Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/03/2005 R March 3, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 3, 2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd Kenneth Abernathy Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti Mark Strain (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 · ' AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2005, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRA TION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NOTE: The public should be advised that a member of the Collier County Planning Commission (Bob Murray) is also a member of the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee. In this regard, matters coming before the Collier County Planning Commission may come before the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee trom time to time. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 2005, REGULAR MEETING AND FEBRUARY 3, 2005, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - FEBRUARY 8, 2005, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: BD-2004-AR-6797, Weslick, LLC, represented by Tim Hancock, AICP, of Talon Management, Inc., requesting a 153-foot boat dock extension to allow for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 173 feet into the waterway for property located at 82 Dolphin Circle, further described as Lot 87, Isles of Capri Unit 1, in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Joyce Ernst) COMPANION TO VA-2004-AR-6792 1 B. Petition: BD-2004-AR-6807, Damon Warfel of DCS, Inc., represented by Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, is requesting an 8-foot boat dock extension to construct a dock and boat-lift facility protruding a total of 28 feet into the waterway. The subject property is located at 5352 Barefoot Bay Court, Barefoot Bay Subdivision, Lot 1, Block A, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Joyce Ernst) C. Petition: BD-2004-AR-6809, Exclusive Resorts NA4, LLC, represented by Miles Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, is requesting an 8-foot boat dock extension to construct a dock and boat-lift facility protruding a total of28 feet into the waterway. The subject property is located at 5344 Barefoot Bay Court, Barefoot Bay Subdivision, Lot 3, Block A, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Joyce Ernst) D. Petition: V A-2004-AR-6720, John J. Connelly, representing himself as property owner, is requesting an after-the-fact variance for changing his garage, without a permit, from side entry to front entry, thus encroaching into the ITont setback required per Section 3.04.A (Table 1), Vineyard PUD Ordinance No. 91- 75. The subject property is located at 6648 Glen Arbor Way within the Vineyards Development (east of 1-75, between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Pine Ridge Road), in Section 8, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) E. Petition: V A-2004-AR-6792, Weslick, LLC, represented by Tim Hancock, AICP, of Talon Management, Inc., requesting a variance ITom Section 5.03.06.E.6 of the Land Development Code for relief ITom the required side setback of 7.5 feet to a setback of 2.5 feet for pilings. This variance is being requested not for the dock facility but for the mooring pilings that will support a boat lift. Property is located at 82 Dolphin Circle, Isle of Capri, Unit 1, Lot 87, in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Heidi Williams) COMPANION TO BD-2004-AR-6797 F. Petition: V A-2004-AR-7003, Paul Indegela of Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., represented by Brent Moore, AICP of WilsonMiIler, Inc., is requesting a variance ITom the five foot minimum sidewalk requirement to a four-foot sidewalk. The subject property is located in Immokalee, in the subdivision known as Carson Lakes, further described as Carson Lakes Phase II, Tract R, in Section 30, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Robin Meyer) G. Petition: CU-2004-AR-6278, Collier County Board of County Commissioners represented by Dominick Amico, P.E., of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., requesting an essential service Conditional Use per Section 2.01.03.G.3a of the Collier County Land Development Code to allow for a community park and to provide public access for boating and a park for property zoned Village Residential (VR). The property, consisting of 5.22 acres, is located in Goodland and is within Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) H. Petition: PUDZ-2003-AR-4493, Blue Bell-Meridian Partners, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, are requesting a rezone ITom "RMF-6" to "RPUD" Residential Planned Unit Development to be known as the Santa Barbara Landings PUD to allow mixed residential dwelling unit types. At the time of the rezoning application, 248 multiple-family dwellings exist on the site. The subject rezoning will add a maximum of 43 additional dwelling units for a maximum total of 291 dwelling units with a project density of approximately 7.0 units per acre. The subject property, consisting of 41.6 acres, is located on Santa Clara Drive at the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Radio Road, in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) CONTINUED TO MARCH 17,2004 I. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-5967, Eco Venture Wiggins Pass, LTD., represented by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, of RWA, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson requesting a rezone from the C-4 zoning district to a "PUD" Planned Unit Development zoning district to be known as the Coconilla PUD. The proposed change would allow for 95 dwelling units in two residential towers with 10 floors of residential units, over one floor of parking, a public use tract adjacent to Cocohatchee River Park and a marina basin containing 29 wet slips. The property is located at 13635 Vanderbilt Drive, in Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1O.45± acres. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 17,2005 2 1. Petition: CU-2004-AR-6625, EcoVenture Wiggins Pass, Ltd., represented by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, of RWA Consulting, Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, requesting a Conditional Use of the C-4 zoning district for a Hotel & Spa per Chapter 2.04.03 of the Land Development Code. The subject property, consisting of 10.45 acres, is located at 13635 Vanderbilt Drive, in Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 17,2005 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN March 3, 2005 eepe Agenda/RB/ld 3 March 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We'll call this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission to order. Please join me and rise for the pledge of allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good morning. We have a very full agenda today. Like to start with some housekeeping items, and that is to note that the individual speakers will be limited to five minutes on behalf of any item. Individuals selected to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged, and may be allotted ten minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Further like to make a disclosure that a member of the Collier County Planning Commission, Mr. Murray, over to my extreme right, is also a member of the Community Character Smart Growth Advisory Committee. For our roll call this morning. Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain is absent, Budd is here. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir. MR. WHITE: Is Mr. Strain excused or absent? Page 2 March 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: He is absent. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Addenda to the agenda. I have passed out to all the planning commissioners, to the assistant county attorney, and to our staff two items of correspondence that were sent to me, and I would like to discuss, under item ten, new business. Any other addenda to the agenda? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to discuss the matter of the -- the proposal that we commence our meetings with an invocation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Also under new business? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That proposal was made a month ago. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Then it would become old business. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, new or old, we'll do it after the regular hearing items today. Any other addenda to the agenda? Do we have a motion to -- sir? MR. BELLOWS: Chairman Budd, we also have a -- like to put on the -- for discussion the A -- Florida American Planning Association Conference to see who -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: APA Conference. Okay. Do we have a motion to accept the addenda as -- the agenda -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- as modified? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Murray. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Page 3 .~-'~ March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? The agenda is modified. (No responses.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Planning Commission absences. Any known absences in our near future? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On March 17th and April 21, unavailable to talk to the commission. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any others? (No responses.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Approval of minutes. We have our January 20th regular meeting minutes and February 3rd regular meeting minutes. Do we have any comments and a motion to approve those minutes? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a comment on the February 3rd meeting. On page 16, I believe up toward the top of the page where those -- where we voted, I believe inasmuch as I seconded it, I was also in favor of it. So I don't believe that that was correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then also on page 23, I believe that toward the bottom of the page, where you recognize Mr. Abernathy, then Mr. Murray was put in here, and I don't believe that was me. I believe that was Mr. Abernathy that made that statement. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Very good. Any other-- COMMISSIONER CARON: January 20th. Page 4 March 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, excuse me. Let's just -- any others on February 3rd, and we'll take a motion there. There are no others? (No responses.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. Yes, January 20th? COMMISSIONER CARON: At the bottom of page 17, it should be geological not theological. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. That'll do. MR. WHITE: You pray. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Any others? Do we have a motion to accept the minutes of January 20 and February 3rd as amended? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Abernathy, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. All those in favor say aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No responses.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Minutes are accepted. Do we have a Board of County Commission recap? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Board approved the Malibu Lakes PUD by a vote of five to zero with additional stipulations. They approved the PUD rezone for the Triad by a vote four to one, with Commissioner Halas opposed. They approved the Copper Cove PUD by a five to zero vote. Page 5 March 3, 2005 Two other petitions were withdrawn, that was the rezone for Southern Development Corporation. That was withdrawn at the request of the applicant, in order -- so they could do some additional research on mitigation for the traffic impacts. And the rehearing for the Warm Springs PUD was also withdrawn at the request of the applicant. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any questions or comments on that? (No responses.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Thank you, Ray. We have no chairman's report. We will move into our advertised public hearings. We will hear items A and E together, as they are companion items, but we will take separate action on those. Item A being petition BD-2004-AR-6797, request for 153 boat dock extension, and Item E is petition V A-2004-AR-6792, a request for relief for the required side setback of7.5 feet and setback of2.5 feet for pilings. Do we have any disclosures on either of these items by the planning commissioners? There are none. All those wishing to present testimony on either of these items, please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Ifwe can hear from the petitioner, please. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- have to go back and say I did have some ex parte communications. They were one sided. I got some e-mails and a package from -- it's not on this item. I'm sorry. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Hancock? MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tim Hancock. I'm the agent Page 6 ---.,., March 3, 2005 for the applicant in this matter, Weslick, LLC. One of the two partners of We slick, LLC, Mr. Adam Johnson, is present as a property owner, and would be pleased to answer any questions with specific regard to future uses on the property. The petition before you -- and let me give you a general overview of the area. As you can see on the visualizer -- and I've kind of marked with my pen the location of the subj ect property. It sits in Isles of Capri on a semi-protected bay, approximately 640 feet across -- directly across from the nearest land and another 640 feet out to the nearest -- what would be a general navigation area. The property is also indicated -- again, with my pin -- at 82 Dolphin Circle. And as you can see as you move out from the property, there's been shoaling over time. And it's fairly stable, sandy bottom, but for some years the shoaling has been present. And in the general area, boat dock extensions have been required in order to give any access to any reasonable water depth whatsoever. The extension that's being requested here today will actually mirror the property that you see as number 86. It will allow us to get to four feet of depth and will run exactly parallel to that -- that property. And the length being requested for the extension is solely that to get to a depth of four feet. That's the Readers Digest condensed version of why we're here today. The second item, a companion item, is a variance. And the purpose for the variance or reason for the variance is, as you notice, the dash lines on this exhibit represent the riparian lines as they extend waterward from the land mass. Because this is a bay, there becomes a single point at which all properties on the bay, the riparian lines will converge to. So as you get further out from the landmass, the riparian lines get narrower and narrower. While the proposed dock facility itself represents no encroachment into the riparian lines, once we get out to that four-foot depth, the mooring pilings that will be -- will be required whether a Page 7 March 3, 2005 boat lift is present or not, themselves encroach into the setback, as do those of the properties adjacent to the subject property. So, the purpose for the variance is for mooring pilings to support either a boatlift or to stand-alone. The dock itself does not encroach into the seven and a half foot required side yard setback. But, again, the need for the variance is dictated by, first, the fact we have to go out 100 plus feet to get the four feet of water, and once we do that, the converging riparian lines then create the need for the variance. So the two applications before you are to provide Mr. Johnson and Weslick, LLC the exact same opportunities and right of access to the water that has been afforded properties in the immediate area over the past years. What -- we have letters of no obj ection from property owners on both sides, which I'll submit to the record, and which apply to both applications before you here today. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Hancock, could you direct me, help me find the list of owners of Weslick, or if I'm overlooking them and they aren't in the packet, identify who the shareholder, owners of that petitioner are? MR. HANCOCK: The two shareholders are -- and -- and I know the information was submitted, if it did not make it to your packet, let me state them for the record. Mr. Thomas P. McAndrew, 50 percent owner of We slick, LLC; Mr. Adam Johnson, 50 percent owner of Weslick, LLC. They are here, both with their builder. They are within a week or two of submitting their building plans. This is the last piece in the puzzle to come together so they can finalize those plans and get them in to construct the home. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Who is -- who is Houchin? MR. HANCOCK: Houchin O'Dean was the property owner at the time we began the pre-ap process. They sold the property to Weslick, LLC, and we amended the application during the process to reflect that change Page 8 -~., March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Weslick owns it now? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And there's no house on it yet? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So is it a spec. house? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. The -- what -- and I'll-- I can refer to Mr. Johnson, ifhe has anything to add to this, but Mr. Johnson lives in the area right now. They have not decided whether or not when they build this home they're going to move it and sell their home, or whether they're going to sell it. So for now, that decision has not been made. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does he have a 26-foot boat? MR. HANCOCK: Pardon me, sir? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does he have a 26-foot boat? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, he does. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Amazing. Seems like everybody does these days. MR. HANCOCK: Everybody but me and you, Mr. Abernathy. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any others questions for Mr. Hancock? (N 0 responses.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. We may hear from you agaIn soon. Staff report on this? MS. ERNST: For the record, I'm Joyce Ernst from the Zoning and Land Development Review Department. We feel due to the shallow water and also the excreted shoreline and the location of these riparian lines, that anyone who would want to - put a dock and moor boat at this location would be required to get a boat dock extension. Page 9 March 3, 2005 And if you notice in this -- in the resolution that I have put with your packet and that will be approved with this -- if it does get approved, with this boat dock petition -- is that no building permit for the boat dock can be issued prior to a building permit for a single- family home. Also, that this res -- this construction of this boat dock is contingent upon the companion variance. I only received one -- one comment, and that was in favor of both the boat dock extension and the variance. This petition complies with five of the primary and five of the secondary criteria, and therefore staff recommends approval. Does anyone have questions? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Question? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: First of all, could we get back to the very first picture that was up? Okay. Now, it seems to me that we're talking about almost a little over a quarter of the area will be the length of that dock. It will come out to the point where it says 640 feet right to about the plus line. Now, those people who -- on Pelican will have no way to get straight out. They're going to have to very -- veer to the right to go out with their boats. And it seems to me that in the two criteria that are necessary on the first agenda, there are two of them that do not comply. MS. ERNST: Well, this here dock is adjacent to another one that already obscures that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm also talking about the people that are on Pelican Street. They are also neighbors. They have the right to boat out there, too. This dock is going to go to the plus sign at the 100 -- at 640 line. Now, if that's not going to inconvenience and make it difficult for them to in fact use their dock as they would like, I don't know what would. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Lindy, it looks like it's shoal Page 10 March 3, 2005 over there anyway, isn't it? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's -- MS. ERNST: Right in through here-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's that third and fourth. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me. One at a time now, for our court reporter. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's the third and fourth lot on Pelican Avenue. MS. ERNST: We feel that because -- where it's located, this other dock -- these other two docks already are out there and that this is not going to make any -- much of any difference to that -- you know, to the accessibility of the other people on Pelican Bay than is -- I mean on Pelican Avenue than -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The question is -- MS. ERNST: -- is already -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- will it interfere with the dockage of other neighbors? The answer to that question is, yes, it will interfere. MS. ERNST: Well, I mean, staff seems to feel that it will not because it's already been impounded with additional docks. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Miss Ernst, let me rephrase and see if I've got it right. Could you look at the larger aerial, please? The one that was on previously. Okay. This is in a north, south orientation; is that correct? So the -- little too close. Yeah, slide us over a little. Great. Okay. The new dock is being put in north of those two existing long docks; is that correct? MS. ERNST: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So the infringement or blocking off that Mr. Adelstein is concerned about on Pelican Street is an existing condition already in place by that southernmost dock; is that correct? MS. ERNST: That's correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So what staff is asserting is that this new Page 11 ~..._--"_...._-_.~-~..".- ..' .~.,._"--_..-."- March 3, 2005 dock will not be any closer to Pelican Street, it is in fact on the opposite side and will create no additional hindrance to navigation or access to any of those properties on Pelican Street? MS. ERNST: Yes, that's correct, uh-huh. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. Further questions of staff? If there are none, are there any advertised speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, Commissioner Strain -- or-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Or registered speakers. MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's okay. MR. BELLOWS: Commissioner Budd. We have a companion variance, and I would like Heidi Williams to present her staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: This is her first presentation before this Board. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Welcome. Then -- then we'll be friendly. MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, my name is Heidi Williams. I reviewed the proposed variance that is a companion item to the boat dock extension. Staff did review this for compliance with the Land Development Code and found that although it will encroach up to a maximum of five feet into the required seven and a half foot side setback to each riparian line, that this does not create a hardship for the neighbors. They've actually been granted a similar variance to a setback of zero feet. And given the presentation from Mr. Hancock, the -- I recommend approval for the petition. The resolution that will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners notes that this can only be approved with approval of the boat dock extension. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MS. WILLIAMS: And I'd be happy to answer any questions. Page 12 March 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any questions of the staff report? There are none. Registered speakers, please? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The first one is Adam Johnson, followed by Jim Hughes. MR. HUGHES: My name is Adam Johnson. I'm -- I'm partners with Tom McAndrew on Weslick LLC. Like was stated previous, this house is -- is going to be -- actually, it may be my father-in-Iaw's house. I'm -- I'm -- we don't know what we're going to do but -- or I'm going to move into it or Tom's going to move into it, so we clarify what we're doing with this property. But if -- that other question, if you -- if you look at the -- the picture, I mean the shoaling, there's no navigation in there anyways. I mean you can see the only reason we're putting this dock out there is to be able to put a boat in and out during low tide. And I mean we could -- we could resolve this, we could dredge it all out and then we could all shorten our docks. That would solve everything. But other than that -- I mean all we're trying to do is put a dock in beside our neighbors whose two other residents have done the same thing. We're just trying to do what they've done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Thank you, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Jim Hughes? MR. HUGHES: Good morning. My name's Jim Hughes. I live at 94 Dolphin Circle, which is the southern dock as you see it, the two dock -- two existing docks. And I'd just like to make one special comment about the navigation that -- can I point to that somehow? MR. BELLOWS: This is the arrow. MR. HUGHES: Yes. With the pen. People that live in this area right here have to come out around this shoal to exit the bay, and they also have to come back in and back in this direction. So our docks are in no way impeding any -- any flow, except for a small boat at high tide. They can't get across the sandbar. And if there's any questions any of you have that I might be able Page 13 March 3, 2005 to answer, I'd be -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How long is your dock? MR. HUGHES: Our dock is, from high tide, 178 feet, the high tide level. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. I mean from shore. MR. HUGHES: That -- from about that point right there, which is a high tide mark. It's in the middle of the mangroves. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How many feet? MR. HUGHES: About one -- about 178, I believe. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? (No responses.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. HUGHES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there no other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any summary comments by the petitioner? With that we will close the public hearing. If we could take action first on agenda item A, that is petition BD-2004-AR-6797. Do we have a motion, please? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move for approval. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I have a motion by Mr. Murray, a second by Mr. Vigliotti. And I assume that motion includes all the staff recommendations? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir, everything. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further discussion? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 14 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Motion carries, seven, one. On to the next item. If we could have a motion, please, on petition V A-2004-AR-6792? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I have a motion for approval by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Murray. Again, I assume that's with the staff recommendations? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Anything further? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Forwarded recommending approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, forwarded recommending approval. Any further discuss? All those in signify by saying aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Though opposed? (N 0 responses.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Eight, zero, motion carries. Thank you very much. Okay. Our next agenda item is petition BD-2004-AR-6807. Miles Scofield representing a client requesting an eight-foot boat dock Page 15 .. ._---~.,._.".._~ .,~---~_.. March 3, 2005 extension. Any disclosures on this item? There are none. All those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand, be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Hear from the petitioner, please. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. For the record, my name's Rocky Scofield, representing the petitioner. On this one it's Damon Warfel, DCS, Inc. This and the one following are the last two boat dock extensions in a subdivision called Barefoot Bay, which is located on Bonita Beach Road, right on the south side of the road, right before you get to Lely Barefoot Beach. I have been before the commission on the previous seven boat dock extensions. All the docks on this little subdivision are the same. They all extend out the same amount from shoreline. It's a riprap shoreline with some mangroves. The docks extend 27 feet out into the waterway. What I have done -- and some of you have been here in the -- on the ones in the past. I had requested 28 feet extension from the mangrove shoreline. That's just to compensate for if we're off when we get a spot survey. I don't want to be off by six inches or so. But it is within the 25 percent rule, so a 28- foot extension is requested. We're going out with a simple T dock. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Excuse me, Rocky. MR. SCOFIELD: Yes? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's an eight-foot extension, isn't it? MR. SCOFIELD: I'm sorry, I'm sorry . Total -- total -- total out into the waterway, 28- foot. Eight feet extension is what's requested. It's the same on all seven of these lots. I'll show you the picture. Okay. That's the typical dock that's on each of these lots, each of Page 16 March 3, 2005 the nine lots in this subdivision. They do meet all the -- the setbacks, the distance out into the channel, and it's pretty straightforward. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Somebody must have had a sale on 26- foot boats this spring. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, for the record, I have a 20-foot boat. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Both of these folks have-- are alleged to have 26- foot boats. MR. SCOFIELD: What I -- what I do on all of these, I put them in that way because that's about the maximum boat that we can put in here. Just -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What reason? MR. SCOFIELD: Just mainly because of draft. You know, basically, what these are designed for is 26- foot center console boat that draws about two and a half feet, three feet of water in this area, and the -- and the reason is that is the access areas not exactly right at the dock, but the access areas getting in and out at low tides. A lot of places are -- are not passable for any boats, you know, deeper draft than that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: When your dock is a total of 28 feet, it's taken up its one forth of the channel, hasn't it? So you couldn't go out any further anyway. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I mean you're only entitled to a fourth. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. These are slightly under that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Half of a half. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. So if somebody got-- MR. SCOFIELD: On this -- on this particular petition, the channel, the canal is 150 feet wide. Page 1 7 _w,.·","~~~_.~____"' ..__.,_.__ March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So you could go further? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir, yes, sir, yeah. We're only -- you could go out 37 and a half feet in this area. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If you wanted to go 37 and a half -- let's say this guy gets a bigger boat. MR. SCOFIELD: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: This -- trades in his mythical 26-footer. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What would you do with -- would you push this dock out? MR. SCOFIELD: No. You -- this -- this dock -- if you look at the boat lift right there, it's 13 feet wide, which is a standard width of a standard cradle boat lift. Now, you can get them modified to be wider or narrower, but that's -- that's the production line and that -- that will handle up to a ten-foot or ten and a half foot beam boat. Most boats are only eight-foot to eight and a half foot beam. And it's not the beam or the -- or the size of the boat, it's the draft in these areas that really restricts you to what you can do. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, I assume the draft -- the -- there's more depth out further. MR. SCOFIELD: It's not here. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Not here? MR. SCOFIELD: It's trying to get out to Wiggins Pass or get out the other way -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. SCOFIELD: -- to -- to a new pass. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's your choke point then. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of the petitioner? Page 18 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What document are you using to determine the width of the waterway? MR. SCOFIELD: From the surveyor. Okay. You want to zoom in on this right there? Zoom in right -- keep going. Right there. See the bottom line? That's done by the surveyor, Trigo and Associates. They profile that the line is 150 feet. Those measurements were done by the surveyor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for Mr. Scofield? Not at this time. Thank you. Can I have the staff report, please? MS. ERNST: Again, for the record, I'm Joyce Ernst from Zoning and Land Development Review. Now, as -- reiterating what the applicant has said is that this is -- you'll be hearing not just this one but another one, but this is one of the last two boat dock extensions that are requested for this subdivision. I have not received any comments whatsoever for or against this petition. It complies with all the primary and secondary criteria, and therefore staff recommends approval. Does anybody have any questions for me? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? There are none. Ray, do we have any registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. I move that we adopt-- approve BD-6807 with staff -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Subject to staff Page 19 March 3, 2005 recommendations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: The motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Murray. Discussion? There is none. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No responses.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Next agenda item is petition BD-2004-AR-6809. Mr. Scofield again requesting an eight-foot dock extension. Is there any disclosure on this item? There is none. All those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand, be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Scofield, do you just have a magnetic personality, you always attract a crowd? Seems like whenever you show up, we've got a full house. MR. SCOFIELD: Usually half of them are signed up to speak against me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I've noticed. MR. SCOFIELD: On this petition, the previous -- the previous eight lots in here I did for the developer, which was DCS, Incorporated. This lot happens to have been sold, actually, during the time I submitted the process, so we had to change the -- the name of the owner, Exclusive Resorts. They do -- they own -- these -- these are Page 20 March 3, 2005 residences, and Exclusive Resorts, LLC is the owner of this one. Again, on the chart right there, this is the lot. The one we just did was up here, lot one. This is lot three. This is the last one in the subdivision. Again, the -- the docks are the same. And I'll put the picture back up, but it's identical to the one you just saw. The canal in -- at this particular point, because you see the undulation, over here it's a little bit narrow, the canal, according to the surveyor's measurements, is 120 feet wide. Twenty-five percent of 120 feet is 30 feet. We're asking for 20 -- for eight feet, extension 28 feet out, so we're underneath that. This is another drawing. You have the larger drawing you showed before -- I showed before on the other dock is the same, but this is how it sits on the lot. Just showing the angle it sits on the lot to meet the side setbacks and distance out. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Show me again the width. And the reason I'm asking, the surveys we have do not have that note on it. MR. SCOFIELD: They don't? When I submit these -- now, I don't -- you might ask Joyce. I submit one signed and sealed survey with the original copy, you know, and there's 15 copies made. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SCOFIELD: So there's only one of these originals that is submitted to the county. Now, I don't -- it may not make it to -- to everywhere, but -- but I'll show you that. Okay. There it is. The bottom line, again, on this survey. They profile the line is 120 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the profile line? What does that mean? MR. SCOFIELD: The profile is like when you're -- when you're doing a -- a linear measurement across any area -- and they usually do depths -- they'll say -- a profile is -- a lot of times is a side view or something, but when they do a bay profile in depths, that's the profile Page 21 '---- . ---_.-_--",.-,--. March 3, 2005 line. So they're saying on that line that they shoot across there and they -- and you take the minimum distance. The shoreline on the other picture shows you it kind of dipped in, so it narrowed just a little bit. So they take a -- a linear site across there on their measurement, and that's the profile. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner? There are none. Staff report, please. MS. ERNST: Again, Joyce Ernst from Zoning and Land Development Review. I'd like to say ditto from the last petition, but it's -- actually, it's -- you know, the same applies. They comply with all five of the primary criteria and five of the secondary criteria, and therefore staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of the staff report? There are none. Thank you. Any registered speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. We'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that we approve DB-2004-AR-6809 (sic), subject to staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Murray. Any discussion? (No responses.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 22 ~_...."------ March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No responses.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries, eight, zero. Next agenda item, Item D, which is petition V A-2004-AR-6720. This is an after the fact variance for change from a side entry to front entry garage. All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Are there any disclosure on this item? There are none. If we could hear from the petitioner, please. MR. CONNELLY: Thank you for hearing me. I'm John Connelly, the owner of the property. I'm here basically to ask for an after the fact variance so I can make use of a two car garage on my property. And I'm here to ask for enough time so I can properly landscape the front of the house. I bought my home in September of '99 from a Mr. Curtis, a developer. When we inspected and viewed the home, there was always an antique car and a lot of boxes in the garage. After closing and taking possession, we realized we could not park our two cars in the garage. The driveway turn radius was too short, and it wouldn't work. We worked on the inside of the home and in the courtyard over the next three years. In '03 it was brought to my attention that I should be parking my second car in the garage, according to the homeowner requirement -- homeowner association requirements. I checked with my neighbors about changing the garage. I told Page 23 March 3, 2005 them what we wanted to do, and obtained permission before I started, from my neighbors, my homeowner's association, and the Master Vineyards Homeowners' Association. Since I'd done a similar job up north, I thought all my bases were covered, and I proceeded. Basically, I exchanged -- I changed the existing garage door without moving or changing the roof line or -- or any structures from a one door side load garage to a two door front load garage. I thought I was just changing out the garage doors. When I was installing the second front load garage doors, Mrs. Sequoia of code enforcement cited me and indicated that I was probably in violation and probably needed a permit for the garage work. After meeting with the -- with the staff, they explained the property line, the setback requirements for a front load garage and that I would require an after the fact variance and a permit for the garage. I then realized that I was wrong in what I had done and worked with staff to get into compliance, and that's why I am here. In summary, I request your approval for a variance, for I need a front load garage in order to comply with the homeowner association's parking requirements. But most importantly, I need to use the garage to park two cars in. I can only park one car in the garage when it was a side load, and this was a problem. Secondly, if the variance and permit are granted, I would like to enhance the appearance and the aesthetics of the front of the home by relandscaping and reformatting the old driveway. We don't have a definite plan. We're not very good at this. I don't know how to do this. I can show you some pictures. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. DeRuntz or Mr. Bellows will help you put them on the visualizer. MR. CONNELLY: That's -- that's the way it looks now, with the two -- two -- two car garage doors. It's a bit wide. But just by contrast, that's another -- put the both of them on, please, sir. Can you put both of them on there? I want to contrast it. I'm on -- my house is on the Page 24 -"--~-----> ----'- ,- March 3, 2005 top, very similar to what you saw before. The house underneath, the shot was taken by my neighbor, is my neighbor diagonally across from me. And the -- the Glennons' house. Their driveway's pretty wide, also. Lastly -- I'm not very good at this, and this is not necessarily how it's going to wind up. I've been married for 40 years, my wife makes the decisions. But, basically, what I wanted to bring to your attention is that this is our only residence, take a lot of time and effort in it, and we want to -- it's a Spanishee home, and we want to make it unique and aesthetically very pleasing for our own satisfaction and for my neighbors, who are here with me. And this is sort of a rendition of about what we might want to do. A -- possibly a wall, a decorative wall where the front of it is there, some shrubs, we want grass on either side, take up the front pavers. The back 40 percent, between the wall to my big front doors, I think I want to leave in -- in big, huge Mexican pots, since my son is in that business now, as he's no longer a techie, and he's refinding himself at 40. I have discussed my approach with Mike DeRuntz last week, and I felt -- I feel-- he felt my approach was reasonable. My fear is running out of time to get everything planned, submitted, and approved and to get the different crews lined up and coordinated. So if my approach is acceptable, I would like to have until the end of next summer to get all the landscaping and -- and the wall, if it's a wall, done. I know I need a permit for the wall. Lastly, my goal is to have a usable two car garage, and most importantly to fix the front of my home so that it's aesthetically appealing and looks exceptional. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Question by Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sir, I suspect we're going to recommend that you be granted your variance, but I'm just curious. Page 25 March 3, 2005 You spoke in the first person about these alterations that you made to move your side load around to the front. Did you have a contractor? MR. CONNELLY: I basically took care of most of the stuff myself. That's -- that's not true. We had a guy that we worked with, but different people did different things. I'm leaning forward like this now because my back went out, and my back went out a year ago. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. That's fine. Did either of these homeowner associations not suggest to you that you needed a building permit? MR. CONNELLY: No. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, we ought to do something to inform them that they can help their people by avoiding this sort of a situation. Surely even up north you had to have building permits, didn't you? MR. CONNELLY: I lived in Fairfield, Connecticut and, you know, just went ahead and did it. And we -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's sort of like Pelican Bay, yeah. MR. CONNELLY: Well, you know, no disrespect. I thought I was -- not -- I thought I was just changing the door from the side to the front. Was I ever wrong. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There is no sidewalk in front of this house? MR. CONNELLY: There's no sidewalks on any of the -- on this whole street. There's only 41 homes in the community. Thirty-one or five of my neighbors have said, you know, they like what I'm doing on the petition. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Just for the record, the -- if the homeowner Page 26 March 3, 2005 wishes, he certainly can register a complaint with the contractor licensing in regards to the building of -- the person that he hired who had done the work without getting the proper permit, that certainly is something that could be registered as -- through contractor, licensing, in regards to doing work without a proper permit. But that's up to __ that's up to his choosing, if he wishes to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Joe, wouldn't even the installation of the garage door require a permit? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, yes. Because the -- everything about the project needed to be reviewed in regards to hurricane standards, structural standards. Those kind of things need to be reviewed, yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't think Mr. Connelly's going to be filing complaints. He sort of doesn't have clean hands himself. MR. CONNELLY: No, I'm not complaining to anybody. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of the petitioner? We have our staff report, please. MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, my name is Mike DeRuntz. I'm the principal planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the Land Development Code. Of course, we have a situation where this person was found in violation of our Land Development Code, was cited. This is an after the fact variance, which means that the application fee was doubled, 2,000 to $4,000. He will be required to get a building permit, which means that depending on the cost of the remodeling, it would be four times the cost -- the amount of the normal building permit fees. Mr. Connelly was caught in the situation where the -- there was a difference of the setbacks from 20 foot are side loading to 25 foot are the front, front loading garage. This existing structure was not altered, except for the replacing of the doors. Page 27 March 3, 2005 Staff has reviewed this and has felt that it is a unique circumstance, that the work that was done is not injurious to the neighbors, and that this application does make the situation where it's more safe for the use of that structure and convenient for the residents there. There is a list of deviations or list of conditions that was identified in the staff report, and Mr. Connelly was mentioning one of -- one of the -- the conditions where we were suggesting that there would be a time frame for the existing driveway to be removed, that __ served by the side garage and re-vegetated. You see his proposed plan for that operation. There was a majority of people. There was a petition that was included in the staff report in support of this variance request. There was one neighbor that voiced his opinion in opposition to this request. He felt that there was too -- with the -- not necessarily the use of the garage but the driveway being so wide, it was -- it was very hard, a lot of hard scape on the front of the lot. He's very -- he was very pleased to understand that Mr. Connelly was receptive to the idea of removing some of the pavers of the original driveway and softening that up with landscaping. If there's any questions, I'll be more than happy to try to address those. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mike, it seems to me Mr. Connelly was suggesting that we endorse his timetable to get these things done. I don't think we have any jurisdiction in that at all. So you'd better tell him he's got to look to somebody else over how long it's going to take to do these things. MR. DeRUNTZ: Mr. Abernathy, it was the staffs recommendation that -- that -- that within six months after the board of appeal approval of the -- of the variance, petitioner shall remove the existing driveway to serve the side entry garage, and that area would be re- vegetated. Page 28 ."",-- . ~.,---~--_._. ,. ---- March 3, 2005 You could remove that -- that condition or you could modify that condition. It's your choice. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'd just as soon remove it. I don't think we need to get into that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mike, on that same topic, he has three months to get a building permit. There's a lot of things that aren't in his control in that time frame. Is there a reason why that clause is in there? MR. DeRUNTZ: We have used that previously as a time frame on other variance petitions that I've presented to the -- to the Planning Commission. If you wanted to modify that, that'd be fine, also, but this is a condition that we place in there just so that -_ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He does it. MR. DeRUNTZ: -- he moves forward with this process where he comes into compliance to the codes of the county. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, in regards to the side entry garage and the width of the -- or the existing park __ driveway as it exists now in regards to width, there are land use restrictions that specify very succinctly in regards as to what -- how wide the driveway can be. It is my recommendation, at least if -- when this goes forward to the Board of Zoning Appeals, that that criteria of the six months stay in there. Unless, of course, there are other deed restrictions. But from a land use -- petition wise, at least, viewpoint, I think that needs to stay in there. Because there are very, very specific guidelines, like I said, in regards to the size of the driveway and the proportion of the driveway to the frontage of the home. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Who would enforce it? Code enforcement? MR. SCHMITT: Code enforcement, yes, sir. Page 29 ·_~M. _."..__.~.._..~. . March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And what would be the downside in the event that he's in process but not granted, for whatever reason? Is there a potential for him to be -- to be fined? MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Murray, only from the standpoint it would be an existing and open case. There would be a notice of violation issued. Certainly the petitioner would say that they were in the process of correcting. So there most likely would be no code enforcement or code enforcement Board action in regards to that, but because the __ the petitioner fully intends to comply -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I understood. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's really intended to move the process. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, you're totally comfortable that all the community associations have signed off on this? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Are there any registered speakers on this item? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. There are three registered. The first is Anthony Bon -- Bonavico, followed by JoAnn Hill. MR. BONA VICO: Good morning. My name is Anthony Bonavico. I live at 6647 Glen Arbor Way, which is directly across the street from the house in question. And I came today to lend my support to the petition. The -- there has been a decided improvement in the look of the house now with the fact that the cars can be put in the garage and are not left in the driveway, and I'm happy about that. Mr. Connelly, before he started this work, came and asked if I had any objection, and I did not. And I think that he wants to do the best that Page 30 -_.<._~-_.__..,_... .....>_. March 3, 2005 he can to make that house look as good as it can. And I support him in any way that I can. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Can you do me a favor and spell your last name for the court report, please? MR. BONA VI CO: Yes. Bonavico, B as in boy, O-N-A-V, as in Victor, I-C-O. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. BELLOWS: JoAnn Hill, followed by Milton Alexich. MS. HILL: Good morning. My name is JoAllll Hill. 6652 Glen Arbor Way. And I live on the left side of the Connellys. And my husband and I would like -- would recommend that you approve this variance. We've -- also like the idea that both cars are now in the garage. And I have seen some of their plans to do the outside, and I think it will look -- will probably be one of the nicest looking houses on our street. And we are -- we have just -- this is a private street and 41 homes, so I think you should -- I recommend that you approve this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. MR. ALEXICH: Good morning. My name is Milton Alexich. I live at 6644 Glen Arbor Way. I am Mr. Connelly's immediate neighbor to the south. Our homes are separated by only a few feet. As have been indicated by the previous speakers, Jack approached me prior to commencing any work on his property, as he's done with any modification to his home that affected adjacent homes. It was obviously necessary for him to correct. It was an architectural oversight. It has been corrected completely to everybody's satisfaction, as far as I know. It's very appealing, even in its present form. With the -- with the possible exception of the fact that there may be code restrictions on the width of the driveway, I think even in its present -- present form, it was a great improvement over the as built construction, and I certainly would recommend the Board approve this petition. Thank you. Page 31 --.-- March 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. I see, Mr. Bellows, you carried the sign-in slips over to the court reporter to spare the gentleman from spelling his last name. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- for Mr. DeRuntz. I thought I remembered reading in here that -- and I thought it peculiar -- that the Glen Arbor Road -- that they're county streets. I could have sworn I remembered reading that in here. And I just heard the lady say they were private streets, which I thought they would have -- likely have been. I don't -- it's not necessarily pertinent to the issue, but I'm just curious. Because I thought clearly that it was indicated. It may be an error, but it -- MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think it's significant, but I'm just curious, that would be my question. I would make a motion, Mr. Chairman, if that's appropriate. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And I'll close the public hearing to allow you to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would recommend that the Collier County Planning Commission forward approval of petition V A-2004-AR-6720 to the Board of Zoning Appeals, subject to the three conditions that exist, resulting from staffs analysis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Murray, second by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't think we have much choice here. I can't imagine what the alternative would be, so I'm in favor of the motion. As far as the conditions, in view of Mr. Connelly's difficulties with our rules in the past, perhaps it is good that Page 32 March 3, 2005 we set down some guidelines for him to follow in the future. So I support the motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My discussion is I agree with the guidelines, but I think we could, for the benefit, extend the time a little bit. So item two is three months to apply for a permit and obtain a permit. Once he applies, the time frame is not his anymore, it's really the staffs. So I would recommend we at least make that four, and then maybe give him eight months to have it all built out, which would be prior to the holidays he's done. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray, you were the motion maker COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The motion -- I was going to ask Mr. Schmitt if that's a critical factor. MR. SCHMITT: That's fine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I certainly would have no problem modifying the motion. MR. SCHMITT: Our only intent is to make sure that we -- we do follow through because I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ifhe's applied for it, that's adequate. MR. SCHMITT: There is an existing code case, I'd like to put the code case to rest and not take this matter before the Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So the motion and second are comfortable with modifying the motion to allow a little more time, as noted by Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Further discussion? MR. SCHMITT: And I would support what -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Better make clear what the - time frames are now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be -- okay. Either -- he Page 33 --~ -'>"·__....,o.,,",·.'>^ March 3, 2005 would have four months to apply and obtain a building pennit. The concern I had is if he had a structural snag, he could lose a month or something. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So instead of the three months recommended by staff, you're increasing it to four months? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And then he would have eight months to have the project built out, which is number three. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Where the staffs recommendation was six months, you're extending it to eight months. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which means it's done before the holidays. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No responses.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries, eight, zero. Thank you. It is 9:25, we'll take a five minute break. (A brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: If everyone would please take your seat, we will call this meeting of the Planning Commission back to order. And before we resume with our next agenda item, I would make a request, particularly for those people sitting in the workstation area in the back of the conference room or those seated in the back row, if you would be conscious of any side conversations, because there was a comment made by a member of the audience that the conversations Page 34 .--'----... ~'_._~----~---~->- March 3, 2005 over their shoulder, behind them was preventing them from hearing the testimony and the discussion up here at the front of the room. So if you would be considerate of your neighbors and restrain from any side conversation in the back of the room, we would appreciate that. Moving on to our next agenda item, it is petition V A-2004-AR-7003. Habitat for Humanity requesting a variance from the five-foot minimum sidewalk requirements to a four-foot sidewalk. Any disclosures on this item? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Only that I talked to staff. I don't know that it's a disclosure. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. All those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you very much. Ifwe could hear from the petitioner, please. MR. BROWN: Good morning. For the record, my name is J errod Brown, representing Habitat. I see you've got a full house, so I'll try to keep this brief. As you mentioned, this is requesting a one-foot after the facts variance from the five-foot wide sidewalk requirement for phase two of Carson Lakes. Carson Lakes is a 84 unit subdivision outside of Immokalee. Phase one was permitted, approved, and constructed with four- foot sidewalks. Phase two, the final phase, was permitted with five- foot sidewalks, however, the contractor constructed four-foot sidewalks, matching up with the first phase. We're requesting the one- foot variance to avoid having to replace the sidewalks. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any questions? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is there a contract that is available so we can read the -- what the contract called for by the contractor? Page 35 _._-....-.-._--~--" , . --··-··-.-__._M March 3, 2005 MR. BROWN: I do not have that with me, no. But the construction drawings clearly showed five-foot sidewalks. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Now, who made that deduction ? Was that the developer or the contractor? MR. BROWN: Pardon? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Who made out the-- MR. BROWN: The -- who discovered they were-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. MR. BROWN: -- four-foot? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. Who laid out the original issue? In other words, the developer contacted a contractor to put in the sidewalks. What did the contract say regarding the width of the sidewalks? MR. BROWN: I believe it said five-foot sidewalks. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Now, if it said five- foot sidewalks, why aren't we just going after the contractor to redo it? MR. BROWN: Because the construction was completed in early 2003, this was not discovered until after preliminary acceptance. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What -- the matter is the contract was done improperly. MR. BROWN: (Nodding head.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't under -- this is a major safety issue. That's why we're going from four to five feet. If the developer was at fault, then it's the developer's problem. If it's the contractor's fault, then it's the contractor's problem, and the contract should do what has to be done. But you let half of this unit go this way and be unsafe to the people who are going to be living there doesn't make sense to me. MR. BROWN: The remainder of the subdivision has four-foot sidewalks, as well. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That was because that was the Page 36 -'--_.._.~..,~-,", March 3, 2005 code then. We've changed it because we found out that four-foot wasn't satisfactory. For safety purposes, they've gone to five. I can see no reason why we shouldn't go to five. Because somebody here is wrong, and whoever is wrong has the responsibility to make it right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Other comments or questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to make sure, the portion that does not have the five-foot sidewalk is that right-hand __ MR. BROWN: None of it has five-foot sidewalks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm -- MR. BROWN: The side that was supposed to is, yes, the right-hand side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The vertical over there. MR. BROWN: Yes. The vertical portion and the southern. You know, left, right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any other comments or questions? Thank you. Hear the staff report, please. MR. MEYER: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, for the record, my name's Robin Meyer. I'm with Zoning and Land Development Review. Staff has reviewed the request. We can't find any reason, as far as the property, but we have to agree with the applicant that -- to require it to be torn up and replaced for one foot doesn't make sense and is an unreasonable request, in our estimation. I would also like to point out that the Growth Management Plan consistency section that went out with the staff report, I have to apologize on that one, I cut and paste and I had it for the Estates, this is the Immokalee overlay area. And I sent everybody bye-mail a copy of the corrected staff report, so hopefully that has been taken care of. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions on the staff report? There are-- Page 37 .. ~---".~" ~ --.--".,.,.,-.,.- March 3, 2005 '? yes, sIr. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I would just echo what Mr. Adelstein has said. Your answer to sub C is if the variance is not approved, Habitat would be subject to an undue hardship because they would have to demolish the existing sidewalks and rebuild them. It seems to me that completely overlooks the fact that it's probably the contractor who would have to rip them up and rebuild them. What hardship is that? He did it wrong. MR. MEYER: Well, you know, I have to say that in looking at it, one foot of sidewalk is not a substantial -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it was worth changing the code. MR. MEYER: Yes, it was. But they're already four feet, it's consistent with the sidewalk in there. It just doesn't seem to be reasonable. But obviously you're the final arbiters of that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, I -- that was the that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. You're -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's probably going to happen, he'd come in and pour a one-foot strip alongside of it anyway, which would be -- MR. MEYER: According to the engineer, they can't do that because it won't be -- won't be stable with the -- the main thing. You'll actually end up causing more problems. They said if they have to do it, they would have to come in, tear it all out, and pour in a solid five- foot slab. And that was the reason that they requested the vanance. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further comments or questions of the staff report? There are none. Ray, are there any registered speakers on this item? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. We will close the public Page 38 March 3, 2005 hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. I would recommend that we forward petition V A-2005-AR-7003 with the recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by -- MR. WHITE: Just note for the record, it's 2004 not five. That's all. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. 2004, correction. Motion by Mr. Midney, second by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? I'd just open by saying I'm definitely in support of the motion. I think there's a technical discrepancy, but not one of substance that's worth a waste of tearing out the concrete. Worse yet, not one worth bringing attorneys in and filing lawsuits, which I think, in most cases, is a waste, anyway, and we don't need to go there. But that's just my opinion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would echo that, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, I'm probably going to be the only one that doesn't. But as far as I'm concerned, a contractor has a responsibility. He's being paid a good deal of money to do a job and do it right. When he doesn't do the job right, it's his responsibility to correct it. We went from four-foot to five-foot for a very good reason. The safety issue is the credo to it. To allow this to happen and say, well, okay, next time we'll go from five to three -- whatever we do, the rules say you're supposed to be five. I'm quite sure the contractor said -- contract said that. It wasn't done that way. This man has errors and omissions in his contracts, anyhow. I'm very sure that there would not be that much economic - problem to him. I can only say this. Ifwe keep doing it this way, then why do we Page 39 March 3, 2005 - change these rules? It's about time we said to the people, if you're going to do it, do it right. If you're not going to do it right, then you're going to be responsible for doing it right later. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other comments? No other discussion on the motion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And would you raise your hand, those in opposition? So that is -- motion carries, five, three. Thank you. Moving on to our next agenda item. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There is a-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: That is petition V A-2004 -- excuse me. I'm reading the wrong one. Get my notes straight here. This is petition CU-2004-AR-6278. Board of County Commissioners requesting an-- an essential service conditional use in the Goodland area. Any disclosures on this item? I don't have them listed out, but I have numerous e-mails that were sent to me on this item, and not all of which I've -- have read. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've had telephone conversations and numerous e-mails. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got a package from the Goodland Preservation Coalition, a letter from Attorney Mimi W olok, and a letter from Nancy Similin -- or Simons -- Simmons. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Same. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I've received a good many e- mails, also. Page 40 March 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The same with me, the e-mails, the packet, and the phone conversation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Same. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That was what I was alluding to earlier when I spoke out of turn. But -- I didn't have a phone conversation, but I had all the rest. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Very good. Those are our disclosures. Swearing in, all those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. We can hear from the petitioner, please. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl with Agnoli, Barber & Brundage representing the Board of County Commissioners. Also here from ABB is Dominick Amico, if you have any engineering questions, and from Collier County Parks and Rec. are Murdo Smith and Clint Perryman. This is a request for a conditional use for a community park as an essential service. As you can see, the location's on Goodland. And it's here in yellow at the southern end of -- of the Goodland peninsula. The zoning is VRGZO, which is village residential with Goodland zoning overlay. In the future land use element, it is the urban coastal fringe, which is a transition between urban and conservation uses. The proposal is for a county park, which includes a boat ramp. And basically for a boat ramp, the -- two of the conditions that you are primarily looking for is that it's going to be owned by the public, which the site already is, and that there is deep water access. And as far as Collier County deep water is concerned, there is access. Page 41 March 3, 2005 Parks and rec. wishes to construct a community park with a majority of the site being dedicated to a boat ramp -- dedicated to a boat ramp and the associated automobile and boat trailer parking. The plan that we have at this point, the conceptual plan, shows 75 boat trailer parking spaces and 21 vehicular parking spaces, also a pavilion, playground, a fishing platform, and boat docks. County transportation staff reviewed this and found it was consist with the transportation element of the GMP. The findings that are required for a conditional use is that it be consistent with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. As I said, this is in the urban coastal fringe, transition between urban and conservation uses. And we believe that this is a transitional use because the people from the urban area will use this boat ramp to get to the conservation lands and the waters that surround them. Village residential, as defined in the Land Development Code, is for residential with small building footprints and associated uses, such as -- in Goodland in particular, crab fishermen. And a community park is a conditional use within the VR designation. The other finding is ingress and egress to the site. There is only one access point to the site, as you can see here on Goodland Drive, is the -- the one-way in and out. The roads in Goodland are slightly narrower than most of the traditional roads in the county. They -- these roads are approximately 22 feet in width. Again, we checked with Collier County Transportation, they didn't see this as a -- something that would prohibit the use. And, again, in Goodland there is more pedestrian traffic than in many other areas of Collier County. And one of the suggestions from staff, which we have incorporated into this, is that in order to prevent boats and trailers from pulling in, finding out that the lot is full, and then having to pull out, having unnecessary trips, would be to have an electronic sign at the intersection of 29 and have it operated by phone from the park attendant and when the lot was full -- this is a sign at Page 42 March 3, 2005 Wiggins Pass but -- instead of saying open, it would say lot full, something to that effect, so the boats could see before the -- the drivers could see before they pull their boats into the narrower streets of Goodland. And as we said, the petitioner agrees with that sign. Another finding is noise, glare, odor and economic effects. This park will have high weekend use. And, again, this is going to be the same time that most of the residents are going to be home in Goodland. And so they -- they will be pulling the boats into Goodland at the same time the residents are -- are at home in Goodland. However, most of the noise will only occur early morning and sunset, when -- there's not going to be noise constantly. There's going to be the noise of the traffic coming in and the unloading of the boats, basically twice a day. And the fourth finding is compatibility with surrounding lands. Staff found that this project was compatible with surrounding uses at a limit of 50 trailers. We believe that it would still be compatible with the 75 boat trailer parking spaces. The Goodland Civic Association believes that 36 would be the maximum boat trailer spaces that the site could handle. Again, my client is the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners has asked us to present this with the maximum number of boat trailer spaces that we could fit onto the __ onto the parcel. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Reischl, could you bring up the picture that you had previously there? MR. REISCHL: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The -- that -- just a point of clarification. The green spaces there where the trailers would be parked and the vehicles, is that impervious or is that grass? All of those spots there, is that -- is that green because it's intended to show that it's grass, or is that green -- MR. REISCHL: I'll let -- I'll let Mr. Amico answer that question. Page 43 """"---.--.-,--."..,,... .--.-- March 3, 2005 MR. AMICO: Hi. For the record, Dominick Amico, ABB. The actual boat parking places are proposed to be green grass basis, either pave or brick or some sort of stabilization. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. MR. REISCHL: Thanks. There was a neighborhood info meeting that was held October 14th of last year at Mackie Park. Approximately a hundred people were there. The main concerns were the traffic impacts. There was some discussion about a preference for not having a park there at all and other people wanted a park that did not include a boat ramp. So there was a variety of information presented at that meeting. In conclusion, I'd just like to say that we are following the direction of the Board of County Commissioners to follow through with a conditional use for a park, including a boat ramp, with the maximum number of boat trailer spaces that we could fit on the site. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How many boat trailer spaces are there? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Seventy-five. MR. REISCHL: On the plan here, we have 75. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Seventy-five spaces? MR. REISCHL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are there any spaces for just people who want to picnic? MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They are over there in the northeast corner? MR. REISCHL: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm looking at the deed by which the county acquired this back in January of '02, and the way I read it, the county paid $4,588,000 for this piece. Now, if you only put 36 boat trailers on there and divide that into 4,588,000, it becomes a pretty pricey proposition, it would seem. Even your 75 makes it pretty Page 44 -------,"^ March 3, 2005 ".-~., . pncy. MR. REISCHL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You don't have any -- you don't take exception to that dollar figure, do you? MR. REISCHL: They're my client, they paid that price. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I -- I do have a problem with that 75. I listened to what some of the owners in the area have said, and there's two changes I would like to see done. I would like the 75 to become 50. I would like the parking spaces from 21 to become 30. I think that would balance it off a little better and make it a little bit easier for people to get in and out. An extra 25 trailers moving in and out of is going to be a lot of traffic. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray, you had some comments? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I just was curious. From the boat launch site to the nearest home would be how many feet? Would we have an idea? It's -- I'll take a reasonable estimate, if you can work it from there. MR. REISCHL: Looks like approximately 150 -_ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. REISCHL: -- feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. REISCHL: It's a sixty scale, I believe. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer, you had a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Fred, what kind of guidelines do we layout for boat trailer parking lots? Is it the same as regular parking lots. MR. REISCHL: With regard to landscaping? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So wouldn't that -- there be the need for breaks and -- I mean trees and stuff? You have like an area Page 45 _._"-_..,--_...._-_._..".~- March 3, 2005 down the center of that, could we start putting some trees and stuff in that or -- MR. REISCHL: Yes. And that's -- that was one of the conditions that Mr. Bellows had in his stipulations. And this is the conceptual plan, it's not an SEP plan, but, yes, there were -- it would -- some people say it would be easier without the landscape islands, but we're not going to argue that point, we're going to put them on the SEP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we, in lieu of landscaped islands, just landscape that dead zone in front of all these spaces? If you notice, you have like a rectangular -- there's like a black -- it's just running down where they weave together, up at the tip there's a spot that isn't part of the stall. No. Go down the center. Right there. MR. REISCHL: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we not just put trees in that area and avoid losing spaces? MR. REISCHL: That's a possibility. We didn't ask for an exemption from the landscape code, but that's -- I guess would be up to Ray if that would be a possibility here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because what you'd be doing is taking out a full nine-foot long space -- MR. REISCHL: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- every ten spaces, which is a lot. MR. REISCHL: Right. We'd be down to -- I think it was 68 spaces or so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think in lieu of that, you could build a beautiful tree line down both those centers. In terms of the ratio of non-boat parking and boat parking, is there some sort of a form that you use? I mean is the intent of that parking just to be for the playground, or is that where people who are going to go out in the boat with other people would park their car? MR. REISCHL: Either that or there is a picnic area, the pavilion, Page 46 ".... - ........."'.-,--- -~,"~-- -~~'_'___'''''~_"~'"___H.'·'_'___'___m''''''____ ~.__ March 3, 2005 where just relaxing, enjoying the area. The number of boat spaces was basically limited by the logistics of driving the trailer through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. But do you think you have enough of the non-boat space parking? I mean is there any kind of a place you seek information on what the ratio should be or __ MR. REISCHL: We didn't see it as a ratio, more of -- as you would increase the auto parking spaces, you'll also be decreasing the area that the people are going to drive their cars there to utilize. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Fred, if you decreased the number of spaces and take them down to 50, will that allow you to increase the actual park area? MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: The park area looks a little thin in this representation. We are looking at a park, as well as the boat ramps. MR. REISCHL: Yes. If you decrease the number of trailers, then the -- then the -- either the auto parking or the green area, the non-boat trailer area would increase. COMMISSIONER CARON: Now, the Goodland preservation people have a couple of other concerns. And let me just see if they are anything that the county objects to. I can't imagine but -- that the park be closed for three community events. I guess this is something that had been discussed with Marla Ramsey. Those three events are a Christmas bizarre that they always have, the Goodland birthday celebration, and an Easter egg hunt. And they wanted to be able to use the park for those events and not have trailers in there that day. Is that something that you're amenable to? MS. RAMSEY: For the record, my name is Marla Ramsey. I'm - the administrator for Public Services Division. Yes. We -- we have always talked with the community and tried to be very receptive to the Page 47 March 3, 2005 fact that they have a need for some special events. As a matter of fact, we have already held one special event on the lot. So, yes, as long as we were, you know, able to -- whether it's an all weekend event or whether it's a day event, we have talked about three different large events that they have available that they would like to use it for. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, if I could, while Marla's up there, just to answer Mr. Abernathy's question, if Marla could give a history of this project, briefly, for the record, so they understand how the county acquired this and why those sums were paid. MS. RAMSEY: Well, a little bit of history, I guess. And some of the Goodland people have probably even a better focus on that. But a number of years ago, there was an opportunity for a large condominium association to come onto this site. And the Goodland people thought that the condominium element was not conducive to their neighborhood, and so they asked the Board of County Commissioners to put an overlay over the top of that. And in doing so, then there -- it became a land battle over the parcel that we're discussing, which went to a lawsuit and came to a settlement over that. And that's how the Board of County Commissioners obtained the land, was through a settlement because of an overlay. Then the Board, in January of last year, directed staff to fully utilize the facility and put in 75 parking spaces in this location. And the reason that we came up with that particular number is that if you have a two lane ramp and people are coming in and going out, they take about 20 minutes to do that. If you calculate that out, you can -- you will then need 75 parking spaces or 76 parking spaces to allow everybody to come into the park and find a place to park and still be able to launch. And that's why you have 75 parking spaces on this plan as it is today. And that Page 48 ·.···-_.,_~.......M~·< ___~_"_,,",,,,^, March 3, 2005 was -- that was directed by the Board of County Commissioners in January of last year, before we even started this entire process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Was there any alternative rendering prepared? Inasmuch as staff recommended 50, was there any other rendering that shows a -- 50 spots? MS. RAMSEY: There isn't any official rendering that has shown 50. One of the things that we have always talked about -- and I worked with the community a long time -- is that there are only certain days and weekends when you're going to need 75 parking spaces in this location. That's why we tried to leave it as green as we possibly can, knowing that maybe your first two bays are going to be, you know, heavy with -- with the trailer parking and other times you're not going to use the other side of it, which means then you could block it off and have it available for -- for green space for events or whatever else the community wants to. We tried to make it look like it was an overflow parking area. I mean as long as I can get 75 people, trailers, into this site on a heavy busy day, our goal is to never have a trailer parked out into the community. That is our goal. As you would see along 951 or down by Bay View. We, as staff, can -- cannot put in a facility if we're going to impact the community the way those communities were impacted a number of years ago. So when we build it, we want to build it right. We want to encompass as many people as could launch at that facility, and 75 just happens to be that number. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any other questions? All right. Does that conclude the petitioner's presentation? MR. REISCHL: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. And -- yeah, even though the county is petitioner, there's still staff report. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. Page 49 . '~'"._"".~--_.~"....,._.~ March 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. The split personality of the county. If we could hear the staff report, please. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm the manager for the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Mr. Reichhold's done a very good job of explaining the project and reviewing staff comments of the staff report. Project has been found consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. And on the review criteria, the analysis criteria, we're recommending approval of the conditional use. Staff had a concern that the 75 parking spaces would not allow for it to meet code for landscaping and the buffer requirements. We also had concern about the traffic impacts during the peak time of usage with a single access point into this community and the limited nature of access with the single road in. We looked at conceptual designs with the county landscape architect and came up with 50 boat trailer parking spaces as a way of increasing the trees and -- and increasing the park like setting of the facility, instead of making it more of a marina, commercial marina type operation. Unfortunately, we didn't have time to have an actual plan prepared showing the 50, but that is our staff recommendation. And I would be happy to answer any other questions. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Would you also agree then that -- to increase the amount of car lots from 21 to 30? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have a problem with that, that would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would ask this question. If you concede the 50, leaving you green space, would that green space, on the occasion of those special weekends when the density -- you know, the likelihood of high use is there, would that space be convertible into parking space for those trailers? In other words, can 75 be used, even Page 50 ------.. ,-~.. -"~-'----.'"'-~--^._'~'--_._--.--..-"- March 3, 2005 though your intent is to have 50 as a norm? MR. BELLOWS: Well, if your concern is having parking parked outside of the facility, that's one of the reasons staff recommended, in agreement with the petitioner, to place a sign saying that the lot it full. I suppose anything can be designed in away, but -- as you can see, they are -- have been -- at the 75 you're showing here, that's about as green as its going to get. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, basically, you're convinced that 50 is a max number? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ray, I understood Miss Ramsey to say that the county had directed her to design a plan that had 75 spaces. Was that a slip of the tongue, or is that what the county told her? County commission. MR. BELLOWS: I can't speak for that issue. Just like any other county project that's brought before you, there is a responsibility of the Department of Zoning to make sure any county project, like any other privately submitted petition -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I understand that. MR. BELLOWS: -- is consistent with the codes. I assume what Marla Ramsey said is correct. I have no -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's consistent with the code either way, isn't it? MR. BELLOWS: Our county landscape architect has not approved the design as is and has stipulated certain changes that we would -- the petitioner has agreed to work with us at the time of site development, plan review. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think, Joe, you had had an indication that the county commission had taken that number 75 from someplace and -- Page 51 March 3, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- passed it to Miss Ramsey. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. But just so you understand where we are with this, so the county didn't -- or did not spend anymore money in regards to design and final designs for this. It was staffs recommendation and through the county manager, as well, and with Miss Ramsey that we bring this to the Board to see if in fact the conditional use would be approved before we go to any spending of more money and creating any further designs. But what Ray says is in fact correct, yes, the 75, I believe, as Miss Ramsey put on record, is what the Board is looking for. We know that there are -- and you'll probably hear some speakers, so I'll defer when -- to the public speakers in regards to the design. But, frankly, in looking at it from a review perspective, to allow for sufficient landscaping, that's how we came about the 50. And it's certainly up to the Board to make the final decision. The conditional use will identify both the use and the conditions associated with the use. Which would -- in this case could be 50 or 75 or some number in between. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One further question in that regard. Whether it be 50, 75, or another number, once decided, the park would be created and this would then be held in perpetuity, this would not be subject to later on being dismantled and used, sold, anything of that nature? MR. SCHMITT: I can't categorically state that. That's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about the next -- MR. SCHMITT: -- the county property. The county-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about the next 50 years, would that be logical? MR. SCHMITT: The use continues with the land. I mean it's recorded as part of the land use, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As a park. Page 52 March 3, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: As a park. But certainly in the future, for whatever reason -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know you -- MR. SCHMITT: -- could be a rezoning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know you cannot see the future. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But in terms of our intent, the intent is to create a park -- MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- or -- for its purpose and to provide these spots and to provide the community with some green space. MR. SCHMITT: I mean the -- well, the critical issue here is -- one is that, but also to provide access, beach and boat access, which you know is a critical issue in regards to the parks and recreation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if this were approved and the -- and the count -- commission were to approve it, we would have another park, that would be fine, and upgraded and everybody can benefit from it. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I understand. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Chairman, I would also like to put on the record I have received correspondence from numerous residents in -- from Goodland. Some are opposed to the boat launching facility in its entirety. The -- they have expressed concerns, maybe residential use with full-time residents would be a more suitable use for the location. Other residents have thought the 75 boat slips were too much, but they could live with the lesser amount. Some, as Mr. Reischl indicated, that the 36, I believe, was something that they were looking at. Page 53 March 3, 2005 We also have a gentleman asking that maybe the residents of Goodland could purchase this through some corporation. That's not an issue through the zoning, but that should be directed to the county commISSIoners. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Any other questions on the staff report? Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, condition two says that petitioner shall provide sidewalks on both sides of the entry road. What exactly does that mean? I mean they really -- MR. BELLOWS: It's -- it would be at this point coming in and coming down this way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is it that whole road? MR. BELLOWS: Not -- no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The public road? So it's only at that little entrance? MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would the one on the left side -- what would -- what would that achieve, just out of curiosity? MR. BELLOWS: Well, there are residents along the west side. They would come down and cross over and in to the facility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So point to where the sidewalk you're -- on the left side, where are you referring to? I can understand the one on the upper side. Can you move your arrow or -- MR. BELLOWS: We have a throat depth of the entry road comIng In. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So where you're going now -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you'll be putting -- MR. BELLOWS: And there are residents on both sides of the road coming in. There would be a crosswalk at some safe point, to be determined at the site development plan stage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's what that means? Page 54 March 3, 2005 MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? There being none, are there any registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, there are. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If you would, announce the speaker and the two following. So for our speakers, whoever is going to address us, come forward to the microphone, and the other two will be on deck, if you will, behind them. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. The first speaker is Debbie Pappy, followed by Edward Fullmer. MS. PAPPY: Good morning. My name is Debbie Pappy. I am a property owner and a resident of Goodland. I am also the newly elected secretary of the Goodland Civic Association and a member of the Goodland Preservation Coalition. In addition, I have served on the park committee for the Goodland Civic Association that was established in 2004. After many years of turmoil and controversy, I am here to urge you to vote yes to the conditional use permit, but I would urge you not to compromise our community for the sake of having a large park. Parks and rec. department has proposed a maximum facility. The scope of this proj ect is too large. We need more parking -- we need more park and less parking. We need it -- more native, vegetative buffer protected, and additional vegetation introduced as a buffer for the neighboring properties. Goodland is a historic fishing village. It is a destination, a unique place in Collier County. A place where people can reconnect to the good old days. It is a pedestrian way of life. The county has an opportunity to make this facility like no other in Collier County. Harry Pettit built the only road into Goodland by hand, and today a plaque is placed near the beginning of this historical road. Therefore, there should be no widening, straightening, or additions to Page 55 March 3, 2005 this historical landmark. No sidewalks. On Sundays in Goodland, our community swells by hundreds and sometimes thousands of visitors. There is vehicular and pedestrian traffic. This is a fishing village, and there are always boats of all sizes being towed through town. With proper supervision and monitoring of this proposed facility, residents and boaters can coexist. The staff report has stated that this facility shall be limited to a maximum of 50 boat trailer spaces. For me, the operative word is maximum. While the final staff report stated that anything less would be an under utilization, please consider the other 33 parking spaces proposed for this facility. If the number of allowed spaces for boat trailers was 36 and the additional parking of 33 spaces was incorporated, Goodland Community Park would truly be a park instead of a parking lot. The Goodland Community Park would become a park that would compliment our historic fishing village. There is a recipe for success. With a measure of common sense, coupled with the demand for water access, the Planning Board could recommend a conditional use permit with restrictions in perpetuity. The restrictions that I would like to see placed on this property are, one, the permits that the park and recs are applying for should not be transferable and limited to usage for the park facility only. There should be no changes to the roadway, no sidewalks outside of this facility, limit the number of boat parking spaces to 36, and install an electronic board on State Road 92 before entering into Goodland, letting boaters know that the facility is full. With innovative and thoughtful planning Goodland's Community Park can be one that links present needs with -- with preserving the past. I have a couple of comments. First of all, Mr. Aldestein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Adelstein. MS. PAPPY: Adelstein. Excuse me. There are 21 parking spots Page 56 March 3, 2005 for additional boat use, but there are also 12 parking spots for park use in the staff report, bringing -- if you add that to the 75, that would make it 108 parking spots. The other item I would like corrected is, is that the fellow that spoke up here before said it would like to see the billboard put on -- or the message board put on Route 29. That -- it -- I think he meant 92. MR. REISCHL: Sorry. MS. PAPPY: That's okay. And the other thing that I would like you to consider is not from sunrise to sunset, I want you to consider from 7:00 in the morning until 6:00 in the evening. And there are other boat parks in Collier County that have two line boat ramps with half or more of the proposed parking spots. They have 31 at Caxambas, you have 19 at 951. So we don't need to maximize in the beginning. And the other item is, is that Caxambas park, which is also in a residential community, their hours are Monday through Sunday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please? MR. BELLOWS: Edward Fullmer, followed by Jim Graham. MR. FULLMER: My name's Edward J. Fullmer, 584 Coconut Avenue, Goodland, Florida. I was president of the Goodland Civic Association in 2001. The board of directors that year voted nine, zero to support the Board of County Commissioners to settle a lawsuit by a developer to purchase Palm Point Property if Goodland would support a park and a boat ramp. The agreement was approved between us and the county commissioners that half of the land would be for a park and half would be for a boat ramp. Like Caxambas Boat Park on Marco Island, with 36 parking spots and green space for up to 50 for overflow. We have not changed our minds, nor have the residents of Goodland. There is a small group that do not speak for Goodland that was voted out of office on February 15th, and on February 18th a new Page 57 - -- "~--~--_.._..- March 3, 2005 board was elected for 2005. You may hear from these people today, but the lawyer who was voted to be suspended by the new board, because she was hired by the past board and does not represent the Goodland Civic Association, but the old Goodland board. I hope you honor that agreement made in 2001 and pass the conditional land use permit to allow a park on Palm Point and keep Goodland a historic fishing village. If you don't mind, could I have the people in support stand up, please? As you can see, there's quite a big group from Goodland that wants a park and a boat ramp. We do not want it sold for condos. Also, Mr. Pappy sent you an e-mail, and he asked me to read it into the record. Is that permissible? CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have the e-mail and it's in the record, so we're set there. In interest of brevity, if you want to highlight some items, that'd be fine, but I would rather not go through the lengthy reading. MR. FULLMER: All right. Well, in his conclusion then -- since you-all got the e-mail? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. FULLMER: This is Mr. Pappy, he lives at 583 Coconut Avenue. He said I believe it would be smart to start with a -- 20 boat trailer parking spaces so how -- see how it works, be prepared to expand facilities as the demand increases. Give Goodland a chance to adjust. Thirty-six is a large number and 50, with overflow, is possible. So I thank you very much, and I hope you vote for this conditional use permit. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you sir. Yes Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sir? MR. FULLMER: Did I forget the 26- foot boat? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Only you know what you forgot, I can't answer that. Was that agreement in '01, is that reduced to writing? Page 58 March 3, 2005 MR. FULLMER: No. Mr. Carter was chairman at the time, Miss Pam Mac'kie, Mr. Coletta, Mr. Henning, and Mrs. Fiala were just newly elected when that was taken care of, but it was a back and forth. We have-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Was it on the record at a county commission meeting? MR. FULLMER: It's in the record. I believe, Mr. Pettit, the attorney at the time -- because when I was president, I was talking back and forth because of the -- the out of court settlement. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So there's no document? MR. FULLMER: There -- there possibly could be. I'd have to check with the ex-secretary because she had all the records. But it was turned over to the new board, so I don't know whether it's still there or not. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Jim Graham, followed by Anna Carter. MR. GRAHAM: I'm James Graham, and I am a resident of Collier County and I am a Goodlander. I live in Goodland. I live on 650 -- 656 East Palm. And I am boater to the future -- hopefully future park and boat ramp. What I'd like to focus on is the road into the park. And it was brought up a little while ago by the staff, I believe. And -- came to me yesterday, driving down -- because I had to drive down to get here. Oh, by the way, before I say that, I was -- I was a member of the Goodland Civic Association, and I still am, and I was on the board for seven years. And what the fellow speaker before me mentioned about the fact about the 30 -- the 35, and that's what I would like to see. But it was like -- it was like a promise to us, and it was kind of -- we got hurt by it. Anyways, what I want to speak of is the road. I drove up that -- down that road yesterday a couple of times on my ohmmeter (sic) in Page 59 m"_.__~__.'__·····__····_·__·___ March 3, 2005 the car, and the meter told me that the distance of this road is little bit under four-tenths of a mile. And I got -- and I talked to somebody in the community, which I do a lot, because they -- they seem to -- we think alike. Most -- the majority think alike the way I think, I believe. And on that road it's got three zonings. It's got residential, VR, commercial. And I went, wow, that's a mixed bag. And when I can figure out -- I can't put this together, but from what I can figure out, just a little bit under two-tenths of a mile, it is aligned with commercial property. And then -- then it came to me. I said, wow. I says, the entire -- since I been there ten years, I've saw nothing but beer trucks, trucks, boats. I live on Palm, and you gotta go down that road to go down Palm to go to the marina. And I gotta tell you something, I'm seeing 35 and almost 40- footers all the time going down to the marina, Walker Marina. He owns it now. And we -- we don't seem to complain about that. So what -- I guess what I'm trying to say here -- I don't want to take up too much time. What I'm trying to say here, the traffic on this road, that's the character of Goodland. Boats, trucks, people, tourists, and more tourists, guests. But there's one thing about guests when they come to Goodland. They leave and we have a lot of downtime, a lot of peace. You know what I'm saying? And I love Goodland, and I hate to see it change. And one of the main factors at the beginning of all this, about -- way back when all this property came up, this Dolphin Cove area, was about density. It was all about density. And I am personally, and my neighbors and others, for the conditional use of this land. You know, I hope you fellas vote for this for the 35 spaces and -- with an overflow. I don't care how much overflow, just as long as we have 35 spaces, because we'll always have the opportunity as a community to use that piece of property for the community, for the Goodlanders. So it's a win, win, win because -- for me, anyways, and ,- Page 60 ".-.- ".--------..".'.-.---.......--.............---- March 3, 2005 others, because I am a Goodlander -- not only that, I am a citizen of Collier County. And this small community opens up its doors to the world, and then the doors close when they leave. Kind of works that way. So, thank you for listening to me and that's what I need -- I have a lot I can say, but there's a lot of speakers. I don't want to say something that someone has in mind to say. You know what I'm saying? So hopefully we can spread this out pretty -- pretty evenly. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please? MS. CARTER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Anna Carter. And Jimmy said a lot of what I was going to say, so that's great. I'll make my speech kind of brief. I've been a business owner in Goodland for over 20 years. I'm a property owner in Goodland. And we would not like to see that property sold in any future. It's something that we can leave for generations to come. Goodland is a -- an endangered species. We're a little jewel in the midst of the 10,000 islands. Personally, I'd like to see a proximity of 30 boat slips for -- 30 boat parking spaces, and I really don't want to see Goodland lose its identity as a fishing village. We don't want to see condominiums. We see thousands of tourists come into town, people that own property, seasonal people that come into Goodland, and they love the quaintness of Goodland and we really want to preserve that. Thank you very much. Main important thing is we don't want to lose the overlay. We fought very hard for the overlay. And people come to Goodland and it's that free spirit that comes out that we really want to preserve. We do want to preserve our overlay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Anne Wright Hess, followed by Deborah Klosik. MS. HESS: I'm Anne Wright Hess, and I've been to Collier Page 61 March 3, 2005 County several times to talk about this piece of property. In the very beginning, when it was going to be Dolphin Cove and a five story condo development over parking, which was excavated from the property . But today I'd like to speak about one other thing, which has to do with the maximum use of the property. Because the county did spend a lot of money for that to correct the problems of permitting and improper use given our community character. I'd like to speak in favor of having more park and less parking. And I'll do that not for the senior citizens who would love it, too, but for the children. There are many children in Goodland. They had a lot to do with designing a park for themselves, and they would like more park space. They're at school today, so they can't be here, but I would like to speak for them. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Nancy 1. Simmons and Deborah Klosik. Deborah Klosik. Excuse me. MS. KLOSIK: Good morning. I'm Deborah Klosik. I am a Goodlander, and a newly elected president elect of the civic association. I am here as a new business owner, and the point I'd like to make, because I can't improve on what's been said before, is that as a business owner, I've had the privilege of talking to a lot of the tourists that come through town. And it's amazing to me that they're much aware of the controversy that's going on in the community. And they're hoping that what you do today will make an impact on their lives, as well, because they want to see old Florida remain old Florida. And they can benefit from visiting us and having an avenue to go to down that little path into that community area where we have a park that they can visit old Florida. And they invest their tourist dollar in Collier County. They love to go to the hotels and see the beach and live in the Page 62 ...-.,..,.--........"" "-..-'"- March 3, 2005 little privacy of a room and sleep in a bed that's cushy and get that mint on the pillow, but what they really like to do is come to Goodland and see old Florida and see the character of the village. And improvement on that area down there with a bigger park and less parking will benefit our tourists, as well. So I think you need to consider that tourist dollar while you're considering us, as well. So that's what I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What other parks are there for children on the -- in Goodland? MS. KLOSIK: There aren't any. And our children live in the streets. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Zero? MS. KLOSIK: Zero. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MS. KLOSIK: And, you know, our lot lines are very short and narrow, and they don't have any playgrounds in their own front yard. So, something to consider. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ma'am, I -- I heard from a number of witnesses that indicate that they'd like to have a smaller parking area and a larger park. Has anyone in your group prepared a rendering to depict what that would look like? MS. KLOSIK: We had a committee last year that we spent hours and hours and put packets together to give to the commissioners that we all did drawings. The children, as well. We have about 40 odd children and growing that put renderings together of what we all wanted. Including an elderly gentleman who's no longer with us who did a rendering of what we wanted in our park. We've all always wanted a park. Regardless of how we butt __ heads on any other issues, we've always wanted a park. That has always been in our hearts, and that's number one and foremost in our Page 63 ."-~-- March 3, 2005 ..,,_-.. community. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does the park as shown in any way resemble those studies you guys did? MS. KLOSIK: Not at all. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. MS. KLOSIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Our next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker is Nancy 1. Simmons, followed by Greg Bell, Bello. MS. SIMMONS: My name is Nancy Jane Simmons, and I live in Goodland and I'm a homeowner. I live on West Palm Avenue, which runs right into where the Palm Point Park will run right into that park area. I would much rather see a boat ramp park at the end of my street than any commercial or anymore fancy home development in that area. Thirty-six boat spaces would be very nice, if we could get it. I feel any large residential development will be a leak that will sink the boat for Goodland, and I don't think we could handle any leak. I chose to live in this unique fishing village, and I want to help protect the remaining green space and character. Please help save our village from any over development. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Greg Bello, followed by J.W. Douglas. MR. BELLO: Hi, my name is Greg Bello. I recently purchased a property very close to the park. It's -- I don't know if you can see that. This way. Yeah. It's right there. Right there. Okay. We have two children, a nine year old and a 13 year old. One of the things that drove us to come to Goodland to buy this piece of property was what exists here right now. You see children walking around the streets, riding their bikes freely. It's a great place to be for kids. The people in Goodland are not selfish people. They are people Page 64 March 3, 2005 who care about themselves, but they also care about the island. They're open-minded, they're not against change. They're not against progress, but they're basically people who are concerned about losing what they -- what they have, and that is the attitude and the flavor of the island. The fact that the Goodland people in general, the majority, at least the ones I've talked with, are in favor of putting a park here and having -- and allowing and having a boat drop says a lot for the people. If they were selfish, they wouldn't want any change, they wouldn't want any new traffic coming through. And if you've ever trailored a boat, you need to be very careful when you're pulling a trailer because it's hazardous. We don't know who the people are that are going to be coming onto the island, but we're open-minded and we expect that good character will be shown by these people and care in driving through the island, trailoring a boat up to 30 feet or more. These children are going to be having increased danger, but we're not saying we don't want it. We understand that that's part of the deal. We don't want condominiums, we don't want to what -- to appear what happened as you come into Goodland with a strip of condos that are basically a wall of concrete with very little attention to beautification. We don't want something like that to happen again. We're -- we don't want somebody to come in and buy this property, put a condo or say they're going to put up a condo that's three stories tall, and -- and we turn around and a variance has been passed for a six, five, six floor tower. We don't want that. Weare willing to accept the lesser of the two evils, which is the park. The thing we're concerned with is this is an island that's approximately 2,000 feet from left to right and north to south and east to west. It's a very, very small piece of property. There's probably -- and I don't know the exact numbers. There's probably not much more than 200 residences on this island. Bringing this area with 75 proposed Page 65 March 3, 2005 spots for the trailers, as well as the additional spots for that very tiny remnant of a park, is really pretty -- pretty major, in terms of the number of -- of traffic that you're going to be bringing in to here. The other thing about it is, like has been addressed, we don't want a parking lot, we want a park. We want to be open-minded. And the talk of the 36 spots for trailers does not seem outrageous. Now, if every other park in Collier County's history has had 75 or more spots, there would be an argument. But because we have cited other parks where there's less than 36 spaces, some with 19, it's not an unreasonable request. Now, if money is the issue here and Collier County is going to base their decision on, well, we spent 4.5 million, let me tell you, I just spent 825,000 for a little dinky, nothing lot across from that. So if -- if the 4.5 is something that demands a maximized usage of this land and basically create a big parking lot on this little, tiny area of -- of dirt, I think everybody has to reevaluate what things are and what things cost. We want to be cooperative. We want to be unselfish, we want to be understanding. We want to go along with making everybody happy. We want to open this up to the rest of the Collier County. We want to support the use of this as a -- as a boat drop and a -- and a park. But let's -- let's not forget that we want a park, we don't want a parking lot, and we -- we want to consider how much traffic is going to be involved with 75 spots. And on top of it, we're talking -- originally the lady had mentioned that -- or the gentleman, I'm sorry, had mentioned that there's going to be noise in the morning and in the evening. Well, then the lady followed us -- followed this by saying it's going to take approximately 20 minutes to put a boat in the water. That tells me that if you have 75 -- 75 spots, excuse me, you're going to have noise literally all day long. I mean you're going to be loading and unloading constantly, if it's 20 minutes per boat. Page 66 March 3, 2005 So I want you to think -- keep this in the consideration. We don't want to be ignorant and -- and selfish. We want the park, but we want a park and we want something that's reasonable, that's not going to disrupt this 200 home community and 2,000 by 2,000 square foot space. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please? MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Douglas, followed by John Carter. MR. DOUGLAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. As one of the people most impacted by this project, since I live on the road, I wish to state I want the land to be used for the purpose of a park and boat ramp. Obviously, as a Goodland resident, I would prefer to have a minimum of boat parking places, but anything is better than building density. As for increased boat and trailer traffic, I believe it would be inconsequential compared with traffic generated by condominiums. Currently, much heavier trucks hauling giant boats to and fro Walker Marina are hardly noticed. Goodland offers a chance to get away from the overcrowded, condominium ruled cities of Florida, and, in its rural aspect, an attraction to visitors from all over the country and beyond. This should be preserved. One of the things I object to is the suggestion of putting curbs along Goodland Drive. Overlay provides that we can park our vehicles on the swale in front of our homes. We suffer from the problem of only 50-foot widths, so parking is a real problem. Any curbs will prohibit us from the protection we currently have. We do not need sidewalks, either. We like the way Goodland is already. Goodland needs the open water of this piece of land. The ocean waterfront history of Florida is a disgrace for any civilized nation. It has permitted individuals and corporations to block off access to the county property of the people, namely free access to the beaches. When we came to Florida in the 1960's, we used to stop at Page 67 March 3, 2005 Bonita Springs with its beautiful miles of beaches. For 25 cents, one could drive along a sandy track and park next to the ocean under Australian pines. Now that whole area is built over. In the 1970's, we could park anywhere along the seashore at Marco. Now, after access to the beach is denied by condominiums shoulder to shoulder, the people of Goodland have to pay a hundred dollars a year for the privilege of what used to be free. The days of the old United States have long gone when, if you didn't like what you saw, you could move further west or south, as the case may be. I ask you preserve this tiny scrap of land so our descendents can at least see the water. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: John Carter, followed by Emilee Lake. MR. CARTER: Good morning. My name is John Carter. I'm a resident of Goodland for the last 22 years, and I also have a business. And I have been the past president of the Goodland Civic Association, and in that time I was president, along with Mr. Ray Bellows, which accompanied us in trying to get the -- the -- the overlay for Goodland, and I appreciated and the village appreciated the work that Mr. Ray Bellows did for us. And I would hate to see that anything would come in and destroy what we had worked so hard for, other than to have a park and a boat launch. I feel that Goodland is -- is a gem, the real gem of Collier County. And I don't know if many people on the Board have been down to Goodland, but we welcome you with open arms. Come and see us, and we will make you very welcome. And we would like very much for the park and the -- and the boat ramp to be in Goodland, and to please preserve the gem of Goodland. Also, I would like to be able to pass on to future generations the feeling that I had 23 years ago when I drove down -- it makes me very emotional -- to the feeling I had when I drove down that little windy road and -- and came to Goodland. And I want to be able to pass that Page 68 .-..-,,- March 3, 2005 on to future generations because it's a feeling -- if you have the heart for it, it's a feeling you will never get (sic). Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Emilee Lake, followed by Dennis Schneider. MS. LAKE: I want to take this opportunity to thank all of you for listening to us today. There are many of us in Goodland who feel that our desires, our wishes, and our needs for what happens to this property has not been adequately communicated to people in a position of authority. One year ago, there was a park committee formed by the former leadership of the Goodland Civic Association. This group got together, sent out a survey, and came up with ideas of what the people in Goodland wanted in the park. According to the chairman of that committee -- I spoke to her last week, she said packets had been distributed. It's very poor quality. Thank you. You're going to hear something later about surveys, surveys, surveys, and percentages. I just want to remind you that if you sent out a hundred surveys, if you get 30 responding, it's not 100 percent. Okay. I'm going to give you some numbers. This was all done very quickly, within a weekend. These are 62 responses out of 300. Forty-three people want a play area; 38, a walking path and fitness trail; 36, a pavilion and beverages; 38, a picnic area; thirty-eight, a pier and a boardwalk; and 32, natural landscaping. As of last year there were 40 children in Goodland. These kids skateboard and ride their bikes out in the street. We know they're there, we look for them. We want somewhere safe for them to play. In a park, not a parking lot. I like Mr. Bellows' idea with reduced parking, but I'm not so stupid as to know that this is only about Goodland. It's about the entire county and the lack of access that the working people have when they want to go out with their boat on the weekend. Page 69 "."._~"........,...*._"._.. March 3, 2005 You have people living in Golden Gate and other landlocked areas that have no way to get to the water if they don't get up at the crack of dawn. Over the past few years, you've lost access through Wiggins Pass Marina, Turner Marina, and Boat Haven. The reason this property is so valuable is because it gives people what many cannot afford to buy. Water access. Water, water, water. That's why all these people are here. That's why they spend millions on condominium units that they can just be looking at the water. We're not stingy, we want to share. I moved to Goodland in 1972, and I guess if I could have then I would closed the bridge, but people keep coming. Okay. I left and I came back in '97. And just as I would walk my dog and see water everywhere around me, in those eight years I can't begin to tell you how much the view of the water has been reduced. And I only live a hundred yards in four directions from water, and I can't see it anymore. So in closing, I want to say we welcome you. We want you to come to Goodland. We want you to launch your boat, we want you to shop in our shops, we want you to spend your money, and then we want you to go home. But we want you to come down because we want to share the beauty we have discovered. Thank you. And does anyone have any questions? CHAIRMAN BUDD: No questions. MS. LAKE: None? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you very much. MS. LAKE: You're welcome. MR. BELLOWS: Dennis Schneider, followed by Earl Miller. MR MILLER: Hi. My name's Dennis Schneider. I live very, very close to the future park. That's my house right there. The pointer shows that my house is right opposite the entrance, the future entrance to the park. I also am committed to providing access for our average guy Page 70 March 3, 2005 with his boat who wants to go fishing in the Thousand Islands, but we have a family. My wife is a nurse, she works nights. We'd like very much for you to consider reducing the number of spots so that we can have more landscaping, perhaps between my house, which you can see right there, and the entrance to the park. Because when these guys come down in their boats and it's their day off, they're going to celebrate. And what they do is they turn up their boom box and they turn up their car stereos as soon as they get there, you know. So they're going to feel that way, and we'd like to -- we'd like to accommodate them, but we'd like to have as much trees and -- to swallow up some of that noise. I also want to speak for some other people who aren't here today. And these people have feathers. Down there, just yesterday morning, where the entrance is now, there were -- there was a gang of vultures who had found a yellow balloon. And these vultures were around that balloon mothering it and trying to decide who was going to have possession of that balloon. Also, in this area you'll find numerous red shouldered hawks. And these hawks live off the lizards that they find there. And there's also American kestrels who live around the periphery of this property. So when it becomes a park, can we provide for the -- the future homes of those feathered friends by increasing the number of trees and foliage around the edge? That would -- that would help a great deal to preserve the character of Goodland. I want to, in conclusion, say one thing. This little road that you see there, that's a private road. It's a private road. It's the continuation of Goodland Drive West, and it's a private road. So when the -- when people come down that road in their cars, what I think of all the time is I'm going to pay for the potholes that they produce when they bring their cars down there. Would it be possible to think about putting a gate, a gate at the entrance to our private road so that we can reduce the traffic coming down -- down -- down that private road? Page 71 _".___,____.~_.._M_·_..'M__'_'._ ..___......... _..___ March 3, 2005 My daughter is 14 years old. She and the other kids use the road in front of our house to play on. And if we could restrict access to that private road, it would help us feel generous to the other residents of Collier County who will be coming down here to enjoy boat access. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. MILLER: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Earl Miller, followed by Connie Fullmer. MR. MILLER: My name is Earl Miller. My wife Sonia and I have owned property at 427 Mango Avenue since 1990. We retired about six years ago, so now I am in Goodland from six to seven months every year. And we love the idea of the park, especially, and the boat ramp. Since I am on property that does -- not on the water, I have to use a trailer. And I would like to say at this time that I have to recommend the county for the boat ramps that they do have, because they take such good care of them. It's excellent. I go to Caxambas to put in when I want to go out to the ocean, and the facilities are always clean and neat. The county does a good job. So I am for the park and boat ramp. I would like to see that park be a little bit larger than what's been recommended and probably less in the parking area for the boats. I appreciate you listening to me and thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Connie Fullmer, followed by Carol Short. MS. FULMER: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name is Connie Stegall Fullmer, and I live at 584 Coconut Avenue in Goodland. I am the president of the Goodland Preservation Coalition. I am also a member of the Goodland Civic Association and past secretary and treasurer of that organization over the years. I was one of the -- nine persons who in 2001 voted to support the Page 72 .<~-- March 3, 2005 county's purchase of the property for a park and boat launch instead of the land being developed as a high-rise condominium, intense development, which is on the screen right now. It's kind of a bad picture, but you can see the intensity of it. Our county government stood behind Goodland in that fight because of the terrible negative impact it would have had on our small fishing village. Today, we ask that you vote to uphold the promise made to Goodlanders by Marla Ramsey that the property would be developed as much a community park as a boat launch facility. To us, as much meant was -- as much means is equal to, not less than. Equal to a community park, equal to a the amount of land used for the boat launch. Today we ask you to vote in favor of the conditional use permit to allow the essential service of a community park. And also, for the record, ask that you send your vote forward with the following considerations and recommendations. Number one, that you compromise -- that we compromise on the build out of the boat trailer area to provide for no more than 36 permanently allocated boat trailer parking spaces. Number two, we ask that the county place a deed restriction on the land limiting the use to a community park into perpetuity. Number three, that the hours of operation shall be 7:00 a.m. to sunset, that it be gated and fenced, as is done at the Caxambas Park on Marco Island. Number four, we'd like you to consider the service construction material for the boat trailer parking area to be grass pavers, allowing for maximum water permeation into the ground, and that the remaining drive and auto parking area be considered to be used -- to use crushed shell rather than asphalt. Number six, that there shall be an electronic traffic control sign placed on Highway 92 restricting incoming traffic when the boat trailer park is full, which has been discussed already. The sign should be operated from a cell phone by the park ranger in the park. That Page 73 March 3, 2005 there shall be no widening of Goodland Drive West or sidewalks installed, with the exception of the immediate entrance area to the park grounds, which was recommended by staff, and that the Goodland community can use the park, closed to the boating traffic, for our community events, such as the Christmas bizarre the Easter egg hunt, Goodland birthday celebration. All of these were earlier discussed and approved and recommended by Marla Ramsey. This should be -- become specifically part of the wording for the approval of the conditional use permit. And, also, as promised by Marla Ramsey, parks and rec. staff shall hold additional community meetings. After this conditional use permit goes forward, hopefully, we're looking for additional community meetings for input of the final design of the park facilities during the site development plan. The park and boat launch can be a win, win for the community of Goodland and the county when we uphold the promises that we all made back in the year 2001. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MS. FULMER: I do have another picture overhead of the layout of Goodland, and it shows off to the left there, this area is the property that we're -- is Palm Point, and it gives you a better view of the actual layout of Goodland. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Carol Short, followed by Steve Shimer. MS. SHORT: Good morning. My name is Carol Short. I live at 745 Palm Point, and I'm like the second house from the park, on the point, on the very point, next to Greg that he pointed out to you the lot he bought, where he purchased the lot next door to me. I feel that the people on Palm Avenue East and us down on Palm Point are the ones that are really, really going to be affected by what goes into this -- this community, what goes into that area of the community. And I personally really, really want a park.n Page 74 March 3, 2005 I watch children playing football, skateboarding, biking, whatever, always in the street. And if you go in and out of Goodland, we know to watch for these children. But a few weeks ago we had a picnic in the so-called park, and it was so well turned out. And I don't know -- I stopped count -- counting how many children came up to me and said please, please, let's have a park. We need a park. They want to do so many different things, and they have no place to do it, unless they go into Marco. So think of our children. I don't -- I personally have no small children at home, unless my grandchildren visit, but you know what? I would welcome them. I would welcome any child to come in, as long as they have a place to play and not that I would have to constantly watch out for them on the roadway. So think of our children. A thought that did come across my mind was one day my husband and I were doing our daily walk on Goodland, and a gentleman stopped. On the corner there, right across from the entrance, there's a lot for sale. And he was asking me about it, and he says, you know, he says, I just purchased property on Marco Island. He says I'm sorry I did. He says this is truly Florida. He says it's not condominiums and all this built up. He says it's green space, it's beautiful, waterways. He's -- he just kept remarking. And he was from Germany, and he says he was so interested in that lot because this represented old Florida. So that's a tourist coming in and just picking out the -- the whole island as something that's really historical Florida. So let's keep it that way and not let any condominiums go in there. I -- my husband's already said, condominium, we're out of there. I don't know where to go. There's no place left. So let's keep it as a park. And I do agree, let's have more green space and less parking. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please? MR. SHIMER: Okay. Good afternoon, commissioners, my name's Steve Shimer. I'm a resident, I'm a part-time resident and a Page 75 .-....._....__._~."..~,,-~ __m__ March 3, 2005 property owner. My wife and I have lived in Goodland for several years. Weare awaiting right now for a power point to be installed on this. So if we can wait, they said they're coming right over to put it on. Should be just a second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's move on to the next speaker, and we'll come back to you. MR. SHIMER: The next speaker's -- part of her's is tied into this last end of the power point. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Then the next, next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: She's the last speaker. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that the last one? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. SHIMER: That's it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: What's it going to take for the power point presentation, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure. MR. SHIMER: It's not on here. MR. BELLOWS: I think if we take a five minute break-- MR. SCHMITT: Do you have it loaded? MR. SHIMER: They said they may have. Let me see. MR. BELLOWS: If it's already -- if it's loaded -- MR. SHIMER: No. Oh, here he comes. That's it. Okay. My name's Steve Shimer, as I said. The things I would like to address today are some of the things involved with the traffic study, traffic patterns, safety patterns, and the economic conditions in Goodland that may be affected by this boat launch. What the thing you have to understand first is that the traffic statement is not a study based on the national government standards only and has no seasonal impact on Goodland at all. Nothing said in this study shows anything that even -- it's a spike in the -- the seasonal rate there. The beach and boat access reports recommend to all county Page 76 ,"" ._~""'."'""","~_H_~."·__ <-p._-_.....,-,-.'-_._~.."-,.._..._._,._-- March 3, 2005 members that estimates of carrying capacities should be always taken into consideration at peak use times and seasonal populations. None of the studies were ever done like that. In fact, the traffic impact statement says itself that for the trip mileage, the manual does not give established rates for facility such as this one. So any of the data that is being accumulated and put out concerning traffic, population, all this, are strictly estimates, and they're not from anyone. So what I'd like to do is kind of go through Goodland. And we'll start out -- at the top you see right up here is the entrance at 92. And I don't know if you can see it there, but right here, traffic coming from over 92 has to make a 180-degree turn at this point. Any traffic statement would have looked at this. They would have looked at this highway being used, turning around here, cars parked right here waiting to get out in the morning. This is not a good situation at all. Also, the turn around space. They say they have electronic signage, but wait a minute. These trailers are going to come out to that spot and it says, I'm sorry, this is full. Where are they going to turn around? There is nowhere to turn around. They go out to 92 or they're going down to Barfield Avenue in Marco Island. There is no turn around at this space. There also is a consideration for the new ten story development that's going in right over here, sharing this intersection. This is, I think, a serious problem, and should be very closely looked at in any traffic study. The next thing you have is -- you see this along the highway? It said in the report we do not have obstructions. However, at high tide we have blockage in several areas of part of the roadway, and people vie out and they get around and go to one traffic lane. They do not -- because it's saltwater. You don't want to run your car through Goodland through a puddle because it's saltwater. If you look at this area, the inside radiuses -- we'll talk about later on the vehicles -- is always carved up from trailers coming across Page 77 March 3, 2005 this area. Here is another one in Stans. This is always a big puddle area. This is where the saltwater comes from. It not only drains water at high tide -- it drains it in at high tides and covers this, reducing the lane to one. Now, this is what Goodland is like and should be in consideration on weekend. We have holidays, we have festivals. This is the Marco line right here that is contiguous with the City of Goodland. This, again, you can see -- imagine what's going to happen here. Now, when we have 1500 visitors, we have 700 parking areas in this area and when we look at that, we estimate more than two people. Even on the motorcycle, something more than two. But anyway, this particular area is a serious safety issue. If you look at this traffic and then put sidewalks all along here, well, what's going to happen? Think of the economic impact. First of all, you're going to drive all these people parking back into our community. Secondly, park traffic and -- and I'll state park traffic and boat traffic into Goodland is going to create a bottleneck in here. I don't think signage is going to work. One reason, it's never been used for boat trailers. These people are a different breed. It works for beaches, not boat trailers. Now let's look here. We're going -- we're right here now. Let's talk about this. Coming out of Stans, we come around the curve onto Goodland. This is the area they just spent 2.5 million, approximately, state and county money on as a new park. A real park, not the one down here we've been talking about. They have invested -- they're going to have kayak things, they're going to have walkways along the water. This has just been paid for and purchased in Margood by the state and the county to development in the next year. The end of this month, all of these people are supposed to be out of there and park development is supposed to start. Now, let's keep going down Goodland Drive. These are the kids in the morning. This is how we like it. We don't -- if you put park -- Page 78 . ~_~_"'_~_.">'_M">"""'___ March 3, 2005 what do you call them, sidewalks and things out here in the swales, they'll walk out there, they're going to ankle deep in water. The busses come here, pick them up. They have to turn up into this street and then back out because the busses cannot turn around at the end of our streets. They're all dead ends. Now, the average strip, it said in the report, is 22 feet. That's correct. Outside. Inside, from here down, it's 20 to 21 feet. And you look at the incursion from people parking here, this cuts it down tremendously. Let's look at what they -- the design vehicle they stated. Nineteen, three, 20. This is a ski boat in the Midwest. This has nothing to do with what we use for saltwater fishing. We estimate the average boat -- vehicle at -- total length at 47, versus what they said, 42. We use SUV's and trucks. These are dual tandem trailers we use here with two wheels and four axle -- two axles, not single. The guidons alone add six to 12 inches to the width of these vehicles. Now, if you would go back on that and look at that, that's going to be a tough haul at any time. Okay. This is where we're going into Goodland Park and where Mr. Schneider was talking about his home. Now, is this a park? Well, let's look at this. Let's start right here. Playground area, 2400 square feet. Total Palm Point property, 20 -- 210,000 square feet; total park area, one percent. Now, come on, that's not even realistic. We all know this has everything to do with the -- what do they call it, essential services of a community park. So we know what that is. We also know there's another park being built within 500 or 800 feet that's over two and a half to three acres. Now, let's look at this. The average truck length and trailer -- this is 320 feet, and now they have a barrier right here. So that means -- what, are these people going to stay out -- if they stay out -- these five or six or seven vehicles are starting at 6: 00 in the morning, they're going to be parked past Coconut. If they get in, they'll be parked up to here, with only six. Page 79 March 3, 2005 .,-, Now, the average vehicle requires ten minutes to this to launch. This is the beach and boat access report. Two loadings allow 12 vehicles, another 12 per hour. 6:30 in the morning, it will take until 11 :30 to launch 60 vehicles. These calculations they state in their report are ideal numbers, however, and do not provide for peak use times, such as weekends, holidays or boat trailers from outside Collier County . Boating safety. This is a view from the top. Here is Caloosa, this is the subject lot right here. Okay? Caloosa -- this is bracketed by two large marinas. It has the whole west side of Goodland emptying into -- it's called Blue Hill Creek. It's called a creek, it's not a river. It's very narrow. These are the guides that keep you inside this channel. So we're going to go up from this direction and take it through here. It's a manatee area, there are signs all over. Now, what I'm doing is starting out here, and I'm going to go right over to here at the point where the boat launch is supposed to start. That's the stern of the boat, now we're going towards that one piling. We can't get there because the low water, that's the mud. And now we look at this depth finder, this is seven by 15 feet. We looked at -- where we left the county, there's a drop off or the boat launch, but it only goes down to four to five feet and then tapers up. It's a very narrow channel through here. Now, I wasn't even at low tide. This is what it looks like at low tide. You can't get out from here out to here. It just doesn't work. We have people hanging up there all the time. It's a big mud flap. This is the economic problem. Trailers traffically in -- Goodland's restaurants, festivals, local charting. I don't think it's good for Goodland. Trailers bring with them their own food, drinks, gas and bait. It is the residential community, the negative impact on our property values will also be felt. Trailer traffic will increase. And this is very important. Unlike condo traffic, parallels the Collier County growth. The next ten to 15 years. Nothing was ever stated in any study about where we're going to be. Boating traffic doesn't stop. Page 80 ---- March 3, 2005 It's not like you have 50 units and the county says, hey, we're going to have X amount of trips. They can't do that because boating goes as the county goes. It will keep increasing and increasing and increasing. No statement was ever said in a study about the impact on Goodland in five, ten, or 15 years with this increase. What are they doing now out at Bayshore and these other? They're enlarging them. You think we're going to stay at 36 units -- if the capacity's 76 -- ten years down the road? I'm sorry, I don't think that's the way it works. Collier beach and boat report, the county should consider the purchase of available properties that would be suitable locations for boat ramps. No suitability study was ever done on this property. This property was based on a four and a half million dollar purchase by the county from a builder through litigation. A year before that, this same property could have been purchased for $2.8 million, but the Goodland Civic Association told the county they were not interested in having a boat launch in Goodland, only a park. We have the park. We have an excellent park. And I will entertain any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker is Mimi Wolok. MS. WOLOK: Good afternoon to the commission. My name is Mimi Wolok, and I am the attorney for the Goodland Civic Association, which has almost 300 members. As a representative of the Goodland Civic Association, I would ask the chairman for ten minutes, if I could? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MS. WOLOK: Thank you. I have here that I'm going to pass around a resolution signed by a unanimous board of directors of the Goodland Civic Association unequivocally opposed to this boat ramp. And I believe I have ten copies, so I have a couple extras. I have four points I'd like to make today. First, the conditional Page 81 March 3, 2005 use application submitted by the county is inconsistent with the Land Development Code. This should be a rezoning application, not a conditional use application. But the county is pushing this through without proper planning principle, without any studies showing the impact of increased traffic on this small village, and without any suitability analysis. In fact, the county has virtually no relevant data or analysis supporting this application. The county is saying this is a conditional use based on essential services, and specifically that the conditional use is a community park. This is no community park. Margood, that property that was just purchased by the county, the two -- for two and a half million dollars that you just heard about, is in fact a community park with green space and swings and that sort of thing. Everything that we know a park to be. If you look at the screen, you see tiny green space, which represents one percent, approximately, of this space. The rest is a parking lot. This is a boat launch facility, it's not a community park. Unfortunately, the LDC contains no definition of community park. So we have to turn to Webster's dictionary. What is the definition of community? A group of people who reside in a specific locality who often have a common cultural and historical heritage, a locality inhabited by such a group. Obviously, the people of Goodland, as you have heard today, have a common historical and cultural heritage. A park is defined as a public area, usually in a natural state, used for recreation. It's not a parking lot that is a launching pad for recreation elsewhere. Obviously, this is a county wide boat ramp, this is not a community park. The second point 1'd like to make, this conditional use application is inconsistent with the Goodland zoning overlay. Two sections of that overlay state no recreational vehicles or equipment can be parked or encroached in any county right-of-way easement, and no Page 82 March 3, 2005 personal vehicles can be parked in drainage swales if they block or impede traffic. You've seen pictures just now from Steve Shimer of vehicles that now impede traffic and parking in the right-of-way. Planning staff concludes, without any data or analysis, that the proposed conditional use is consistent with this Goodland zoning overlay, but it is not consistent. Intuitively, on streets that are barely 20 to 21 feet wide, you have already seen in Steve Shimer's slides that vehicles already park in the county right-of-way and impede traffic. When that parking lot is full, of course boat trailers are going to be parking in the rights-of-way. The county has argued that this is a code enforcement issue only. Well, code enforcement is nonexistent now to enforce the overlay, so who's to know if it's going to be enforced in the future? LDC 2.2.34.1, part of the overlay -- and it's -- this is an important provision of the overlay -- states that the purpose of the overlay is to provide assurance, not consideration for, but assurance that the tropical fishing village and small town environment of Goodland is protected and preserved and that development and/or redevelopment reflect the unique residential and commercial characteristics of the community. Putting up a sign at Goodland's entrance is not considered assurance. The overlay also states that in the event of a conflict between other provisions of this code and the overlay, that the overlay shall control. Artificially forcing the county's conditional use application under the heading of essential services conflicts with the overlay's purpose. Permitting unknown numbers of boater -- of boat trailers and boaters into this small village to park in the rights-of-way and impede traffic conflicts with the overlay. The third point is -- has to do with the traffic impact statement. And, please, don't be fooled, it's not a study. It's not a study of the impacts that boat traffic will have on this small community. And as you have heard, the road width is averaged. We want to know exactly on a 20 to 21- foot road what can go through. And Steve Shimer's data Page 83 March 3,2005 has shown you that it's going to be a tough fit. U sing generalized trip generation manual data is inappropriate. We have no data on trip generation to and from public boat ramps in Collier County or even in southwest Florida. Planning staff is using these faulty assumptions as the only basis for its conclusions about traffic study or traffic safety. I'm sorry. Plus, the trip generation manual does not take into account exponential growth in Collier County. Usage will only increase over time. It's not static. The assumption in the traffic impact statement that trucks with trailers will be using the parking spaces plus only ten percent during peak use is a blind assumption. And the assumption that reducing parking spaces will reduce the number of boat trailers using the ramp is a false assumption, as we know from the Caxambas boat ramp. The truth is the county has never conducted a study of boat ramp usage for ingress and egress from and to boat ramps. The forth point I'd like to make has to do with the marine citing criteria of the manage -- the Manatee Protection Plan which was adopted by Collier County. Water depth at the site, at mean low tide, must be at least four feet. If not, the boat ramps are not permitted, period. This conditional use application cannot be approved if the depth of the water at the site at mean low tide is less than four feet. You've seen Steve Shimer's data that at not even low tide, the depth at only one narrow point of the channel offshore from the site is maybe four feet. I have made a Sunshine Law request for data about the depth at the -- at the site, but the county has not yet produced such data. You must deny this conditional use application until the county shows you this data, that a double boat ramp complies with the marine citing criteria and with the Land Development Code. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Miss Wolok, I have a little Page 84 . ~"_"____'_W"'" ~-- March 3, 2005 confusion. Earlier, one of the persons representing themselves as a member of the board testified that they were -- that they had taken-- they had been elected to the board and that you were no longer employed by the board. I'm quite clear that that was stated. Are you currently here representing -- you've indicated you're representing the board of that association. MS. WOLOK: Yes. I could clarify for you, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me. Ladies and gentlemen, this isn't a mob rule, loudest voice wins. The lady was asked a question, she has the right to respond. Please. MS. WOLOK: I -- I believe Debbie -- I believe that was Debbie that you were talking about. The present -- she is the president elect, and she stated that she is the president elect. According to the bylaws of the Goodland Civic Association, once an election happens, which was February 15th, the new board takes over on March 15th, in 30 days. Also -- and the president elect has stated to me that she agrees with this. I have a representation agreement from the Goodland Board that I am representing them. And also, when the new board takes over, it is my understanding that a majority of the board will still be in favor of the comments that I made today. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll pass. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The four-foot issue, Ray, what is the status of that? Because we do have requirements for the Manatee Protection. MR. SCHMITT: The -- and I can answer that. Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt administrator, Community Development, Environmental Services. The decision, again, was made to proceed with the zoning on this. If the zoning was in fact approved, meaning the conditional use, Page 85 '~.---".--'._. March 3, 2005 we would then have to go through a very detailed study. The EIS would have to be conducted under the Manatee Protection Plan to determine whether or not in fact it would meet the criteria for preferred site and then be eligible to be developed into a marina. We did not spend the money on that. Again, it's a taxpayer's decision, from a standpoint of taxpayer money, using taxpayer money to go through the complete EIS before we even knew that the conditional use would be approved. So that -- that piece of the study and that piece of the puzzle is being deferred until after we have the -- the conditional use in place. And certainly if -- if the Manatee Protection Plan, the EIS validates that this is not a preferred study or preferred site, then there will be no development of a boat ramp. I mean that's clear and simple in regards to the Manatee Protection Plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Joe, is this the same procedure that's available to a private developer? MR. SCHMITT: I -- I can't answer that. I don't know. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is the question can a private developer request a conditional use without detailed drawings before the project? Absolutely, yes. MR. SCHMITT: Well, I mean the conditional use is predicated simply on use. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right. They still don't have an approval. MR. SCHMITT: And the use as defined here is a park. Under the criteria of a park, whether or not it develops into a park or a boat and -- that has a boat launch facility is the issue. But it is -- it is a conditional use for a regional park. That's what it -- or community park. I'm sorry. That's what the use is for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Boat launching would not occur unless it could meet the Manatee Protection Plan. MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer. Page 86 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have an observation and a question. My observation is that in Immokalee, we have a park located at Lake Trafford, which is -- looks very much similar to this. There's a lot more land into the boat launching end of it than there actually is picnic tables and -- and stuff like that. So I think that you could have a community park that could look similar to this. And my question is for Miss W olok. If no conditional use is granted for this park, what do you think would happen to the land? MS. WOLOK: Well, the county can resubmit it as a rezoning application. That's, I believe, all that we're asking. It's -- it's up to the county to decide what will happen to the land. The county is not just the regulatory agent here, the county is the landowner. And the county can -- if the county wants to sell the land, can put deed restrictions that are permanent on the land, can do -- can put a conservation easement on the land, can do whatever it wants, as seller of the land. There are many options available. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that all, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nodding head.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. Two questions I guess here for Joe. One is does a right-of-way easement on the left-hand side, is that -- who's that owned by? Somebody said it's a private road. MR. SCHMITT: That I don't know. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Can anybody give clarification on that? MR. REISCHL: Fred Reisch!. There is a -- the county maintenance ends basically at the park, proposed park entrance, and the road that runs to the left of the county property is a private right-of-way easement, private access easement. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Who is it owned by? MR. REISCHL: I don't know -- Page 87 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And who maintains it? MR. REISCHL: -- the ownership. I would assume that the easement is granted in favor of all the properties owners that live along that end of the street. That's an assumption. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Do we know who maintains this and owns it? MR. SCHNEIDER: I-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Hold on, sir. Sir, we have to come forward to the microphone, be identified, to answer. MR. SCHNEIDER: Dennis Schneider. I researched that question by going to a county office where a specialist went into the -- into the deed -- into the -- the documents that show the legal description of the right-of-way access for those -- for those homes that back there on Palm Point Drive because I wanted to find out, you know, how are we going to -- to what extent do we have to pay for the maintenance of the road? And it -- he said that -- to answer your question, that the -- the easement was for the property owners along the road and that they would be using it for access, and that the easement was also to be used for -- you know, for cable and that sort of thing, and it's along the right-hand side of the road. But to answer your question specifically, I can go back to that expert in that office, and I can get something in writing for you, Mr. -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, that's not necessary. MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yeah. I have a statement, though. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If it's an easement-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein. Page 88 ---.-- March 3, 2005 ,.-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- then the road isn't owned, it's a use right. That's all the easement is. So the owner of -- the road may be a public road, but the easement they have is a private right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's outside the scope of this project anyway. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, it is. Mr. Amico? MR. AMICO: I can clear up that easement issue. The easement is a piece of land, the fee title, as far as I know, is -- is connected to this property. It's an easement overlaid on this property. It's written in -- in favor of those homeowners that take access from it, but the fee title will remain with this property, obviously the county. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. We've had -- is there anymore registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other registered speakers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: With that, we'll close the public hearing. Mr. Murray, you have a question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I -- it's brand-new about that park that Mr. Scheiner (sic) was referring to. That is a fact, there is going to be another park there? MR. SCHMITT: I would have to defer to Miss Ramsey again. She can talk to you about the new park. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey, administrator, Public Services Division. The homeowners -- the owner, landowner of the Margood Resort approached Trust for Public Lands, which is a private land developers, and asked if they would be interested in purchasing that piece of property so that they can maintain it in a natural park like setting. So Trust for Public Lands came to Collier County in -- I believe Page 89 March 3, 2005 it was in June of last year, and asked if we were interested in doing a partnership on that piece of property. We said we would be interested in a partnership if we could get Florida Community Trust Grants to help us purchase that piece of property. We went together on a joint application to Florida Community Trust and received $1.9 million from them in order to purchase this parcel. Trust for Public Lands will be closing on that deal, I believe, on March 31 st. They will then turn that over to Collier County, and we will purchase it from Trust for Public Lands for about 2.5 million. So Collier County is adding about $600,000 to that. And the plan is to preserve the -- the -- I guess what's called-- considered the restaurant at that location, which is the first movie theater in Collier County, to -- to preserve a couple of the additional cottages that are there, and then to bring back some green space along that harbor, fishing piers, kayaking, canoeing, playgrounds, shelters, et cetera. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Marla, real quick, so would that be a park that would substitute for the park requirements on this site? MS. RAMSEY: Part of what Collier County was looking at is that, you know, they did feel that there's a little bit of an impact on the number of people coming to the boat ramp, and they were getting a little shortchanged on their park setting. And when this opportunity came up with -- with the development of being purchased at 1.9 million through the state, it was very attractive. We had actually talked to the Komisses (phonetic) about three, four years ago about the parcel, but because of the size and what we would be able to use it for, we thought it was too expensive. But with the state coming in, it will be a very nice park for -- for Goodland. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially we could -- I Page 90 March 3, 2005 mean not having many park facilities, this plan has hardly any, would be okay because they would have the other park. I mean when we asked them if there's any other parks, they said there isn't, but there will be. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. There isn't at this point in time. And part of what you heard, as I've been talking with the community there, is that we will put together a park committee for Goodland. And we will be looking at not only this location but also the Margood location to help us determine where do you put the children. And, honestly, from a park's perspective, we would not put the children in this location. We would put them in Margood. So, we think that there's going to be a really, really good win, win situation here for them, for the Margood people, and also for Collier County and the fact that they can have some access to the water. So that -- I think that the -- that when we first started the process, we did not have that other Margood location but because of that, I think we have a lot more alternatives to provide a really high quality for the -- for the community. Especially the children. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Goodland Preservation Coalition has a number of things they would like added to this conditional use. I can't find what you propose for the hours of operation. They're talking 7:00 a.m. to sunset. What are you -- what is your take on that? MS. RAMSEY: We have a number of different ways that we do hours. We do have, at Caxambas -- because the homeowners associations that lived around the area did want limited hours, and we do have limited hours at that location. We don't have limited hours at 951 or at Bayview or at Caxambas -- sorry, at Cocahatchee. So we have a variety, and I think we have some negotiation opportunity there, as well. Whether it would be 7:00 to 6:00 or, you know, 6:30 to 6:30 or maybe something different during longer Page 91 March 3, 2005 daylight hours, I think there's a mix that we can make there, as well. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It takes into account the nearby residential? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: As opposed to 951, where there isn't any. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. I would mention also that one of the things that we are doing -- because we look at this particular site a little differently than we do some of the others, we will have staff. We are proposing to put staff at this location like we have at Caxambas because we have an issue about coming into the community and that -- and that whole is the park open, is the park closed issue. We also have the opportunity then not to let anybody launch, unless there's a parking space. Which we don't have at Bayview or 951. So people launch and then they park and then they go wherever they want to. So I think when you put staff into a situation like we're committed to do, I think you have a lot more control over what happens in the community itself. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If you say you're closing it at sunset, what do you do about people that are still out on their boats? MS. RAMSEY: Well, we try and get them to realize that we do close. I mean there's communication there. And at Caxambas it works out very well, as a matter of fact. But if, for example, someone gets waylaid out there for some reason, there is a telephone number that they can call and the sheriffs office will come and unlock the gate for them. So there is -- we do have a partnership in case that one person might get stranded in there. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's going to be a gate at this facility? MS. RAMSEY: There is planned to be a gate at this facility, that's correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions for staff? We've , ~ Page 92 March 3, 2005 heard from the petitioner, we've heard the county staff, and we've heard all the registered speakers. We're just about the point of looking for a motion. For my own part, I just wanted to comment that I'm completely comfortable with this conditional use application. I think it's a prudent way to judge the regulatory temperature, if you will. I wish, in fact -- using our emergency operation center as an example from a month ago, if a testing of the appropriateness of the location of that site had occurred prior to the expenditure of tens of thousands of design dollars, which are taxpayer dollars, we might have saved a few dollars before we got too far down the road. So I think this is wise. However -- the decision is. And for my own part, the question of whether Ms. W olok is the appropriate counsel for the Goodland Civic Association, in my mind, is a moot point, as I was not swayed by the arguments. With that being said, is there amotion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion. I just want to take a moment to review. I tried to note down the items that Miss Fullmer indicated. But I will say is -- that I would -- I would like to forward this conditional use petition 2003-AR-6278 as indicated and modified by conditions of approval by the staff under Exhibit D, which allows for 50 sites as opposed to 75, and -- just to be sure -- and to have a record deed restriction in perpetuity. I would agree that the pavers and the shell crushed road, the crushed shell road would be appropriate, the highway sign. That's also in the conditions of approval. No widening of the road, keep the village as it exists. And I would think that would be enough on that. That would be my motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I have a motion by Mr. Murray, second by Mr. Adelstein. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would like to also have, if possible, to get the point of the road -- I mean the parking up to 30 Page 93 March 3, 2005 spaces, instead of 21. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I couldn't hear him. CHAIRMAN BUDD: He's looking for the boat parking to be 50, but the single vehicle parking to be 30. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thirty from 21. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have no problem with that. That's fine, if that's physically possible. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Discussion? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm sorry. Would you be amenable to allowing the park to be closed on those special holidays that they mentioned? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you for that. I -- I was -- I certainly am amenable to that. What I don't know is whether or not I -- I don't recall whether that was an agreement. That -- if that's an agreement, if the county is desirous of doing that, I certainly applaud that, yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. Miss Ramsey indicated that the-- county parks and rec's. willingness to be cooperative. So motion and the second are in agreement with that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And, also, about -- I don't know if it's appropriate for us to suggest hours, such as 7:00 a.m. to sunset. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I purposely left that out because, as I heard Marla Ramsey indicate, she could make a mix, and it would probably be resulting from the community and her in conversation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And I'm in agreement with that. The Page 94 March 3, 2005 county maintains and manages parks all over and works with each community's requirements, and I think we should give them that flexibility . Further discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'd just like to say that I think 75 spaces, trailer spaces would be putting ten pounds in an eight-pound sack. I think 50 is a step in the right direction. Frankly, I think you'd have a whole lot better park if there were only 36 and there was more park to it. I know the county is in a tough spot. You have people who come down here and build or buy a house 20 miles from the shore, buy a boat and say where am I going to launch my boat? You have people who come down here and buy four wheel off road vehicles and say where is some land that I can desecrate with these things? And the county is in a position of providing all this. It's probably in the compo plan somewhere. There's a ratio of how many boat spaces per thousand population. But on the other hand, it seems to me that we give lip service to the fact that Goodland is a unique community, but then we go right on ahead and do whatever we want. So I'm going to vote against it because I think 36 would give us a much better park mix. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other comments on the motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Abernathy, I would have -- I would have gone with 36 if I thought that had any -- any chance of passing. I went with 50 because it was a recommendation by staff. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm going to vote against this because I agree with Mr. Abernathy. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm in favor of it because I'm one of those guys from Golden Gate that trailers a boat and it's not 26 feet long, and I'd appreciate the opportunity to have some water access because it's hard to get to from the -- from where I live. Any further discussion Page 95 March 3, 2005 on the motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I think -- I think that with staffs recommendation, you are going to end up with more park space. That's what I was told when I asked the question to begin with. So accomplishing more park space, I think, is -- is a good thing. I will make another comment here, because this again is a county proj ect, that I think that the county needs to hold itself to higher standards and that the landscape requirements should be maximized, not just minimum standards. And, you know, once again, I think we have to be the leaders and not just go for the minimum standards that we will allow. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good point. Any further discussion? There being none, we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed, please raise your hand so I can get the count. Two, so we have a six, two, motion carries. Thank you very much. Okay. Those that are leaving, if you would, please, clear the room as quickly and quietly as possible because we've got a few more hours of entertainment to deal with, to enjoy. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think it's lunch time, isn't it? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Planning Commission, please fill out your finding of fact and pass them down to Mr. Adelstein, please. MR. WHITE: As a point of order, if you're going to have an Page 96 March 3, 2005 off-line discussion, I suggest that we go off the record and have a brief recess. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Well, actually, what we're going to do, as everybody's clearing -- I was looking for my finding of facts so I could finish the last agenda item, but let's look at the clock. It is a quarter to 12:00. There is no way in the world we're going to get far on this in the next 15 minutes, so we are going to break for lunch. Let's -- since we're trapped doing some paperwork, let's call it-- we're leaving here at ten minutes to 12:00, we will be back at ten minutes to 1 :00 and hear the next item. (A lunch recess was taken at 11:50 a.m.) (The proceedings resumed at 12:51 p.m.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We'll call the planning commission meeting back to order. And we will pick up our last agenda item which is PUDZ-2004-AR-5967, Coconilla PUD which will be heard along with the conditional use CU-2004-AR-6625. You will hear both items together and take separate action. All those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand, be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you very much. Disclosures by planning commissioners. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir. MR. WHITE: I'd ask that those disclosures be made separately CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. WHITE: -- as to each of the two petitions indeed. If you'd choose to direct whether it's going to be the rezone or the CU first to the rest of the commission. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Let's start with the disclosures on the rezone and we'll start with Mr. Murray and work our way down. Page 97 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a conversation briefly with Mr. Y ovanovich reminding me that we're about to come up for this . . reVIew agaIn. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And - and this would be the same for both. It's Nicole Ryan, Doug Fee, Michael and Diane Canely, Mike Bosi -- well, Mike, you work here, Marylou and Hal Eaton, Derrence Lay and Dwight Richardson, all sent me stuff. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And I would amend mine. I also had a conversation with Nicole, which I forgot about. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I had a consideration with Nicole -- Nicole and I've got something from Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I talked to Mr. Richardson, I talked to Mr. Y ovanovich. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you please use the microphone? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. I talked to Mr. Richardson, a message from him, I talked to Mr. Yovanovich and I talked to Mr. Fee. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I had conversations with Mr. Y ovanovich but e-mails from Dwight Richardson, Nicole Ryan, Doug Fee, Marylou and Harold Eaton, and Linda Rusa. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think I'm pretty much a mirror image of Mr. Budd's disclosures. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mine also. Mr. Doug Fee, Mr. Y ovanovich had faxed us some e-mails. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And I the same. I've spoken to Mr. Y ovanovich, I've spoken to Mr. Fee, I've spoken to Ms. Ryan. And I've got several e-mails from various people. Page 98 March 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Now, looking at the -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I wanted to ask a procedural question of staff before we launch into these if I'm right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. I wanted to get disclosures on the COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- distributes out first. Let me back down the line again as Mr. White requested, clarify your communications regarding the conditional use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Same thing. And -- and those e-mails as well. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mine would be identical. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Identical. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Identical. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And mine were the same as for the first. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Same here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mine also. We've excused both matters. COMMISSIONER CARON: Same here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. I think maybe, Joe, you could answer this for me. - We've got two petitions here to do inconsistent things, projects on the same piece of property. Page 99 March 3, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Now, what are our options? Can we forward both recommending approval? Can we forward one and not the other or any combination of that. MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, for the court reporter, Joe Schmitt, Administrative Community Development and Environmental Services Division. And I will seek the assistance of the County Attorney, but from -- from my perspective, first of all, you need to understand these are mutually exclusive, so one is not dependent on the other and, fundamentally, you have three options. You have the two options being presented before you today; one for a conditional use for a hotel, the other is for a rezone from commercial to residential. The third option is you just recommend -- if you recommend no to both of those proposals, it remains C-4. And there are -- each -- each decision is mutually exclusive. Of course, if you vote no, it remains C-4. So, no, one -- one is not predicated on the other. They both -- we need decisions from -- or recommendations for both, because both will be forwarded to the board of county commissioners. I would assume that in -- that -- and this is something only the applicant can answer. They certainly have one preference over the other and we will present one, and if there's a favorable opinion, the other one would certainly, I would expect, be withdrawn from the -- in front of the board of county commissioners. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ifwe recommend approval Page 100 March 3, 2005 of each of them -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- what service have we provided to the county commission? MR. SCHMITT: The -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Just the validation of the fact that they're consistent with the land development code? MR. SCHMITT: Well, consistent with the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Growth management plan. MR. SCHMITT: County Attorney, if you would-- MR. WHITE: And/or the land development code as well. I -- I think that there's no legal prohibition against both of them being approved and arguably existing as an election or as options to the board to consider. It may be a little bit more of a question when we get to the board but we'll have to wait and see what it is that the recommendations are and ultimately the boards' deliberations. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's some language in one of these conferences about if one of them was approved, the petitioner might withhold the other from the County Commission or ask for a continuance of it. Is that -- is that a possible outcome as well? MR. WHITE: I think that's Mr. Yovanovich's to answer on behalf of his client. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Yovanovich? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I just asked is it possible-- Page 101 March 3, 2005 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR. WHITE: Is it possible? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- that they could -- MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ifwe approve them both, they could elect to go forward on one and hold back the other. That's possible? MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: Well, both petitions will scheduled. We will would put -- presumably because the one is a rezone that would, even though it's not on the agenda item for the board as item number one, but that would probably be the first one we would present to the board. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Uh-huh. MR. SCHMITT: And if that is denied, excuse me, I would -- we then go to into the second piece of it. There was a petition for this and it's not really a companion item because again it's mutually exclusive. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I know that. MR. SCHMITT: It would be the conditional -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I've seen -- MR. SCHMITT: -- use over the existing zoning which is C-4. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: On the same -- at the same hearing. MR. SCHMITT: Same hearing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I can clarify, Mr. Abernathy, this is what we're planning on doing. Page 102 .--".,._."_._._".._.-....,_..^..,~--- March 3, 2005 We have been asked by the residents in the area to attempt to get the residential rezone approved. If the Board of County Commissioners approves the residential rezone, we will continue the conditional use for the hotel for a period that gets us past the appeal period. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then if -- that starts our hope. If the board denies the residential rezone, then we would go forward with the conditional use for their destination resort hotel. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. I didn't know if you wanted to disclosure your strategies or not. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it's fine. We-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Before you start your presentation, I think, Miss Caron, you had introductory comments? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I have been informed by the County Attorney's office that the petitioner wishes me to recuse myself in this matter. And I've discussed it with the County Attorney and I will not recuse myself in this proceeding or any other in which I have no financial or other beneficial benefit in the outcome. I take my job on this commission very seriously and I don't prejudge anything. I am here to -- I am here to render judgment based on the Growth Management Plan and the LDC period. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question, why we're Page 103 March 3, 2005 hearing the two things together because in some cases, I mean, the testimony of each one is going to be totally different. I mean in one case it's going to want to be closer to the water and the other case it's going to want to be far away from the water. I mean, is it appropriate that -- hear them both together and then like a menu choice, choose which one we like or -- as opposed to going one at a time? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, it's -- it's a matter of technique. I know the petitioner I -- would prefer to bring them together and -- and there's so many of the preexisting facts and conditions or the same, you have the same starting point, and then it's up to us to judge separately on the relative issues and we've done it many times before. It's certainly a matter of convenience for us. Otherwise, we have to start, get everything on the record on each one of them and plow the same ground twice. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And, Mr. Schiffer, we didn't want to make the public speakers have to testify twice. We thought that they can get up and speak to each one and voice their opinions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's not stop, but to me they're two separate things -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: They are applicable -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- two separate testimonies, two separate approaches. But, anyway -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we're a bit -- we'll go either way. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any other introductory comments? There being none, if we could hear from the petitioner, please. Page 104 ^' -~.._-,-~_._. March 3, 2005 MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I can, and -- and I appreciate what Commissioner Caron said, but -- and I -- and I don't do this lightly. We have some genuine concerns whether Ms. Caron can be objective. Weare entitled to a hearing in front of an impartial decision maker. Ms. Caron spoke before you all at the last time this petition came through the process. It was for a petition that was very similar to what's here today. At that hearing she spoke against any building that would exceed 75 feet in height. Today's building, we're proposing, is 120 feet zoning height and 144 feet actual height. She also speak against any density over three units per acre or four units per acre. Again, we're asking for nine and a -- basically, nine and a half units per acre. We're not trying to cast negative aspersions or make negative comments to Ms. Caron and we're not trying to silence her and not have her speak. What we're simply suggesting is, is that we don't believe she can be objective. We think she has the right to participate in the discussion. We just don't believe she has the right to vote because she has written letters to the editor. She has spoken to county staff. She has sent e-mails to county staff as to challenging county staffs interpretations. I'm not sure that we're going to have an objective decision maker. We want to put that on the record because we do believe Page 105 <.._.----,.,-~......"-" March 3, 2005 we're entitled to have no prejudgment of our petition by anybody and we don't believe -- and I -- and I will submit for the record copies of the e-mails sent to staff, asking questions, challenging opinions, taking a position on our -- our -- our petition. And with that I'll just enter that in the record and again request that Ms. Caron recuse herself. She can participate in the discussion, but recuse herself from the vote. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich, I respect your-- your right to make that request. I'm sure not going to ask her to make any decision -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not asking you to. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- different. I understand. And she's made her decision and I respect it and we'll stand by and, I guess, I would have to make the observation that if it's contact with county staff or being of a strong opinion and doing excessive leg work, that it carries any criteria. Mr. Strain would never be able to say anything but he's not here today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was going to bring that up. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein, you had a comment? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. I don't believe that Miss Caron had any financial interest in this one way or another. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't say she did. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Otherwise, we all have our own biases and opinions, but if she wanted to execute them -- exercise them herself, she has a right to do so. Page 106 March 3, 2005 I don't think she should recuse herself either. Recuse herself either. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, the petitioner has made his request. Miss Caron has expressed her desire. We'll respect each and we'll move on with the proceeding. MR. YOV ANOVICH: All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Perhaps the County Attorney should weigh in. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. White? MR. WHITE: If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: -- I'd just -- if Mr. Y ovanovich is going to put documents into the record, I just want to give him equally the opportunity to consider whether he in fact wants to attempt to delve more fully into what he perceives as a type of presumption of prejudice. He acknowledges apparently that there isn't a conflict of interest under the statutes in Chapter 112. Provisions in Chapter 286 require, unless there's a voting conflict, members of this commission to vote as is, you know, typically been the past practice, but it is in the area of ex parte disclosures and the opportunity to challenge the substance and discussions, if you will, that were held in those ex parte communications in which it is that he can attempt to establish what he believes may be some type of absence of impartiality. Now, we've had a statement by Ms. Caron. I understand Mr. Yovanovich's position, but I'm just making sure that he has every opportunity, as this record's being built, to fully exercise what I think Page 107 March 3, 2005 are the available rights, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I didn't want to belabor it, but I've just got a few basic questions if you'll -- if you'll indulge me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions of Ms. Caron. MR. YOVANOVICH: Of Ms. Caron. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. White, is that appropriate format? MR. WHITE: In fact, I think it's consistent with what the statutes and the few cases that have been out there establish in a jurisdiction such as ours where there's been an adoption of a regulation pertaining to ex parte disclosures. And, in fact, our office has provided memoranda, you know, from time to time. I have one available for -- here if you'd care to have me read from it from our County Attorney, but I think it is an appropriate thing to do and -- and -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We'll proceed on that basis and, Mr. White, I appreciate your guidance as we move along as this is new ground for me. I've not been in this position before. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We're not going to be called upon to take a position. You're -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You're just making a record, right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. No. Mr. Abernathy, this is not-- you don't all -- you all don't get to make a decision on this. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I didn't think so. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. This -- this is difficult. Page 108 March 3, 2005 Ms. Caron, did you speak at any public hearings regarding our previous petition? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Absolutely. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And what did you state at those public hearings? COMMISSIONER CARON: Apparently you have the record in front of you, so you probably -- probably remember better than I what was said, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Did you object to the height of the building. COMMISSIONER CARON: I did. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Did you object to any height of over 75 feet? COMMISSIONER CARON: I did. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Did you object to the density -- COMMISSIONER CARON: In the context of -- of the zoning discussion at the time. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Did you object to the height -- I mean, the density? COMMISSIONER CARON: I did -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Did you object to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- based on the GMP. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Did you -- so, you objected to the density. Did you sign a petition against the proj ect? COMMISSIONER CARON: Against the project? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. The previous project. Page 109 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Did you write any letters to the editor? COMMISSIONER CARON: That was, however, before I was on this planning board. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm not questioning that. I know. What I'm saying is your history prior to being on the planning commission is an issue for us as far as -- and I'm not questioning whether you have any personal financial gain. What I'm questioning is the due process aspects of having an unbiased decision maker. Now, I do not -- don't anybody think that I think you have any personal stake in this financially. Did you communicate with county staff regarding the current petitions? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I did. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Did you object to county staffs -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm required to do that. When staff gives me a report and something is in that report that I have a question about, I question the staff. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And did you raise objections to staffs interpretation of the land development code? COMMISSIONER CARON: I did. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's her job. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Did you -- do you have a position today regarding the residential PUD? COMMISSIONER CARON: I haven't heard what it's going to be. Other than I've attended a neighborhood information meeting, so Page 110 March 3, 2005 I have some idea, and I've read the staff report, so I have some idea what you're proposing but, no, I haven't made up my mind -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- at all. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And, likewise, on the destination resort hotel, have you made up your mind? COMMISSIONER CARON: On the destination resort hotel, I believe that staff has changed their opinion on whether it's. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's -- I asked you, have you made up your mind on that petition? COMMISSIONER CARON: Based on -- on the information that I have from staff in an official interpretation, I do not believe that the destination resort hotel is supportable. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. That's -- I'm going to leave it at that so we don't have to drag this on. And, again, I renew my request. But let's -- let's move on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Rich, let me say something. COMMISSIONER CARON: It doesn't mean you can't have a hotel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Didn't last year this board make a judgment on -- on the past application? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was a different project. Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it was a different project she was testifying about. Page 111 -0__.- March 3, 2005 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which she was -- she -- no. She made some absolute statements about height and density that other board members didn't make such absolute statements. That's -- that's my concern. And I don't want to belabor this. It's CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll move on. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's move on and begin the petitioner's presentation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Prior to beginning, I have a question on the application. The application doesn't expose who the owner of the project is. It's-- MR. WHITE: Which application in particular? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Both of them. Both of them. It goes down to Tree Plateau Company. The stockholders on that aren't MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's owned by Wiggins Pass Marina Company. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the stockholders are? I mean, isn't that a requirement that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thad Kirkpatrick can answer those questions. Thad, would you mind coming up and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it's not an appropriate question, you don't have to answer, but it -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. If you have concerns about the Page 112 March 3, 2005 ownership, we need to get that on the record. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe my mother owns it or something. MR. WHITE: I would hope you would know the answer to that question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Knowing my mother, I probably wouldn't know. MR. KIRKPATRICK: For the record, I'm Thad Kirkpatrick. I'm an attorney for the owner of the owner of the property, Wiggins Pass Marina Co., Inc. and the sole shareholder of that is Tree Plateau, Inc. That's the best information I have. MR. WHITE: Is that the name of a person, Tree Plateau. MR. KIRKPATRICK: No. It's a company. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But who's the stockholder of that company? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Tree Plateau. MR. KIRKPATRICK: I -- I don't have that information. MR. WHITE: Do you know if it's closely or publicly held? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You don't know who your client is? MR. KIRKPATRICK: I don't know whether it's publicly held. I don't believe that it's publicly held. I can find out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you know? We have someone here who could tell you exactly. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: This fellow hadn't told us Page 113 March 3, 2005 anything. MR. KRANZO: Commissioners, my name is Gene Kranzo. I am a trustee under a trust agreement created on August 15th, 1985 by Dorothy McConvul. My co-trustee is J. P. Morgan, Chase Private Bank. The trust is the sole owner of Tree Plateau Co. Inc. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Who are the beneficiaries of the trust? MR. KRANZO: That's none of your business. MR. YOV ANOVICH: He's over here. MR. KRANZO: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's behind you. MR. KRANZO: I thought it came from back there. My hearing isn't what it used to be. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have deceptive speakers in here. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: My answer still the same? MR. KRANZO: They're individuals. It is a group of a family. There are various tiers of beneficiaries. Some are lifetime beneficiaries, others are contingent remainderman depending on whether they survive the lifetime beneficiaries. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is there a family name? MR. KRANZO: Yes. The family name is Talford, T-a-l-f-o-r-d. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Great. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We -- we need to have an idea who that is in case some of us have a relationship with that person that might disqualify us. So, now we know. Page 114 March 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think that's sufficient for our needs. Are any of the planning commissioners -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. That's fine. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's sufficient for our needs. Thank you, SIr. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. KRANZO: You're welcome. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ready? All righty. Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. With me today on our team is Ed Oelschlaeger, president of EcoGroup, Bob Mulhere with RW A, who's our planner, Bob Hall, who's the architect for the project. Those people will be speaking. We have some others here to answer questions if you need them. We have Ken Humiston to hear -- to -- to answer any questions you may have regarding the marina, Ron Talone, to answer any transportation questions you may have, Joe Tucker to answer any environmental cleanup questions you may have, Andy Woodruff to answer any other environmental questions regarding species on the property, Doug Relstone, an environmental attorney, and you already heard from Mr. Kirkpatrick, who's the owner's attorney. The order of presentation is going to be me with a proj ect overview and discussing consistency with the comp plan. I'll also briefly take you through some EcoGroup's projects in Florida. Bob Mulhere will then get into the planning issues, Mr. Hall will take you through the architectural issues and then I'll -- I'll wrap it up. Page 115 March 3, 2005 And we'll do that in the same order. We'll present the residential first, then we'll immediately do the same routine for the conditional use. The residential project is on 2.45 (sic) acres, which is currently zoned C-4. Is it four three? That's what I said. 10.45 acres, currently zoned C-4. It's adjacent to the county park and it's always adjacent to the Cocohatchee PUD. The Cocohatchee PUD is approved for five residential towers. F our of the towers are 20 stories over parking, one is 15 stories over parking. The 20-story tower is the closest to us. It's approximately 150 feet from our boundary. One of our neighbors is Pelican Isle Yacht Club and the Pelican Isle residents. That project is ten stories over parking. Our proposed use is 95 units, which is about nine and a half units per acre, ten stories over parking. We're providing a public fueling station, a public -- a public ship store and public parking to increase the parking available to those attending the park. That public parking will be on our property that will ultimately be conveyed to the county for its use. We'll be providing 29 wet slips and we'll be providing interconnection to allow people using the park to exit at the traffic light at Wiggins Pass and Vanderbilt Road. Briefly, the hotel proposal, we're requesting a conditional use for a destination resort hotel. That includes 230 rooms, a restaurant, a Page 116 ~_..- March 3, 2005 bar lounge, meeting space, spa and retail shops, and a marina with 47 slips. The county's comprehensive plan has many goals, objectives and policies. The county's comprehensive plan was originally adopted in 1989. At that time the county went to an activity center concept for commercial development. The parcel that we have right now, C-4, was found to be consistent with the county's comprehensive plan because there was an existing commercial use. Under today's comprehensive plan, we would not be entitled to commercial development on that property. The county's comprehensive plan provides an incentive to convert commercial that's not consistent with the comprehensive plan into residential development. That's FLU Policy 5-9. And what it says is properties which do not conform to the future land use element, but are improved, shall be deemed consistent with the future land use element. The density rating system specifically provides a mechanism to convert that to 16 units per acre. There are no limitations in the comprehensive plan as to where that density bonus can be applied. The density bonus -- there are several density bonus provisions within the comprehensive plan. And some people will tell you that the comprehensive plan says you're only allowed four units per acre in the coastal high hazard area because the future land use element says you can only have four units per acre in the coast high hazard area. Page 11 7 March 3, 2005 That provision does not exist. There is nothing in the future land use element that limits this property to four units per acre except for one location. And that is in an activity center. The comprehensive plan specifically says in an activity center that is in the coastal high hazard area, you cannot have -- you can only have four units per acre. It doesn't apply to the conversion provision. That is one of the density bonus provisions is the commercial conversion provision. And there's no limitation in that commercial provision in the comprehensive plan, unlike the provision that talk about TDRs. The TDR density bonus provision specifically says you cannot do that in the coastal high hazard area. It's unlike the residential in- fill for parcels under 20 acres. It specifically says you cannot use residential in-fill in the coastal high hazard area. The -- hold on a second. There is a limitation on affordable housing density bonus units in a portion of the coastal high hazard area. That's the portion that's in the south part of town on your -- on your way to Marco Island. It specifically says instead of eight units per acre, you're only allowed six units per acre as a density bonus. So, the board of county commissioners, when it wanted to, it specifically limited when a density bonus provision is applicable to the coastal high hazard area. Those are the only provisions in the future land use element that address that issue. We have the right to request up to 16 units per acre under the density conversion provision -- the conversion prOVISIon. Page 118 March 3, 2005 The Department of Community Affairs has issued a letter saying that the board of county commissioners can ultimately -- they're the ultimate decision makers as to whether or not to increase, vote for an increase in density, and that's not -- that's their decision and that's not inconsistent with any state statutes or state law. Your state staff, Mr. Weeks, has issued an opinion that our request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. He was around in 1989. He's familiar with the history of the comprehensive plan and he has opined that we are entitled to request bonuses for converting commercial in this part of town. The county's emergency operations person, Dan Summers, has reviewed our petition and says he has no issues with the hurricane evacuation, that we're fine as far as the request for nine and a half units per acre. We -- the residential proj ect goes on to address issues we have heard from the community. We heard comments from the community that we were somehow taking away their public access to the water and to the beach because we were converting a marina to a residential use. Be there no mistake, this has always been private property. The public has never been entitled to come on that property without the permission of the property owner. We are willing to assist in mitigating this perceived impact. We have volunteered to provide the additional parking on our property for boat trailers. We have volunteered to make a payment to the county to assist in acquiring additional boat trailer parking, and I think you heard a Page 119 March 3, 2005 <- lot about that this morning, about the need for additional boat trailer parking. We have volunteered to make a payment to increase beach access. We all know there are issues with beach access. These donations are an attempt to address the public's perception that we are somehow harming them with our proj ect. We, of course, are not. They have had no right to be there, but we're trying to address a public need through our public -- through our project. The residential project also addresses the neighborhood's concern with reducing traffic. We -- your staff report said we're consistent with the comprehensive plan regarding traffic. The residential use has the lowest amount of traffic under the __ after the two petitions. The hotel has a little bit more and, clearly, the C-4 underlined zoning has the most traffic impact. We've been asked by the majority of the residents in the area, do not pursue commercial zoning on the property. Weare here because, after we went to the board of county commissioners, and there was a discussion on the fly about bringing everything down to ten stories, the residents that I spoke to afterwards said, if you __ Rich, if you had brought ten stories in the first place, we would have been in support of you. So, we're here again because the residents have asked us to come back with a detailed presentation on a ten story over one parking concept. That's why we're here. You will hear public testimony regarding the neighborhoods, what they want. I do want to point out that at a recent North Bay Page 120 March 3, 2005 Civic Association meeting, this issue was put to a vote. Under the first vote, it favored the residential. Under the second vote after some people left, the commercial -- the hotel narrowly won when given the options as to what to do. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How many people are you talking about voting one way or the other? MR. YO V ANOVICH: Well, the first vote was 20 in favor of the residential, 1 7 in favor of the hotel. And then 1 7 in favor of the hotel, the second vote, and 15 in favor of the residential. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So, less than -- less than 50 people in each. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But that's what they represent -- you know, they represent that there's a whole lot of people that attend their meetings and they put this to a vote and this is -- this is what their people spoke to. The rest is actions of the board of directors. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Rich, when was that meeting, the last meeting you had? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That meeting was early -- early January of this year. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. MR. YO V ANOVICH: Okay. I want to briefly take you through -- oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was on. Can you turn on the -- I'm sorry. Can you turn it on? There you go. I'm sorry. There we go. As I mentioned, the Pelican Isle Yacht Club being our neighbor, the same group, EcoGroup developed Pelican Isle Yacht Page 121 ---.. -~,...,--.- March 3, 2005 Club. I don't think there's any questions that is -- that is a first-class high-end development. That is exactly what we're going to do on the property, ten stories over one, just like Pelican Isle Yacht Club. There was a -- they did a project on Barefoot Beach Club in Collier County. Again, it's sensitive to the environment and a high-end project. Most recently in the City of Naples, the EcoGroup developed the Sancerre Project. Again, a high-end, mid rise project like we're proposIng. On Sanibel Golf -- I'm sorry. On Sanibel Island they had -- they developed Sanibel Golf Village, again taking into concern environmental constraints, another first-class high-end project. Again, on Vizcaya at Longboat Key, another sampling of their high-end work that takes into consideration the environment around it. And, finally, the Tides Beach Club, which is in St. Petersburg, again, as you can see, a nice proj ect on the beach. EcoGroup specializes in high-end first-class projects. This will be an obvious improvement over the former Wiggins Pass Marina. It will be consistent with what's already been developed around us, the Pelican Isle Yacht Club, and what will be developed as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. With that, I'm going to turn it over, and I think it would work best if -- if you allow us to complete our presentation before asking any questions, but I'll do whatever the chairman says. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The last three you showed Page 122 March 3, 2005 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- those were six stories or lower, weren't they? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They were -- that's six -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Six over parking. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Six over parking. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. The one before that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hang on a second. Let's go back. Sancerre, Vizcaya, five over parking. Let me go back. It's taking a second to go back. It looks like three over parking. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's all I asked is those three. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And Sancerre was nine over parking. So, they obviously can build a mid rise project with the best of them. I'd like to turn it over with -- to Bob Mulhere, who will take you through the particulars from a planning perspective, and then Bob Hall will talk to you about the architecture and then Bob will get back up and talk to you about the conditional use. And Mr. Hall will talk -- and then -- and then we'll open it up to questions on any particular questions you may have if that's okay with the chairman. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, Bob Mulhere with RW A, Incorporated. Page 123 March 3, 2005 ~_. What's on the visualizer now is an aerial photograph of the subject area with the colorized site plan overlaid in location of the proj ect. And, as you can see, and as Rich indicated, to the north and the west we are abutting the Cocohatchee Bay PUD, which allows for a five high-rise buildings, the tallest of which would be within 150 feet of our -- of our property just there at the north boundary of our property. And to the south or immediately abutting the Cocohatchee River Park and then further to the south Pelican Isle Yacht Club, which is at the same height that we are requesting, ten stories over parking. Part of the reason for making this -- these observations is to indicate to you how compatible the request that we're asking is in relationship to the neighborhood. Again, to the north five high-rise buildings, the tallest of which will be 20 stories, maybe over one, two or three floors of parking and, again, to the south, just directly past the park is Pelican Isle, the same height that we are requesting. To the east is a PUD golf course and to the southeast, across the intersection, is the Wiggins Bay PUD, which allows for commercial within the comer and then residential beyond that. And this is simply another colorized rendering of the site plan with a little bit more detail than what you see on that aerial. Obviously the point of showing this colorized rendering is to indicate the -- the enhanced landscaping that we will see, as well as some of the other development standards, which I'll get into specifically. Page 124 .---.... ---'--_.~-,_.-,-, . March 3, 2005 Speaking of the development standards, as indicated on this slide, the residential plan has proposed -- has a very generous front setback from Vanderbilt Drive at a minimum of 180 feet. And the side setbacks are 60 feet at a minimum. And this, when compared to the C-4, is significantly higher setback, as it should be for a taller building. The residential plan also provides 64 percent open space exceeding the county's open space requirements. As I indicated, the existing commercial zoning would permit front set -- setbacks as close as 25 feet to the roadway, and side setbacks as little as 15 feet, depending on how tall the building is built. And commercial open space requirement is 15 percent for projects in the urban area. Mixed use projects are 30 percent, but pure commercial is only 15 open space requirements. So you can see that the residential proj ect is significant. It provides significantly more open space. The benefits of the residential zoning that Rich went over briefly and I'll probably spend a few more minutes talking about, number one, there's increased public access to the water and to the beach. And I'm going to go over these bullets a little bit more specifically in just a second. Additional parking in the county park and the improved access to the traffic signal, as I indicated previously. The vehicles entering the park today enter an exit -- share an entrance and exit with Pelican Isle Yacht Club, and it is somewhat Page 125 March 3, 2005 difficult for those vehicles, especially those trailering boats to make a left turn and head north. And the county requested that we design this project to allow for access through our property to the traffic signal. In fact, they requested that we actually donate a 30- foot strip of land to the county in combination for egress, but also to allow for reconfiguration of the county's parking to increase parking. And I'll speak in a little bit more detail on that in just a moment. And we have agreed to that. Again, obviously, the residential use is less intrusion to the neighborhood. As I pointed out on a previous illustration, the aerial exhibit, this area, is residential with the exception of the park, public use. Traffic is significantly less. Less than 50 percent of the traffic that would be generated by the hotel and significantly more traffic would be generated by a reasonable C-4 use that might occur in this area such as a shopping center. Talking more specifically about public access to the water and why we make the statement that it's significantly increased, we've agreed to contribute a million dollars for a new dock and boardwalk at Lely Barefoot Beach Preserve. This is a plan that is in the works that the county has been considering for sometime. They would then ferry individuals to that beach. Oftentimes the beach is full in terms of parking capacity, but is not full in terms of its ability to withstand additional visitors. Page 126 ~--- March 3, 2005 And this would be one way to get additional people to the beach. Now, the second bullet there is that we have agreed to contribute a million dollars to enhancing public water access within the North Bay geographic area. Obviously, we're not predicating exactly how that might occur but one obvious example would be to buy some property proximate to the park that would allow for additional boat trailer parking. And the third bullet is, as I indicated before, donating land to the county and also covering the expenses of reconfiguring the existing Cocohatchee River Park during our site development plan process. We've done some preliminary analysis of that and at present we feel that it's very reasonable to assume that we can increase the boat trailer parking spaces by as many as 29 spaces and car parking by as many as 21. Ultimately, we would work during the site development plan process with Collier County Parks and Recreation and the other appropriate county staff to determine what the highest and best use in relationship to the number of parking spaces would be. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Bob -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- why does the developer find a need to contribute to public access to the water when he's not taking any away anywhere? I mean, the piece that he is going to buy is not a public access to water, and yet he seems to feel constrained to -- Page 127 ...--.. March 3, 2005 MR. MULHERE: Well, I don't know if we feel constrained, but this was a major issue, predominately in the first hearing. The public and others -- well, I guess everybody's a member of the public. But the public and elected officials and appointed officials all, the issues were raised as to whether or not in fact we were decreasing the public's access to the water, although that is a commercial privately owned and was a commercial marina on privately owned land, the public generally did not have a right to use that unless they paid rent to store a boat there or perhaps maybe go shop at the store. However, the commitment was already on the table. We felt, I would say, the civic responsibility to address those concerns even though we agree with you, we did not feel we were reducing public access to the water. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let me throw out a couple of charged words. Aren't we in a situation where we're talking possibly extortion on the one hand and the other side of that coin being bribery? Isn't that really what this is all about? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Abernathy, those are charged words, but -- and -- and not accurate words. Frequently you'll see when a project comes along, for instance, of an impact on affordable housing. There are impacts that a project may have to the community that need to be addressed. And the perception from the community was that we were somehow stealing their rights to use the public water. And if we were, we wanted to assist in taking care of a problem Page 128 .._,~._.. March 3, 2005 that we all know is a problem; access to the water. We look -- we looked at it as an opportunity to give back to the community access to the water, much like you've seen several times where people have given back by making donations to Habitat for Humanity for affordable housing. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, was this perception that you were somehow taking away public access, was this shared by the decision makers or just by some people up in that end of town? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was -- well, that's -- that's hard to tell because the project didn't get approved the first time. The people in that part of town, some, the vocal some, said that we were taking away their public right to use our property. And we offered to assist them in getting public access to the water. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But you never conceded that you were taking anything away. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. That's -- we never have. I mean, it's ours. It never was theirs. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's why I'm trying to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It never was. We were -- we were trying to assist in a problem that is out there. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I was trying to figure out the labels to put on the coin. MR. MULHERE: This is an exhibit that shows -- and this is, I believe, from the county and it shows the proposed dock at Barefoot Beach. Excuse me for one moment. Page 129 March 3, 2005 I just wanted to confirm that before I made the statement. If the Barefoot Beach dock does not come to fruition for whatever reason, perhaps permitting issues or something along the like, the county will still be free to use our contribution to enhance access to the beach in another way. In terms of traffic, and we've discussed this generally, the questions posed, which use produces less traffic in a neighborhood, commercial or residential, obviously significantly less traffic in residential. And the hotel, again, a little bit more than twice the traffic that the residence use we proposed generates, but a commercial use other than that significantly more, as much as ten times more. And there are the figures, the specific figures, from our traffic expert. As you can see, a retail shopping center will generate significant trips. At this point, I'm going to ask Bob Hall to come up and discuss the architects from the site plan. Go ahead, Bob. MR. HALL: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Robert Hall with the firm Kirtz, Gaines, Hall, Jones Architects in Tampa. We've been doing projects in and around Collier County for over 25 years, been involved in several high-rise developments for WCI and EcoGroup and others, feel that we have a fairly good handle on design. And we have also been involved in this project from the Page 130 March 3, 2005 beginning, where at the outset we started with a 22-story building, but a single building. And after we went through that denial and the concerns of the community, we really stepped back and said, well, what can we do to make this proj ect still work and cut the building in half? So, you cut the building in half. You end up with two. Pretty easy math problem. But the way you site those buildings is important. And what we have done, as Bob illustrated, is start with large setbacks from the street. The closest point of the small building that you see on the bottom of the site plan on the wall is 180 feet from the right-of-way at Vanderbilt. We're almost 250 feet to the farthest point of the building to the north. And as Bob intimated before, and Rich as well, about the surrounding uses, you know, we clearly have a project approved to the north that is five 20-story buildings. A pretty tall project. Mainly to the south of Pelican Isle at ten stories over parking. One that was not mentioned, which is across Vanderbilt in Cove Towers, where there are also five high-rise buildings, three of which are 17 stories and two of which are 14 stories. Clearly, we are in a high-rise residential neighborhood. Some of the specifics of what we have tried to address with this design is first the water. I mean, this is why this project is here. Carving a marina into the site and providing a large, but a limited number of boat slips is obviously a focal point. And the theme of water carries through the whole project. Page 131 March 3, 2005 As you can tell at the entry, come through a -- a guardhouse, that the entire project is completely landscaped, a garage that's underneath the building that is bermed and landscaped to the point where unless you were a resident, you probably would never know it was there. You come up to a roundabout that's about the middle of the plan along Vanderbilt has a beautiful fountain in it and then you rise up to the first arrival level where there is a lagoonish type lake in front, that's part of our water management program, but also one in which the developer will spend a lot of money to make a beautiful feature, not just a retention pond. The whole site is virtually covered with pavers in the roadway sections and in the -- the pedestrian areas. And the project really doesn't brace what is the -- the marina and with a promenade for all of its residents. There's a ship store and a fueling area that was existing that the Wiggins Pass Marina, the fueling at least was. It will be redone and completely new, but that is to the southwest corner of the site. And if we could put the rendering back on, we can talk a little bit about that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before you go further, please? MR. HALL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have just a question with regard to that that was on the monitor. MR. HALL: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That -- is that rendering to scale? Page 132 March 3, 2005 MR. HALL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It is? MR. HALL: The site plan? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, this -- this -- MR. HALL: Yes, the site plan is to scale. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I'm just trying to figure how the -- where you have your dock space relative to the structures, the space for docking seems to be extraordinarily large __ MR. HALL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- against what appear -- I guess it may be an optical illusion? MR. MULHERE: No. I think you're right. I think in re -- in reproducing these types of documents, they were drawn to scale, but when you reproduce them and enlarge them, you do lose some of the -- of the scale. And I think you're right. I mean, obviously, those -- those docks look pretty long in comparison to the building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. I would say. Okay. There was another question I might pose right here, too, as well. When first this was given to us in another format, it was very clear what the intended allocation of space to be given to the county was for park for the usage of the trailers. I noticed in the first -- in the presentation in the original documents that they didn't seem -- they seemed to be absent. And I'm trying to fix in my mind where that space is that's going to the county. Page 133 . -_~,,_.___..c March 3, 2005 MR. MULHERE: I'm going to -- I'm going to show you and it's the southerly 30 feet. And I'll show you directly. My fingers out of the way. It's a -- strip of lands 30 feet wide from this point right here, running all the way out to the right-of-way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where is the line of demarcation of ownership. MR. MULHERE: We own from this point right here -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Up. MR. MULHERE: -- to this point here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, the part -- the part that would be what is it; leased, licensed, whatever, to the county would be beginning of that -- that portion. MR. MULHERE: Correct. It's the southerly 30 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not really clear on this rendering, that's for sure. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It's -- it's stipulated though. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, because it -- it looks like it -- it looks like you've got trees there that would be right where the parking would be. And so, I guess -- MR. HALL: Bob, if I might, you know, I'll take artistic license for that. This is an architectural color presentation drawing. The master plan submitted and the one reviewed by staff has a lot more technical information on it. This one is simply done in color to try to help you visualize it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But then let me just put it this way. At the last presentation, there was X square feet that was to Page 134 "m__"_._,_._____' March 3, 2005 be given. These are the same square feet that will be given again. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I think if we can go back to the -- to the visualizer. MR. SCHMITT: Computer, Katie. MR. MULHERE: To the laptop. You got it. Thank you. MR. HALL: So, we've talked a little bit about the site plan and, certainly, if you have any other questions about specifics, we can talk about any element within the site plan you may be interested in. But to come back to the three-dimensional rendering of the way this proj ect is intended to look, in many ways, it is very similar at the architectural theming at the previous submittal, but like I say, it's half the height. Part of the biggest challenge in creating interest and aesthetic value in architecture is at the roof line, and for that reason you see a lot of architectural embellishment at the roof. That is a very important element. When we all talk about height and density, we're talking math issues. But when we're talking about when the building is finally said and done, the roof is a very, very important element to that. The theming here is a very nautical one. They're really respecting the boats and where we are. As we alluded to earlier, the project is 120 feet tall. It's measured from the -- the zoning criteria of the base flood elevation to the mean part of the lowest roof. It's 144 feet tall, ground to tippy top, as we like to say. Page 135 March 3, 2005 And, you know, you could probably say, well, the whole building could be 120 feet tall and it could with a very, very flat roof and it would look like a box. A rounded box and we'd make it as good looking as we could, but you would lose a very important element of what makes the proj ect work. If there are any questions about the architecture, 1'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. In the PUD, the separation between buildings is one-quarter the combined height? MR. HALL: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's not what's shown here between these two towers. MR. HALL: It's not? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern I have is that -- that if we approve the numbers in the PUD, you could close that gap and the county's kind of sensitive about closing that gap these days. MR. HALL: Yeah. We would rather be as far apart as we can be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. HALL: -- but with given the limits of the side setbacks __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then, Bob, do you know why you'd have a quarter -- MR. MULHERE: No, I don't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because normally, it's a half. MR. MULHERE: If I can answer that question, we reduced that and put in 25 percent of the building height so that we could Page 136 March 3, 2005 maximize the setbacks to our external boundaries which we felt was really the more important of the two, separated from the park and also separated from the high rise that can be within a hundred -- 20 __ 20-story high rise that can be within 150 feet of our building to re __ to in -- and I don't know what the exact dimension that we're showing on this rendering is. Obviously, as long as we can honor those 60 feet, then -- then, you know, we would separate as much as we possibly can. But that's a dimensional standard. We have them all the time. We have a 25 foot setback, but buildings are often set back further. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my -- MR. MULHERE: That's a minimum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is though that if we allow that, then you could close these buildings off to be -- and the way to judge it, it would be half the height of the building. That's how close it would be. It would look like a wall. The two of them would combine together. MR. HALL: Well, I'm not sure what the dimension is either at this point. I mean, we can certainly get a scale out and measure it. But we want the space between the buildings anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know. MR. HALL: Because we don't want to be looking into our neighbors. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then -- then why -- MR. HALL: From one building to the next. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in the PUD would be a quarter? Because normally it's a half the combined height. Page 137 March 3, 2005 MR. HALL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In essence it's the height of one of the buildings. MR. HALL: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here for some reason it's unique and it must have been a judgment to do that. MR. HALL: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the concern is if that closed together, it wouldn't be as nice looking as it is there. MR. HALL: We-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the people -- MR. HALL: We agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- on the street it would look like one big building. MR. HALL: Right. We fully concur. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean you can answer that later. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Bob, would you pass him the microphone, please? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I scaled it -- the one to forty plan puts it at a hundred feet apart. MR. HALL: An architect without a scale, that's a bad day. But, you know, I've been trained a little bit to look at dimensions, and I think that it's one inch equal 40 feet. We're almost really at half of the some of the heights. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I'd like. MR. HALL: And we virtually are. Page 138 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I like what you show but, again, tomorrow after if you get an approval, you could narrow that gap according to the PUD. So, why don't we just change it in the PUD to be one-half the height. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I'd like some flexibility. When I look at it, it looks closer to 80 feet, the separation, so __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The plan submitted to us, which is the 24 by 86, it's a hundred feet, it's two and a half inches there that -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. If that's what's shown, we're fine with that. I didn't have a scare so I -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But can you change in the PUD instead of one quarter the combined height, can you make it one-half the combined height? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. HALL: Well, or can we stipulate -- can we stipulate a dimension? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd be happy with a hundred feet or above. MR. HALL: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. HALL: Done. MR. MULHERE: Any other questions for Bob? I'm going to proceed on to the conditional use then and -- and then, of course, Rich will wrap up. Page 139 ..----., March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are we going to get into the details of this? For example, I've got a form here Page 2.2 of -- that you have in front of you which you can go to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The PUD? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's called the -- the land use summary, Table 1. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 2.2. MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is that valid? Is that accurate? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Now, it says to me up in top residential, and that would be the building, would be 8.25 acres. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Now, the other ones, when we start out with the mathematics, you were talking 10.02 acres. MR. YOVANOVICH: 10.45. MR. MULHERE: 10.45 is the total project size. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Subtract -- MR. MULHERE: 10.45 -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 053. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: We're -- we're simply breaking down the __ Page 140 ~--- March 3, 2005 the land use designation as is required within the PUD. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If you're talking about 8.25 acres, and how many units are you talking about if you're getting 9.48? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That doesn't break out to 95 units to me. MR. MULHERE: But it's no different than any other development that has a marina or a lake or a waterfront that that usage -- the density can be calculated on the -- the entire project size minus the submerged lands. In this case point four three acres. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. What about the building under imperious area of building another 1.1 acres? That doesn't count either? MR. MULHERE: No. That's -- that's simply a different calculation. The county also requires you to provide them with the total of imperious area if I -- I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, it seems to me that the only thing that you're taking out of this is the submerged water __ MR. MULHERE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- water. MR. MULHERE: And that's how density is calculated in Collier County. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Any other building you build on it doesn't count to residential at all. Page 141 March 3, 2005 - MR. MULHERE: Those are accessory uses to the residential, the primary residential use. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So that the residential area here you're saying is 8.25 is not what you're going to use. You're going to go back to 10.02. MR. MULHERE: Correct. For calculating density, that's correct. The only thing we're subtracting is point four three acres of submerged land. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Adelstein, that's no different than a typical golf course community. You come in with a golf course community of a hundred acres, four times a hundred acres would be 400 units. You don't then subcontract out the 80 or so acres of a golf course and say, now my density is, you know, based on 20 acres. I mean, that's -- that's the same analysis. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I just making sure we weren't. MR. MULHERE: I mean, it's -- it's the difference between net and gross and it's exactly the way every other project in Collier County is calculated. If there are other questions -- no other questions on this, I'll go on to the conditional use. I know there will be questions, but if we finish this up and let Rich wrap up, then we can move on. Okay. This -- this part of our presentation will deal with the conditional use for the destination resort hotel and spa. This is a rendering that you have before you. I'm going to put Page 142 ~--,- March 3, 2005 one up on the wall, too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would this be 75 feet to the tippy top? MR. MULHERE: No. Seventy-five feet is the zoning height. The actual height is a little bit higher than that. You can measure it to the mid point of the roof and you have to measure for actual height from the existing ground elevation, whereas under the zoning height, you measure from the FEMA required height. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand, but you don't know what the rendering height would be? MR. MULHERE: Ninety feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ninety. MR. MULHERE: And this is, again, a colorized site plan. I guess I'd like to say to start out that I think it's no secret or no surprise that our preference is the -- the residential PUD that you just heard about, but I want to say that we've spent a great deal of time and professional effort and, consequently, a great deal of resources on looking at the opportunity to develop this site with a very viable -- very, very high class destination resort hotel. And this is a very viable use on the site. Again, our preference is the residential. EcoGroup, that is predominantly what their business is. And on top of that, we believe that's what the neighborhood, that's what the community strongly prefers. However, this is a viable option on the property as well. There are a couple of differences and we'll get into those in more specificity, but obviously you can see that the marina basin is Page 143 --~ March 3, 2005 larger, 47 slips, and that the land coverage is -- is greater. The building height is lower, the land coverage is greater and the marina basin is a little bit larger. The destination resort hotel allows for floor-area ratio of point eight. Ours is point seven nine. It also requires 25 percent of the area to be devoted to common usage and support services and similar facilities and we exceed that number significantly, as you can see in the next bullet; 35.64 percent. Our open space required by the LDC is 15 percent, but we are providing 34 percent. And that is a direct result of this being a first-class hotel. In order to be a first-class hotel you are required to have significant landscaping, significant green areas, the water helps a lot, the marina helps a lot and also outdoor function space. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Bob -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- you say that your common usage is 35.64. The staff report calls it 32.5. MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure -- I'm not sure what the difference is there, and maybe -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, let me-- MR. MULHERE: -- Mike Bosi can speak to that issue. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let me ask you something else. The requirement speaks to gross floor area. I assume that's of the building. MR. MULHERE: Actually, if I'm not mistaken, it says gross area. Page 144 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm looking right at it. Well MR. MULHERE: You're looking at the staff report or are you looking at the LDC. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm looking at the staff report. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I could be wrong. I've been wrong a lot before. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's a quote right above it. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Rich -- I am wrong. See. One more time. Chalk it up. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Gross floor area. MR. MULHERE: But to answer your question, we did calculate that on the floor area. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, you included 3,000 square feet for boat slips and 12,000 square feet for a pool deck. Now, the pool's outside. I don't see how either of those qualify as part of the gross floor area of the building. MR. MULHERE: No. I -- I guess it says floor area, but it doesn't say of the building. I'm just trying to read it right now, Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, you're sort of stretching credulity to talk about all the outdoors as being part of the floor. MR. MULHERE: Well, in our discussions with staff, the calculations were mutually agreed to. If we subtract those Page 145 March 3, 2005 calculations, I think we still exceed the 25 percent. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It looks like you might, but I haven't really scrutinized the others. Those two just jumped out at me as being probably not allowable. MR. MULHERE: Now, the reason I think we included the boat slips was because those were public slips and open to the public. But we can redo that calculation. Again, I -- I mean, that was a general discussion that we had with staff when we calculated that there was agreement on that point. I do see your point and we can certainly recalculate that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me be clear if I may. There -- my calculation was only three slips that would be open to the public. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that would be that space? MR. MULHERE: Well, that was part of what we calculated towards this 35.64 percent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: You know, and it says in spaces in support of hotel functions, but you're right. The term floor area is utilized. We'll go ahead and recalculate that and get to you. Let me finish my presentation and I'll sort of step aside and do that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: One of the implications of the existing C-4, well, at least in our opinion, as professional planners, architects, it would be a very poor utilization of the parcel's waterfront location. We agree this is a unique parcel. Page 146 March 3, 2005 And at present there is only 90 foot of water frontage. We would be enhancing that water frontage by creating the basin. Assuming that the hotel or the residential option do not go forward, that leaves the balance of C-4 uses on the property. There's a plethora of uses. I don't know that all of them are feasible in this location, but when I look at it, certainly a shopping center -- combination shopping center with some office space is probably the most feasible use. And we don't think that that would in any way enhance the visibility or access to the water. Might have one restaurant that has some water frontage, significantly higher traffic. These types of uses are by purpose and intent in the C-4 district intended to attract large volumes of people. And that's why they're generally located and made at major intersections. The other thing is that under the by right zoning, there obviously would be no public input into the process, so any of the points that we agreed to as a part of this dialogue in going through the process, there will be no opportunity for the public to have them put into that. Conversely, the implications of a destination resort hotel, clearly, in our opinion, second only to the residential option, this is the best utilization of the waterfront location. The community does have a voice in this process as -- as has been attested to by the previous hearing and by this hearing and other public hearings that have been held leading up to this one. And the public will have a full access to the property. Anyone that chooses to come and utilize the hotel and its amenities would be Page 147 ---_..,.,-----._..."_.~_._-~~,-,....._.- March 3, 2005 able to do so. Obviously for a fee. Well, maybe not for a fee for everything but for most things there would be a fee; to eat in the restaurant, to use the spa. But it would be open to the public. We would also be enhancing public access by providing for transient boat slips, presumably sightseeing and fishing vessels, the ship store and the fueling facilities will be improved, enhanced and open to the public. And, as I indicated, the hotel guest suites, the restaurant, the lounge, the meeting room facilities, the outdoor function area and the spa and fitness facility will be open to the public. In terms of traffic, we've -- we've talked about this already. I won't belabor the point but the destination resort hotel although higher than the residential option is still significantly less, in the neighborhood of about seven times less than the traffic that would be generated, maybe six and a half times less than traffic that would be generated by a -- a C-4 zoning, retail shopping center. Under the environmental, the resort reduces boat traffic. Obviously, we're only going to have 47 slips versus the 450 dry slips that were there previously. Under either scenario, we do have a -- what I consider to be an innovative Bald Eagle management plan and which is consistent with the conditions set forth in your staff report. And under either plan, we're mitigating the pollutants that exist on the site from the previous marina. That's an aerial. I don't think we need to discuss that because we've already gone over the neighboring property and those previously. Page 148 ---.,. ·_,c~'··<"._""<..."_._m."_ March 3, 2005 And we've also discussed this, but let me just briefly go over it in tenns of the hotel configuration. As I said, straight C-4 allows setbacks as close as 25 feet. The -- the plan that we've provided has a setback of 110 feet from the -- the principal hotel structure and also the side-yard setbacks are slightly in excess of 52 feet at the closest point. And we provide and argue more than twice the minimum required open space. Do you want to go back or -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Just leave it there. MR. MULHERE: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I want to wrap up at this point by pointing out that the EAC recommended approval of both projects to go forward to the board of county commissioners. We're available to answer any questions if you want us to answer them now or if you want to wait until after staff presentation and the public. Obviously we would like to have the ability to answer or rebut any public comments or staff comments regarding our proj ect. You'll note that in both your -- both staff reports, your staff is recommending approval, that we are consistent with the comp plan, we are compatible with our neighbors. And we request that the planning commission recommend approval of both projects to the board of county commissioners. And with that, we're available to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions of the petitioner? Mr. Schiffer? Page 149 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, the -- on the destination, the golf course issue, what's your opinion of that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, since it was sprung on me yesterday after we had met with county staff in July regarding this issue and gone through, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars after we were told to go through the conditional use process and we were told we are consistent with the destination resort hotel, I don't think much of that requirement, and don't think it is a requirement. And I went back and I looked at the minutes of when this definition was changed in the year 2001. I think Mr. Budd -- and I don't know if Mr. Abernathy was around at that time. At no time did staff ever say a golf course was required. They emphasized the portion of the definition that requires -- and if you'll bear with me one second. They emphasized the sentence that says, in all cases a destination resort hotel must include dining services and a cocktail lounge and not less than 25 percent of the gross floor area must be devoted to common usage, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. They made a point of pointing out to you all and the board of county commissioners that that was a requirement by this new definition. They never said that a destination resort hotel must include either on-site golf course, if you front the golf, or -- I'm sorry -- if you don't front the golf or an off-site or on-site golf course if you do front the golf. They never said it was a requirement to go forward with the destination resort hotel that you must have a golf course. Page 150 March 3, 2005 I think you'll read this language to say that the first four elements are indicators of what a destination resort hotel is. You look at whether or not people are going to stay there for awhile. The only one that is required of the four is the 25 percent. The others are indicators of a destination resort hotel. They're not requirements. If they were requirements, I think staff would have said in front of the planning commission, in front of the board of county commissioners that a golf course is required. That's not in the record. I think they're indicators. If we had a -- I think there's no question that if we had an on-site golf course and we had these 25 percent that would meet the 25 percent requirement, we're a distention resort hotel. We have direct access to the gulf. We have a different concept for a destination resort hotel. We have the marina. We have the spa facilities and we have the marina. Weare a destination resort hotel under staffs interpretation that had changed, by the way, and is inconsistent with your staff report and inconsistent with what we were told back in July. If I were to come and build Disney Wodd here, and I decided not to have a golf course, I wouldn't be a destination resort hotel. I find it hard to believe that that's not a destination resort hotel. I don't believe those are -- there's a golf course requirement within the -- in the LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I would agree with you except for that what's in this sentence, except that for destination resort hotels fronting on the golf, an on-site golf course is not Page 151 .'-.,. -_""'-~---,_.,",-",~.,.,,--,. March 3, 2005 required. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that makes it pretty clear that if you have -- if you're the Ritz Carlton, who's right on the beach __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't have to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- you don't have to have a golf course. Don't worry about it. That makes it clear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the confusing thing is that it makes it look like if you're not on the beach, you do have to have a golf course. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again -- and that's why I went back and I looked at the record. And the record does not ever say you had to have a golf course. They emphasized the 25 percent requirement. They never said you had to have a golf course. So, I think if you want -- if it's confusing, and I think it is, I will tell you I think this is very poorly written. I think we can all agree it's poorly written. And I think that you've got to go back and look at what was discussed when it was adopted, and a golf course was never discussed as a requirement. And I think Mr. Mulhere wants to add something. MR. MULHERE: I did want to clarify and I apologize, Mr. Abernathy, because I don't always think as quickly on my feet. I knew that I had looked at that issue -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, you're very quick. MR. MULHERE: -- and I knew that I had corrected that issue and on your conditional use master site plan or site plan, at the request of staff I went back in and recalculated from the architect the Page 152 March 3, 2005 exact square footage of the building and the exact square footage of the common areas. The number is a -- the number -- the square footage of the building is 363,875 square feet. The common areas of the building is 129,670 square feet which is slightly in excess of 35 percent. The staff report is incorrect but my information is correct. That includes restaurant, meeting space, pre function area, fitness center, lobby areas, miscellaneous public areas within the building, public circulation within the building, guest room support and back of house area. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We do agree it's floor area. MR. MULHERE: Yes, we do. I was wrong on that point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I need to qualify something with -- if we are talking about -- it's not fronting on the golf, okay, but we are talking amenities. And I note there that the -- you know, there will be no public space except, I think, three transient and then the rest will be subj ect to lease those -- those spots there in the marina. MR. YO V ANOVICH: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I know it was alluded to that there may be some activity, some captain might take some people out on a trip. Is there anything -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If we're looking for a reason to have a destination, just having a marina to look at the water __ MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the tran -- the three transient slips Page 153 March 3, 2005 are for you, if you want to come visit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That I understand. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The remainder of the slips are owned by the owners of the hotel. So, if I wanted to come by boat, those slips would be available for me to come by boat. The three transient is if I wanted -- if I wanted to stay at the hotel. The three transients if I decided I don't own a boat, but if Mr. Budd decided to come by boat and eat at the restaurant, those three -- those three strips -- slips would be available to him. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that I thought I understood, but I'm asking, I hope, a different question. I'm trying to understand if you were asking do people come there as a destination, what is it about the water that the hotel will offer. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I think there are -- there are a lot of examples of destination resort hotels that -- you know, that don't necessarily have, you know, charter boats as the attraction or sightseeing vessels. I can tell you that we're certainly not opposed to that. We assume that there will be some of that, but it's purely a market, you know, question or a market factor in terms I don't think that that is the hinge or the key to making this a destination resort hotel. Being able to look at the water, being able to come on your boat, being able to use the spa, being able to dine in the restaurants, being able to go around and shop and do those -- those kinds of things. Page 154 __".··_··._.___·___.,_...'".,'".w_.....·_~ March 3, 2005 I mean if -- it makes it more attractive I -- I'm sure that certainly we would have those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand you. My only point is I'm trying to understand the finite definition between a resort hotel and the destination resort hotel. And it seems to be hinging on something very fragile. That's all. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And there's also a beach shuttle for people to get to the beach. The purpose of a destination resort hotel is that if you want to come there, you have everything available to you that you never have to leave the premises if you don't want to leave the premises. Entertainment, which we will provide, we have the fishing, we have the spa, we have the restaurants. You'll never have to leave if you don't want to. We'll have Shopping. So, that's the purpose of a destination resort hotel. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It also gives you 33 percent more floor area, doesn't it? MR. YO V ANOVICH: And you -- because you also have to do the required amenities like the spa and all those other things to build the building, to do what you got to do to be a destination resort hotel. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So, Rich, what you're saying is that a facility like Pier 66 in Fort Lauderdale that has expensive dockage, you don't have to show up in your 200-foot yacht to enjoy that. You can drive up in a car. And that by a common sense definition, if you've been there or by it, is a destination resort hotel. And there's no golf course on site. Page 155 March 3, 2005 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've never been there. MR. MULHERE: It's not on the gulf, is it, directly? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And -- and, similarly, if I understand correctly by -- by your interpretation, the Registry resort hotel would not be a destination resort because it doesn't front the gulf and it doesn't have a golf course on site? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. And -- and, likewise, the Ritz Carlton golf at -- on -- in Tiberon, which wouldn't qualify either because it doesn't have direct access to the gulf and it doesn't front the gulf. I think those are clearly destination resort hotels. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, I don't think there's any question about that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You should have put a miniature golf course in or something. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you know what, I was going to bring -- you know, Mr. Schiffer, if that's what it takes to meet the definition, we'll do that tomorrow. We will do it if that's what it takes, because I think that's consistent with the LDC. You know, if that's what it takes, you got the miniature golf course. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions of the petitioner, not to say there won't be some more later? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, yes. I wanted to -- before the petitioner folds his tent, how about Bald Eagle Page 156 ---- .._-"--~"-,,_.~, March 3, 2005 Management? Are we going to talk about that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we thought the EAC kind of addressed that issue and we had a recommendation of approval. We're in the secondary zone. If you want to get into the details the Bald Eagle Management Plan is attached to our PUD as an exhibit. The EAC voted five to two to recommend approval of both the conditional use and the -- and the residential PUD. If you want to get into greater detail, we can, Mr. Abernathy. We just thought that the EAC had addressed those issue, but we're happy to present those issues if you need us to. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I suspect reasonable men may differ on whether or not construction should go on during the nesting season. The EAC is -- is a recommendation only. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I -- and I thought that that was their -- their jurisdiction but we're happy if you want to get into that presentation. We're happy to make a presentation on that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, why don't we see if any of the speakers raise it. MR. YO V ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Miss Caron, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, actually, Rich, you brought up the EAC and because we didn't get the details of what the EAC voted on, perhaps you could just detail what -- what they said. Do you know the stipulations that they put on? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. And let me -- let me have Andy Woodruff come up and -- where did you go, Andy? COMMISSIONER CARON: That may clarify it for everybody. Page 157 March 3, 2005 MR. WOODRUFF: Andy Woodruff for the record with Pasorel and Associates and RML Consulting. With regard to the EAC hearing, there were some additional stipulations that the EAC wanted to put on our Bald Eagle Management Plan. Those stipulations included, they would like us to change the language with regard to the monitoring activity during construction activity so that if there was any suspected abnormal behavior as a result of our activity that we would halt construction, so we agreed that if we suspected anything during construction activity, that we would adhere to halt the construction and address those issues before re-continuing. They also asked us to provide a step-wise plan for notification. Who do we contact so that there's a chain of command, a chain of order, in which we can address any potential adverse issues as a result of our construction activity during the nesting season. So, we agreed to put together a plan of contact so that everybody knows who needs to be contacted and when and how that procedure will play out. They also agreed to initiating construction activities outside of the nesting season closest to the nest sites so we would be working on the north side of the property, initiating our activities there during the non-nesting season and then moving toward the south side of the property. And there was also a condition that we would provide video monitoring of the eagle nest during the nesting season. Those were the conditions that were placed upon us during the Page 158 "--...... --~'._-~_...~-" March 3, 2005 - EAC that we had agreed to. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Developer agreeable to all of those? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- yes, sir. We -- we agreed to that, including padding the dumpsters, you know, and things like that to -- and we true -- and, Mr. Abernathy, since we made those commitments the last go around, we included them this go around. Since that time, there's been almost -- if you will, I'll use the term deregulation of the secondary zone. And we have said, no, we're going to honor our previous commitments even though if we would have start today, we wouldn't have to do all those things. We've decided to honor those commitments anyway. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Well, that wasn't in -- in here, so, okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Very good. That concludes the petitioner's presentation. Can we hear the staff report, please -- Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning and Land Development Review. I apologize, Commissioner Caron, if you did not receive the supplemental staff report that I had e-mailed to all the planning commission membership last week containing the details of the results of the EAC, and as the applicant has indicated, a five to two vote of approval was -- what was -- was gained by both the residential project as well as the conditional use. On the conditional use there was one additional stipulation on top -- beyond the -- the residential rezone. Page 159 -..... . .__._--_.,--~. March 3, 2005 And that was for the remediation, the environmental remediation from the contaminants that have been found onsite of the former marina that -- that the cleanup be performed to the residential standard and not to the commercial standards because there's -_ there's a different threshold if you're -- you're remediating for a commercial project. And they're mandated for the -- for the hotel, that they would mandate or remediate at the residential component. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, one thing about your summary. You refer to this thing as an eagle problem. I don't eagles are a problem. You called it out four times as -- if there's a problem, we'll solve the problem, the eagle problem. Come up with another word than a problem, okay? MR. BOSI: And are you referring to the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Semantics of your report. MR. BOSI: Oh, I was given -- I was provided a verbatim from the -- from the EAC. I'm sorry. And I apologize. Maybe I construed -- or I construed -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, why -- I don't think the environment -- you know, the EAC considers them a problem, do they or -- MR. BOSI: I -- I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. BOSI: And I think what they were saying is if there was a problem with the eagle, the eagle, meaning if the eagle was having a problem with construction, not that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there-- Page 160 ,----- March 3, 2005 MR. BOSI: -- the eagle is a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actions will be taken if an eagle problem is suspected. MR. BOSI: Yeah. An eagle problem. The construction has created -- okay. Maybe I -- I phrased that wrong. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I think so. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't think he did. MR. BOSI: I -- I will revise my language in the future. I apologize. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it's a privilege to have the eagles. Just protect them. MR. BOSI: I'll focus for staffs presentation for the -- for the residential proj ect first and then I'll move on to the conditional use. I would -- I won't repeat everything that the -- that -- that the applicant had stated. I would agree that it's been reviewed from the reviewing departments and all of reviewing staff has signed off. One of the things I did with the -- with this staff report, and you'll probably -- saw a commonality from the staff report that you saw a year ago. I thought that the -- that staffs position and staffs assessment of the project a year ago in terms of -- of density and how do you balance the two -- two -- two conflicting at times policies of the Growth Management Plan, meaning the conversion of commercial to residential density bonus and the reduction of density within the coastal high hazard area. Within the report, I -- I also mentioned that Dave Weeks, who has reviewed this petition from -- from comprehensive planning had Page 161 March 3, 2005 ,..,- stated and -- and specifically stated that when these -- these policies were contemplated, it was contemplated that the conversion of commercial to residential and the density bonus associated with that would be eligible within the coastal high hazard area. And, also, on page seven of the -- of the staff report, it -- for the residential proj ect, it does mention the one time that the conversion of commercial was utilized and that's -- that was for a project that was also within the coastal high hazard area where they rezoned it from C-3 to an RMF-16, an RMF-16 zoning district. So, this policy has -- has been applied one time in the past by this county. There -- there was dedication within the PUD document two provisions that -- that we highlighted. The one thing I -- I would say that on Page 3 of the staff report, I know it's an eight and a half by 11 and it's -- it's tough to read, but it does show the exact location of that -- that public use track and exactly where that point four acres are going to be provided to the Cocohatchee River Park to -- to create the -- the additional parking spaces. When you look at the intensity of the residential proj ect in terms of the trips that were put on the road, it's much less of an impact compared to this -- any of the C-4 uses and compared to the proposed conditional use. I don't -- I don't think that compatibility with either of the two proj ects within this area based upon the zoning and based upon the built environment and the built structures is an issue. I believe both of these -- both of these proposals are compatible and I think that is why you -- you have both staff reports that are Page 162 March 3, 2005 recommending approval. Staff -- staff has not taken a position as to the merits of one over the other. All we tried to do was to evaluate each of the proposals against the -- the Growth Management Plan and the policies contained within that and the regulations contained within the land development code. I think at this time it would be appropriate also to address one of the -- one of the closing issues that you had with the applicant and that was related to the destination resort hotel. When I generated this staff report, it was -- it was -- it was prior to the -- the official rendering of the -- of the interpretation. The application that was before me, the application that we reviewed against and the intensity that we reviewed against was for a destination resort hotel with a floor area ratio of point eight. Now, the land development code specifically -- or states that in a C-4 zoning district, if you're outside an activity center, you -- you -- to develop a hotel, you need a conditional use. And there's not a conditional use for a traditional hotel and there's not a conditional use for a destination resort hotel. It's simply a conditional use. Now, the specifics and the intensity of that is -- will be decided at the time of site development plan. What -- based upon -- based upon the interpretation that was issued and the -- the ascertation (sic) that maybe this does not meet the -- the exact LDC definition for the destination resort hotel. Staff feels it's necessary to propose an additional condition. We think that a condition that would state to utilize the point eight floor Page 163 March 3, 2005 area ratio allocated for a destination resort hotel at the time of site development -- site development plan submittal, the -- the proj ect must satisfy the land development code definitional requirements of a destination resort hotel. The question is, is this compatible? Is a conditional use for a hotel compatible in this area? The answer to that question is yes. What's the intensity of that? Well, we've -- we evaluated the intensity at the highest -- at the highest possible allocation granted by the land development code. And with that, we said -- we still find it compatible. It still meets the policies of the Growth Management Plan. Whether this hotel, when developed, if approved and if developed, is at point eight or point six -- point six floor area ratio will be -- will be determined at the site development plan, will be determined against the definitional requirements of the land development code and -- and all other factors that I -- I would say that influence what -- what -- what is that definitional requirement. But we felt that that -- that additional condition could allow the conditional use to go forward for approval, where -- where the -- the issue of the -- the floor area ratio for the project wouldn't prevent -- wouldn't prevent the -- the conditional use from getting an approval and we'll defer it to a later stage for -- for the applicant -- for the applicant to -- to establish -- to establish whether the projected does meet those definitional requirements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mike, that's a little confusing because of the fact that coming forward with it being defined as a -- Page 164 March 3, 2005 as that kind of resort hotel. MR. BOSI: Exactly. They've -- they've came before -- they've came before the county and presented an application for a destination resort hotel. And what I -- and what this condition is going to say, for you to develop for the point eight floor area ratio that your application is -- is seeking, you will have to satisfy those definitional requirements at the time of site development plan. Because at -- at the conditional use stage everything is conceptual. There -- there -- the specifics aren't -- aren't provided within the site plan. Everything is still on the conditional basis. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, that says that neither we, nor the board of county commissioners, can decide whether it's a destination hotel. Staff is going to decide it. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm the zoning manager here. I -- I think what we're trying to say is that we're dealing with the general use of hotel. The specifics is whether it's going to be a resort or a normal -- regular hotel isn't necessarily to be decided by staff. It is to be decided that what the criteria that they can demonstrate that they meet at the time the site development plan's middle. That's the criteria. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's what we've been talking about for the last 30 or 45 minutes. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Page 165 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Maybe we shouldn't have talked about it at all. MR. BELLOWS: But the board may -- can also limit the type of hotel use on there also. MR. SCHMITT: Let me -- I'm going to try and defer to the County Attorney so he can provide some guidance on this. MR. WHITE: I don't perceive there to be any legal issue at this point, so I don't know what there is that you would like me to opine about, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean just to be clear, what you're saying, Ray, the conditional use today is just for the word hotel. What kind of hotel is down the road? But all's we do today is do we let a hotel get through this gate, that's all. MR. BELLOWS: They have to meet the criteria one way or the other at the time of the site development plan. MR. BOSI: They proposed a conditional-- they proposed a conditional use hotel utilizing the greatest extent of floor area ratio that would be provided by the land development code. And we reviewed that and we found it compatible and we found it in compliance with the policies of the Growth Management Plan. The -- the -- the question doesn't get scaled down and I -- doesn't get scaled down because it -- it's not meeting the definitional requirement that it state -- that it says that it is within its application. We felt pushing to the site development plan was where the site specifics details were to be -- were to bored out. Page 166 >--~_._'_.- ----_.~., -~^""""'---..._---~ March 3, 2005 I -- and I would say that is staff's position. I don't think there would be anything that would prevent the planning commission from saying, well, we would offer the recommendation of this proj ect having a point eight or a point six. I -- I'm saying we felt as staff that this was -- this was -- was a condition that could get us to the next stage. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Of course, no golf course was a sort of a strawman that we set up and knocked down. That's no longer an issue. MR. WHITE: To the extent it's an issue, I think what the staff is telling the commission is that it is one that would have to be demonstrated by the application for a site development plan. And that what's before you for approval as recommended by the staff and as apparently has been asked for by the petitioner is for approval of a use that would allow an intensity of a destination resort hotel. And -- and I guess the notion is if you were one already, why would you have to ask for it? So, I don't know. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let me rephrase it. Does it seem that what we're being asked to do is to approve or deny based upon the assumption of a resort destination hotel? The -- the answer for clarification or decision to that assumption at the site development plan time and we don't need to make that decision here today as there are many other site uses that are determined in the site development plan process that we don't determine at a zoning stage, so the question in front of us is to decide if it is compatible with the assumption of the resort destination. Page 167 -"-'"---"~"''''' -~·'-·~~'·M'~_'·"~_·~_·· , March 3, 2005 Is that what you're trying to say? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Absolutely. MR. BOSI: That -- that is what I'm trying to say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I thought we said earlier we're just going to allow whether it's a hotel or not, the biggest hotel you could build is the one that's presented here, which is a full site thing, but could they not go back and do a smaller hotel and in a different kind of development? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sure. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. BOSI: I -- I would think my condition that -- that -- that I had suggested would allow just that. If they -- if they decide not to establish that they are in -- indeed meeting the definitional requirements of a -- of a destination resort hotel, they can develop the proj ect at a point six floor area ratio. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It would seem to me, Mike, that they're coming forward with -- with a four-star, five-star hotel, they want to have all the amenities and they want to use all the floor area space so, therefore, they're making a strong case for that. And my confusion rests with what appears to be, well, it may be but it might not be, and it may be. And I guess that's a frustration that you have as well. Waiting for this -- I'm trying to figure out the translation in dollars lost -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me -- can I answer that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- if you go the other way. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? Page 168 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If that's meaningful-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Everybody calm down. Mr. White. MR. WHITE: I -- I'd just like to have the staff complete their presentation before we hear from the petitioner again -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. WHITE: -- if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Let's do that. Mr. Bosi, complete your presentation and we'll circle around and try to keep some logic in where we're going. MR. BOSI: And staff has reviewed the conditional use application and based upon the policies of the growth management plan and the development land code, we found it compatible and in compliance and we recommended approval with conditions contained within the staff report and the condition discussed today. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Are there any other staff members presenting or does that conclude the staff presentation? MR. BOSI: That -- that concludes staffs presentation and we'll be -- we'll be happy to answer questions as they come forward. MR. WHITE: We -- we have one thing we need to put on the record -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: -- Susan Mason needs to put on the record in regards to environmental issues. MS. MASON: Good afternoon. Susan Mason for the record. I'm with Environmental Services. Page 169 March 3, 2005 And I just kind of wanted to clarify some of the questions you had about what the EAC had found. They did recommend approval of both petitions with all the stipulations that were included in the staff report, plus those additional stipulations that were mentioned earlier, some by the petitioner, and then Mike Bosi did mention the -- the one that was required for the cleanup to residential use, and they also did mention that in their presentation as well. Also, I wanted to clarify some comments that were made earlier that the secondary zone to the Bald Eagle zone has deregulated for all practical purposes and -- and that's not really the case. They do allow some construction during nesting season in secondary -- in the secondary zone, but there are monitoring requirements and other stipulations and requirements relating to that to show that the eagles will not be disturbed and there will not be a take. MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. MR. WHITE: -- just a point of order. Miss Mason, were you sworn? MS. MASON: Yes, I was. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions on the environmental report by staff? Yes, sir. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not environmental. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any questions on the staff report? Page 170 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Or if we could have the petitioner try to address the question before we start a new question, can we address the question of -- of resort hotel? Mr. Y ovanovich, try to provide some clarify. MR. YO V ANOVICH: Thank you. Well, let it be clear that we asked for a conditional use for a destination resort hotel. We met with county staff on July 19,2004, and asked them of what we were proposing was a destination resort hotel. We were told we were. We're a 10.45 acre piece of property. If a golf course was going to be required at that time, I think it's fairly certain that most people would understand that a regulation golf course is not going to fit in a 10.45 acre parcel of property. We were told we met the definition. We submitted a request for official interpretation to confirm that on July 26th. We went forward and we submitted our conditional use application showing everything, all of the details of how we justify where we meet the point eight. Yesterday I had a meeting with staff at 1 :30 in the afternoon and I was told that the staff report that was signed for what was supposed to be the February 17th meeting was now not their interpretation of what a destination resort hotel was. We had no interest in building a non-destination resort hotel on this property. We need the certainty that we're going forward with the destination resort hotel. We need that question resolved because we don't want a Page 171 .~----~~.."- March 3, 2005 conditional use that's approved for a hypothetical resort. We've given it to you. We've told you everything we were going to do and we want to know are we a destination resort hotel or not? If I put a miniature golf course on the property, am I a destination resort hotel? I don't want to leave it to chance. I experienced that on this petition. I was -- we were told one thing in July and now I'm being told something different. We can't take that financial risk. We never intended to go forward unless we were a destination resort hotel. And we need to know. That's what our conditional use. We do not agree to a stipulation that leaves us to some determination in the future. We're showing everything we're planning on doing. Tell us. Are we a destination resort hotel or not? Because if we're not, we're not interested in the conditional use. So, I -- I hope that clarifies what we asked for and the direction we want from the planning commission and the board of county commISSIoners. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there further questions on the issue of distention resort hotel so we beat this to death before moving on to the next topic? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I have some questions of staff. Okay? And the first one would be is why was it all of a sudden yesterday that -- that happened? Miss Murray. Page 172 "_W'o.,. _~._,..".,~_..,_~_._"_."_,__._ March 3, 2005 MS. MURRAY: For the record, Susan Murray. I'm the director of the Zoning Department. First, I need to clarify the record because I believe what Mr. Y ovanovich put on the record is incorrect. And not only is it incorrect the statements he made, but procedurally operated incorrectly as well. On July 19th, and I assume we're talking about the meeting between Joe Schmitt, myself, Rich Yovanovich and Bob Mulhere. I was asked to attend a meeting in Joe Schmitt's office with Rich. I didn't know Bob was going to be there. I was not told what the meeting was about. I was not given any background on the meeting. When I attended, I was asked two questions: One had to do with whether or not a hypothetical proj ect, which is now, I guess, technically still hypothetical project, but in actual application, before you would be considered a destination resort hotel, and I was verbally given a list of features that were included with this hotel and I was also asked a question regarding the calculation of density and submerged lands. In that meeting I reiterated to Mr. Y ovanovich and Mr. Mulhere at least on three separate occasions that the proper process for an official interpretation was a written request to my attention coupled with the appropriate fee. And that's outlined in the land development code. But I was not going to sit there and give him an absolute answer to his questions without him going through the proper process. Page 173 March 3, 2005 But if you wanted some idea of what I thought, you know, I might give that to him at that point. I did not have my land development code in front of me. I did not have anything in writing about this project. And that was the extent of the conversation. So, I have to tell you I'm a little angered that at least three times now Mr. Y ovanovich has put on the record that staff told him in July. That is incorrect. When he applied for the process, the official interpretation went through, was sent -- I'm sorry -- was drafted by Michael Bosi, was not drafted by myself. It was sent on to the County Attorney's office, and I'll be real honest with you, I think it was just forgotten. Not only was it forgotten by myself, Michael Bosi, but also by Mr. Y ovanovich. And when the issue was brought forward by Ms. Caron who, after receiving the staff report, questioned staffs application of a destination resort hotel, the light bulb went on, so to speak, where we realized that we still had not completed the official interpretation. And, in fact, I thought it had been complete because so much time had gone by but I could not remember signing it. And, in fact, I ended up contacting Mr. Yovanovich, asking if he had a signed copy and he -- he did not and could not remember either. I went back through the records and repieced the whole scenario of events. It's unfortunate that that had to happen. And the interpretation was rendered on the 1 st of March. And unbeknownst to me, Mr. Y ovanovich received a draft draft Page 174 March 3,2005 ,- copy of what was drafted by Michael Bosi and sent to the County Attorney's office. I'm the person responsible for signing the official interpretation that is written in the land development code. I'm the responsible one for issuing it and defending it. Until it is signed by me and approved or reviewed by the County Attorney's office and has followed all the procedures, it is not an official interpretation. If he receives or anybody receives a copy of a draft, that's exactly what it is, it's a draft. And I regret that the draft and the final version were different, and I regret that they came out on the 1 st of March. But the fact of the matter is that the responsibility of the ball was dropped probably by about three different people, so I'm not going to point fingers. It's just the fact -- the fact of the matter. But that's what happened. I wanted you all to know so you had an understanding and I also wanted to correct the record because in the future I think that we're probably better served by following the exact rules in the land development code, which say if you want a answer on an official interpretation, you will submit a signed letter with an appropriate fee and we will not have a meeting on it where you're going to try to pick my brain to see what the answer will be. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I ask you a question, and then I'll listen to Richard? But the thing is we don't have a copy of that interpretation in our staff report here, so we don't know what the staff feels on that Page 175 March 3, 2005 issue, do we? MR. WHITE: Suffice it to say, Commissioner Schiffer, that on the precise point of a determination of whether or not the requested official interpretation was a destination resort hotel or not, I don't know that that question is squarely answered. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WHITE: It certainly seems to leave open the possibility that the issues pertaining to fronting on the gulf and golf courses are not are ripe for further consideration. So, to act as if what has been talked about says something other than what it does is to not fully appreciate not only the process but the substance of what is not in the record before you and, arguably, isn't necessary for your determination, especially if the interpretation itself does not precisely what seem to be some of the concerns of some of the commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, again, you know, Richard explained to me at that time what he was saying actually made sense. I wouldn't mind reading what the staffs opinion of that same thing is unless it's identical. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if I may, also at the meeting were MR. WHITE: Didn't Mr. Y ovanovich provide you a copy? MR. YOVANOVICH: Of the staff report? MR. WHITE: No. The official interpretation. MR. YO V ANOVICH: No. I didn't -- I didn't give him a copy. MR. WHITE: It was his assessment of it that you discussed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So -- and it wouldn't be Page 176 March 3, 2005 appropriate for the staff to update our packet with it? I mean, because, in other words, theoretically, even though -- MR. WHITE: I -- I don't know that it was relevant to the ultimate determination. It's obviously a staff choice and I'm -- I'm -- there's nothing improper or unlawful about it being included, but it is something that at this point is within a 3D-day appeal period. Certainly once it's properly noticed. MR. BOSI: Commissioner Schiffer, and I apologize. It was -- Mike Bosi, land development review. It was issued the 1 st of March that's in the staff reports and the supplemental staff reports -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have your supplement staff report. MR. BOSI: -- that had gone out in February. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a March 3rd supplemental staff report. It doesn't mention that at all. That's the one that has the eagle problem. MR. BOSI: Your supplemental staff report was sent in February. That March 3rd is today's date. That -- that references the date of the hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, there was -- MR. BOSI: And I -- I -- I have -- I have a copy of -- I brought a copy with me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but notice normally the staff would make a judgment on whether it's a destination resort in the staff report in the staff recommendation. What you're saying is that was just a -- Page 1 77 --~ .. '"._'-~"~'._-~.._~...__. March 3, 2005 MR. WHITE: I think there's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- designated. We don't know it. MR. WHITE: -- confusion here between how -- how the application should be judged as opposed to what the ultimate development that would be constructed may be. And -- and -- and that's an important, I think, distinction and -- and one that shouldn't be so quickly stepped across. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the problem. We have an applicant that says I want a destination resort and only a destination resort. MR. WHITE: Well, then I would have encouraged Mr. Y ovanovich to have provided facts that were complete and sufficient to allow all of the questions that would have arisen as part of that interpretation process to be answered. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the finish line and then we have staff member that says maybe it is, maybe it isn't, you know. I mean -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Look. Hear me. First of all, also at the meeting were Ed Oelschlaeger and Fred Reisch!. I -- I recall asking the question and getting the answer and I did a follow-up letter to confirm. Doesn't matter. I submitted that request on July 26th. I went through reviews of the conditional use application and at no time was there ever an issue of whether or not I met the definition of conditional use hotel. Susan is correct. There was a request by Ms. Caron as to Page 178 ,._.~.~.- March 3, 2005 whether or not we meet the definition. She called me and said, do you have a copy of my signed interpretation? And I think she said the date of the signed interpretation. She believed she had signed it and it had been advertised. I did not have a copy, but I had been provided a copy of the draft and I'll submit it for the record. And it was consistent with what our discussions were, and, by the way, also consistent with the signed staff report approving the project. The December 17th draft interpretation is almost verbatim in your executed staff report for our February 17th meeting. There has been a change. For whatever reason, we got through the process, a staff report recommending approval of a destination resort hotel, and now we have an issue. What I'm simply saying is we want a destination resort hotel. This is everything we're providing. If staff need additional information, they could have asked me. I've never been asked for additional information. I thought -- frankly, I wrote the letter and I believe I am a destination resort hotel by setting forth the things I'm providing. I never said I was going to do a golf course. I never said I fronted the front of Gulf of Mexico. I think, arguably, we do, but I never alluded that I did or I didn't. I got a draft, a staff report that was never issued -- I'm sorry -- a draft letter that was never issued, but I do have a staff report that was issued. Page 179 March 3, 2005 We're just simply asking please clarify for us do we or do we not meet the definition of destination resort hotel. And if I provide a miniature golf course, do I meet the definition of destination resort hotel? Otherwise, we're not interested in going forward with the conditional cuss. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I -- I thought you were being asked to consider a conditional use, not a definitional determination. And -- and -- and I don't know how they are -- I see how they are intertwined, but I also see them as having distinct and separate qualities in different processes. Now, if Mr. Y ovanovich was so certain of what it was that he had been orally advised by staff, I ask why would it have been that he would have submitted the official interpretation and not have had that final executed document in order to bolster his conclusions. That said, I think you've heard what the staffs explained. I -- I don't know what else it is that I can advise in this process to assist other than to suggest that what the condition was that was offered today seemed to be one that legally harmonized both the outcome of the precise official interpretation with the originally recommended staff report. It harmonizes the two of them. And that's why I think the condition was offered today in recognition of the interpretation that was finally officially issued. And because of it, you have the condition today, rather than sooner. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Questions, comments on this issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On this issue, no. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We've had our petitioner's presentation, Page 180 March 3, 2005 we've had the staff presentation. Questions of staff for -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question of staff not on this issue. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You have to get up there, Mike. Mike, on the -- on the residential, the -- and I lost the page -- our -- the conservation coastal management element, Policy 12.2.2, the infamous in this hearing. Do you agree or disagree that that says four units per acre as a maximum? MR. BOSI: I'm sorry, Commissioner Schiffer. Which page are you referring to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, our coastal management element Policy 12.2.2. It's in -- in the report. New residential development to a maximum of four dwelling units per gross acre was in a coastal high hazard. Is that what you believe the case is? Here comes David. That might -- MR. WHITE: I'd prefer if you had a specific question about the staff report that certainly Mr. Bosi would be the person to answer it, but if it's a question about the comp plan, perhaps it's better to have Mr. Weeks address it. I don't know what the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Definitely David. David would probably be best. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the Page 181 ___."~_.__",...'_'_m..._." ___.___o_-....'.n'. ...--,-,-,,-~.~~"-'-" " March 3, 2005 Comprehensive Planning Department. And, Commissioner Schiffer, I think your -- your question was simply is that what that policy states, that density is limited to four units per acre? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. That is what that policy states. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The staff position is that that -- that statement is inaccurate. This is a policy in the conservation and coastal management element and it is referring to the future land use element, which is the element that dictates allowable uses and density. And what the policy states is -- and I'd like to quote it if I may. I think it's important in this particular Policy 12.2.2. The future land use element limits new residential development, thus obligation to infrastructure expenditures, to a maximum of four dwelling units per gross acre within the coastal high hazard area, end quote. That simply is not true. The future land use element does not limit density to four units per acre in the coastal high hazard area. What the future land use element simply does is provide for a base density of four units per acre within the urban residential sub district in which the site is located, and it provides for various density bonuses, some of which are not applicable to the site, both because of the type of proj ect -- I'm referring to the residential, of course -- as well as the fact that it is within the coastal high hazard area. As Mr. Y ovanovich mentioned earlier in the proceedings, there Page 182 March 3, 2005 are a few bonuses that specifically are not applicable within the coastal high hazard area. However, the conversion of commercial zoning density bonus is applicable to this site even though it's within the coastal high hazard area because there is no prohibition on it's applicability. COMMISSIONER CARON: David -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer, does that answer your question? MR. WEEKS: If I could say further, now it's a judgment call. It's a policy decision as to what that allowable density should be. Anywhere between saying, no, we don't think it's appropriate to allow any density bonus, all the way to saying, yes, the full bonus of 16 units per acre is appropriate. That's an individual decision that should be made on a case-by-case basis because each individual site is different, the surrounding property conditions, et cetera, are different and, therefore, the -- the outcome might well be different. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How did you get to the -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Hold on. Let's let Mr. Schiffer -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't have any more questions for David. I do have one more for -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Well, all right. Then while we're on the topic, we'll open it to others. Mr. Abernathy -- or excuse me. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How did you come -- how did they come to the 9.48, I mean, instead of a -- if they got four they gave them four more, made eight? Page 183 March 3, 2005 MR. WEEKS: I'll let Mr. Bosi answer that. MR. BOSI: That -- that staff announced at -- at arriving at the nine point -- and actually -- 9.5 was the recommendation that was -- that was -- and it were allocated last year towards this petition in -- in the sake of consistency, in the sake of transparency and -- and I -- I wanted to keep the same analysis that zoning and land development review had -- had done for the -- the petition last year to carry that same density analysis forward. And what they did was you -- you took the maximum allowed by your conversion of commercial is 16 units per acre. Your -- your coastal high hazard area with -- with a subtraction for a density reduction because of traffic was three. The -- the -- the difference between that is 13. Half of that difference -- half of that difference is -- is 6.5. 6.5 plus your base of three arrives you at 9.5. That was how staff arrived at 9.5 last year, and for consistency sake, staff was going to arrive at that same number this year. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sort of like chopping the baby in half, I think. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti. MR. BOSI: And -- and -- excuse me, but Commissioner Abernathy, you're correct. We're -- we said we're not sure how to weigh these two conflicting policies, so we'll divide it and we'll have a meeting between it. And that's exactly what we did. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: On that same issue, on Page 15, your recommendation on the residential ended, the last part of the sentence is, with the understanding of the board's decision on the Page 184 March 3, 2005 density of this petition will be a policy decision on which staff will base future recommendations of density bonuses. Are we setting precedence here? MR. BOSI: I -- I would say that when you have two conflicting -- two conflicting components of the Growth Management Plan, one saying that density should be reduced in the coastal high hazard area, the other saying you can -- you're eligible up to 16 units per acre and it's applicable within the area that we're saying we should reduce density, I think that this action will further give evidence of -- of how we deal with this issue. I think in '90 -- on Page 7, I think in -- when -- in '95 when Little Hickory Bay PUD was rezoned from commercial to residential, it gave a trail towards how we're dealing with this policy. I think we're -- we're stepping back from that because that was -- they went from -- they -- they went from commercial to RMF -- RMF -16, the highest possible density that's -- that was approved in '95. We're taking a step back from that and saying we -- we think that -- that -- that there's probably more consideration has to be paid to the coastal high hazard area. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Again, are we setting precedence here? MR. SCHMITT: If I could refresh the board's memory, this issue was debated in the EAR report, the evaluation and appraisal report. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure was. MR. SCHMITT: We have clear guidance from the board to Page 185 March 3, 2005 bring this entire issue back. It will be a part of a comp plan amendment process and basically the guidance from the board is pretty much to eliminate all density bonuses except for the density bonuses involving affordable housing. And that's pretty much where we're going with the EAR report. You'll be seeing more of that as we go through that process. So, to answer your question, while each land use decision is -- is separate and a distinct, you can say if it establishes precedence, but David could highlight again when we talked about this during the year report, the entire density issue specifically in a coastal high hazard area is going to be addressed in detail as part of the revaluation process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Joe, that's in the future. MR. WHITE: That is in effect today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's in the future. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can't let those -- that conversation has nothing to do with this hearing. MR. SCHMITT: But this application came in under the existing criteria as -- as evaluated by Mr. Weeks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, that just clouds it more. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is a cloudy enough one. We don't -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How do we affect -- how is it going to affect us today? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It can't affect us today. Page 186 ...·.·..,."''''..___~~O, March 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Your question was with respect to precedential affect. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think Mr. Schmitt's correctly informed you and I'd advise you that there is no precedential affect legally. Practically speaking, to the extent that there may be one, it would seem that it would have a very short life. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. David, could you come back up? I want to go back to the FLU. In particular, let's go to the management of coastal development where -- and I'll quote. It says, within the coastal high hazard area, maximum, maximum, permissible residential density is limited in recognition of the level of risk, the existing deficiency and evaluation shelter spaces and existing patterns of density. The coastal high hazard area is also identified in the conservation and coastal management element and policies are provided therein. And you go from here to the CCME and you find that it's four units an acre in the coastal high hazard area. Do you -- please comment because I don't -- I don't understand the logic the other way. MR. WEEKS: Okay. You quoted it so I can't -- can't argue Page 187 March 3, 2005 about what the plan says. I -- I would make a few comments. First of all, the majority of the coastal high hazard area is within what's identified as the urban coastal fringe sub district. That is the area south of U. S. 41 and -- and -- and south and east of the City of Naples. That area, that sub district again, that is within the high hazard area, does have a different density limitation. It is capped at four units per acre. The only exception to that is affordable housing. The reason I mentioned that is because what you've read does indicate that the coastal high hazard areas is -- generally speaking, is an area that we want to limit the amount of density that can occur and part of that coastal high hazard area is specifically limited in its density. Secondly, the density rating system in the future land use element is what controls what density is allowed within the urban area -- well, the whole county, unincorporated county, not the conservation and coastal management element. That element regulates components of land use in the sense of where it can be located and protection standards for listed species and so forth, but it does not regulate density. And, again, I repeat what I said earlier but in an abbreviated form. The CCME policy -- and there's also the identical language, by the way, in CIE, the capital improvement element. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, there is. MR. WEEKS: Both of those are referring to what the future land use element says. It is not a policy where the CCME, where that element is saying, by gosh, density shall be limited to such and such. Page 188 March 3, 2005 It is stating what the FLU says, but stating it inaccurately. That is why staff takes the position -- well, both of those reasons. One, it's inaccurate, and, two, it is the future land use element, land use element, that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what I'm reading from the future land use element -- MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- which tells me to go look in the CCME. MR. WEEKS: Right. And the CCME, number one -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And the CCME says four units an acre in the coastal high hazard area. MR. WEEKS: But it's referring to the future -- it specifically says -- that policy says the future land use element limits density to four units per acre, and that simply is not true. I -- I think the perception you have is this is circular. We're going in circles here and where does it end? And I would tell you it ends with the future land use element, because that is the element that dictates land uses that are allowed and the densities and intensities of use that are allowed. The con -- there is certainly -- the -- the elements should and must interrelate with each other. It is a requirement of state statute that the comprehensive plan cannot have an internal inconsistency. Now, the last time we had this discussion on this petition, someone had made the comment, and I think it might have been a different Assistant County Attorney, that they wouldn't necessarily characterize this as an internal inconsistency. Page 189 March 3, 2005 That's why I carefully used the term an inaccuracy and what that CCME policy states. The CCME also relevant to what you quoted from the future land use element and -- and relevant to allowable uses in the coastal high hazard area contains a policy that tells us what is the coastal high hazard area. It's the category one storm surge zone, which then is identified on the future land use map with a boundary line. The CCME policies also speak to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's further defined than that, than just -- I believe it's defined as -- it's -- it's further defined here as the CCHA is -- that definition is left to a description provided in the most recent edition of the Southwest Florida hurricane evacuation study. And that says that the CCHA -- or the CHA -- HA is the category one storm surge area. I mean, this is -- it's a Flosh map that we're -- we look to. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: And certainly this property falls within the CC -- CHHA. MR. WEEKS: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER CARON: Say that three times fast. MR. WEEKS: I don't think -- I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just trying to answer your question. I don't -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And I'm just -- MR. WEEKS: I think that-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- questioning because everybody wants to go to the FLU and -- and that's probably correct, but the Page 190 March 3, 2005 FLU seems to send me to the CCME and -- and that's my only question. MR. WEEKS: Right. And I would -- I'm simply stating that my opinion is that the CCME does not dictate policy as to what allowable densities are within the county. That falls within the future land use element. Again -- I would say it again. The CIE, as you've acknowledged, you agree -- you're aware that is, that it also has verbatim language. It's the same policy language as we see in the CCME. And I will tell you the same thing. The CIE, the capital improvement element, is not the element that dictates allowable land uses. It is the future land use element that simply is inaccurately restating what the future land use element provides for as far as densities go. Now, at the same time, I certainly want to acknowledge that the CCME, in that same policies, 12.2.2, and other policies under objective 12.2, do speak to limiting public expenditures in the coastal high hazard area. And that also is relevant in -- in the general policy context of determining what types of proj ects that ultimately the county commission approves, but you make recommending actions on what type of proj ect should be allowed within the coastal high hazard area. Certainly, the more density, the more types of development of any kind that we allow in a coastal high hazard area does have some impact upon public expenditures within the coastal high hazard area. Page 191 March 3, 2005 I'll give you an example of where it's not the case. Water treatment plant and waste water treatment plants that would ultimately be serving a project such as this within the coastal high hazard area are not affected by the approval of this proj ect in the sense that those plants do not have to be located in the coastal high hazard area. A different example would be roads do because the roads have to be -- public roads have to be constructed within the coastal high hazard area to provide access to this and every other proj ect within the coast high hazard area. But that's an example. COMMISSIONER CARON: But there's no density involved in the water treatment plant. MR. WEEKS: That is correct. My -- my point is only that those -- those are public facilities that must be constructed -- in some cases are not required to be, but some cases are required to be constructed within the coastal high hazard area. And as proj ects get approved within the coastal high hazard area, they may have some impact on the expenditure of public funds and those policies and the CCME are -- are guiding us, the county collectively, are guiding us to be careful in what approvals we grant within the coastal high hazard area. My point here, that's a very general policy consideration. The specific issue of allowable density belongs with the future land use element. It is the future land use element that says what uses are allowed and what densities are allowed. I should further go ahead and mention that this is -- obviously the amount of time we've spent discussing it today and on the Page 192 March 3, 2005 previous petition for the site, it's obviously an area that needs to be fixed, if you will, or cleaned up. The county commission on a petition last year proposed by staff to clean up that language and our specific proposal was eliminate the specific four-unit breaker reference, both in the CCME and the CIE. Eliminate it, just make a general reference to the density as determined by the future land use element. The county commissioners did not endorse that change. There's a split vote. There's a mixed decision. Some of them, I -- I think, agree with the staff position, some of them do not. They want to leave the language there so that it can be interpreted on an individual, case-by-case basis as to what the allowable density would be. As Mr. Schmitt has mentioned, we're going to have to tackle this issue definitively once and for all when we go through the EAR based amendments. Because the -- the board has directed significant changes to the density rating system, this particular density bonus that's been relied upon today is -- presumably is going to be eliminated. But the whole issue of what densities allowed in a coastal high hazard area, based upon the EAR, the commissioners have said, we're going to limit all density to a maximum of four units per acre, no exceptions, not for affordable housing, not for any other project. F or any proj ect that relies on the density rating system to determine its density, the buck stops here at four units per acre if you're within the CHHA. Page 193 March 3, 2005 But that's all in the future. You're -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And the density bonuses that you're talking about, those are discretionary bonuses, correct? MR. WEEKS: Absolutely. Not entitlements. They're discretionary . COMMISSIONER CARON: Discretionary. MR. WEEKS: Again, it's a policy decision on case-by-case basis as to whether a density bonus is awarded and, if so, at what range? It's maximum or some other. And, as you know, staff is recommending something in the middle. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Miss Caron, just following up on that point? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I'll wait for right now. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm sure there will be more. We're going -- we've been going two and a half hours since our lunch break. We're going to take a ten-minute break. (A recess was had.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ifwe could find our seats. All we're missing now is Mr. Vigliotti. Very good. He's around the corner. Okay. Weare refreshed and resuming with the public hearing. I want to make a comment. The county staff noted that someone, either here or possibly in the home audience, left a book called Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. It's personalized to mom, Christmas present. I'm sure it has great sentimental value for someone and we'll Page 194 March 3, 2005 leave it in the county manager's office, so if someone here or at home has left this book, I'm sure they'd like to have it back. With that, we've had our staff and our petitioner presentations. We're still following along with questions of both staff and the petitioner. Are there more questions or do we want to move into registered public speakers? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- questions. One is to Mike and one is to David, whoever gets to the microphone first. Mike, what is the shoreline dimension on these two proj ects and -- and the concern is that that determines how many boat slips and all that are allowed; correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, so what -- none of the information here shows what the shoreline is or is it the shoreline prior to digging out the wet slips or is it the shoreline the bulkhead dimension once you dig out the wet slips? And I'm assuming that this is a preferred marina? MR. SCHMITT: Preferred sites and existing site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it is, yeah. So, it's 18 slips per hundred. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Mason, can you come up and answer some of the specifics in regards to the siting? Susan's here from staff. W e'lllet staff answer this one. MS. MASON: Susan Mason again from Environmental Page 195 March 3, 2005 Services. It is included. I -- I think you got a copy of the EAC staff report. And I do have an existing shoreline length of approximately 305 feet. They do have a premium rate of 18 boat slips per 100 feet. They would allow up to 54.9 slips. And in the hotel, I believe, the applicant is proposing 47 slips, in the other one it's 29. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is the shoreline dimension prior to the excavated the marina or after? MS. MASON: It's what currently exists. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So, you're comfortable with that. Okay. David, the other things is that there's a thing in the summary for the -- the residential. It says, staff historical knowledge, which has got to be you, is that during the creation of the GMP, use of conversion of commercial in the CHHA was discussed and intentionally included. Why was it intentionally included? Do you -- MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry. Could you repeat the last part, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. It was the -- MR. WEEKS: Could you move the microphone over? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the use of conversion of commercial in the CHHA -- oops, try again. The use of conversion in the -- of commercial in the CHHA was discussed and intentionally included. Why was that or are you not the historical staff member they're Page 196 _·w._.,._____ ____._,"'0 March 3, 2005 >-'-' referring to? MR. WEEKS: I probably am. Let me see if I can find that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's on Page 14. I'm sorry. MR. WEEKS: Is that under the background discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's under summary of staff findings, Page 14, the second paragraph from the bottom, midway, and I -- it's in a parenthesis. But the impression is that -- that at the time you -- in other words, it was excluded -- it was allowed to be in the coastal high hazard for a good reason or it was intentionally allowed. Mike, did you write that or it -- was he the historical staff figure you were -- MR. WEEKS: It was me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. BOSI: But that was -- that was a component that was outside of the -- the comp plan assessment and the individual -- the motivation behind that was they wanted to -- they wanted to be able to -- to utilize the -- the affordable housing density bonuses to be eligible within coastal high hazard areas and not have the coastal high hazard areas density limitations prevent for the -- for the provision of affordable housing. And that's -- that's why it -- it was contemplated and it was intentionally included. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'm actually talking about the conversion to commercial, not affordable -- MR. BOSI: Under -- under the same guideline in thinking, it was contemplated and the motivation obviously was different than Page 197 ~--- March 3, 2005 from affordable housing, but it was the -- the elimination -- the value of the elimination of straight commercial was placed at a value towards where they -- they felt it was eligible to -- to be applicable within the coastal high hazard area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Is that right, Dave? I mean -- MR. WEEKS: I agree with everything he said. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Good. That's enough. I'm done. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Not to say there won't be questions later. Let's go into our registered speakers. Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, can I offer just for your consideration we have 21 speakers at five minutes each. That's 105 minutes. Most -- some of whom signed up twice. We've already removed those. I would ask if you could provide guidance in regards -- most are going to get up and speak only once and I would assume that would be appropriate and that we -- we limit to five minutes even if they're talking both issues because we'll be here for quite a while. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I couldn't have said it better myself. And, please, to increase the impact of your comments, try not to be redundant with those preceding comments, but just to affirm your support one side or another of an issue. MR. SCHMITT: I just need to make sure the county attorney would -- would concur with that, five minutes for both petitions? Page 198 March 3, 2005 MR. WHITE: It's up to the discretion of planning commission, I believe. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's the direction we're going. And -- and we don't drop a guillotine and cut somebody off at a strictly -- at a very precise point. If you're filing new ground and making competent and credible testimony relevant to what's going on, we certainly will exercise some discretion. But, also, and for those -- and all of us who have been here all day, you know that sometimes testimony can be incredibly redundant and you hear the same story five times in -- in the first two minutes and that -- that doesn't add any impact to the point whatsoever. So, with that, if we could hear the speakers please? MR. BELLOWS: The first registered speaker is Dr. Richard Bing followed by Joe Moreland. MR. SCHMITT: I would ask that the second speaker be ready and be prepared to immediately come to the podium. MR. BING: Richard Bing, 10951 Gulf Shore Drive, president of Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association. I'm revising my very brief comments a little bit based on earlier testimony. I would hope that any member of your commission, Mr. Chairman -- I forgot to address you, sir -- would be commended for challenging staff in making questions -- asking questions about interpretation as has gone on here this afternoon rather than vilified in public. I think they should be commended for that. Page 199 March 3, 2005 As far as the residential use is concerned, I think that when you endorse the Vanderbilt Beach R T overlay, where we limited height to 75 feet, that that makes sense for this same area, which is just north of Vanderbilt Beach area. And we support the North Bay Civic Association's position on this, that a residential building would be fine there except it's a little bit too high. 75 feet would be very acceptable. Keep in mind that 200 feet to the north, there are already five 20-story, or four 20-story and one 16-story buildings approved in the PUD, Cocohatchee PUD. From a density view, you'll recall that we had brought expert -- a land use expert attorney from Tallahassee from Fowler White to Naples to speak about the density issue on Vanderbilt Beach and he said we have a ticking time bomb here in Collier County. And that is that our GMPdoes restrict CHHA density to four units per acre and the FLU refers back to it as has been pointed out. And you have in front of you a document written by a partner of Mr. Bellam that speaks to that very issue. And I won't pretend to be able to interpret it. I'm not a land use lawyer. But when you back off and look at the big picture of this, it appears as though we have tried to let people interpret things the way they want to and we're in a middle of a transition here now where people are saying we came here because we didn't want to be in Fort Lauderdale or someplace where a bunch of high rises are all next to each other. So, we support the four units and 75 feet as far as residential is concerned. Page 200 March 3, 2005 As far as the hotel, I think that would be very good except it is obviously not a destination resort hotel. It could qualify as a hotel with the definitions that you have been made aware of recently and it would be limited to 75 feet. We wouldn't have any problem with that. So, I thank you all for your voluntary service, great article, guest commentary on the EOC. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Joe Moreland followed by Tim Rowe. MR. MORELAND: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, fellow board members. I'm Joe Moreland. I'm speaking in behalf of the estuary conservation association of which I'm the president. We spoke to these matters the last time. We followed it through our organization, the -- the process as this has evolved and I'm proud to stand before you here to claim that I'm about as confused as probably many of my colleagues here in the audience. I would like to limit myself to the issues, but I'll be doggoned if I can be sure just exactly what the issues are at this point, are those that you're properly considering within your jurisdiction and/or interest, and those which are perhaps new and instances of first . . ImpreSSIon. So, I'm going to address most of my comments to first impression. You know, we are an environmental organization. So, what you're going to hear from me is the environmental approach to our committed interest in the Wiggins Pass estuarial waters. And the primary among them is the health and welfare of those Page 201 March 3, 2005 waters, their longevity, their gradual improvement and the recreational and human cohabitation with them in a way that pleases mother nature. In that regard, we have taken positions in the past with respect to the eagle, which we all love and which doesn't seem to go away no matter what happens to it, but we can debate the rest of it. I'm not sure that's really an issue before this board. We're talking about the height of the buildings. That is an issue before the board, but it's not an issue that is really driving the environmental considerations, which I would -- which would now announce that en -- the -- the zoning issue of whether these -- this land and these projects, whether they be residential or commercial. I don't find any reasonable arguments on the side who would argue that it is better environmentally for the health, welfare and nurturing of the estuarial waters to go commercial. Indeed, to go residential seems to have most of the factors in its favor. Since that marina has been dormant and man has withdrawn from the scene, nature has already started to reclaim it. Weare in fact seeing manatees, new bird species that have not been there before, dolphins coming in. Nature is coming back. That, folks, cut it how you will, mother nature is more comfortable with residential there than it will be with a commercial activity of any kind. The advantage to humans on the same side is there. The -- the access to the public, which is collaterary -- collateral, I'm sorry, is more favorable with residential given the proposal of -- of this Page 202 March 3, 2005 particular proj ect. If indeed the -- if you were to not allow residential and go with commercial, you would have your hotel, I assume, follow my assumption, and if you did, you're going to have a larger marina. It is going to -- forget the technicalities. It's going to be a port of call. Every boater on this coast and from the others is going to want to come at some point and stay in that hotel. The boat traffic is going to increase and they're going to be a significant number of boats and it's not going to be seasonal as with residential. It's going to be year-round. And I think you can look to the sister marinas around that area; Pelican Isle for one, which I'm most familiar with. That I think that John Findley is more the expert on this than I as a -- as an experienced marine operator, but that we -- we estimate that 30 percent difference between the residential boat traffic and the nonresidential boat traffic if it were commercial, people coming in and out to the hotel both daily and for prolonged stays. The impact then on the waterways and from boating is clearly more favorable, the fewer boats, the fewer trips per boat and the longer the stay the boats at the dock and the quieter the environment, peaceful and tranquility of the neighborhood. End of statement. We urge that with respect to the issue, and I want to make this very clear, if your decision point in all of that you've heard is whether to go residential or go commercial as proposed by these two proposals as we've come to understand them, that you go residential. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Page 203 March 3, 2005 Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Tim Rowe, followed by Nicole Ryan. MR. ROWE: Yes. For the record my name is Tim Rowe and I live in Mr. Henning's district but work in the area in question. And I think the most important thing I wanted to bring up very briefly is that I've been here for a little over a year and I've been involved in listening to this for over a year. I've been to probably six different commission meetings and other meetings in regards to this and trying to understand the facts. And I would just put forth to this body, and I thank you very much for your efforts, that the confusion that I have as a -- just a voting citizen of Collier County is with the changing negative positions of those that opposed development in this area. It seems to me that our developer we're talking about here has gone above and beyond the call of duty, no matter what the negative response has been. And the moment that he goes to try to help solve a problem, and I was a little shocked when one of your body up there, mentioned bribery, I consider it to be appliability (sic) amongst the developer and would not want to put down that type of responsiveness from any developer by questioning his intent, but thank him for having the desire to work with the bodies that might oppose a development to improve its overall effect on the environment and on the area. So, it's disappointing that despite that positive response from this developer, the opposition continues to use emotions, they continue to create false images of negative effects and continue to move to alternate negative positions instead of standing by what they Page 204 ,.,-.. March 3, 2005 ask for and then holding the developer accountable for the things that he's already pledged to do. So, I would ask that you please allow this developer to build quality, residential and to follow up with the intense limitations for both environmental impact and for traffic and quality of development. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Nicole Ryan followed by William B. Eline. MS. RYAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Ryan here on behalf of the conservancy of Southwest Florida. The conservancy is not opposed to the development concepts that are being proposed with these two different proj ects with regard to residential versus commercial versus some sort of hotel usage. Our concern is that the proj ect is almost entirely within an active Bald Eagle secondary zone. And the proposals in front of you would go ahead with construction in that secondary zone through the Bald Eagle nesting season. Our concern and our opposition is based on the likely negative impacts to the Bald Eagle nest CO-19. We ask that if you recommend approval for either of these proj ects or for both of these proj ects, that you add a stipulation of no construction during the eagle nesting season. The Conservancy believes that Collier County has the authority and the obligation to do this. It's within the Growth Management Page 205 March 3, 2005 Plan. It's within the conservation and coastal management element, BOL-7, which states that the county shall protect its fisheries and wildlife. And that's even though the Fish and Wildlife Service seems to be willing to sacrifice this, the county's obligation is still there in the growth plan. Objective 7.1 goes on to state that the county shall direct incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. Of course, this leads then to that much debated Policy 7.1.2, Paragraph 3. That paragraph contains two sentences. One sentence, the second in Paragraph 3, states that whatever the agencies say will be deemed consistent with the growth plan. And that's what the petitioner has based their proposals on. The applicant would have you listen to the second sentence to the exclusion of the first sentence, but you can't ignore that first sentence. And that first sentence states -- and we believe that's the most important sentence. It stays that the county has to be consistent with applicable GMP policies. Now, in your staff report for residential, on the bottom of Page 4, it references this policy and, unfortunately, it leaves out that little clause consistent with applicable GMP policies. But just for the record, that is indeed in the actual GMP. And we believe that the policy of directing incompatible land uses away from listed species in their habitat, what's under Objective 7.1 is an applicable policy that you can follow and implement. Well, if you place the emphasis on that first sentence, then you Page 206 _A__h" March 3, 2005 currently do have the ability to look at the impacts of an incidental take to this Bald Eagle. And if you believe that GMP does allow you to look at this, then you need to look at some very important questions. For example, what is the minimum viable population of Bald Eagles for Collier County? What behavioral changes might be expected with this incidental take and the potential negative impacts? Will the home range be changed? Will these eagles be forced to compete with another eagle's territory? There are quite a few Bald Eagles nests up in this area. And what we're looking at here is likely going to cause negative impacts to the eagle. The petitioner has offered to do a number of admirable things to try to mitigate the harm. They have offered to hire an Audubon approved eagle monitor, but regardless of this, the incidental take statement does state there are no known beneficial effects to the Bald Eagle from the proposed acti vi ty . In addition, it states the Bald Eagles occupying the action area are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action. So, in conclusion the Conservancy believes the county has both the authority and the obligation to deny rezones and conditional uses based on the applicant's failure to direct incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. While we acknowledge that the EAC did attach some additional stipulations, we believe that they do not go far enough especially if Page 207 March 3, 2005 you believe that the county does indeed have this authority and responsibility. We ask that the petitions before you be denied or approved only if construction is prohibited during the nesting season. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Nicole, what is the nesting season? MS . RYAN: The nesting season is from -- let me get this perfectly straight -- May through October. I don't know if it's May. October -- sorry -- October 1 st through May 15th. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: William Eline, followed by Bonnie Karkut. MR. ELINE: Yeah, it's Bill Eline, E-l-i-n-e. I've been a resident here in Collier County since 1989. I live down on Vanderbilt Beach and I know the area which we're speaking quite well. I only hope you will consider these things when you make your decision. There are only four outlets on the west part of Collier County that you can get to the gulf. One of them is Marco River, Gordon Pass, which has now be slowed to idle speed, and being a boater, it will take you 45 minutes to an hour to get to the gulf. You move up to Doctors Pass and because of previous development, it's only available to owners. There isn't anywhere for the public to go. Now, we arrive at the best outlet in Collier County to the gulf and to the only beach which isn't overly used, which is Barefoot Page 208 March 3, 2005 Beach. So, therefore, I suggest you even consider a moratorium and ask the county personnel, including the legal department, first the county personnel to look at beach access, boat access. The legal personnel to look at this density problem that I'm sure you're as befuddled as I am and I've been at every one of these hearings. And I think that's justified to recommend to the county commissioners to do a thorough job and then make your decision on what's best for Collier County and the citizens of Collier County. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Bonnie Karkut, followed by Rebecca Knowles. MS. KARKUT: Members of the Collier County Planning Commission, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. My husband, Dr. Joseph Karkut, and I have been full-time residents since 1985 and have lived and worked in this lovely community. Pleasantly we reside in the North Naples community of Tarpon Cove. I'm on the board of North Bay Civic Association, which was organized in 2001 as a 501 C-4. Our volunteer work is dedicated to preserving our coastal Florida life-style for present and future generations. Today I speak for myself as well as many residents within the boundaries of North Bay Civic Association and beyond, not necessarily members of the association. Page 209 March 3, 2005 In November of2003, I spoke to you, the CCPC, on the same issue of rezoning the Coconilla PUD, the Wiggins Pass Marina property from C-4 commercial to residential PUD. The final vote before the BOC was in favor of keeping the C-4 zoning. Now, we face this process all over again. I cannot stress enough how important it is that the C-4 commercial zoning remains intact. To do what is right for the public is usually not foremost in most of our minds. Most of us want what profits ourselves as individuals. Residents of the community surrounding the Wiggins Pass Marina property knew when they purchased that the zoning of that property was commercial. The marina was open and operating for the public. There was a precedent in this area for denial of rezoning from commercial to residential PUD. I -- I mentioned speaking for many of the residents within our North Bay Civic Association boundaries and beyond. We -- we handheld positions last season and obtained signatures and three petitions. In summation of these petitions, petition one was on limiting density to four dwelling units per acre under the coastal high hazard area as per the GMP 12.2. Petition two was regarding saving our grand Collier County eagles. Petition three was in opposition of any residential use that would allow buildings to be constructed above the 75 foot C-4 commercial limit as the property is currently zoned. Page 210 March 3, 2005 Signatures on three petitions totaled approximately 3500 people and were represented to the BOCC in '04. Ed Oelschlaeger of ECO Venture Group, CEO of ECO Venture Group was quoted by Naples Daily News as saying he's giving the Collier County Planning Commission and the board of county commissioners another chance to get this right. I ask, right for whom; the public or a few chosen individuals? Weare going to wake up sooner or later and ask ourselves where have all the public water access facilities gone? Today we face the choice. We have to choose; residential units on the Wiggins Pass Marina property or the conditional use of a hotel? I personally in speaking for myself do not support either of these proposals. As for the hotel, it is merely the lesser of two negatives. Please, Collier County Planning Commission, vote to preserve the commercial zoning of the Wiggins Pass Marina property. The Collier County public and future generations will thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please? MR. BELLOWS: Rebecca Knowles, followed by James Hammond. MS. KNOWLES: Good afternoon, planning commissioners. Thank you for your endurance. This has been quite a day. I'm Rebecca Knowles. I live at Cove Towers. I'd like to just remind you about the monolithic development of the Dunes on Vanderbilt Drive and of the further five high rises, Page 211 ~,~....,_..,.-~..__.,--- March 3, 2005 which have been already permitted north of the subject property. Then there are other three high rises at Pelican Isles. I say we have enough high-rise buildings in our neighborhood and I would hate to see anymore further blocking our beautiful sunset views of the gulf and blocking off the gulf breezes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please? MR. BELLOWS: James Hammond, followed by John Kinds -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: James Hammond. Is Mr. Hammond here? MR. SCHMITT: No, Mr. Hammond is not here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Hammond, going once, going twice. Next. MR. KINDSV A TER: For the record, I'm John Kindsvater. I'm a resident of Pelican Isle, to put that straight right from the beginning. I've only been watching some of this from a distance in the past, but I have served on boards in the past and other areas before and I do certainly commend you for your time and endurance in going through this. What you obviously have here is an extremely complex issue and you don't need me to tell you that. You also have here, I think, an issue that is constantly changing because of the desire of a developer to do what is right for an area and what he believes is right, yet at the same time, commercially viable. And as such, I think what you've got to deal with here is not Page 212 ._,,,._..._^~ _..".-._-"-_....'_...~ ,,-, ,------ March 3, 2005 what's happened in the past, not the proposals that came from the past, but the very proposals that are in front of you today to deal with. And they are complex. And there's a lot of things that I'm not going to speak about at all. I just want to focus on two issues. One is the density one and then I'm going to bring up something from the newspaper yesterday that might be a little different. It's not legal precedent but it may be something that you and the county -- the board can look at going forward. And the second one is the issue, which I tend to think is kind of tilting at windmills, of the public access to the gulf and beaches. Going back to the first one, on the density, some of you may have seen the reference in the Naples Daily News, and I think in USA Today as well of the recent report from NO A regarding the issue of coastal densities and the coastal states report. In there, there was a very interesting concept that maybe you've heard of before, but I certainly haven't. And that was described as vertical evacuation. Vertical evacuation is moving people upstairs in taller structures as a reasonable effective alternative to putting people on the roads to moving them out of the area. And it struck me personally because last August 13th, I came back and was on the property. We dealt with the ceiling off the first floor is taking property out of the storage areas and on the main floor, moving it up to a higher level, and actually I spent the time watching Charlie go by on the 9th floor. And I have to tell you from a personal standpoint, it's a pretty Page 213 March 3, 2005 effective way to deal with it and to deal with it. I think that the density issue that has to be dealt with in the future should consider a number of these things and I certainly would agree with staff that a four per acre is not something that's appropriate today, nor will it be as we go forward. So, I think the density really is not an issue unless you get a legal opinion to the contrary. The second issue is that of public gulf access and at first blush it's obvious. Residents are the rich people taking over and controlling and not making it available for anybody. And that would generally be the case except for what the developer has put together here in really trying to reach out to improving the situation from where it was before, which is a private marina that's closed because it's not feasible, into a situation where the residential option offers much more gulf access and benefits. Parking for all of us in the area, wherever we live, is a major issue at the boat launch. We've added in this plan 50 spaces that dramatically improves that money that could be used to add more. The developer has also pledged the million dollars to improve access to Barefoot Beach, which is listed as one of the best beaches in the country, and I think it's great that we have more public access to that. That is accounted for in his gain plan. And, finally, the additional million dollars to be used in other projects in the area for additional access. The residential option, in spite of what it might look like, does Page 214 _._,,~.>-,--""._..*-,.,.. ^._"~~---._~..- March 3, 2005 offer far more benefits and far more gulf access to the public than any other option, certainly as standard C-4 commercial shopping center, and I join other residents in the area in strongly asking that you recommend the residential plan for this property. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please? MR. BELLOWS: John Findley, followed by James Owens, Sf. MR. FINDLEY: Thank you, commissioners. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. My name John Findley. I'm a certified marina manager. I've been in the marina industry and the hotel industry for the last close to 20 years down here. I'm currently for the last two years been the marina manager at Pelican Isle Yacht Club and we've just been awarded the clean desig -- clean marina designation as the 94th marina to achieve that. That proj ect is a proj ect that was done by this developer and they said we received one of the highest scores they've ever given under the clean marina program, and I'm extremely proud of that. The things that I wanted to bring up was originally this property was a residential before the two houses that was owned by Budd Hogan in the sixties. There was two homes and three cottages that were illegally torn down and a marina was constructed without permi t. That's how the property became. Eventually when they went through and did the class rezones, they said, oh, this is commercial. It was -- zoned in and grandfathered in because they did it at that time Page 215 March 3, 2005 when nobody paid attention to what was going out in that area. The -- the things that I guess this -- this proj ect has a lot of things that are going on, but I've been a boater all my life. I've been a trailer boater all my life. Past Commander of the Sanibel-Captiva Power Squadron, and I ran Southseas Resort and Yacht Harbor for 14 years on Captiva. That is a resort destination. We had 50 boats plus per group, over 120 boat groups a year came there. This facility, I think what Mr. Murray was trying to come up with, or Commissioner Murray was asking about, it says there's three transients places. Well, there's 50 slips, and what they to, like Ocean Reef in knowing this in the marine industry, they sell these to individuals owners that are -- that are j oint ownership of this hotel. They own individual units, they own individual slips. They take two weeks out of the year that they say -- kind of like a time share, I'm going to use these two weeks, but they're whole ownership. They own a portion of that entire hotel. They turn those back over on a lease option to the hotel and when they're not utilizing in that, all 50 of those slips can be available for transient based groups coming in. It's a tremendous amount of groups. I did this kind of business so I'm very familiar with this kind of business. And that does make it a resort destination. When you have this many types of boats -- there's -- there's about 25 yacht clubs in the Florida Council. There's over 20 United States Power Squadron that do overnight cruising groups. Page 216 ,.-- March 3, 2005 There's cruise clubs in the hundreds up and down the coast of just this side of the state alone that come here. There's groups that come from the other coast as well. There's tremendous demand for -- for this type of destination. I don't know if this is the best thing for this area, because it's such an environmentally, you know, area that they're watching to bring these large numbers of boats in and out of this pass. I mean, you could increase the numbers by eight, ten to 15,000 boats a year over what you've seen, you know, currently as a -- the type of facility it is -- has been in the past. Registered vessels statistics in Collier County show that we have 16,000 vessels, 26 feet or less, which is predominantly trailer boat size, which a lot of this you spoke about this morning. A December 23rd article by Andrea Statson of the News Press stated Collier County has 22,000 registered boats and that a recent study showed that 12,000 of those boats in Collier County are on trailers. Those -- those trailer boaters depend on public boat ramps. That's over 50 percent of our boaters here in Collier County. Here in Collier County we have four county park launches that have a hundred -- a total of 124 spaces for trailer parking. I commend the proj ect going through this morning and hopefully that does go because it's badly needed. Russell Budd, Commissioner Budd, I spoke about him being a trailer boater as well and it's hard to find places. But when you take that percentage of what we have, 124 parking spaces for 12,000, that comes out to 1.03 percent of our Page 217 March 3, 2005 boaters here that are on trailers have a parking space on any busy weekend or holiday, doesn't accommodate very many of them. In this -- in this article, Amanda Townsend, operations analyst for Collier County Parks and Recreation said the problem the county faces is not the number of launches but the number of parking spaces for people to leave their cars and trailers. And this morning Mr. Schmitt even said, this is a critical issue in Collier County. The project before you offers 50 more parking spaces. That's actually 18,250 parking spaces in a year. It's a lot of public access. The previous marina had 450 slips. Yes, it was. It was private facility and if you were fairly wealthy, not a parent like myself that has three kids, could I afford to put my boat in that type of facility. I keep the boat in the yard on a trailer. That's just not what the common person or the -- I guess, I might say the middle class person does in Collier County. When you look at that, it's over 50 percent of our boaters. They -- they need places to be -- to be able to park their cars. 29 of those spaces are for cars and trailers and that's 10,585 more spaces over the year. The developer is offering also an additional million dollars for more parking. And that is -- can be equal then to a -- hopefully a lot more parking spaces and he's offering some other money that might be out there to use for other projects. One of the projects that was at a recent community meeting that was hosted by Mr. Hallas was that the third bridge that goes over the Page 218 March 3, 2005 Cocohatchee River bridge may be seven or eight years before they can get that done because they have no money. They need a million dollars to redo that bridge. Maybe you could put a stipulation in here that that million dollars could be used for that bridge project because they got bridges one and two covered, but not bridge three. And that's a long time. There's accidents constantly. There's people and citizens throughout the community, whether it be North Bay or the Cove Towers or Pelican Isle, it's a issue there. My office overlooks that and I watch accidents on that bridge almost weekly. When pedestrians are on it, it is very critical. The other thing I would ask you is if you have never been to the Cocohatchee River Park on a weekend when we have good weather, if not, you should come down and look at the boats and trailers and how that parking is filled up and then look at the cars that are parked along the road. Marla said those calculations that they came up was based on two ramps. There's two ramps there earlier this morning, that 75 is what is ideal. There's 58 spots there now. The 29 additional would meet those standards that they're doing in their studies and looking to -- to accommodate those vessels. This is a continuing problem, but also what is an issue is that once they park it on the road, the Collier County Sheriffs are out there giving those people tickets or TDC is out there trying to bring tourists to Collier County and do you think they're going to trailer their boat here more than once when they get in a hotel and they can't get anywhere. Page 219 March 3, 2005 I mean, the residents can't find a parking space, so the tourists aren't going to find it. Our residents, unfortunately, and I know a lot of them, are members of -- I'm a member of the -- the Marina Industry Association of Collier County and I'm a member of the Southwest Florida Trade Association. And that's one of the issues that constantly comes up. The people are leaving Lee and Collier County, especially in Collier County. They're going to other parts of the state because there is nowhere to launch their boats on the holidays and things here. We have not planned for that. This project is -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right, sir, if you can conclude your comments, please. MR. FINDLEY: I'm almost done. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MR. FINDLEY: Anyhow, those tourists come here. We're happy to write them a parking ticket for illegally parking, but we're not accommodating them. The only thing else I want to say is that I would be fearful of a reduction in density on this project as proposed, because then the economics wouldn't work out and then they're not going to give us the money that the county so desperately needs to solve some of the problems that this developer is offering. If every developer that you -- come before you has offered the same type of mitigation, this county would be in a lot greater situation than it is today. Thank you. Page 220 March 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: James Owens, followed by Linda Roosa. MR. OWENS: My name is James Owens. Thank you, commission. I'll make this real quick. I'm a resident in the neighborhood and the Vanderbilt Drive is -- it's character is a residential corridor. I believe that commercial belongs in a commercial corridor and Vanderbilt Drive is not a commercial corridor, so I ask you please to consider residential as your decision and -- and I hope that -- that it all turns out that way because we certainly don't want a shopping center next door to us. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Linda Roosa, followed by Jo Ann Johnson. MS. ROOSA: Well, it's almost evening, but good afternoon still. My name is Linda Roosa and I'm here representing the concerned residents of North Naples. This is a newly formed infancy group. We've only been in existence for three weeks, but just to let you know that we are a grassroots organization. Weare nonprofit. Weare made up of local residential property owners. It is all volunteer. It is free of charge. We don't charge anyone to join. And every resident gets the opportunity to express their concerns and opinions about some of the community issues. The organization is funded solely by donations from other Page 221 March 3, 2005 concerned residents. All moneys being collected are accounted for properly and only used for administration and announcement cost. We have no affiliation with business for profit or with a development company. Our purpose has been to allow our fellow residents the opportunity to voice their support for residential rezoning on the vacated Wiggins marina property. We've been informing of our neighbors of the three options in front of you so we won't have to go through those three again. We believe that Vanderbilt Drive is not a commercial corridor, as he has just said, that commercial belongs in commercial corridors only. In February 16th, I think I have my dates right, we did pay for and circulate a petition in ZIP codes 34110, and we targeted 34134 in Collier County. We would have done more but we didn't have enough money. So, we missed some of the people in district two and we apologize. On the petition, what it has said is we as residents of Collier County request the Collier County commissioners to act in overall best interest of Collier County. We request the commissioners to approve the rezoning for the residential project and it gives the address of the marina pass property. We do not want the property to be used for any commercial development. It was very clear what this petition was. We support residential rezoning. Now, I'm very pleased to announce that as of 7:00 o'clock last Page 222 March 3, 2005 night, we have received back through our web site address and also through the mailed back petitions 1,589 petitions, which is overwhelming. It shocked us. We were just blown away. It's a snowball growing because today since I've been sitting downtown, at lunchtime, I learned that we have already just today received close to another 200 signatures. So, we think that this shows that -- that the community sentiment is very strong for residential. What we are doing with these petitions, and I apologize not to have them here, but it's mounds as you can imagine, we have been alphabetizing, sorting, making sure that we do not have duplicates. It is our intention because I've already set appointments with our county commissioners to have copies of each of -- of the petitions, each one of these, plus from our website, plus our -- we've been circulating some petition sheets, all of those we'll have ready to go in packets for each one of our commissioners prior to their meeting and I start meeting with them on the 15th. It's obvious. Our people do not want any kind of commercial zoning in this residential neighborhood. Our local ECA, as you heard, they also have supported residential over commercial. I mentioned that because many of our people that are working also belong to the ECA. We believe that the residential rezoning will return Vanderbilt Drive to its residential and recreational nature. Commercial development, a shopping center or a hotel, will Page 223 March 3, 2005 only add the day and night activity of additional traffic, commercial deliveries, hotel guests, visitors, and restaurant and bar patrons to this tranquil residential area. You've heard about the -- the traffic of a -- of a proj ected 1100 trips per day to the hotel, which is almost double or exceeds double of what it would be to the residences. And the shopping center, we've been saying it's three or four times as much as a hotel, but we heard in testimony today it could be as much as ten times as much. We want the beach and boating access that only this residential project will provide for our neighbors and community. We want and need those 50 parking spaces. We want them for our guests so that they can get out to Barefoot Beach. We want them for our boaters to be able to trailer. We want that water shuttle going out to Barefoot Beach. We want that. We want our county to get the extra million dollars to help the -- the residences throughout Collier County get better beach and water access. We believe in local government responding to the needs and opinions of its residents. Weare asking that you recommend rezoning to residential. And, in conclusion, I just want you to remember the 1588 others who are not with me right now, but I have their petitions, that Vanderbilt Drive is not a commercial corridor and that commercial belongs in a commercial corridor. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Page 224 March 3, 2005 Next speaker, please. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question real quick. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me? Ma'am, there's a question for you. MS. ROOSA: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You didn't give your address. Where do you live? I'm over here. MS. ROOSA: Ah, see, it's echoing. Hi. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is. MS. ROOSA: I live at 255 Barefoot Beach Boulevard, Unit 204, Bonita Springs, but that's Collier County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ROOSA: It's a beautiful beach. We got to get people out there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You want everybody to join you, I guess. MS. ROOSA: It's not -- it's not crowded. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Jo Ann Johnson, followed by Barbara Wiegenstein. MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon, members of the planning commission. My name is Jo Ann Johnson. We live at Eden on the Bay on Vanderbilt Drive and in district two. And we are neighbors of the Wiggins Pass Marina and the eagles nest. We would have much like for you to consider as the governing Page 225 March 3, 2005 body of Collier County to rezone this property residential for many reasons already addressed. Thank you for weighing all the issues. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Barbara Wiegenstein, followed by Robert Cooper. MS. WIEGENSTEIN: Good afternoon. My name is Barbara Wiegenstein and I've live at 466 Eden Bay Drive, which is at the community of Eden on the Bay just north of the property in question. I was asked to read this for a friend of mine, who also lives in the community, and we have our petition signed. I don't know how many names we got. Do you, Donna? Okay . We had several names on a petition also that went through our neighborhood. I think there's 93 homes in that area. And this is -- I'm reading this for are Doina Hergoy. I live in North Naples off of Vanderbilt Drive in the community Eden on the Bay, and I'm disappointed to report that North Bay Civic Association does not speak for many of us who used to belong to this association. We thought that the board would speak on everyone's behalf, but that's not being the case. Many of us no longer belong to the association like many other residents of our community. I would like to mention just a couple items of interest. And most of them have been stated already, so I won't bring them up again, but number one -- I'll just touch on them slowly -- or Page 226 March 3, 2005 just a little bit. But it seems to us that the people who are voting for no change in the zoning are mis -- misled as far as thinking that there is public -- there's no public access at this point and there is. And by rezoning, they're only going to be increasing public access to this area. I'm also -- EcoGroup plans to add public parking and everything that's been mentioned before, we seem to think that the -- the developer has more than met all of our terms and they certainly didn't have to because it is a commercial property. But I think as far as -- we think that as far as the people who are voting for no zoning, no change in zoning, are just misled. They're stating the same things that we want. They just don't understand the details evidently. And the eagles we think have been more than satisfied as far as monitoring and things like that to -- and to compound that with further conditions, to me, is just -- is just trying to put people out of business actually. And I believe in protecting the eagle and I think they've more than done that with monitoring and such like that. If -- so, we believe that most of the us in the Eden Bay community believe that -- that we would like to -- to see the residential rezoning take place and we prefer the homes to be built are the -- for residential. I'm not sure. I'm a little new to this, so I'm not sure if residential also includes the hotel. If it does, that would be our second choice. Thank you. Page 227 March 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Robert Cooper, followed by William Pittman. MR. COOPER: Hi. My name Bob Cooper. I'm a Florida resident, resident of the Pelican Isle Yacht Club Residents Association, and I have sent -- we have sent out a petition to all of our homeowners, all 136, and so far we have back about 70 petitions. And it seems to be a no brainer in our case because our next door neighbor is the -- is the marina. And we look out our back windows and we see what looks like a ghost town to us. We do have some indication that if we can't get the residential, then I guess we'll have to take the hotel. That's -- it's a no brainer though when it comes to us, what -- our desire. We want residential because the confusion next door, the traffic and everything else, we've all said it, is going to be by far greater. So, please, I just ask you and I also appreciate what you're done. I've been in your chairs before up north and it's a lot of work and a lot of homework, and we all appreciate what you're doing in this building -- in this office -- this room. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: William Pittman, followed by Gary Eidson. MR. PITTMAN: My name is Bill Pittman. I live at 12945 Vanderbilt Drive, which is about a quarter mile south of the site in question. Page 228 March 3, 2005 I drive by there probably a half a dozen or a dozen times a day. I've lived there for 11 years. The time that I have lived on Vanderbilt Drive, a lot has happened, a lot of residential building has happened, no commercial building and I clearly want it to stay residential. I've got a couple of concerns that both myself and my condominium association -- again, we have a petition that is signed by the vast majority of our members. Three issues come up. One has been addressed and, the traffic, and clearly we want the residential proposal because of the less traffic, less in traffic on Vanderbilt Drive. Another concern we have with -- with the hotel is the nighttime noise; the cars, delivery trucks, parties and such as that. Weare neighbors. They are right next door to us and we -- that would affect us directly. Another issue that was alluded to is road safety. Someone had mentioned if you go by there on a Saturday or a Sunday, go by the park, and you'll see trailers and parks -- cars and trailers parked out on Vanderbilt Drive and they create a hazard on that road. It's a -- it's a very hazardous road to start with, but when these trailers are out there, and they are every weekend if the weather is good, and we think that the proposal by the developer to add parking places is very -- has a safety aspect to it as well. The other aspect is that if you've seen these cars hauling trailers with boats on them out of the park, they have to come out and make a left turn across traffic that's coming over a bridge and it's very dangerous. Page 229 -'-'^' ".,.....,,---,-... March 3, 2005 And one aspect of -- of the proposal that I especially like is that that traffic will be rerouted through a traffic light so it will be monitored and -- and directed. So, for -- for those reasons, I -- I strongly endorse the residential proposal and, again, I -- as others have said, I thank you and admire you for the time you folks are putting in and for giving us a minute to speak. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Gary Eidson, followed by Mead Willet. MR. EIDSON: It's -- it's Gary Eidson. I live in Glen Eden. I'm down the street about a quarter of a mile. I've been here five years and, boy on boy, is this confusing. I don't know how you do it. One other thing I wanted to comment on that this false image thing and how terrible North Bay Civic Association has been, this whole thing started out at 22 stories. The process is working very well. We aren't a 22-story wall at the end of a street anymore. So, those that would condemn the process, I'm -- I'm appalled because I think we've done well. You guys have listened. We've been learning some things. We found out there's a few inconsistencies in our policies and that's been brought out because of this experience. And I commend everybody for taking the time to do that. And what is my position on this? Wow, isn't that hard to come up with? Page 230 March 3, 2005 I don't like the residential. I understand the benefits to it. I did have a question that I'd hoped you folks might give a answer to. I was trying to do the math based on the -- the Goodland folks this morning and -- and if I've got a eight-foot wide trailer that I'm parking and I've got -- and I'm going to put 50 -- I don't know -- am I putting 50 of those in or am I putting 30 of those in? If I'm putting 50 of them in, I need 400 feet to go down that road, you know, and I don't know if there's 400 foot on that section that they're talking about giving away 30 feet of. And if you've got a 47-foot long trailer, you know, trailer and boat, how does that fit into a 30- foot slot? I just didn't understand the mechanics of all that giveaway. I'm sure it's well intentioned. I just didn't get it and I was hoping maybe you guys could clarify that, gals -- guys and lady. The other thing is that I had a preference for the hotel because I just hate losing the opportunity to go down there. I -- I don't know. I'm going to miss it. I'm going to miss the opportunity to see the sunset the more clearly. I heard the earlier idea that we could go along with the residential if it was 75 foot high and, I guess I could do that, and certainly the hotel would be nice if it was 70-foot high -- 75-foot high. I don't think the economics are going to support it and I think it would be better than a raw piece of land. This is a tough, tough deal. I just -- I hope that you guys -- I mean, the thing that -- I -- I go back to the comment that was made so eloquently by the Goodlanders earlier this morning. Page 231 March 3, 2005 We can't see the water anymore and we have nothing left. Doggone, that weighs heavy on my head. And petitions aside, everything aside, that's the part that we're never going to replace. I think that's the underlying reason that we're hoping for commercial, is not because we like it better, not because that we think Ed's a bad guy or a good guy, not because we think that the folks that have a petition for 1700 are better than the people that have it for 2,400 and the numbers are climbing. It has nothing to do with any of that. I think we're all feeling a deep loss in our heart for something that is going away every day a little bit more and we are becoming a very elite society in eastern -- in western Collier County. Weare for the very select few. I hate to perpetuate that by supporting anything that would -- would diminish that opportunity. But if you are going to go residential, find out about that parking. I'm a little curious about that. If you're going to go commercial, I hope that -- you know, I hope that maybe you could put a -- maybe -- why not ask for a parking component in that. I still don't understand why that can't be put in there. We can give it away on one but not the other and that seems like a pressure tactic. So, anyway, my best to you guys. Thank you so much for what you're, aside from running up a against a brick wall. I can't think of anything that could be any more excruciating than what you guys do, so thank you very, very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Before we go to the next speaker, are we having a shift on the Page 232 -~-- March 3, 2005 court reporters? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We're not on a break. Don't go anywhere. The court reporters are going to change off. (A recess was had.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, Doug, before you start, I just don't -- want to take the opportunity, so many people have recognized how much fun we're having here as planning commissioners, and I feel the need to point out that my term expires September 30, so feel to apply. Mr. Fee? MR. FEE: I got a job, a day job, so -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Me, too. I used to. MR. FEE: Am I ready? CHAIRMAN BUDD: You're on. MR. FEE: Are you ready? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, we're ready for you. MR. FEE: Okay. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Doug Fee. I'm president of North Bay Civic Association. I thank you for this opportunity to speak. In July, 2002, almost three years ago, it was announced that Wiggins Pass Marina would be sold and that a rezone from commercial to residential would take place. Over those three years, the North Bay Civic Association, with our board and with our members, collectively have spent hours, hundreds of hours, trying to be informed on all the issues surrounding this rezone. We have attended public meetings on the Page 233 March 3, 2005 proj ect. We have listened to all sides and gathered as much information as we could in deciding where we stand. We have respected the process that citizens are afforded. We certainly understand the differing opinions in the neighborhood on the matter. But having said this, and with our understanding of the law in mind, I'm here asking you to say no to the residential rezone before you. First I have handed each of you the motion that was made and forwarded to the BCC by the planning commission on November 6th, 2003. I do so because I feel the current proposal is very similar to what you heard as a commission on that date. There are a few changes. In this motion, the planning commission singles out of the 15 GMP policy 12.2.2, which clearly limits residential density in the coastal high hazard area to four units per acre. The petition before you today is asking for approximately 9.5, over twice the stated limit in this policy. The developer is relying on a density bonus for commercial conversion and asking for this amount of density. This bonus is discretionary and not an entitlement, as the staff report points out. The North Bay Civic has sought legal advice on this matter, and those opinions given clearly feel the more specific policy of four units per acre controls over the more general policy. I also need to submit into the record just the transcript from a December 10th, 2003 Board of County Commission meeting, it has to do with Vanderbilt overlay, on (sic) an attorney by the name of Page 234 _._----"_._~.-..".,~.'-" March 3, 2005 Tom Pelham. I'd like to enter that into the record. I also have a photo or a graphic that I'll place monitor here. I've also handed each one of you a copy of this graphic. And what I want to point out on this graphic is Policy 1.5 of the FLU, which under G you have an overlay called the coastal high hazard area boundary. That's important. And it's important to the discussion today. Also on this same graphic, I take out of the FLU "I", urban designation. I'm just going to read the blue section of this. The boundaries of the urban designated areas have been established based on several factors, including patterns of existing development, patterns of approved but unbuilt development, natural resources, water management, hurricane risk, existing and proposed public facilities, population projection, and the land needed to accommodate the projected populated growth. Obviously I highlighted hurricane risk. You need one reason, one reason to say no to the application in front of you. We feel it's the density issue. We might even support residential, if it was at a level of four units, and we might support residential if it was at a level of 75 feet. But unfortunately with what's in front of us, that's not before you. It's 144 feet, as well as 9.5 units. Secondly, we feel you should vote to deny this rezone because there's a question of residential or commercial. You have heard from some in the audience who urge you to vote residential. I'm here to tell you that this is a mixed use neighborhood. And Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive, in the general vicinity, you have the C-4 Page 235 March 3, 2005 zoning, which has been a marina for 40 years. Across the street you have a commercial parcel that's in a PUD, and that has been in there since the early Eighties. You also have a golf course, which is not residential, it's a use tied to the residential. You have a public park, which thousands of people come to and launch their boats. You also have three parcels directly to the west and to the south: Pelican Isle, Anchorage and Marina Bay, which are RT zoning. And why that's important is because they have permitted uses within that zoning that allow commercial uses, like a hotel, okay? Today there's -- they're developed residential. But we know that RT, it can change. It's there, it's on the shore. So I just want to point that out, that we -- we are not just a residential neighborhood. There are a couple of other things. The state has not approved the management plan for the Barefoot Beach preserve for the dock. So I want to mention that because we don't know if that is something that can be considered. The marina basin. There is a three-foot draft. We feel a limitation in the Manatee Protection Plan. And I would encourage you to explore that as you -- whatever you consider, whichever side. We want to make sure that the estuary -- it's a shallow network, and so we're not looking to expand that, we want to put some limits on that. We're not in favor of the bald eagle management plan, as it's proposed in the secondary zone, the monitoring. Our residents have spoken very loudly about that. And we want to preserve the area. And that's all I would like to say. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Page 236 March 3, 2005 Next speaker, please? MR. BELLOWS: Richard Ryder, followed by Bruce Burkhard. MR. RYDER: Richard Ryder, from Cove Towers, in North Naples. Thank you again, Commissioners, for listening and deliberating on these issues all day. For years development was uncontrolled and county leaders were shown to be under the influence of developers. As a result, mainland Collier County is left with very few areas of open access to the Gulf, hence the wide interest now being shown on the Wiggins Pass property. Neighbors close to the property want it rezoned from shore lined commercial to residential so that Collier County can have two more condo towers. North Bay Civic Association has collected over 2,000 signatures, asking that the property be left shoreline commercial. This will allow for Gulf access for the greatest number of residents in the future. Yesterday Carl Hiason (phonetic), the popular Florida mystery writer, Miami Herald columnist and astute observer of the Florida scene, was in town. This was written up in the Naples Daily News. He feels that Naples is at a very critical time right now. He's fearing that we are going the same way that Miami and Ft. Lauderdale have and are making many of the same mistakes. Regarding high-end condos and development, it's stated here that as for the skyrocketing cost of South Florida real estate, Hiason is in dark suspicion here, too. Eventually the people who serve these growing communities won't even be able to afford to live in them. Page 237 March 3, 2005 You're basically disemboweling your own economy by the boom in the real estate market. Eventually it will implode. I would urge you to vote against residential at the present time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please? MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker is Bruce Burkhard. CHAIRMAN BUDD: You're the one we've been looking for. MR. BURKHARD: Thank you. My name is Bruce Burkhard. I live at 283 Oak Avenue, and I'm director of the Vanderbilt Beach property owners association. I'll be very brief. I think the remarks have gone on quite long enough. I just wanted to respond to the assertion that the neighborhood is all for the high-rise condo. That's certainly not the case. At our end of Vanderbilt Drive, the majority of the people that I talked to are very much opposed to the high-rise. We feel that the last thing that our community needs is another luxury high-rise condo. I would be all in favor of anything that allows public access, whether it be the hotel or simply leaving it C-4. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. And there are no other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: (Shakes head negatively.) MR. SCHMITT: No speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Do we have summary comments by the petitioner? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to let Bob clarify the parking issue and then I'll -- Page 238 March 3, 2005 MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record again, Bob Mulhere. The question was raised relative to how we could fit potentially 29 boat trailer parking spaces and 21 car spaces in the linear. We are actually proposing to entirely reconfigure the existing parking configuration, traffic flow pattern, as well as adding a 30- foot strip of our land to that. And when you reconfigure that, preliminary drawings have indicated we could fit about 29 or 30 additional boat trailer parking spaces. So it's not -- they're not all in one -- in a straight line. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I find it interesting that when another group takes it upon their own to form a group in the first place, they take the time and effort to solicit comments from the public, and its recent comments, based upon the current proposals, that maybe we shouldn't listen to those 1,500, 1,700 people who have expressed an opinion on the most recent opinion. But yet there was a woman who spoke about the 3,500 people who objected to an old petition, that we've already discussed is different than what is there today, and if we all have an open mind and we're going to look at what's on the table today, that's what you have to consider. You don't consider an old petition that wasn't talking about the issues that we're talking about today. The most current petition shows 1,700 people supporting our proposed proj ect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Richard, that petition wasn't submitted to us. That's hearsay as far as I'm concerned. I Page 239 March 3, 2005 mean, I didn't see any petition. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, then you're saying the woman who testified under oath didn't truthfully testify, if you choose to ignore that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just saying is that she's got the petitions. We haven't seen them. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just tell you what she has testified to, and she's going to provide that to the Board of County Commissioners. And if it is inaccurate, then she'll be proven to be not telling the truth. But I don't think she would have said that if she hadn't counted the petitions and was comfortable in saying that. I also find it ironic that the first time we came through this, if you looked at the future land use map that was in the growth management plan, not all of our property was in the coastal high hazard area. Everybody said that was a mistake. We needed to consider the property as all being in the coastal high hazard area. We acknowledge that there was a mistake in the comprehensive plan between the future land use map and another definition of coastal high hazard area. Mr. Weeks, who is more than expert on the comprehensive plan than anybody in this room has testified that that's a mistake in the conservation element. And he's backed it up by telling you how it came about, what provisions do have limitations on density bonus. Mr. Weeks has already told you where we are and what the comprehensive plan says. He was around density when the decision was to leave in the ability to get a density bonus in the coastal high hazard area. There's no question that we can ask for the density Page 240 March 3, 2005 bonus. Now, let's look at the record to determine whether or not we have proven that the density we're requesting is appropriate for the property. There has been no testimony that from a traffic standpoint our requested density of nine-and-a-half units per acre is a problem. There has been no testimony, other than Mr. Fee's opinion that we have a hurricane issue. The exact opposite is in your staff report from Dan Summers, the county's expert on emergency issues, including hurricane evacuation. He reviewed the petition on October 22nd, 2004, and he has opined that there is not a hurricane evacuation issue associated with our residential project and the density we are requesting. Your staff, who are experts, have testified that we are compatible from a residential standpoint, and also from the conditional use standpoint. All the expert testimony, and qualified testimony supports approval of both concepts, both projects. The EAC has issued their opinion and their recommendations regarding environmental issues. They recommended approval of both projects. Your staff is recommending approval of both projects. I'd like to just briefly go through the benefits of each projects, and with that, we'll sit down and answer any questions you may have. Regarding the hotel, the community benefits. There's a significant reduction in vehicular traffic as compared to other commercial uses. The annual property taxes will increase by 1.1 Page 241 >~_.,,,,..,,~,,=,,~..,,,,;"~,",--,.,- March 3, 2005 million over what was previously a marina. Impact fees of just over $700,000 will be paid to construct the hotel. The public will have access to the destination resort hotel, the restaurants, the spa, the retail and the other amenities. The public can use the ship's store that will be associated with the hotel. The fueling facilities that will be associated with the hotel, and the transient slips and sightseeing and fishing boats that will be associated with the hotel operation. And there will be improved vehicular egress from the county park to the traffic signal for the hotel property. We do not agree, as your staff report has requested, that we also give you an additional 30 feet when we do the commercial property. We can't fit it. We have shown you what we need as far as the hotel goes. We do not agree to any additional land being given to the county. The residential community benefits. There's an even greater reduction in vehicular traffic from a hotel when you go down to residential. I mean, going with a commercial C-4 zoning, typical shopping center, is the worst traffic alternative for everybody in the area. There's greater open space and green space with the residential. There's minimal intrusion in the neighborhood. We're compatible with the residential uses around us. And I will tell you, Mr. Fee tells you about that little commercial piece catty-corner to our property? The county has their eye on that piece of property for boat parking. So that property is the county, if they had their wish in the past would be for that to be boat parking. So it's not going to be commercial. And I don't believe that a golf course is a commercial Page 242 March 3, 2005 venture. So I don't think you could say that that golf course across the street is a commercial use. This is a residential neighborhood. We're consistent with the residential neighborhood. We'll pay impacts fees of just over $800,000. We're providing beach access. And Mr. Fee brought up the point that maybe we won't have the peer on Lely Barefoot Beach. Our monies not contingent upon that. It goes to beach access, however the county deems appropriate. And we have enhanced public water access by agreeing to fund acquisition of additional boat parking spaces. And finally, as Bob pointed out, we are going to enable the county to expand or reconfigure the existing parking at the park to provide additional community benefits and boater access. I think when you add it all up, it's clear that the residential alternative is best for those who immediately -- who live in the area, and it's best for the residents of Collier County. We request that you make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to approve both the residential alternative and the destination resort hotel alternative. And with that, we're available to answer any questions that may have come up because of public comment or any that you may have thought of since we made out presentation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mr. Chairman, could we now separate the applications and focus maybe on just the residential Page 243 March 3, 2005 and then discuss the hotel? Because -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sure. That makes sense. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I'm starting to get confused on, you know, what prizes one gets and the other one -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's have some discussion that would focus us toward the PUDZ residential petition. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is he through? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, I'm ready to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Did you have something specific on that topic? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Residential, no, actually. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The main problem -- the idea IS -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is what? I'm sorry, I can't hear you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I liked your idea. I think it's excellent. There's a problem. You keep wanting to push that thing up so high that it can't be accepted by us and the County Commissioners. Their attitude was very simple: They wanted 75 feet height at most, and at a limited to 100. I sat back here and figured out, you're talking about 244 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Pardon me, 144 feet. Felt like two. And I can't conceive of any way I could vote that way. Page 244 March 3, 2005 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I -- I appreciate your comments. If you look at the motion that the board considered, there was 10 stories over one of parking, and there were three in favor of that motion and two against that motion. Since that time, we have heard the public say to us, you know, that wasn't so bad. So we have actually put -- we've done the work, we've done the actual -- because nobody knew what was the height going to be when the original vote of 10 over one was brought. We've gone and we've spent the money to have an architect look at it and see what we need. We're not asking for anything different than that's already at Pelican Isle Yacht Club. We -- I don't think the board said 75 feet or 100 feet. They didn't say that. They said they didn't vote for the on-the-fly motion. They didn't have enough information in front of them. We think this is a new day. They have the information in front of them now to consider it. And I think you need to look at it afresh. There were three, without actually seeing what the height was, that were comfortable with 10 over one. And we'll see. We think that you have to judge this petition on its own merits. It's consistent with the Pelican Isle Yacht Club, 10 over one, and we think that is compatible and consistent and certainly a lot lower than the 20 stories over parking, and we don't know how many levels of parking, but it's usually one or two, within 150 feet of our project. So we think we've done a lot to make ourselves compatible. And I think the petitions bear that out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, what are the actual heights? I mean -- and Joe -- Page 245 March 3, 2005 MR. YOV ANOVICH: The zoning height -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have two heights now in the code. You know, we came up with mature terms for them and everything. We have the zoned height and the actual height. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You have the zoned height, which is 120 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And zero on that 120 feet -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the actual height -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- is the FEMA elevation; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or is it the top of the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the tippy top is 144. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If one will ask and one will answer, and one will ask, they can get an accurate transcript. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask Joe Schmitt, zero on that 120 feet is the FEMA elevation; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: In this case, it should be, yes, if they do not have or apply for additional underground parking. If they get additional underground parking, there are certainly benefits, meaning a second story of underground parking. But in this case, it should be measured. And I've not seen any elevation drawings of the hotel, but it should be measured from the registered 100-year flood elevation for the FEMA flood maps. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the actual height then is? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is 144. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's -- Page 246 --",-- March 3, 2005 MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's from the tippy top of anything on the roof. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Center line of the street to the top of the roof. MR. YO V ANOVICH: To the -- no, no, no. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know-- MR. HALL: I'm sorry, Bob Hall, for the record. The 144 feet is measured from adjacent grade, not from the center line of the road of Vanderbilt. It's the way it's required by the code. The absolute height is 144, and that's to the very peak of the very tallest roof. The effective height of this building is 120 feet. That's the effective height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And do you agree -- is it measured from the top of the parking garage, or is it measured from FEMA? MR. HALL: It's from FEMA, which is approximately four feet above our ground floor elevation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Does that satisfy you, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm satisfied. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Poking a question about evacuation. We heard before about vertical evacuation. I know that the Oelschlaegers build really high quality items. I'm sure you built to the code. Is there any question about building beyond the code? Will it Page 247 March 3, 2005 suffice as, will it be used as, was it even contemplated to be considered to use as a vertical evacuation? MR. HALL: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. HALL: I mean, you know, to respond to, you know, someone who's trying to be favorable to the project from the public, and we appreciate that, and do agree that going up higher is probably a safer thing to do than getting on the road and going to where you don't know where the hurricane is. But to design the building to withstand any level of hurricane is -- nobody does that. You can't afford to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I grant you, I wasn't -- MR. HALL: There would be no glass in the building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- referring to Category 4 or 5. I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to talk over you. MR. HALL: That's okay. MR. SCHMITT: But just to clarify, so I can make a point, I mean, they're still in the standards, the wind load standards of 139 miles an hour. Either the glass has to meet data or the glass and shutters. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sure that it's going to be built to the minimum standards -- MR. HALL: Certainly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- for that. I just wondered. I'm looking for any piece of information I can to use in this process. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? (N 0 response.) Page 248 March 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing. I would like to have, if there's any discussion relative to the residential rezone, Mr. Adelstein specifically had requested me that we have ample discussion before a motion is thrown up. So any comments, discussion, thoughts? Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: I had one as far as this whole issue of hurricane evacuation, and I understand that he's not here to comment for himself, but Dan Summers, apparently, according to our staff report, did not express any concerns over this. However, increasing -- Mr. Summers will tell you that increasing evacuation times makes forecasting less accurate. And when you have people living in a building and you're not accurate about that timing, the second time you tell them to leave, they don't leave. And that's where the real issue of a hurricane issue would put -- putting additional density into the coastal high hazard comes. It's not that, you know, it comes because it's not -- forecasting is not accurate. And the more people you have there and the more times you have to back up from a -- in order to get all those people out, the less accurate it is and the less often people will evacuate. And that's what you really need them to do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the concern is not just to evacuate. That's half the equation. The problem is coming back to a unit that isn't -- I mean, we just heard testimony that the building will probably be destroyed after the hurricane, so what you're essentially doing is making that many families homeless after the hurricane. Well, it could be destroyed. I mean, the problem is that there are Page 249 March 3, 2005 parts of the state now that the biggest problem they're having is not the evacuation, it's the putting it back together. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Yes, Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I was one of those, I think, who the last time we saw this expressed the opinion that had it been 10 stories that I probably would have been in favor of it. I think I'm still in favor of 10 stories, but I have reconsidered and reevaluated my position insofar as this conflict between the coastal high hazard area and the commercial conversion. The way I look at them, the commercial conversion to residential is a general policy statement to achieve some sort of a goal; whereas, the coastal high hazard area is very specific about what it's aimed at and that is hurricane and storm protection. I think that the coastal high hazard regulation is supreme to the commercial conversion. I don't see how anybody who has lived in Florida for the last year and seen what four hurricanes have done to our state can think that they can just poo-poo or brush aside the coastal high hazard area restrictions. They're there for a good reason. And the fact that some of you are just mesmerized by this candy that's being offered in the way of a million dollars for a beach or a million dollars for that, there's no reasonable rational nexus between this proj ect, which was a marina and had no beach at all, and the developer spending a million dollars on a beach at Barefoot Beach. It's obviously an attempt to garner public support in a completely irrelevant way. And to me it doesn't even begin to override the importance of the coastal high hazard area. So all these other issues we can talk about forever, but my Page 250 March 3, 2005 bottom line is that I can't support it, even at the 10 stories. I was willing to buy the staffs approach last time, which I've described as cutting the baby in half, where you just split the difference between these two things, but I think intellectually you have to choose between one or the other. It's either one or the other. And to me the coastal high hazard regulations are supreme in their areas. So that's -- I think I've said it twice. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, as we zero -- Mr. Midney, you have some comments? COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Yes, if I could. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sure. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I was puzzled in the beginning by Mr. Y ovanovich's attitude towards one of our members voting. I think you might have underestimated us, because I was one of the people who voted against it the last time and spoke against it. But my attitude has changed this afternoon. I think that the project has been cleaned up a lot. And let me just talk about the reasons why I've changed my attitude. A big part of it was the man who spoke from the Estuary's organization, speaking about what is best for the health of the Wiggins Pass area. And myself and my family, we use the park a lot, and I was impressed by that argument about what will be best for the ecology. And I think that he's right, that the residential will be best. Also, the arguments about the eagles, I really think that they are taking precautions. And the thing that's really sways me on that is that the population of eagles actually is increasing in this area, so I don't think that this project is really putting them in danger. Page 251 March 3, 2005 I liked the drawing that they brought out of the 10-story with the large setback. It's a big difference from the 22 stories that they were talking about the last time. With regard to the coastal high hazard area -- and this was something that wasn't brought out today, but last time it was -- I don't really think it's a hazard for the people that are going to be there, because most of them are temporary residents. I don't think they're going to be here in August and September when we have our hurricanes, so I'm not really too swayed by the attitudes that we have to worry about the density in these areas, because I really don't think that there will be that many people here from these apartments during those months of the year. I wish that the Eco Group -- it's good to talk about their -- what -- their product is high end and the pictures were very pretty, but to me as a representative for Immokalee, I wasn't too impressed. To me it seemed almost elitist. I would be more impressed, and I think other members of this board and the Board of County Commissioners would be impressed if you could try to look for some creative ways to incorporate something for affordable housing into your plans. Because anything like this is going to require a lot of service workers to operate it and they will need someplace to live, too. And so I think in the future, if in your presenting plans like this, if you could do something to address the issue of affordable housing, I think it would be likely to make some of us look on the proj ect more favorably. And that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And as we're zeroing our comments in and looking for a motion, I'll just make my comment, which is very Page 252 -,~._--~--.. March 3, 2005 similar to Mr. Midney's in that I'm in favor of this project. I think the reduction from what was originally proposed was a reasonable and rational approach, and I would be in favor of the staff recommendation. So after having a lot of comments, do we have someone who would make a motion on this item for rezoning? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll make a motion, but I suspect I may be in the minority. I'll make a motion that we forward PUDZ-2004-AR-5967, Coconilla PUD, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of disapproval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy, second by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion on the motion, just to reiterate my own position that I'm in favor of the staff recommendation and the proposal as it's been brought forward to us, so I'll be in disagreement with the motion. Other comments? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm in favor of it, because this site in the C-4 zoning has a lot more potential for the whole county than private residences. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion of denial, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. Page 253 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Opposed? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. And is that three in opposition? So we have a -- oh, four? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Four-four. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm sorry, so it's four. Please -- those in favor, please raise your hands, because this is important. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have four in favor. Those opposed, please raise your hand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: So it's 4-4. It's a tie, the motion fails. Do we have a -- well, I don't know what -- MR. SCHMITT: Clarify. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. White comes in. MR. WHITE: I generally recommend in this circumstance, Mr. Chairman, that you at least attempt another motion, even if it's in the Page 254 March 3, 2005 direct opposite direction. Sometimes minor differences, conditions, et cetera, may make some difference in the outcome. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll look for a motion in the affirmative, and I for the life of me can't think of any minor nuisance that can tune this, because you're basically for it or against it. But with that in mind -- I don't know of any conciliatory compromise that can be offered. But for those that were in the opposition, could we have a motion in favor? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I so move. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Midney. A second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti has a second. So we have a motion in favor with a staff recommendation, second by Mr. Vigliotti. MR. WHITE: Would that be with the condition that was offered today? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Pardon me? MR. WHITE: The staff condition that was offered today as it amended the staff report? I'm sorry, my mistake. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, this is the rezone. We're not-- MR. WHITE: Please ignore that comment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There is one condition I would like to see and that is that, remember, the separation of the buildings would not be less than 100 feet. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We have a motion for approval. Are you fine with that in the motion, Mr. Midney? Page 255 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And the second fine with that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion for approval by Mr. Midney, second by Mr. Vigliotti, with a clarification that the separation between the buildings shall be not less than 100 feet. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye and raise your hand, please. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have four in favor of the motion. Those in opposition, say aye and raise your hand, please. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have four in opposition. The motion fails. It fails this way -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Same people who were in favor of the previous one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right, moving on to the conditional use. Any discussion necessary to set the stage on this one? MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am. MS. MURRAY: If I may, again, Susan Murray for the record. Page 256 March 3, 2005 And I apologize, I wanted to do this before, but I wish to enter in the official interpretation, INTP-2004-AR-6412 into the record, please. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you. Just a comment on my part before we get a motion on the conditional use. I think I understand the staffs compromised position suggesting that the determination of whether this is a destination resort hotel be -- the determination be made at the time of site development plan, and that if I understand Mr. White's legal opinion that it is not -- the question before us are not necessary to render that judgment now, whether this is indeed a destination resort hotel, the compromise that I would suggest, if there is an inclination to forward this with approval, and I am so inclined, that it would be that the designation of destination resort hotel be determined by Collier County Commission, that if it was to go forward, that it be determined at that time as a policy matter that County Commission would determine that I don't think we have the information or necessarily the duty to make that decision today and that it would also be a more reasonable compromise to the petitioner, because -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He doesn't wait for SDP. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right, allowing that answer at SDP, it could be another year or two and tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars just to find out yes or no. I think they need to find out if they're in or out, and that should be at County Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Russell, one thing, too. Could I back up? Susan, you just entered into the official interpretation that you made the last couple of days, right? MS. MURRAY: Correct. Page 257 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we haven't seen that. I asked for that earlier and I wasn't allowed to see it. Could I see it -- MR. WHITE: There was no statement that you couldn't see it. Not at all. Please don't take it the wrong way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what was that interpretation? Was the interpretation that this was a destination resort or it was not a destination resort? MR. WHITE: I'm not going to answer that question. The reason why I recommended that it be included as part of the record is because you have a draft version already in the record. And it seems only necessary to complete the record that you would have the final interpretation as part of the record as well. If you'd care to read it, it's right here. I don't know how it's going to affect the decision you're going to make, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if it's in the record, isn't it the impression that we're aware of it? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What is the cat and mouse aspect all about? MR. WHITE: There's nothing cat and mouse about it. If you want to read it and have the opportunity to review it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if someone could summarize it -- MR. WHITE: -- that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that did they in fact determine that this was a destination or not. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why are we -- MR. WHITE: The notion, Commissioner, that this interpretation Page 258 March 3, 2005 somehow reaches a determination about the application that's before you are completely distinct and different. It does not reach, in my mind, an opinion about this application. It may have the -- some of the same facts, but it does not have all of the facts and in fact, was responding to, I think, two points. So if you'd care to see it, I don't know if you saw the draft interpretation or not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did not see it, no. MR. WHITE: But you've certainly been able to consider your decision without having reviewed that. If you'd like to review this now, it's certainly -- you're entitled to do so. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And my inclination was to move forward simply from what Mr. White is suggesting, that it is not -- does not provide a definitive opinion relative to this circumstance as to the destination resort status of this petition. MR. WHITE: Correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That being said, we don't have sufficient, competent, legal, relevant testimony to us in order to make that judgment, so let's not. That's not our job. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's pass it on to County Commission. That's why they get paid and we don't. MR. WHITE: I'm not opining as to the second of your two points, only as to the first, okay? CHAIRMAN BUDD: And -- but that still leaves the decision of are we inclined to forward it with a recommendation of approval, and that would be my suggestion. Page 259 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: During the public testimony -- can I ask Rich a question? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There was mention that the boats and that these units in the hotel would be time share. Is that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, we never said that. No, it's a hotel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You never said that. That's why I'm asking. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's right, it's a hotel. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Can we have a motion regarding the conditional use? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: I will motion that we forward to the Board of County Commissioners Petition CU-2004-AR-6625 with a recommendation of approval, based on the following stipulations: One is to include all staff and ECA (sic) recommendations; to make sure that egress is provided for the park; and that the project must satisfy the definition of a destination hotel, which is what staff said. And further, you'd like the Board of County Commissioners to make that decision, and I'm comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Do we have a second on Ms. Caron's -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. Page 260 March 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- motion? We have a motion for approval by Ms. Caron, a second by Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Yovanovich has a-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I ask for a clarification on the motion? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understood the egress issue, but my question was staff also recommended that we have to give you another 30 feet. Was that part of your motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: All staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll accept that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion? I'm not in favor of the 30 feet, but I don't want to vote against it on that point alone. Any further discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I share that with the Chair, that part of it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further discussion? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think probably the problem with the 30 feet is that they were planning on doing all this construction for the county, and I don't see that as necessary at all. Let the county figure out what they're going to do with this easement that the petitioner has offered on the first petition. I think it's equally valid here and-- , CHAIRMAN BUDD: Wasn't the additional construction relative to the residential use? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I don't see that they're, you Page 261 -.,...-----" March 3, 2005 know, required to do -- I wouldn't have required them to do it in the residential either, but they offered, so -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, all those in favor of the motion of approval, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries 8-0. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Please remember we have a conditional -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: The findings of fact in our package for planning commissioners to fill out. Moving on to our other agenda items. And for those of you, thank you for your patience, if you could leave the room as quietly as possible while we conclude our business for the day. Is there any old business? (No response.) Page 262 March 3, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Under the heading of new business, I've passed out to staff, the county attorney and to the planning commissioners at the beginning of this evening's -- or this afternoon's meeting items regarding the Immokalee master plan envisioning committee, if you could find that. MR. BELLOWS: You need the conditional use-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here it is. It's only about-- it's right after the 13 pages, and then the motion for the county commission, then next -- MR. WHITE: If I may interrupt, Mr. Chairman, would a brief recess be appropriate? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: While we clear the room, let's have a five-minute recess. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're going to come back to order with planning commission and conclude our business for the day. There was no old business. Under new business, there was a letter sent to me by the Immokalee master plan and visioning committee, extending an invitation for our planning commission to send a representative to the monthly meetings. They meet on the first and third Wednesday of each month from 8:30 to 10:00 in Immokalee. And Mr. Midney seemed like the logical person. However, he has a long-standing irreconcilable conflict and cannot attend this. Is there another planning commissioner that has a burning desire Page 263 March 3, 2005 to drive to Immokalee every month and attend their meetings? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There appears not to be. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is there just -- is it just one meeting that he needs to have covered? CHAIRMAN BUDD: No, it's ongoing. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I see. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Twice a month, for years. MR. WHITE: Perhaps your absent member could be assigned. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yeah, Mark Strain I think would like it. MR. WHITE: I'm only joking. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He might even get to be chairman of it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: But for lack of a second, we'll let that drop. Ray, could you, or direct somebody appropriate at the county to send the visioning committee our appreciation at the invitation, but we will have no one attending their visioning meetings? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And I will also call the person. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, great. COMMISSIONER CARON: I feel bad not to -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: The next item I had passed out to all the planning commissioners. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why don't we suggest that they come down and report to us the results of their visioning. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think we can suggest it, but we have no authority over them. They're -- Page 264 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, I was just suggesting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think part of it, Ray and Paul, in your contact with them, tell them we'd like to hear from them periodically, not twice a month. Okay, I also had passed out to the other planning commissioners a copy of an e-mail from Sharon Phillips, advising me that as chairman I am expected to make a report of the Board of (sic) the County Commissioners on March 22nd at 9:30 a.m, with county staff support and staff liaison, Susan Murray, zoning director. There is a one, two, three-and-a-half page summary of our activities. And that is the substance of my presentation to the Board of County Commissioners on that date. This is just for information. You don't need to be there. But company's always welcome. Mr. Abernathy had requested earlier that we have discussion on the topic of invocation for two reasons: One, that we don't have a full committee, and Mr. Strain is one of our most outspoken members, and we'd appreciate his opinion. And also, because Mr. Abernathy had prepared an opinion memo on the topic, which we don't have copies out in front of us. Could we take that topic up of an invocation at a future meeting when we have a full nine-person panel and we'll have some conversation and make a decision as to our position on item? Does that sound good? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have a problem with that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll pick that up at a future meeting when we've got a full team. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sounds good to me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Ray, I think you wanted to make a Page 265 March 3, 2005 comment about the upcoming planning association meeting? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I've been informed that the Florida American Planning Association will be holding their annual conference in St. Petersburg. I believe I sent an e-mail on the date. I can't -- it's September, I believe. And we would like to know if any of the planning commissioners would like to attend. I believe Sharon Phillips e-mailed you with our -- Susan, did we determine the process of reimbursing the planning commission for attending the AP A conference? MS. MURRAY: At this point we're just looking to address the budgeting issue, so we're just trying to get a number of who might be interested in attending. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any planning commissioners interested in attending? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I have a question. Is that intended -- would we benefit from being there the full-time or is it just one day -- MS. MURRAY: It's just-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- one morning? MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry, it's just one day. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One day. MS. MURRAY: One day, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I sent back that I'm interested. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So we have one interested? Two? COMMISSIONER CARON: Same here. No, I sent back already. Page 266 March 3, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe two, maybe three. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm interested. I didn't answer, but I might go. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And just as a comment, when I make my presentation to county commission, one of the suggestions I'm going to make on behalf of planning commission is that the Board of County Commissioners consider a stronger financial support of planning commission in that for all of the volunteer planning commissioners to drive, get no reimbursement for mileage, meals, hotel and volunteer the time on top of it, it seems like not quite enough to just cover the tuition, so I'm going to make a request to the Board of County Commissioners that they would consider a stronger financial support. Currently all that's available is a reimbursement of tuition, and that's the basis under which this invitation is extended. Any other old business? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on that point, I'll be happy to look further in Chapter 250, which is the place where the provisions are pertaining to the planning commission, and talks about those kinds of costs and fees. Maybe there's some greater opportunity. MR. SCHMITT: If we go back to the board, if we have the policy support, or if the board changes a policy, all we have to do is -- so we can have legitimacy so the clerk will pay the bill. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And we understand how that works. MR. SCHMITT: So -- and whether or not that opens the door for other -- other boards and panels, I don't know. But certainly the planning commission and the time and effort you put in certainly Page 267 March 3, 2005 should be recognized. Okay? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any other business? MR. SCHMITT: And the work that you do for the county and for the board. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:31 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, Chairman Page 268 --..~.._---- ~~-~--,.,->---'--"" --'"' -_._--_..._--,~,--,~~".__.;"