board? MR. OLLIFF: It would be an appeal of an interpretation. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. I might need a little help from legal on this, but I do believe it comes directly to you. If they wanted to appeal a site development plan, directly to the Board of County Commissioners? MS. STUDENT: Yes. I believe it would be through the interpretation process, and it would come to this board. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And at this point a hearing officer would not touch these. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. MS. STUDENT: At this point. COMMISSIONER CARTER: If what Commissioner Coyle is saying -- and I am getting assured-- then I can support it. But if this needs -- if this is going to take me down a slippery slope called "boy, are you going to pay for it," I can't go there, as much as I want this to Page 123 January 9, 2002 happen. MR. DUNNUCK: Susan, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's going to be two opportunities. I think in the cases where it's specific in the PUD and we have reopened it up, there will be a public hearing process. In the case of the site development plan review, if the petitioner wants to appeal a decision made by our staff, then they will be able to take it to the Board of County Commissioners. Either way they have the ability to bring it in front of the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Any other questions of staff?. Any other comments? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. But I'm glad Fred clarified that for us. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I am too. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5 to 0. Thank you. We're going to take a five-minute break. We'll be right back. (A break was held.) MS. MURRAY: I have -- I'd like to work from the three handouts, and then after that we'll go back to your regular packet. So if we could start with Handout A, what I'd like to do -- and the reason I need to call these to your attention is there were some minor changes made from the last time you heard them. And rather than go through each and every change, if they're substantive, I would just call your attention to them. If not, I would just read the section number that had changed, and you could stop me if you had questions. Is that acceptable? Okay. We're starting from Handout A, and this is Section Page 124 January 9, 2002 2.2.3 5. And the changes made here are to Section 2.2.3 5.2, and these are mostly clarification changes relative to what these regulations are applicable to. The next section that changed was 2.2.35.4, just some clarification language there. The next section that changed was 2.2.3 5.4.2. There are some substantive changes here in that we addressed roof treatments for buildings with different sizes of gross floor area. I'm not sure that -- you probably won't have comments on them, but I just wanted to bring that to your attention, that we broke those out, because there's some architectural differences between those sizes of buildings that needed to be addressed through these regulations. Section 2.2.3 5.5.1, just a clarification. Section 2.2.3 5.5.2 is clarification except for Item E, which is a new item. I don't think it's really new to you. This is something we discussed similar to the White Lake PUD area. It talks about industrial land uses which abut 1-75, and it clarifies that they have to have an 8-foot-high, unified, opaque masonry wall and landscape -- where the location of the landscape buffers are, so you're familiar with this. And then Section 2.2.3 5, just some minor clarification. If you don't -- if you have questions, I'd be happy to answer them; otherwise, we're done with that. And I don't know if you want to take these individually again, Marjorie, or-- MS. STUDENT: Susan, I think for the rest of them that we can just have one motion for the rest. MS. MURRAY: Okay. The next item would be Item-- Handout D. COMMISSIONER FIALA: D? MS. MURRAY: D, as in dog. And I need to make sure that you understand that this is the first reading of this item, that this item is Page 125 January 9, 2002 scheduled to come back before you on the 23rd of January. And as such, there will be a separate ordinance drafted for this item as well that will be handled on the 23rd of January. So we'll actually be sending two ordinances up to the state: One with all the information you adopt tonight, and the second one with the amendments that you make on the 23rd. And Stan Litsinger is here from comprehensive planning to go over this amendment. MR. LITSINGER: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. This evening we're asking you to delete the first paragraph in what will be many changes to your Division 3.15 of your Land Development Code over the next couple of months resulting from your direction to your staff, particularly relative to transportation analysis in the future and the concurrency impacts on roads, that you gave us on December the 18th. Specifically to summarize, what we're going to do today is ask you to stop through the elimination of an administrative process that was established by a policy decision about 11 years ago which provides the opportunity for any property owner to come into Collier County at any time and receive a concurrency indemnity, if you will, for any parcel of land for some proposed level of development by merely escrowing the estimated impact fees that would be due on that particular property at the time that a development permit was issued. The reason that we would like at this time to have the first reading of this change to the Land Development Code to eliminate this process and then to bring it back to you on the 23rd for the second reading is in anticipation of what you will hear later as a proposed second -- or excuse me -- your next LDC amendment cycle to implement the broad-based changes to the way we evaluate concurrency and transportation management, as you directed the transportation director on December the 18th. Effectively, this is to -- to forestall a run on the bank, if you will, Page 126 January 9, 2002 after the announcement of the next amendment cycles to the LDC as decided -- and the dates are ascertained by working with the county attorney's office -- in order to try to implement those by the middle of March. But what we would like to do is try to put everybody on a level playing field and be in a position where we're not required to issue any more of these open-ended certificates after approximately the 25th of this month. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good job. MR. LITSINGER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No questions or a question? COMMISSIONER CARTER: No questions. I'm ready for the second reading. MR. LITSINGER: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Okay. The next handout would be Item C, and that's Section 3.6.5.6.10, and it has to do with wellhead protection. And Stan Chrzanowski is here to talk about that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. Stan Chrzanowski with development services. The last time we met on this item, Commissioner Coletta had a question about whether the well drillers had been consulted when we did this, and no, they hadn't. We met with the well drillers since. I made the assumption that the DSAC would be sufficient on this item since our inspector was a well driller for many years. After the meeting with the well drillers, they came up with three possible solutions, one of which was our mound with the slab on top. It turns out the bad part of that is about 15 percent of these wells get some subsidence. The ground drops around the well afterward, and it would leave a gap under the slab, which would be a problem in about 15 percent of the cases. So we did away with that suggestion. Page 127 January 9, 2002 The double casing -- there was a suggestion we go with the steel casing, but the steel casing, our inspectors tell me, would rust over the long term, especially the ones with water or in wet areas. So what we've come up with is a double-casing plastic pipe with a 2-inch gap between filled with concrete to 18 inches above the original grade. And the well casing itself-- the outer casing goes 18 inches up; the well casing goes 24 inches up. We figure if somebody's really intent on violating something, doing something stupid, we're not going to stop them no matter what we do. But this ought to discourage the average homeowner who goes out there, and that's our big concern. So this is the revised item based on our meeting. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Stan, I'm sorry. The average homeowner would violate it by doing what now? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, they've had cases where they cut down the wellhead. The pipe is supposed to stick up a certain distance up in the air. But aesthetically some people don't like that, so they go and they cut it. And the drillers told me that one of the big offenders is the people that put in the softening systems. They'll cut the head down. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put in what kind of systems? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Say again? COMMISSIONER COYLE: What kind of systems did you say they were putting in? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Softening systems, water treatment systems, the individual systems that service the homes in all parts of the county. All four of those drillers -- they represent most of the wells drilled in Collier County, and all four of them came up with this wording and agree with it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And it's going to serve a public purpose and provide for-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. We think it's a safe way to Page 128 January 9, 2002 go. Like I said, most of the county -- a lot of it, if you look at it, is really developed or planned out. But Golden Gate, there's only maybe 20 to 25 percent of the homes built yet, so there's a lot going to go on out there, and we want to make sure this gets on the books before it gets too developed. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the cost of this is going to be about $400? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir, I don't think so. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Less than that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: From the sound of it, I'd say they could probably do it for a hundred or less. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great. MS. MURRAY: I have a few items that I need to read, changes I need to read into the record. And then what I would like to do is just go through section by section. And then if you have questions on certain sections, stop me. I think that was the same procedure we followed last time. I need to start on page 113, and this has to do with the revision to the commercial and professional -- or C-1 zoning district, the purpose and intent, and I'll just read this into the record for you. At the bottom of the page on 113 there, at the bottom of the paragraph where the sentence starts "Housing," it should read, "Housing may also be a component of this district as provided through conditional use approval," and the remainder of that sentence needs to be struck out. It doesn't apply. On page 114 in the C-3 commercial immediate -- intermediate district, about halfway through that paragraph, the sentence should read, "The type and variety of goods and services are those that provide an opportunity to comparison shopping and have a trade area consisting of several neighborhoods and are preferably" -- we need to add the word "preferably" -- "located at the intersection of two Page 129 January 9, 2002 arterial-level streets." Then I need to change the word "all" and put "Most activity centers meet this standard." On page 115, C-4, general commercial district, about two-thirds of the way through the paragraph with the sentence that starts, "Activity centers are suitable locations for the uses permitted by the C-4 district because" -- and I need to add the word -- "most activity centers are located at the intersection of arterial roads." Okay. At this point I think I can just go ahead and read the section numbers into the record. And if you-all want to stop me if you have questions, we'll do that. So I'll be working from your summary sheet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question on the commercial districts. Are we increasing the zoning in some of the activity centers? MS. MURRAY: I didn't understand your question. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're saying we're not changing the uses in the activity centers; we're just kind of laying out what the commercial districts -- the purpose and intent. MS. MURRAY: Right. This is a precursor to us coming back with you later after we've had the opportunity to study the permitted and conditional uses in each of the zoning districts. So this is pretty much to get your approval as to whether or not this is what you want the purpose and intent of each of these districts to say, and once that's adopted, then we can take a look at the list of permitted and conditional uses. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did this change from last time? MS. MURRAY: Slightly, and that's why I read those changes into the record. And they were mostly clarification, and I also corrected some of the typos and had some of the sentences make more sense, but the intent is still there, what you supported last time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Page 130 January 9, 2002 MS. MURRAY: There's no change in density or intensity in any of those zoning districts. This is strictly just dealing with the purpose and intent at this point. No regulatory changes. Okay. Starting on page 1 of the summary sheet, Section 2.2.2, Section 2.2.3, Section 2.212.4.3, 2.213.4.3, 2.214.4.3, 2.215.4.3, 2.215.4.4, 2.2.15 1/2.4.3, 2.2.20.3.7, 2.2.20.3.11, 2.2.20.3.13. I finished page 1. Top of page 2, we've -- no, we haven't discussed that. 2.2.28.8.9.1. The next section you've already discussed. 2.2.32.3.2, 2.2.33.16. I finished with page 2. I'm at the top of page 3. 2.2.33.22, 2.2.33.23. The next section you've already discussed. I'm at the top of page 4. You've discussed 2.2.36, 2.3.4.11, 2.3.4.12.2. You've discussed 2.3.5. I'm at the top of page 5. 2.6.11.4.2. I just need to call to your attention that there was some minor clarification changes put into that section. There was the ability for somebody to have the planning services director waive the fence-height requirement, and I just wanted to ensure that that went through our fence-height waiver process, so I added some language to ensure that that went through the existing process that we have. 2.6.21, you've already discussed. I'm now at the top of page 7. 2.6.11.5.7, and dock facilities, 2.6.33.3. The next section, the beach events and vehicles on the beach was withdrawn at the request of the applicant. 2.7.2.4, 2.7.2.8.1, 2.7.3.4, 3.2.6.3.4, 3.2.9.2.12, and Division 6.3. Top of page 8, 3.2.6.4.3, 3.2.6.4.5, 3.2.6.5.3, 3.2.8.3.1, 3.2.8.3.2, 3.2.8.3.25. I'm at the top of page 9.3.2.8.3.26, 3.2.8.4.1, 3.2.8.4.3, 3.2.8.4.16(5), 3.3.5.2, 3.3.5.5.7. I'm at the top of page 10. 3.3.5.8, 3.3.7.1.2, 3.5.9.3. You've already discussed the next one. 3.15, 3.21, 3.16.4.1.2.1.1. I'm at the top of page 11. 3.16.4.1.4.1.1, 3.16.4.1.6.1.2, 3.16.4.3.3.1.1, and 3.16.4.5.1.1.1 through .1.1.5. I'm at the top of page 12.3.16.4.11.1.1.1 through .1.1.4; Division 6.3, definitions; a revision to the zoning Atlas sheet, 963344A to P. The Page 131 January9,2002 C-1 through C-5 zoning district changes I already read to you in the record. I need to stop and discuss 2.1.15, which is on page 117. This is the requirement that where a use is permitted in a commercial zoning district at the discretion of the planning services director, that it be brought and determined through the official interpretation process. If you recall, you-all directed us at the last meeting that you wished to see that through the conditional use process. Because the amendment was injected kind of late into the process, in order to change this as you requested for a conditional use, it actually requires two night hearings before the Planning Commission and two night hearings before you. And that was not possible in this cycle because of its late entry into the cycle. What we've proposed, and with your approval, is that we go ahead and move forward leaving it as proposed by staff, as an official interpretation. And then in the next cycle, that we would bring it back through as a conditional use. And if you have any questions about the official interpretation process or anything like that, I could answer that for you. That was the best we could do under the circumstances. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it might -- it might just stop there, and once we get all the Land Development Code in the commercial zoning districts, it might just stop there instead of having a conditional use for all the ones that aren't listed. MS. MURRAY: That's perfectly true. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we need one motion to cover all these? MS. MURRAY: Let me make sure I've covered everything. No, one more. Section 2.2.3.3, and that was to correct a scrivener's error for the estates zoning district. I just want to make sure that your Page 132 January 9, 2002 motion excludes the Item D that Stan Litsinger presented because that -- you'll hear that on the 23rd. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's D, as in David? MS. MURRAY: D, as in David, and that's for Section -- to delete paragraph 3.15.7.3.1.2 in its entirety, and you'll handle that on the 23rd. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I would make a move (sic) to accept these Land Development Codes excluding Mr. Litsinger's Item D in regards to -- that was just discussed by Susan Murray. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that and finding it compatible with the Growth Management Plan, Comprehensive Plan and-- COMMISSIONER CARTER: The motioner includes the same, give it all the right verbiage. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not sure if the court reporter got all those section numbers in there. I seen her kind of stumble through that. We could do it over again. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah. That was the most exciting part of the evening. I mean, it really -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning will repeat them from memory. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We'll get together later. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got a motion and we got a second. Is there any other discussions? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5 to 0. Thank you very much. Any brief comments? MR. DUNNUCK: Before we adjourn we just have one quick Page 133 January 9, 2002 request, and that's to get board direction on a vote of at least four members to hold a special cycle this spring relating to the transportation items and the concurrency items that you've already previously directed the board-- the staff to bring back. Could we get a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to hear what Marjorie had to add. MS. STUDENT: I just wanted to clarify that that would be starting in February with the conclusion sometime in mid-March, and we'll bring back specific dates to you at a later time. And we need four votes for that to pass. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any comments from staff?. Any comments-- MR. OLLIFF: If it's the last thing I do, we're going to change the numbering system for this Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Page 134 January 9, 2002 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:42 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JA N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: D,W-~,t-IT,,,E. BROCK, CLERK ...... '.Yhb'se minutes Oproved by the Board on as presented ,.-/ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY PAMELA HOLDEN AND BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARIES PUBLIC Page 13 5