Loading...
CCPC Minutes 07/20/2006 R July 20,2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida 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: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (Absent) Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Kay Deselem, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Page 1 MINUTES & RECORDS ---------------------------------------- - AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2006, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION 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 MAY BE 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 AVAILABLE 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 VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROV AL OF MINUTES - JUNE 1,2006, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JUNE 20, 2006, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: CU-2005-AR-7181, Basil Street Partners, LLC, represented by George Varnadoe, Esquire of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, are requesting a conditional use allowed per LDC Section 2.04.03 of the "A" Agricultural zoning district to provide a passive recreational facility, consisting of an elevated screened and covered pavilion, screened deck, and restrooms with showers, which will serve as an amenity and provide beach access for owners and residents of the Naples Bay Resort projects. The Passive Recreational Facility will be constructed on two lots on Keewaydin Island. The subject properties, consisting of 4.32 acres, are located at 10111 and 10121 Keewaydin Island, in Section 14, Township 51 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera) 1 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If you'll all rise for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY CLERK CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. Welcome to the Planning Commission Meeting of July 20th, 2006. We're only going to have one item on the agenda today. Before that we'll do roll call and a few housekeeping items. Madam Secretary, would you do the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. Item #3 Page 2 July 20, 2006 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Under addenda to the agenda, all of you, if you don't mind noting under number 9(A), this is Mr. Kolflat's request from the prior couple meetings. He's been kind enough to be patient with this and so we will get through it today. Are there any other addenda to the agenda? (N 0 response.) Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. The next Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for August 3rd. Is everybody planning to attend? Are there any known absences? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There very likely may be. I'm waiting for a grandchild. Item #5 APPROV AL OF MINUTES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney's on vacation. I would expect he would be back by then. So either way, we have a quorum, so that will be fine. The approval of the minutes of June 1 st, 2006 Regular Meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) Page 3 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Adelstein. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, the recaps? MR. BELLOWS: There was no Board of County Commissioner meeting. They're off on their vacation. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Chairman's report. I had an issue I wanted to update you on from a meeting that occurred, but I want the opportunity to have a meeting with the County Attorney on it first, so maybe next meeting I'll fill Page 4 July 20, 2006 you In. As far as the chairman's report, I want to take the opportunity to try to organize a little better the format of today's meeting. We have two court reporters here, so that means we have to talk twice as slow. I don't want anybody to miss anything. I know that this has been a very controversial project, so everything needs to be accurately reflected. So for that reason, I am going to ask that every Planning Commissioner not speak until they're recognized, and not to interrupt the speakers. The intention is to let the speakers make their presentations without interruption. At the end of their presentations we will ask our questions. And always, please, do not talk over someone else, because it makes it real hard for these ladies to type twice as fast. Item #8A PETITION: CU-2005-AR-7181 And with that, we'll go into the advertised public hearing, the only one. The first one is Petition CU 2005-AR-7181, Basil Street Partners, LLC. It's commonly known as the Keewaydin Island proj ect. Would all those wishing to speak in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. Either one of you. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If any of the commissioners happen to notice, in case I miss, anybody new coming in that didn't get sworn in that's going to speak, please bring it to my attention. With that, I think the first matter of business is disclosures. We'll start with Mr. Kolflat and work this way. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, I had correspondence with Page 5 July 20, 2006 Clay Brooker, Jack Conroy, Kerry Geroy, President of Keewaydin Island Homeowners Association, Tony Pires, Collier County Conservancy, Florida Wildlife Federation, and James Doan (phonetic) . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I had a phone conversation with Clay Brooker, the attorney; Sam Sneed, who is the engineer referencing the septic tank; Nicole Ryan; some e-mails from Jim Doan (phonetic); Dr. van -- looks like -- Dongen. Kerry Geroy, Jack Conroy, Kathleen Carlton. And then three e-mails that were the same. One from the Blocks, one from James Thornburg and one from Annette van Dongen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that most all the Planning Commissioners received the same e-mails. In addition, I've spoken to Mr. Pires and Ms. Ryan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I tried to make a list of most of them that I received. I hope I didn't forget anybody. But I received eight e-mails, seven against and one in favor. I received a letter from Nick Pennamen (phonetic), e-mails from Kathleen Carlton, information in a packet form, mostly minutes of a meeting, as well as an e-mail from Tony Pires. Another e-mail from John Captin (phonetic). I received a letter. And I've met and discussed the project with Nicole Ryan. I've received a letter from Nancy Payton. E-mails from James Doan, Jim Thornburg, Faye and Larry Block, Annette van Dongen. And I've received a letter from John and Joan Conroy. And I received a package and had a discussion and some e-mail with Clay Brooker. And Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I got a good deal of e-mails Page 6 July 20, 2006 and a couple of letters. I talked to Mr. Pires, and that was all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have many e-mails. Most of the names that the Chairman has indicated are the same e-mails that I have. I received none in favor. I had a conversation with Mr. Pires, and I had a conversation with Ms. Ryan from the Conservancy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I've had a series of e-mails, all against, and I haven't had any conversations with anyone regarding this matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I have the same e-mails as everyone else on record, and no personal contact with anyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess I need a clarification. When I said I had seven opposed and one in favor, you all received the one in favor, too. It was from Clay Brooker. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, that's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For what that's worth, it did rank in there with the rest, so -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I received also a revised operations manual. I assume everyone else received it, too, but I don't know if the record shows that as having been submitted. Because our original staff report did not refer to that, it referred to a previous one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina had sent out an e-mail, indicating to us that she requested -- or maybe the applicant did, but one or the other sent out an e-mail saying they were requested to send us this. And so you may have missed it in your e-mail, but that's the e-mail I got as well with that package in it. And it is an updated MOA, really. Page 7 July 20, 2006 MS. VALERA: That is correct. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. Yes, we did receive the packet after your -- the material that you have today was sent out to you, so that is why -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So this is a matter of the record then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe so, yes. MS. VALERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Student, Mr. Kolflat brings up an interesting point. Our original packet from the county and the one that was most likely published did not include the current version, the signed version of the Memorandum of Agreement that we all received independently on Friday or thereafter. Do we need them admitted as evidence in today's meeting? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think it needs to be admitted as part of the record, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to accept that Memorandum of Agreement? The motion was made by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Vigliotti. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. Page 8 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Brooker, I think the presentation-- well, I'm sorry . Yes, welcome. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is John Passidomo. I'm a member of the firm ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson. My address is 821 Fifth Avenue South in the City of Naples. Our firm represents the Anteramian Development Group and Basil Street Partners as petitioners in the petition pending before you for consideration this morning. My partner, Clay Brooker, will make the presentation on behalf of our project team at the conclusion of my preliminary remarks. Tim Hall from Turrell & Associates is our environmental consultant. And Dave Sneed from Coleman Engineers is our civil engineer. Both Mr. Hall and Mr. Sneed are available to respond to any technical questions you may have concerning our submittal. Our petition requests a conditional use permit for a passive recreational and educational beach facility on two lots on Keewaydin Island. The county Land Development Code requires that in the issuance of a conditional use permit, that the facility meet four basic tests. The first: Consistency with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. Number two: Adequacy of access to the property. Number three: Sensitivity to noise, glare, odor and other effects by neighboring properties. And four: Compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the surrounding area. We appreciate planning staffs careful consideration of these Page 9 July 20, 2006 criteria, their finding that our petition complies with each of them, and the recommendation to you of approval of the petition pending before you for consideration this morning. We nonetheless recognize that the county's Growth Management Plan requires that the natural function of Coastal Barrier Islands be protected and that any activities that will damage or destroy coastal resources be restricted. We therefore have worked diligently over the last six months to follow the mandate of the county's Environmental Advisory Commission, at its meeting on February 1st, 2006, and hammer out an agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, acting through the Rookery Bay Natural Estuarine Reserve -- Research Reserve as the manager of some 85 or 90 percent of the property on Keewaydin Island to ensure that the natural function of the coastal barrier is preserved and to ensure that no activity which will damage or destroy the coastal resources is in any way permitted as part of this conditional use before you for consideration. We're happy to report to you that that agreement has been signed and has been circulated to you for consideration. Mr. Brooker will take you through each and every item, and we welcome your scrutiny and public scrutiny of that document. We respectfully request your recommendation of approval, and agree to abide by all the conditions in the executive summary. I'd be happy to respond to any questions you may have now or at the conclusion of our presentation; otherwise, I'll turn the presentation over to Mr. Brooker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. BROOKER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Clay Brooker, with the law firm ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson. I appear before you again for my bi-monthly public flogging. If it goes as long as the last time I was in front of you, two Page 10 July 20, 2006 weeks ago, I don't know. I took lunch about 2:00 or 3:00 at the end last time. But at any rate, before we get into the details, Basil Street Partners LLC is in fact the petitioner. The sole member of Basil Street Partners is Naples Bay Resort Holdings, LLC. That is different from what was indicated a year and a half ago when we filed this petition. So I give you this information only for your own purposes, conflict checks or so forth. Naples Bay Resort Holdings, LLC itself, it's devised of several legal layers. But if you boil them all down, it gets it down to just a few individuals. Those being: Jack Antaramian, Fred Pezeshkan, Ali Ebrahimi, Iraj Zand, and Raymond Sehayek. And I'm sure the court reporters will need spellings on those at an appropriate break, because I can barely pronounce them. An overview of Keewaydin Island first. I have a horrible history with this little cursor. But what you see on your screen on ELMO today is basically -- well right now is basically I would say approximately three-fourths or maybe half of Keewaydin Island. The photograph is situated with south at the bottom, north at the top. Our property is looking at approximately right there where the cursor is shown now. The property runs down to the south, and I'd like to just give a few -- show a few photographs, snapshots of the island of what exactly is there today. I'll begin at the south and move on my way up. The south end, as you see, is a beachy area. This photograph was taken about two or three months ago. This is the south tip of the island, looking from the east out to the west. This is a typical Saturday or Sunday afternoon out at the southern tip of Keewaydin Island. Moving up north, approximately in this location here, that's an example of a single-family home on Keewaydin Island. Page 11 July 20, 2006 This structure is approximately -- has about 6,000 square feet of structure, footprint on the property. Continuing north approximately here where I'm showing on the screen, here are three or four other lots. As you can see, another single- family home over in this area. Looks like some sort of deck has been constructed. Significant removal of dune and native vegetation. Continuing our trek north. Approximately in this area here, another lot. This is the Conservancy's property on Keewaydin Island. And you can see the structure on that island -- on that lot. Finally, again, this is our property up here as we move north. We're right about there. This is the first structure that you reach if you walk from the subject property south. It's the first privately owned lot. To its north in this area are state-owned lands. To the south it begins the privately owned properties. But I should say that the state does own some of the lots as you move south. There's pieces of the island that are owned by the state as well. So some of those lots are owned interspersed among some private homes. But again, this is the first structure you reach heading south. It's about 1,000 feet south of our property where the proposed structure will be, just shy of a quarter of a mile south of ours. And again you can see apparently what appears to be, at least, significant native vegetation removal. Finally, the subject property. That is a view, obviously an aerial view looking from east to west. The top of the picture is the Gulf of Mexico. This is the existing dock on the property. And as you obviously know, it extends out to -- the property extends out to the Gulf. One last aerial, just to give you a closer look. The highlighted yellow parcel is the southern half of our -- the subject property. That is one of the -- the south lot of the two lots that Basil Street Partners owns. Again, you can see the distance to the nearest structure is Page 12 July 20, 2006 approximately 1,000 feet, or just shy of a quarter of a mile. If you do take a little further look as you go south, according to the aerial and my rough calculations in the distance of about a half of a mile south of the property, you run into approximately three structures. It should be noted that we do know on some of these lots there have been weddings, fundraisers and so forth. According to a public records request, no special event permits have ever been pulled for Keewaydin Island. And none of the homes on Keewaydin Island have been registered as rentals, if they are rented, and we believe some of them are, under the code which requires rentals to be registered with the county. This is the FLUCCS map, or basically a land use description of the subject property. The property is 4.32 acres. It's about 180 feet from north to south and over 1,000 feet from east to west. The property is comprised of two lots. The compo plan designation for the property is conservation. That particular designation permits recreational camps, parks and other passive recreational uses. The zoning on the property is agriculture. And it does have an ST or special treatment overlay. Under those zoning districts, the overlay of ST and agricultural zoning district, a conditional use of recreational and educational facilities is permitted. And that's why we're here today. As you can see -- well, I'll tell you, to the north and to the south of this property we are sandwiched between state-owned lands managed by the Rookery Bay Natural Estuarine Research Reserve. The proposal we have for you is in fact a recreational structure. It's essentially a picnic pavilion. It is elevated. It has a screened -- it's partly -- it's screened, it's partly covered with a deck. And it has restrooms in it with dressing rooms. A difference from what you may have seen, again the process from a year and a half ago when we first filed to now, there's been some progress made, some revisions made as we talked to the various Page 13 July 20, 2006 interested parties. One of the changes that you may see is that there are no showers proposed inside the pavilion. The shower -- there will be presented or provided a kind of a rinse shower down in the boardwalk area for people to rinse the saltwater off or for whatever reasons. Just like you see at any -- or the normal park where you go and you push the button and the water comes on for a certain amount of time or whatever. That kind of rinse shower will be provided, but no showers inside the pavilion itself. The location -- it's a little bit difficult to see. But where I am indicating here is the proposed location of the pavilion. As you can see, the location we have selected is as far east as possible to be removed from the dune vegetation, yet respecting the mangrove community to the west. The proposed structure is 2,925 square feet. This is an artist rendering of it. As you can see, the boardwalk coming from the Gulf -- I'm sorry, from the intercoastal waterway from the west to the east, there will be a hydraulic lift for handicapped access is proposed here where I am showing, stairs up and down. Here are the restrooms that are proposed. This is the area that will be covered or under roof and screened. This is the area that will be just screened but no cover. The boardwalk contains a bump-out here to avoid the stairs, because this boardwalk will be elevated at approximately two feet to 30 inches above grade. Initially -- this is another slight change from what you may have seen. Initially this boardwalk at some point may have turned into what was called a mulch trail, meaning people would be walking on the ground itself. Rookery Bay and DEP have requested that the boardwalk be elevated the entire distance from the intercoastal waterway over the dune into the beach area, and we have agreed to do that. So basically the boardwalk will be two feet to 30 inches, whatever the appropriate height is, but relatively low to the ground. Page 14 July 20, 2006 All the way. The distance all the way from the intercoastal waterway to the beach. Rookery Bay apparently -- the reasoning for that is to allow vegetation, wildlife and so forth, to move underneath and have free roam across the property. In addition, one of the rules in the operations manual is that the users must -- or the users of the property must stay on the boardwalk or any marked trails. And the indication of a marked trail, the only one that may exist is something to allow staff to get out to the boardwalk from underneath the pavilion, in this area here. That is the only proposed marked pathway or marked trail, other than the boardwalk. Access to the property will be by water shuttle, a shuttle vessel that will be moored at the old Boat Haven property or by private vessel. That latter private vessel I don't believe was indicated in the initial application. That was something that was added as we went through the process. So there would be one or perhaps two shuttle vessels, depending on demand. Right now the plan is for one. Private vessels would have to moor at space on the dock -- at the dock. No parallel mooring is permitted. The dock will not be expanded or enlarged. We've agreed to that. Nor will we be adding a second dock on the second lot to the north -- to the south, I believe. So what you see there is what will exist for this proposal. The membership: Obviously the permitted visitors to the island or to this property will be members of the Naples Bay Resort Club. The Naples Bay Resort Club will be comprised of condominium unit owners or boat slip owners in the Naples Bay Resort collection. The Naples Bay Resort collection in turn is comprised of three properties under development now in the City of Naples. One is located at Sandpiper and East Trail. It's called The Cottages. The other is the old Boat Haven property. And the third is what was known as Grand Central Station, now known as Renaissance Village. There's been a lot of talk about the numbers. We have Page 15 July 20, 2006 consistently said up to 750 members will be in the club. The club membership is required of anyone who purchases a unit in the Naples Bay Resort collection. There are a total of 520 units, condominium units or boat slips, so forth. So you may be wondering where we get 750. We were reserving the right, but we are not obligated to sell memberships to the public. Notwithstanding that club membership number, we believe as relevant or if not more so is the cap of 56 people at anyone time on the property. So we don't believe it's a fair representation to say 750 members could be heading out to the property, because that's simply not true, given the cap on the property at anyone time of 56. That is in the operations manual, and I'll be talking a little bit more about that when I get to it. Water source: The water which will be used for the pavilion structure will be for toilets, sinks, and the shower at the grade level. We are planning to cistern any roof runoff. And initially we thought we were going to supplement that with a well, but we have elected to withdraw that portion of the proposal. Instead, it will be supplemented, the water source, the roof runoff will be supplemented by a holding tank and water actually brought in by boat, by vessel. The water will be stored in a water tank underneath the pavilion. The pavilion is elevated. I believe it's about 12 feet or so above grade. That's the first floor, if you will. There was discussion -- one of the reasons why we eliminated the request for a well, there was discussion at EAC that this property would be taking more than its fair share of water available to Keewaydin Island by pumping it from an aquifer. We don't necessarily agree with that, but regardless, we are no longer going to be taking any water except from what God gives us from the rain and what we pump in -- or what we bring in by vessel. Power source, like most of the homes out there, will be by generator. We've also agreed to utilize solar power wherever feasible, Page 16 July 20, 2006 or reasonable. The generator will be enclosed so as to muffle the sound. It will be used primarily to operate the hydraulic lift for the handicapped access, as well as any lights that may become necessary if security concerns anse. So right now we are agreeing that the hours of operation -- again, I'm skipping ahead a little bit, because this gets into the operations manual. Hours of operation are from dusk to dawn. So we aren't going to have any lights. We have agreed not to have any lights at this time. At sunset it will be dark. If lights become -- if security becomes a concern and lights are required, they will meet all the requirements. They will be low level, directional, so as not to interfere with the sea turtle nesting season and so forth. The septic system: There is a drain field proposed to the north. The wastewater will be treated by a septic system. A lot of discussion at the EAC about septic system. What we've done since then is we've taken a look at it, what we had proposed, and we have essentially doubled the capacity of it. I am a little bit hesitant, I'm not an engineer, I don't really know how septic systems work all that well, but I'm told that the septic system that we will install will handle 250 percent of the capacity mandated by the state under these circumstances. And those circumstances are essentially the state requires that you look at four gallons per day per person. But there are other manuals out there that say five gallons per day for this type of picnic pavilion with no showers. There are manuals that say you should use five gallons per day as a rule of thumb. So we have bid conservative. We've used a higher number. We don't use the state number, we use the higher number of five gallons per day. You do the math out, it comes to an average daily flow of 280 gallons per day, that's 56 persons times five. And when you fall at that range, if you go to state guidelines, the state requires you to Page 1 7 July 20, 2006 install a 400-gallon per day system. We are installing a 1,000 gallon per day system. The idea -- the purpose of doing this is to try to ensure that there will be no spills or dissemination of untreated effluent to the ground to the drain field. And we've basically given ourselves 250 percent of what's going to be required by the state. I'll leave it at that. By the way, the drain field is also 250 percent larger than required by the state. I'm a little bit hesitant to go into more details, because that is about the extent of my knowledge other than -- and we have an engineer here who can answer questions, if you have them, on how the system works. But I'm told it is an active treatment system. A lot of the old septic systems, some of which exist under the homes out in Keewaydin Island today, are passive septic systems, anaerobic systems, where oxygen is not introduced into the tanks. We have an aerobic system, which is generally comprised of a tank within a tank and oxygen, or the aerobic system will introduce oxygen into it to enhance the bio -- I don't know, biodegradable organisms. And it's an active treatment system, as opposed to a passive treatment system. So by the time that anything is actually disseminated into the drain field, it is clarified or treated. As you can tell, that's about as good as I can get on the septic system. Dave Sneed from Coleman Engineering is here to answer questions you may have. We obviously recognize the environmental sensitivity of the property and of the island. And as a matter of fact we have a vested interest or a self interest in maintaining the integrity and the function of the island, because that is the draw for everyone, the public, private, everyone. This is what we've been referring to or what has been referred to as an M.O.A. or a Memorandum of Agreement. It's also been referred to as an M.O.U., a Memorandum of Understanding. Just so you Page 18 July 20, 2006 know, neither of those terms were ever incorporated into this agreement. That was just something I believe initially described by The Conservancy. They are the ones who demanded initially that we enter into such a thing with Rookery Bay, DEP and make it part of our conditional use approval. And we have agreed to do so. What you see before you is over six months, probably more like nine months of work. We initially met with the Conservancy and Rookery Bay. We actually met with those two groups several times in joint meetings, at which many, many concerns and issues were discussed. I'm happy to state that we have agreed to if not 100 percent of them, very, very close. Ultimately or eventually The Conservancy elected to step out of the process. They were always invited, but they elected not to be involved any longer. We also met with the attorney for the private property owners or perhaps for the homeowner's association out there. We met with him and his -- and a representative, Dr. van Dongen, again, we thought as a productive discussion, some important issues raised by them which were incorporated into the final product that you see. Notwithstanding invitations to meet with them, again, they elected not to meet with us after that first meeting. The first page that you see -- and let me try to describe what this document is. It's about 50 pages long or so, so it's a little bit perhaps difficult to understand. But that first page right there is what's called a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. This is a voluntary document. It's essentially a deed restriction that is going to be -- assuming this becomes approved, will be imposed on the land. It will run with the land. It won't run with an individual or an owner that's going to bind this property forever if it's approved, this conditional use is approved, unless the DEP agrees to lift the restrictions. So the declaration itself doesn't say a whole lot the first three or Page 19 July 20, 2006 four pages. It's basically stating that we are going to impose this document and its exhibits. The exhibits are where the real meat of the agreement is. The exhibits to it are three: The first is a legal description, which I should tell you that I realized at midnight last night the legal description is wrong. A word north should be south. And that's my fault. I probably just saw too many norths in our legal description and typed it wrong. I don't even think DEP knows that. I don't know. But after the word also, the north 89.3 feet, that should read the south 89.3 feet. But we'll clarify that with DEP. The second exhibit is the agreement between the DEP and therein starts the meat of the document. Attached to the agreement is the operations manual. But stepping back again, one step back removed, the third exhibit to the declaration is an Exhibit C which is an illustration of the property and where we have agreed to limit the footprint of the building and where we have agreed to impose conservation easements. And we'll get to that in a minute. But the agreement first. Again, the operations manual is an attachment to this. Hitting the highlights of this agreement: We obviously agree to strictly abide by the operations manual. All staff and members of the club must sign an acknowledgement that they've read the operations manual and that they agreed to abide by it. Any staff member who does not abide by the rules is subj ect to termination of employment. Any club member who violates the rules is subject to banishment from the property. This agreement grants to D EP, Rookery Bay perpetual around-the-clock unlimited access to the property for the purpose of monitoring it and ensuring that we are in fact abiding by the rules. There is, in addition to that, a self-enforcement provision. If we know of a violation, we must report it to DEP, Rookery Bay. Ifwe fail to do so, that in and of itself is a violation or breach of the agreement. Page 20 July 20, 2006 Violations of the operations manual result in a $500 fine. DEP prefers to call it a mitigation sum, a $500 mitigation sum. And by the way, these -- this schedule of mitigation sum payment for violations, this is independent of the county's code enforcement authority. And by that, what I mean is say D EP sees a violation or we report a violation and we are thereby required to pay $500 mitigation sum. DEP is not precluded from and may very well at their own discretion turn it over to the county's Code Enforcement Department and the county can enforce it of their own right, whatever fines may be imposed in that regard as well. They're not exclusive -- they are exclusive or independent. So we can essentially be hit twice for the same violation, and that's the way it was intended. There's a provision that deals with a persistent -- a persistent record of violations. What if this just doesn't work? What if there are violation after violation after violation and it doesn't work? Well, there are provisions in there that, for example, if there are seven violations in 30 days, any 30-day period, or 15 violations in any 12-month period, then DEP, Rookery Bay can recommend to Collier County -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'll wait to be called on by the Chair, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't know if it was something urgent. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: It's pertinent to this, but I'll address it when the Chair -- I'd prefer Mr. Brooker to finish with that point, and then if the Chair would recognize me, I'd like to make a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you get to a break point. MR. BROOKER: And I may actually address what she's going to say before she says it. To get back, if there's a persistent record of violations, as defined in the agreement, we acknowledge that Rookery Bay has a right to go to Collier County and recommend that this conditional use be revoked Page 21 July 20, 2006 or rescinded. As a legal matter, there's really no mechanism in the code for revocation or rescission of a conditional use approval. So what we would suggest then is in the event that this is -- this persistent record of violations is triggered, that we will agree to a stipulation that a public hearing may be held, with the understanding that at that point in time the BCC would have the discretion to revoke it. It would essentially be a condition to this conditional use approval. And with that, I'll let the attorney speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, I know your stuff being a legal nature, we'll interrupt for you, because your issues could be more pertinent than questions we may have, so please proceed. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I question -- I think DEP may have looked at this more akin to a building permit or something like that than a conditional use type development order. And I think the -- and there is nothing in the code about revocation if this or that occurs. And I have a concern about our home rule powers and state agency getting involved with those. What I think would be the better practice, and we do have a history of doing this with conditional uses, particularly there have been batch plants and other type of conditional uses like this where the county has approved it for a term, maybe five years, maybe three years, and then bringing that conditional use back for a review and to determine whether or not it would continue for another term. And there is precedent for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. I'm sure we'll take that up as we go on with our discussion today. So why don't you continue, Mr. Brooker. MR. BROOKER: Yeah, we would prefer that there be a trigger, if in fact a -- and I don't believe this is an encroachment on the home rule powers of the county, because we're not granting to DEP the Page 22 July 20, 2006 authority to revoke a conditional use approval granted by the county. What the language of the document says is that they can come to the county, let the county know there has been a, quote, persistent record of violations as defined, and recommend that the county revoke it. So I don't believe there's a home rule encroachment there. But we would prefer that if there's this trigger, rather than doing a term approval, because what I'm concerned about with regard to that is a blanket of authority by the BCC after a certain period of time, just to revoke, even if we have a clean slate, meaning no violations or very minor or very few violations. So we would prefer that the trigger be exactly as stated here. If there's a persistent record of violations that triggers us, we are then obligated to come in when DEP reports it, to come in before the BCC and basically discuss it and figure out what's going wrong and at that point in time the BCC would have the discretion to revoke or rescind, if they so desire. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, we do-- MR. BROOKER: You're violating your own rule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, not for legal counsel. I'm sorry. Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I have a question. When it says in the event of a persistent record of violations, does that mean violations of these Restrictive Covenants, Declarations? MR. BROOKER: That is correct. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. Because I think in order for it to get in the county's backyard, if you want to call it that, that we'd have to make these. These are -- I guess -- I hesitate to use the word private, because it is with another government entity, but it doesn't involve the county yet. So it would be like we'd have to make this part of something that's ours to be a violation of our code, I would think, or any regulation that would be attached to the conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, as we move through this Page 23 July 20, 2006 and he winds down his presentation, I'm sure this issue -- at least I had a notation to bring this issue up as well. I think that unless you have a procedural issue that needs to be -- that we need to be interrupted for because we're heading in the wrong course on a format that we're taking, I'd rather we get to those kind of issues in the discussion portion after he finishes his presentation. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Certainly, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BROOKER: Moving forward into -- or down through the agreement further, we have agreed not to expand the proposed footprint. Remember, it's 2,925 square feet. We would not expand that footprint for a period of at least five years. After that period, and this gets a little bit into Exhibit C, we would have the right to bring another conditional use petition to the county to expand, if we so desire, but we have capped the expansion at 4,500 square feet total. So in addition of approximately another 1,500 or 1,575 square feet on top of what's being proposed today. So if we do -- after five years we can't -- or during five years we can't do a thing. If after five years we do wish to expand, we then have to file another conditional use proc -- we have to go through the same process again. And if we do go through that same process again, the maximum we could ever ask for or that could ever be approved is 4,500 square feet of building footprint. Continuing the agreement. The agreement also states that we must impose a conservation easement on all areas of the land shown on Exhibit C. And I'll get to Exhibit C in a minute. But to describe that, it's basically going to be everything but the building footprint as proposed, the drain field, the boardwalk and the limit of future expansion of 4,500 square feet. The entire remainder of the property will be placed under a conservation easement. The DEP has asked that the conservation easement be granted to them. We have no obj ection to that. In discussions with the county, Page 24 July 20, 2006 the county would prefer that a 0.43-acre habitat preserve, which is denoted on Exhibit C, be granted to the county, because that's what the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code require. Otherwise, that's the only thing they require in terms of the conservation easement. That's essentially 10 percent of the property area. The property is 4.32 acres. This is the 0.43-acre preserve. I'll show it to you in a minute on Exhibit C. But that portion would go to the county, the remainder would go to DEP, the conservation easement. Finally, with regard to the actual language of the agreement, we have agreed to a monitoring program with DEP by which we will monitor the number of visitors, basically record them, wildlife encounters, wildlife observations and the amount of trash taken off the island. And in two years we have an obligation -- or within two years we have an obligation to sit back down with Rookery Bay and DEP to tweak, if necessary, this agreement. The agreement says that some of the tweakings that may occur are reducing the allowable number of visitors to the island -- or to the property at anyone time, reducing the square footage of the expansion area, as shown on Exhibit C, or taking other measures, making other revisions as appropriate. But we are obligated to sit back down with DEP within two years to essentially evaluate ourselves. Moving now to the operations manual. Again, as you flip through your packet you'll hit the legal description again, because the legal description is a new exhibit to the agreement. And that has the same error, the north-south error I previously discussed. The operations manual -- Ray is helping me out with flipping through as I go through it. I appreciate your patience. There's a lot of paperwork I have to flip through here. This operations manual was -- is about a nine-month work, initially with Conservancy and DEP, ultimately with DEP, Rookery Bay alone and us. Page 25 July 20, 2006 There are 56 rules enumerated. Initially the draft was just in narrative form. DEP thought it would be a lot easier to actually kind of distill from that narration enumerated rules and actually number them in the document, so when there is a violation, it's easily referenced. And so that's why you see -- that is a difference from what you may have seen in the staff -- what was attached to the staff report and what's here before you today is actual numbered rules. There are 56 of them. And there's no coincidence between 56 rules and 56 people being allowed on the property at any given time. Naples Daily News joked with me that there be one rule per person. That's not the case. All rules apply to everyone. It was just purely coincidental. The introduction page basically requires that all staff and members sign it, that the acknowledgement forms that they have signed and understand -- they've read and understand this operations manual that's attached at the very back. We have to, meaning the manager, the club has to maintain records of all signed acknowledgements. So we can use them when appropriate, when someone violates and we have to take appropriate enforcement action. Without going through all the -- the document, the operations manual is divided into two major -- I guess three major groups: General considerations, daily operations, and then habitat and wildlife considerations. The general considerations, without going through each of them individually, they're fairly -- I think they're understandable as written. No jet skis or personal watercraft allowed. It can't come by personal watercraft. Docks shall not be expanded, I've already stated that. You cannot raft or parallel moor at the dock. The dock basically is a size that will -- depending on the size of the vessels will accommodate a total of about three vessels, including the shuttle vessel that we intend to use. By the way, the shuttle vessel will hold approximately 15 people. Page 26 July 20, 2006 No more than 56 persons on the beach pavilion property at any one time, that's rule number five, with an exception of the case of special events, which I'll get to in a minute. There was some confusion I think that arose at EAC, well, 56 people on the island? Or what if someone, one of our club members or their guests arrives by vessel, legally so, and then walks off -- you know, wants to go walk down the beach a little bit? They count as one of the 56. We don't subtract one as soon as they leave our property boundary. They are a visitor that's visiting us at the time. And we have discussed various methods of keeping track. It will be more advanced than just a head counting, less advanced than a turnstile at the property entrance. But their ideas such as having club member cards or sign-in sheets and so forth. The property will be staffed, as long as there's 15 or fewer persons or visitors to the island, that we have to have at least one staff person on the island at all times. If there are more than 15, we have to have at least two. So it's going to be a combination of different factors to monitor the number of people on the property. So again, I want to clarify that this is not 56 people in the pavilion structure. This is 56 people arriving at the property. There seemed to be some confusion that we are trying to sneak one by there. We're not trying to do that. And I tried to make that -- that was a revision specifically made in this document, it says to distinctly refer to the property and the beach pavilion structure as separate or the same, however it is described in the document. Hours of operation are from dawn to dusk. If lights are required due to security, they will be installed low level directional, so forth. We don't -- we right now are not proposing any lights at all. Again, lights will only be installed -- Rookery Bay has advanced notice of that, they have to approve them, if security concerns arise. Weare concerned about sabotage and vandalism. Motorized vehicles: We've agreed to have only one motorized Page 27 July 20, 2006 vehicle. It would actually be an electric golf type vehicle for special services needs, handicapped people, so forth, on the boardwalk only. It's not permitted to be on the dune area or the beach area. We can't go on the beach. Conservancy can. They have an A TV, I guess through permission from DEP. We can't. The special events. We have reserved the right to have special events, and would be required under those circumstances to obtain a permit from Collier County, if required by the code. The triggers for special events are denoted in bullet points on Page 4 of the operations manual. Basically if you have picnic type tables set up out at the beach or staging equipment or if the event -- if you ever want more than 56 people, a special event permit would be required. DEP has to have advanced notice or concurrent notice that we are applying for it. The language that you see, those bullet points I referenced there as shown on the screen, that comes straight from the Land Development Code, or basically right from it from a section that deals with annual beach permits. Obviously this is not an annual beach permit, but it would be just a one-time special event permit. This basically would allow us to have special events like other property owners on the Keewaydin Island have done, weddings, fundraisers, so forth. We just want to be treated the same way. With regard to the special events, the rules 13, 14, 15 and 16 basically deal with rules circumscribing our right to have a special event, if you will. Firework displays are not allowed, boat races not allowed. And there you see our notice requirements to DEP prior to. The insect control: Personal repellants only . We cannot cause or actually spray the area with chemicals. We are allowed the little mosquito magnets, although DEP says they don't work. Construction will occur from the beach side. There's a whole list of rules outside of sea turtle nesting season. Any dune vegetation that is damaged or destroyed will be replaced by native dune vegetation. Page 28 July 20, 2006 We have agreed not to request any shore hardening structures, no beach renourishment projects. We can't request them or support them for all of Keewaydin Island. We also agreed to construct and maintain on the property -- it's most likely going to be inside the pavilion itself -- an educational kiosk that's basically going to be approved, whatever education materials are there, approved by Rookery Bay . We are erecting boundary markers on the north and south edges of our property. And in addition to that, we are providing DEP with boundary markers 100 yards further to the north and the south. And the purpose for that is we have agreed -- and we'll get to that in a minute -- we have agreed for trash cleanup that on a daily basis we will not only clean up our own property but clean up 100 yards to the north and south of our property. So that's why the boundary markers are going to be provided to DEP, to show the limits of our agreement to clean. Any of the rules that I'm skipping over I probably have already talked about, so I don't mean to belittle them, but there -- they would be just redundant. On Page 7 is daily operations: Food and beverage, first of all. Nothing is going to be provided in terms of food and beverage sitting in the pavilion for use. Whatever is going to be used is going to be transported by shuttle vessel or by a member's private vessel on a daily basis. All food and beverages must be removed on a daily basis from the pavilion. So it's basically going to be a cooler type bring your food and drinks in by cooler and leave by cooler. Alcohol will be permitted on the property. We do know that state lands, you're not allowed to consume alcohol on the state lands to the north and south. We intend to enforce that rule, and all of our club members and their guests will be aware of it. And the rule states that open beverages cannot be carried beyond our property lines, open alcoholic beverages. Beach chairs and umbrellas may be provided for the convenience Page 29 July 20, 2006 of the guests. They will-- when not in use, they're going to be stored and locked underneath the pavilion. Again, it's going to be raised, so there will be storage room underneath, stored and locked. They will be manually carried out. Again, no motorized vehicle is going to be carrying them out. They're manually carried out to the beach and brought in when not in use. So again, the idea is by the time the pavilion closes, there will be nothing on the beach. Trash disposal: Page 8 of the operations manual. When we first started addressing this, it was described as a pack in/pack out facility. Basically what that means is all trash must be removed from the property on a daily basis. Wheeled trash receptacles will be provided and encourage their use. They must be brought in at the end of the -- at the close of the pavilion and locked and stored away underneath the pavilion. Rule 39 there is where we agreed to actually clean up 100 yards beyond our property boundaries, in addition to our own property. Beach raking is prohibited. And then you get into the habitat and wildlife considerations. Users must remain within marked pathways or on the boardwalk when traveling across the property. The feeding of wildlife is prohibited. Noise shall not exceed 65 decibels measured at the boundaries of the beach pavilion property, and otherwise comply with the Collier County Noise Control Ordinance, just like all the other properties out there. The number of 65 decibels was provided to us by Rookery Bay. Open fires are prohibited. Pets are prohibited. Live shelling is prohibited. The next few pages deal with the various types of wildlife that may be encountered out on the property. Marine Turtles. There are rules associated with them such as not to touch or disturb nests. No flashlights or flash photography. Gopher Tortoises are addressed with pictures. Obstruct -- you cannot obstruct or fill any burrows. Cannot touch, move, feed or Page 30 July 20, 2006 otherwise disturb the tortoises themselves. Shore birds are discussed with an explanation of what kind of shore birds may be seen. We cannot disturb nesting birds. We can't flush the nesting birds or intentionally disturb them. Manatees are addressed. Ray likes the picture. We cannot feed a Manatee. Cannot attempt to touch it. And then a few pages on the mangroves that you may see. Dune habitat, we're not allowed to pick or cut the Sea Oats. Going back to mangroves, only what's -- the only trimming that's going to be allowed is to maintain a passageway by boardwalk, through the boardwalk, and must be per regulations, state regulations. No other trimming of mangroves is permitted. And the operations manual then ends with the acknowledgement forms for the staff members and the club members that they must sign. Which brings us to Exhibit C. Exhibit C shows a number of things. Number one, it shows the area of the proposed footprint. Basically shown in green there, outlined in green. I'm sorry, no, it doesn't. The outline in green is the limit of future expansion. But the proposed footprint is 2,925 square feet. The shaded green area is the limit of future expansion of a total of 4,500 square feet. Then you have the remainder of the property, besides the boardwalk itself and the actual beach, the sand, is placed under conservation easement. In yellow there to the west of the pavilion is the 0.43-acre habitat preserve. That is what I referred to before. Ten percent of the property is required by code to be preserved. So that designates that portion of it. In addition to that, you see the blue area is essentially the area that we are proposing to impose a conservation easement granted to DEP, Rookery Bay. If in fact this conditional use approval is granted and this becomes -- this exhibit becomes effective, the result of it is 88 percent of the property will be under a conservation easement. Unprecedented Page 3 1 July 20, 2006 on any other privately owned property on Keewaydin Island. In addition, 98 percent of the native vegetation will be preserved. Again, unprecedented in terms of -- well, let me put it this way: The Growth Management Plan requires 10 percent preservation of native vegetation. Weare preserving 98 percent. The following page, this is the second page of Exhibit C. It's a composite exhibit. This is a blowup to give a little bit more definition and clarity about what we are -- what we mean by the limit of future expansion. And all it does is it zooms in to show the areas where we are limiting future expansion. And remember, that triggers the provision in the agreement whereby that green area cannot -- we can't even request it for five years. If after five years we -- the demand is there or we would like to request an expansion, then that is the limit to which we can go, and it would require another conditional use application and the same very process again. That's it for my discussion of the declaration of CCRs, or Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. We are offering this -- and this may respond to what the attorney for the county has said earlier -- we are offering this as part of the conditional use approval. So it will be rules and regulations that can be enforced, not only by DEP through the very operation of the words in this document, but also enforced by the county because it now becomes part of the conditional use approval. They are essentially conditions that if we violate, code enforcement can come after us for. We have received copies of some of the letters, namely from The Conservancy, Mr. Pires, and the Florida Wildlife Federation, authored by -- or signed by Nancy Payton. And I want to take just a minute or two to perhaps address some of those issues right upfront. There was a lot of talk about inconsistency with certain Growth Management Plan provisions. Basically in the general sense those were described as coming out of Goal 10 of the CCME, or the coastal and conservation management element of the Growth Management Page 32 July 20, 2006 Plan. I think I said that backwards, I think it's conservation and coastal management element. Essentially Goal 10 and the objectives and policies that follow it are concerned about maintaining the integrity, the environmental -- let me see some of the words -- the natural function of an undeveloped coastal barrier island and so forth and so on. We think that one of the policies that was cited by at least The Conservancy and Florida Wildlife Federation was Objective 10.3 of the CCME, and that states, undeveloped coastal barriers shall be maintained predominantly in their natural state, and their natural function shall be protected, maintained and enhanced. We are, as I said, preserving 98 percent of the native vegetation on the island. More so than some of the pictures you saw initially at my presentation on some of the other privately owned lots. We are placing 88 percent of the property under a conservation easement, which means we can't build on it forever. If that's not predominantly, I don't know what is. Unprecedented. The Conservancy cited Land Development Code Section 2.03.07.D.l, which is basically the ST or Special Treatment Overlay Provisions. They quoted in their letter this portion of that section: Such regulations are directed toward the conservation, protection and preservation of ecological and recreational values for the greatest benefit to the people of the county. The first two words, such regulations, if you actually go to that Land Development Code section, there are no regulations in it. The actual regulations that apply to an ST overlay are found essentially in the CCME, one of which is the one I just discussed. But you must -- the ST regulations that are those that are in the CCME essentially, the applicable ones, and we are consistent with each and every one of them. In addition, it's interesting that The Conservancy is quoting this, because they -- the language says that you're supposed to preserve for Page 33 July 20, 2006 the greatest benefit to the people of the county. And then they later in the letter say that this really should just be two single-family homes. Well, if this provision were strictly applied, what provides the greatest benefit to the people of the county? I propose to you that what we are in front of you today with provides a benefit to more people than two single- family homes. That's all I'll say. I don't want to go down that road for obvious reasons, but it's just curious to me that they would cite a provision that talks about opening up for the greatest benefit of the people of the county . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Clay? MR. BROOKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've afforded you a lot more time for presentation than most folks, and I've done that because this has been a very more or less heightened level of concern on this project. At 10:00 we're going to take a break for 15 minutes. I'd like you to wrap your presentation up by 10:00, if you can. MR. BROOKER: I'll be done before 10:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to have extensive questions, and you'll be -- and your experts will be answering questions for quite some time. MR. BROOKER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BROOKER: It was pointed out at the EAC that our EIS, or Environmental Impact Statement, failed to address what would happen if there's a six-inch rise in sea level. As a matter of fact, the six-inch rise in sea level provision is found in a coastal zone management of the LDC. It's not found in the EIS section currently of the LDC. So it was an inadvertent omission by our part -- on our part to omit that from the EIS. It was in fact not covered in the EIS. As you guys will see, I don't know, you might have hit it last night, but an LDC amendment has been proposed to make that very Page 34 July 20, 2006 clear in the EIS section as well. So the provisions that directly apply to EIS, what must go in it in Chapter 10 of the LDC, as opposed to the coastal zone management section of the LDC, now clearly state that this must be addressed in the coastal high hazard area. When this was brought up at the EAC, county staff -- environmental staff Steve Lenberger came up and addressed it right then and there. And the bottom line is if the sea level rises by six inches, nothing -- our proposal is fully functional. And the very simple explanation for that is that our proposal -- this building will be sitting on an elevation of about seven to eight feet. So if you take sea level at zero, we're seven to eight feet higher than that. It will be fully functional. In other words, if the sea level rises six inches, we'll still be six and a half to seven and a half feet above sea level. And that was addressed by county environmental staff at the EAC hearing. We also have Tim Hall here, our own environmental consultant, who can answer questions in that regard, if need be. Two final points, perhaps related, and then I quit. First is an allegation that it's incompatible, this proposal is incompatible with the island; and secondly, it sets what Nancy phrased a poisonous precedent. A nice alliteration there, but we disagree. First of all, incompatibility. If this proposal is incompatible, why does the Growth Management Plan allow it and why does the Land Development Code have it as a conditional use? Secondly, and related to this is we are a unique parcel, a unique privately owned parcel on Keewaydin Island in a sense that we are buffered like no other privately owned property. State lands are to our north and south for a significant distance. If there is a fear that someone down south could come in and propose the same thing, they cannot state that they are 1,000 feet from the nearest private property. We are. It's a natural buffer there. And our neighbors to the north and south we have worked with, you know, over the last nine months to bring forth this declaration to you. Page 35 July 20, 2006 So we don't believe it's incompatible. We believe it's compatible, and it's compatible for the very reasons cited in the EIS and all the rules we've agreed to. That's what makes it compatible. In addition, it's not a poisonous precedent, because by law approving a conditional use cannot serve as a precedent. And we are a uniquely situated property that cannot be duplicated anywhere else on Keewaydin Island. So therefore, we believe we have addressed the incompatibility. We are perfectly compatible and consistent with the Growth Management Plan and LDC provisions that apply, and this does not set a poisonous precedent because of the unique situational or locational aspects of the property. And with that, I conclude. Thank you for your time. I know it was very long. I had a lot to get through. It was just a matter of one of those things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Clay. And I think your thorough presentation may have helped answer questions that we may have had, although I'm sure we have still plenty more. With that, we'll take a 15-minute break till 10 after 10:00, and then we'll come back with questions. Thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now that you're off Clay's payroll and back on ours, we'll restart the meeting. We left off, Mr. Brooker finished his presentation, so I would think it's appropriate that we ask questions of the applicant and any of his consultants that are in the room, and then after that we'll follow it by the staff presentation. So with that, questions from the Planning Commission. I'll start with my left side, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. You mentioned in your presentation operation will be from dusk to dawn. I'm sure you meant from dawn to dusk, correct? Page 36 July 20, 2006 MR. BROOKER: That's correct, yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Could you put on that overhead that you had before which showed the location? It's an aerial photograph. No, up where the water was shown more, where the waterway is shown. Before that. The site location relative to the intercoastal. No, even farther than that. It was farther away from that. MR. BROOKER: The first one? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's the one. I'm a little confused. Could you indicate to me where the location of this project is? MR. BROOKER: Yes. Right around there. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, my understanding is this project's going to be 42 intercoastal waterway marker; is that correct? MR. BROOKER: I don't know. I don't know what the mile mark -- the marker is in the channel. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: At some of the meetings you indicated that's 42. And that's not where 42 is. Forty-two is further down there by the junction, close to Holloway Island. If you bring your arrow down. Down past the junction there. A little bit farther. Right about there. That is where marker 42 is. I'm confused as to the location. MR. BROOKER: The only other -- well, I don't know. Going back, I think the -- at the EAC, I know there are no water markers mentioned. At the neighborhood information meeting that's going back one year and one day -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's when it was. MR. BROOKER: I don't know. Ifin fact it was mentioned marker 42 and that's where you say 42 was, that's a mistake, because the property is in fact there. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, I have a chart here with me. That's why I checked it. That's why I was confused on the location. I had it marked on a chart. Page 37 July 20, 2006 And is there anyone else from your organization that could verify where the site actually is? MR. BROOKER: I mean, the subject property is where the arrow is now. Any reference to marker 42, if you are correct, was incorrect, and we apologize for that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay, thank you. Let me move on to another subject, that's the question of memberships. You mentioned 750 memberships. Now, those that are -- I'm going to refer to that as eligible people that now could attend the pavilion down there, not necessarily those that will attend, I recognize the occupancy is less. But now, are condo owners, are they members of the organization, the club? MR. BROOKER: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And what about condo renters, are they eligible as membership? At the neighborhood information meeting, you indicated they were. MR. BROOKER: I think in lieu of the owners, a condo renter would step into the shoes of the condo owner. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right. What about hotel guests? MR. BROOKER: Hotel guests are in fact members of the club. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What about boat slip owners? MR. BROOKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What about boat slip renters? MR. BROOKER: Same situation. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Again, at the neighborhood information meeting, you said that they would be eligible to be members. MR. BROOKER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Then all members can have guests, can they not? MR. BROOKER: Correct. Page 38 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And when we talk about membership, you also talk about general public, there will be some members there from the general public. MR. BROOKER: Not necessarily. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Not necessarily? MR. BROOKER: No. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But all of these others would be members, but would not also their spouses or family members have the access to the location? MR. BROOKER: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, if you then take that 750 memberships, it's possible that those eligible to attend the facility there could be 1,500, say in two per condo and so forth -- MR. BROOKER: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- considering family members and guests. Well, the occupancy on that 180- foot of beach there, as far as density loading, compared to say all of Collier County, is three times more. For example, if you take 440,000 people who live here in peak season that are here, plus the 31 miles of beach in Collier County and add a loading on that, you'll find that this property is three times more dense with population than will be attending that of the entire county. Which concerns me as far as the impact of people on the area down there. MR. BROOKER: Fifty-six people on the beach -- on this property is three times more dense, you're saying? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: For the -- at the same ratio. The ratio is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the clarification may need to be that Mr. Kolflat, I think he's acknowledged that the membership could be as high as 1,500. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Correct. Page 39 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at no time, based on the Memorandum of Agreement that they have, or what they've stated on the record, can a population on their property exceed 56 bodies -- or 57, sorry. MR. BROOKER: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They could have a 30,000 people membership, there still would be no more than 57 people on those pieces of property. I think that's the answer to your -- MR. BROOKER: And that includes staff members, yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Fifty-eight then. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, but I think if you still work it back to the county, it will show that it is more dense on it. Because if you take the percentage, that 56 people out of 1,500 is about three percent of the magnitude. And if you took three percent of the attendance for Collier County in its entirety, it would still be the same ratio of3-1. I'm only trying to point out that it's a heavy loading on that particular area of people that would be on that small area that supposedly is a pristine beach. MR. BROOKER: And there is documentation in Parks and Recreation that says Keewaydin Island can hold 8,000 beach goers at a time. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I didn't see that in the-- MR. BROOKER: It's there. I can show it to you, if you'd like. It's not part of this application, but it is in a document. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Let me switch to another subject, if I can. Let's get on generators. How many generators are there? One or two? MR. BROOKER: One. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: There's no backup in case that one goes out? MR. BROOKER: No. Page 40 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Will the generators be surrounded by sound baffling? MR. BROOKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, what will be done to mitigate adverse fume impacts? MR. BROOKER: The same thing that is done by other private property owners. I mean, they all get their power through generators. So we will agree to abide by whatever regulations that are imposed on other property owners on the Keewaydin Island. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But you haven't addressed any special consideration towards that? MR. BROOKER: Have we -- I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Have you addressed any special consideration towards the impact from fumes? MR. BROOKER: From fumes? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. MR. BROOKER: Not to my knowledge, other than it will just be disbursed into the air. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What is the size and location of gasoline and propane storage tanks that will supply the generator? MR. BROOKER: I don't know the answer to that question. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You don't know how big a tank or where it will be located? MR. BROOKER: No. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: How will the gas or propane be transported and unloaded at the beach resort? MR. BROOKER: By a shuttle vessel. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: A shuttle vessel? MR. BROOKER: And I guess the same way if a private home has to shuttle gas, we do it the same way they do. And if a private home has to store gasoline, we would do it the same way they do. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The operations manual lists the Page 41 July 20, 2006 personal elevator lift, potable water pump and lighting as the three electric power uses of the generator. Those are given as the basic uses of the generator. That's the elevator lift, potable water pump and lighting. Those are the three basic uses for the generator, according to your submittal. My question is, will not the generator also power equipment for staging, music amplification and other sound equipment? MR. BROOKER: No. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: How will that be powered then? MR. BROOKER: Through the special event permit process, we would have to figure those things out. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But, I mean, where would you get the electric power to operate them? Wouldn't that come from the generator? MR. BROOKER: Perhaps another mobile generator. A mobile generator. If in fact that is -- we need additional electric power to -- for example, there could be a harpist. He doesn't plug in at a wedding. That's not going to require additional power. Right now we are closing at dusk, so we don't need any lights for special events. So we really didn't even consider that, because we don't believe any special event is going to require additional power. If it would, we would have to go through the permitting process in that regard. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, but the operation manual says that there will definitely be sound music amplification, sound equipment and staging, which require electric power. And you're saying for those then, they will not use the generator but you'll bring portable generators on at that time? MR. BROOKER: You're mincing words. It does not say there will definitely be staging and equipment. It says in the event of a special event, we would have to take all of those into account. All of those kind of concerns into account. Page 42 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, I was only trying to find out where the power was coming from to motivate those, to operate those. MR. BROOKER: It would have to come either through the existing generator, if it has power enough to do that, or it would have to come from another mobile generator, again, permitted through the special event permit process, if we decide to go that route. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right. Now, will not the generator also supply power to recharge the motorized vehicle batteries at night when the vehicle's not in use? MR. BROOKER: We've talked about having the solar panels do that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Solar powers? MR. BROOKER: We have agreed in the operations manual to utilize solar power wherever feasible. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Where do you get the solar power? I've never heard of -- MR. BROOKER: From sun. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, I know it comes from the sun but, I mean, that's basically used for heating, not for generating electricity. MR. BROOKER: Do you know that for a fact? I always thought that you could have solar panels to charge batteries that could then be used for various purposes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I don't think so. You might be right, but I don't think so. What about a refrigerator for keeping the food cool? MR. BROOKER: Will not be one. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That will not be used? The food will not be under any kind of cooling? Will the operated pumps supply potable water demands for drinking, washing, toilets and irrigation? Page 43 July 20, 2006 MR. BROOKER: We have roof runoff that will be cisterned into a tank underneath the pavilion. To supplement that supply we will bring in water from the shore, essentially. Shuttle it in through the vessel. That water will then be used for the purposes of toilets, sinks and the shower. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But they will be pumped to those facilities by the pump; is that correct? MR. BROOKER: Correct. It will be -- it will most likely be pumped in through a pipe system located near the dock and pumped into this tank. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So any time anybody washes their hands or goes to the bathroom, why the water pump will have to be in operation and the generator will come on. MR. BROOKER: Not necessarily. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: How will you get the pressure there? MR. BROOKER: There might be pressure into -- I don't know how that engineering would work, but there might be pressure already in the system. But the water that's going to be used for toilets will already be in the tank, will not have to be pumped from any location. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, the point I'm trying to make is it seems to me that this generator is going to be a heavily burdened machine and is going to have to be in operation to cover not only a few items but several more items than you listed. And also the demand might be more than what you've indicated. What is the size of the generator; do you know? MR. BROOKER: I don't know. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. Now, there were going to be one or two shuttle boats? MR. BROOKER: One right now, two possible. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And the maximum capacity is 15 people? Page 44 July 20,2006 MR. BROOKER: Approximately, yes, correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, I know you don't plan to expand the existing three-vessel dock, but is it not true that a second dock is permitted with the second lot? MR. BROOKER: We could apply for that, yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So it's an application that could be made -- MR. BROOKER: Yes. And we're agreeing not to do that if you grant this approval. MR. KOLFLAT: But it is a permitted use. MR. BROOKER: A dock is a permitted use on that lot? MR. KOLFLA T: I mean, you could get a permit for that. MR. BROOKER: Perhaps. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What is the time required for the boat to travel between the two destinations, Boat Haven area and back down to the beach? MR. BROOKER: We've estimated between 35 and 45 minutes each way. MR. KOLFLAT: All right. Then on the events attended by more than 57 persons, these are what you call a special event, how will they be transported to the beach resort if there are only two boats having a total capacity of 30 people? MR. BROOKER: I guess private vessels who would come, drop off and leave. MR. KOLFLAT: So on those special events there would be a convoy or a series of vessels taking people down there? MR. BROOKER: Just like a wedding, the weddings that occur on Keewaydin Island now, yes. MR. KOLFLAT: All right. Let's move on to another subject. The routine limitations and restrictions contained in the operations manual for daily operations shall be exceeded at special events. That's what you say in the operations manual. Page 45 July 20, 2006 Why do you want to exceed those for special events? The limitations and restrictions seem to be what you were striving -- you were going to help to maintain the property in the conservation mode? Why then do you want to exceed it? MR. BROOKER: I think you may have misread the operations manual. Because we're just trying to define a special event as they shall include. In other words, it's a definition of what a special event is. In the event we exceed the routine limitations, that by definition is a special event for which we must meet the requirements. It's not that we must exceed the limitations, if I understood your question. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Let me just see here what it does say. MR. BROOKER: It's Page 3. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Down at the bottom of Page 3, in the last paragraph there, special events, it says special events shall include any event that exceeds the routine limitations or restrictions contained in this manual. And since those restrictions and limitations were put in there to protect the property, why do you make a point of exceeding those in special events? MR. BROOKER: It's primarily due to the 56-person cap. We are basically saying for a special event permit we are going to have to come in -- for a special event we're going to have to get a permit and all considerations, for example, trash, noise, lighting, whatever it may be. And we're not saying we're even going to ever have a special event, but we're reserving that right. They would all be taken into account during the permit process, which may in fact be denied. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, also in those special events, you say special events may include on-site meal service, electrical equipment for amplified music, enhanced light and sound, and with attendance in excess of 57 persons. Now, is there any limitation on the number of special events that Page 46 July 20, 2006 you'll have in a year -- or a month of time? MR. BROOKER: Not in this operations manual, no. MR. KOLFLAT: No. So it could be every day could be a special event? MR. BROOKER: Just like the properties on Keewaydin Island. MR. KOLFLAT: Now, alcohol, food and beverages are allowed on the pavilion property; that is correct, right? MR. BROOKER: Correct. MR. KOLFLAT: Are they for sale, or gratis? MR. BROOKER: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Are they for sale, or are they gratis? Are they free? MR. BROOKER: Oh, you know, I don't even know. I know that the club will be probably bringing out a cooler of beverages. Whether they're actually going to be for sale, we haven't even gotten to that kind of operational detail yet. MR. KOLFLA T: Well, I'm trying to get a feel for what your operation is and commercially, whether you're going to sell the food, sell the alcohol, sell the other beverages, or whether they're just going to be donated by the owner. MR. BROOKER: We haven't gotten to that point. I mean, everything's going to be brought in by cooler and stored by cooler. So it's self-limiting in that aspect. It's not going to become a bar, if that's what you're saying. MR. KOLFLA T: Well, the operation manual states of course the operations are dawn to dusk, but states that the food and the beverages are removed by 9:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m. is later than dusk. MR. BROOKER: That was a time limit placed by the Rookery Bay. We simply agreed to it. I think what that -- the idea was there, if people are getting off the property because it closes at dusk, give us a little bit of leeway time to get everything cleaned up and out of there by 9:00 p.m. I think that was the intent behind that. Page 47 July 20, 2006 MR. KOLFLAT: Now, will the chairs and umbrellas be hand carried to storage under the pavilion in the evening? Is that where they will be placed, under the pavilion? MR. BROOKER: Yes. MR. KOLFLA T: Now, will the water bikes, kpyaks, wind surfers, intertubes and other beach equipment also be stored there? MR. BROOKER: If they're provided, yes. MR. KOLFLAT: Thank you. Now, one last question, and this concerns me, is the program personnel and funding for the enforcement of the operations manual. You describe quite a bit on what's to be done. I'd like to find out a little bit on who is going to do what. I mean, will there be guards at the dock to check people coming in? And also, what is the program that they will follow? And then also, what kind of funding has been set up for that and who will be responsible for the funding? Just a general overview on that. MR. BROOKER: The enforcement of it will be through a combination of on-land and on -- on land, by that I mean at the point where the shuttle vessel leaves -- and on the subject property itself. Obviously observatory enforcement by the staff members on the property . On land, as far as determining the number of people who are going to be traveling out or visiting to the island, the ideas we've discussed are to have a sign-up sheet, a reservation sheet, that sort of thing where we can keep an accurate tally of the numbers of visitors on the island at anyone given time. I would also imagine that there is going to be radio control, two-way radios between shore and subject site so accurate monitoring can take place. As far -- I mentioned on my presentation, we're not going to be doing turnstiles, anything like that for counting, but we're going to come up with a system that accurately monitors the number of people4 Page 48 July 20, 2006 on the site at anyone given time. In addition to that -- for example, if you have 10 people that leave on the shuttle and it goes out -- the shuttle arrives at the property and a private vessel arrives with three, that information should be transmitted back to the shore so now we all know that there are 13 people on the property. And I think that's the way the operations will take place. With regard to the remainder of it, the rules and regulations, it's going to be an enforcement by staff members who are on the property, Rookery Bay enforcement, Conservancy has the right to drive up and down on A TV's, the beach, to take a look at what's going on. I'm sure they'll do it. And the Collier County Code Enforcement, I believe Susan O'Farrell is the code enforcement officer who's in charge of this, of Keewaydin Island, who's actively prosecuting cases as we speak. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Who will these personnel work for that will be doing this? MR. BROOKER: The code enforcement person -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Not-- MR. BROOKER: -- will be working for the county; Rookery Bay person will be working for DEP; our staff members will be working for the club. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And who will have primary responsibility for the enforcement of those groups? MR. BROOKER: It's a combination of them all. We have self-enforcement obligations pursuant to the agreement. DEP has perpetual around-the-clock access to the property, even after night, if they wish, to come and to monitor the property to ensure that the rules are being abided by. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome, sir. Page 49 July 20, 2006 Mr. Schiffer, do you have questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do. Clay, has anybody calculated the cistern, how much water you'll get, what's going to be happening there? Because I've done things like that in the past and -- MR. BROOKER: I don't think we've calculated that. We obviously would like to maximize the roof runoff. That's a function of rain. So we're going to have a tank. I believe there is some discussion to have a tank that would hold perhaps a two-day supply of water that can be used for the toilets and the sinks. But again, an operational characteristic that we haven't, you know, made any final conclusions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, there's a big concern that this is going to bring commercial activity to the island. And looking at the size of the beach club, which you wanted 56 people, the building is really much bigger than you need for 56 people, so -- unless you want an expansion. So what is going to be happening above and beyond that 56 people out there? In other words, the building's a huge building for what -- you only need a building around 750 feet to hold that many people in an assembly occupancy. The size of your building could legally, by life safety codes, hold around 160 people. You really -- you'll need a second stair, by the way, or a second exit off of that building. But I mean, so in other words, it's really sized much bigger than need be to achieve the beach club daily use. MR. BROOKER: I believe the size of the building was a function of allowing people to sit down and relax. And 56 people in a 750 square foot building, I don't believe you're having people sitting down and relaxing in it. The 56 people was a function of that diagram, what kind of convenience could be provided to that number of people in that size building, and that's how we ended up with that square footage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The bathrooms are sized to take Page 50 July 20, 2006 upwards to 500 people. I mean, the counts. I mean, obviously your answer would be you're providing a luxury situation for bathrooms. But my concern is that the building is really much bigger, and you want to even make it bigger. What would you do in that expansion? What's your thought? Just putting more decking around it? MR. BROOKER: I want to be very clear about this expansion. We have zero plans to expand. This is not Phase 1. That's why we agreed to a -- for five years we thought that would send a message that we have no plans for expansion. But in the event that we need to extend it out a bit, it's going to be an extension, as far as I understood. If we apply for it and if it is approved by the county by going through this whole process again, it would just be an expansion of that kind of concept. Nothing more than that, nothing more extravagant, nothing sneaky. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean -- and again, my concern is because I think the beach club -- you know, I'm kind of comfortable with that. A small beach club would make sense. But this thing is really sized larger. Therefore, I think you're focusing on the special events. So you have no limit on what the special events are. Does the county require permits now? Your special events permit says if required you'll get permits. So if it's not required, you won't get them. Are they required? MR. BROOKER: If in fact we go above 56 people, by definition we are required to get one. By operation of this declaration. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the lead-in says special events are permitted that are subject to the club, obtaining all permits, if required, from Collier County. So in other words, if it's not required, the rest of that section disappears, or not? MR. BROOKER: Well, no, I think the -- that "if required" was Page 51 July 20, 2006 added in there because the special event permit processes in the LDC differ per what type of event, temporary sales and so forth and so on. So I added that phrase in there early on just to be careful that for things that aren't triggered, if we don't trigger one of these -- on Page 4, trigger one of these things that by definition make it a special event, I don't want someone coming down the road and saying, oh, well, you're having, you know, a gathering, a birthday party for 20 people. That to me is not a special event. No more than, you know, a birthday party on any other private property lot on Keewaydin Island. So I think the idea was we're just trying to be careful. We will -- we are required to get a special event permit for everything that's listed here. And what's listed here comes right out of the annual beach permit section of the LDC. So there's a close linking between what the LDC states and this. But I just want to be careful that someone isn't going to claim we need a special event permit for an event that's really not a special event. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager. The Land Development Code on Section 10.02.06 has the requirements for temporary events that would -- and I think what Clay is talking about, those events that exceed the number of 57 individuals, they would obtain a temporary use permit from the county. The county limits the number that a property can have a special event to 28 days out of the year. So they can apply for more than 28 special events. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so there is a maximum number you could have. MR. BROOKER: According to Ray, yes. That's news to me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it is required. There's no maximum for how many people you could have for this special event, is there? I mean, could you have Woodstock there? MR. BROOKER: No, we have not placed a maximum. But obviously if we come in for a special event of 1,000 people, what do Page 52 July 20, 2006 you think the chances of getting that special permit granted are? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No idea. No guarantee here. MR. BROOKER: Joe Schmitt will deny it. MR. SCHMITT: Brad, I think the limit would be based on the fire rating for the building, wouldn't it? I mean, that's the only -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, and that's kind of my suspicion, because the thing is designed to handle -- like I said, the bathrooms are upwards to 500 people. The size the room right now could take, from my calculation, and I do this a lot, is 165 people. So in other words, the -- while the beach club is there, the building that's necessary for that is not what you're building, you're building the building for the special events. MR. BROOKER: I can tell you, that was not the intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. One more thing. By the way, the septic tank you described would require electricity also, so -- MR. BROOKER: Yeah, I understood that that is always -- to pump air into that inside tank you need power. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not much. MR. BROOKER: Yeah, it's not very much, I guess, from what I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: This agreement that we've been talking about you said came about after your meeting with the EAC. Did you go back to the EAC after you put this agreement together and resubmit this to the EAC? MR. BROOKER: Did they offer that? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I said did you do that? Did you go back to the EAC once this agreement was all hashed out-- MR. BROOKER: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and see -- MR. BROOKER: We've been to the EAC one time. Page 53 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And they denied 9-0. As a result, you said, of questions that arose out of that denial came your efforts to put this agreement together. Did you take this back -- MR. BROOKER: Revisions to it. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- to the EAC? MR. BROOKER: Revisions to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. MR. BROOKER: I'm sorry, I spoke out of turn. I violated your rule. Sorry. Can you repeat your question? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to know if you had gone back to the EAC once this agreement was hashed out. MR. BROOKER: We did not do that. COMMISSIONER CARON: You did not. And one of the -- on one of the photos you were showing, you made much of the clearing around some of the single-family homes. That clearing is legal clearing, correct? MR. BROOKER: I have no idea. I'm just telling you what the aerials show, that there was more native vegetation clearing on many, many properties on the Keewaydin Island than we have proposed. If you're trying to keep in a predominant natural function and state, we are doing more so than a majority of those homes. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you would find that the clearing that's happened is legal clearing. Whether it's good or bad -- MR. BROOKER: Yeah, if I could supplement the answer to that question. Not all the clearing on Keewaydin Island has been legal. There are several code enforcement cases pending right now for the complete denuding of a private property on Keewaydin, impacting Gopher Tortoise burrows, destroying 400 sea oats, excavating the beach to use the sand for fill on the property and for pathways, with the use of a Bobcat. That's illegal. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Page 54 July 20, 2006 MR. BROOKER: If those allegations are true. COMMISSIONER CARON: Were any of those properties the ones that you showed? MR. BROOKER: No. But I can. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer made note of the fact that you have a rather luxurious bathroom, but you're not going to have any lights in there, so I guess it's not the luxury that perhaps everybody's saying. Because you're saying no lights other than -- the only lights you're going to use are -- MR. BROOKER: No lights. COMMISSIONER CARON: So no lights in those bathrooms. MR. BROOKER: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. The higher septic number that you're using, is that actually in anticipation of expanding, the expansion you're talking about? MR. BROOKER: No. And let me expound upon that. Because we are caught with a Catch-22 there. We were told by the EAC that well, there's a lot of discussion at the EAC hearing about the septic system and what happens if raw sewage gets pumped out all over the island. So we went back and we looked at that. And as kind of a corollary comment on an earlier question, we took a lot of what the EAC did and revised what you see here today . We took their concerns that were aired into account to try to address them. And one of the problems we faced internally is what if we tried to address that septic issue by increasing the size so there really is very, very little chance of anything ever happening that was discussed at the EAC. And then someone says aha, what you're really doing is preparing for a bigger building or more people. You can't have it both ways. That's not why we did it. We did it to try to address any concerns of septic issues, not to provide capacity for a future hypothetical special event or expansion. We fully realized Page 55 July 20, 2006 that this question may be asked of us or that implication may arise from that. And I guess we're -- you know, we have to deal with that and just tell you that we went into this knowing that that kind of comment might come up, but that was truly not the intent. COMMISSIONER CARON: How many people is Rookery Bay assigning to monitoring? MR. BROOKER: I have no idea. COMMISSIONER CARON: So they -- you didn't discuss that in your conversations with them? MR. BROOKER: About how many people would be assigned to this property? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. BROOKER: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: To monitor. MR. BROOKER: We just gave them unlimited access to the property, however they wish to access -- exercise that right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Once the 750 club members, those original 750 club members sign off that they've read your manual, are you then off the hook? I mean, what happens if the following week they sell their condo unit and there's a new member? MR. BROOKER: They -- all members must sign. So if there's a sale, that new owner must sign as well. COMMISSIONER CARON: So that will go forever. MR. BROOKER: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Controlling the 56 people, one of the first aerials that you showed was of the southern tip of Keewaydin where everybody pulls their boats up to the beach on weekends. MR. BROOKER: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Once you've got 56 people out on your property and I as a member of Renaissance Village pull up in my boat and just pull my boat up to the beach, are you going to deny me access to, for example, the restrooms in your-- Page 56 July 20, 2006 MR. BROOKER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That's going to be interesting policing. If the -- MR. BROOKER: Well, hopefully that -- hopefully you're dealing with a situation where you're assuming 56 people are already on the property. And hopefully -- we hope to disseminate information. On some of the more busier days, if we know there are a certain number of people and we have a private member who has a wet slip, for example, who perhaps asks, we would tell them we're going to try to avoid any unpleasant encounters of that kind. But in the event we do -- are exposed to that encounter, we have to enforce the rules. COMMISSIONER CARON: If the dunes are destroyed in any way during construction, how long is it going to take to restore them? MR. BROOKER: I think that's a question for our environmental specialist, Tim Hall, if he could come up and answer. MR. HALL: Good morning. For the record, Tim Hall with Turrell & Associates. I guess it kind of depends on what you mean by restored. In terms of recontouring the dune, that can be done within a matter of days. Then the rephintings are done, but in the time frame for those plantings to become established, it could be anywhere from six months to a year and a half, depending on, you know, environmental conditions and so forth. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. Right now you have a dock on the property. Do you need a special permit for that dock, now that it's going from a residential dock as it currently sits to a commercial dock? MR. BROOKER: It will be converted, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: But you do need special permits for that? Page 57 July 20, 2006 MR. BROOKER: It is permitted, but it has to be converted from residential to a commercial use, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Your pavilion, one of the EAC questions was what happened if a six-foot -- six-inch rise in sea level happened. Your pavilion obviously will be well above that. What about the boardwalks? What's the height of-- MR. BROOKER: Where the boardwalk will end is going to be approximately between 4.8 and 6.4 feet above sea level. So nothing, to answer your question. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ms. Caron. And I have a series of questions. But Mr. Adelstein has assured me he has one question he'd like to ask before I start mine. So Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: One statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm going to go after Mr. Adelstein, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You keep saying 56 and 57 when the answer should be 58, because after 56 you have two employees, so it would be 58 people. MR. BROOKER: No, the 56 member -- or 56 at anyone time includes staff. So if we have two staff members on the property, we can have 54. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Oh, you mean you actually -- you can't have 56 members there. MR. BROOKER: That's correct, we cannot. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, that's what -- I didn't understand it that way. Okay, the one thing I did want to understand, this manual. Is this going to be a manual of what they can do and what they can't do, and are they going to have to read it and then sign it in? Or is this a manual of telling how good this is going to be? Page 58 July 20, 2006 MR. BROOKER: They have to read it and sign it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I mean, what type of manual is it? Is it one that tells them what they can do and what they can't do? MR. BROOKER: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Clay, there's been a lot of discussion about density. And I talked to you about this yesterday. You believe that because of the footprint of the building, your density is equitable to the other projects on the Keewaydin Island? Is that how you've interpreted density? MR. BROOKER: Well, this is not a single-family home, so a density concept cannot apply. But as a matter of fact, we can place two homes on -- or a home on each lot and be consistent with density. Two single-family homes on each lot and be consistent with the density standards set forth in the Growth Management Plan. So to ask a question of whether this particular pavilion meets a density standard is an impossible question to answer, because those are incompatible concepts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, density includes an analysis of dwelling units. Dwelling units include the facilities to house a family. If you were to ask David Weeks what the persons per household calculation was in Collier County -- and I remember this because it came out in the Ave Maria debate over how many -- what their PPH was versus what the county's standard norm is. The county's standard norm is 2.39 persons per household. You're looking at 56 people, 57 people. If you divide that by 2.39, you come up with an equivalency of 23 homes. Basically it would take 23 homes to house on the average of a -- with a person household calculation, 2.39, that many people. And I know that you've just acknowledged the site is set for two homes. Yet the density and the intensity of the use is more like 23 homes. You want to comment on that? Page 59 July 20, 2006 MR. BROOKER: Okay. Well, the way I can respond is this: When we say two single-family homes can go on this property, one on each lot, the impact to the actual island in terms of footprint will be greater. Would be greater. There's a 4,000 square foot home on Keewaydin Island. There's a 6,000 square foot home on Keewaydin Island. We could put that kind of size home on this island without any regulations restricting the number of people we could bring to those properties. There's nothing prohibiting, as of today, us bringing 56, 106, 206 people out to that property, and that same lack or absence of restrictions would exist if we placed a single-family home on each lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the intensity is a big part of the density factor. And I think you're referring to the fact yes, you brought more people there to utilize the beach in the manner of passive recreation which your application is stating you're using. There might be no way to regulate that quantity. But I think that the construction of your pavilion may indicate it's greater than the passive recreation intentions of what passive recreation is. Are you aware that we have an LDC amendment coming through, and it's in the package that was reviewed that we started last night that has a definition for passive recreation? MR. BROOKER: Yeah, and I -- my understanding is that definition only applies to that particular provision in which it's being proposed. And I can't recall where it's being -- I've seen it, but I don't believe it applies here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the definition doesn't indicate the inclusion of a facility like you're talking about, from the way I read it. MR. BROOKER: Well, the Growth Management Plan talks about passive recreational structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no definition of passive recreation yet in our LDC. MR. BROOKER: Correct. Page 60 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the FEMA elevation of this building? Since it has to be above flood, do you know what the flood elevation is? MR. BROOKER: I believe it's 11 or 12. And I know that our first floor will start about 12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And your existing grade is probably two and a half or three; do you know? MR. BROOKER: I think the survey shows elevations between seven and eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, five feet then. I'm just looking at the gravity feed that the systems on the higher elevation will have to your septic tank. And my next question will be about your septic tank. And I was wondering, the design of the septic tank, what elevation design is it designed to? What will be the drain field height, the tank height? What storm event is it designed to? MR. BROOKER: I think I'll ask Dave Sneed to talk about -- I know there are separation distances for the drain field and that sort of thing, and I defer. MR. SNEED: For the record, my name is David Sneed with Coleman Engineering. To answer your question, Mark, the drain field and the septic, which really is an advanced wastewater system on the island, is designed in compliance with what the state has mandated that we put on Keewaydin. The elevation of the drain field right now will be roughly 16 -- it will be 16 inches above the existing grade. And the elevation of the tank itself will be roughly at the grade, just raised a little bit more and obviously to keep the water from going into the tank and to allow access into the tank itself, the system, the advanced wastewater system, in order to maintain the system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is a septic tank the same as a sewage treatment plant? Page 61 July 20, 2006 MR. SNEED: No, no. The system that we're proposing, and it actually is required to be used on Keewaydin, is an aerobic system, where a septic system uses an anaerobic system. So by injecting the air and oxygen into the tank, this produces -- and it's almost acting like your sewer treatment plant. And from the -- once the water's treated within the tank itself, then it goes into a drain field. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there was a six-inch rise in sea level, how would it affect your design? MR. SNEED: To my knowledge, it wouldn't affect it at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, that's all I've got in the septic. And Clay, are you willing to talk about the Memorandum of Agreement, or is that something more for Rookery Bay? MR. BROOKER: I'll take a shot. I'm sure Keith will answer, if he can, as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one thing outside the memorandum. I know it's relying on Rookery Bay to police the facility, as well as your voluntary policing of the facility. You just acknowledged that Keewaydin Island has multitudes of violations of clearing of natural vegetation and even Gopher Tortoise habitat. If Rookery Bay hasn't caught that, how are they going to keep an eye on you guys? MR. BROOKER: Well, they are, they are prosecuting those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How long has that been going on? MR. BROOKER: Has the prosecution been going on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, how long have the violations been going on? MR. BROOKER: Oh, I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe they can-- MR. BROOKER: I mean, maybe forever. I mean, according to the code enforcement department -- well, I'm not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and that's where I'm concerned Page 62 July 20,2006 about, the reliance upon Rookery Bay to enforce this Memorandum of Agreement, and they're looking at violations that have been going on forever. I'm wondering if the violations on your facility could go on longer than expected, based on their ability to police them. In the memorandum agreement on Page 3, number eight, it talks about -- MR. BROOKER: Are you talking the operations manual or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm talking about Page 3 of the first -- of the document you sent us. The third page that's labeled three on the bottom. MR. BROOKER: And the only reason I ask is because there are several pages three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. This is the first Page 3. MR. BROOKER: First Page 3, got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number eight up on top, all notices, consents, approvals and other communications hereunder shall be in writing or sent by United States Certified Mail, return receipt, or shall be hand delivered by a recognized overnight courier service. Now that's for all notices, consents and approvals and other communications. If you go to the agreement now, on Page 5 -- actually it's not Page 5, it's paragraph five, section five, whatever you want to call it, because your numbers -- your pages aren't numbered -- it says, DEP will timely document in writing and including photographs if possible alleged violations of the operations manual, and within five days of the alleged violation shall notify Basil Street Partners of those alleged violations in writing by hand delivery and mail to 365 Fifth Avenue South. Is there a disconnect between those two processes? MR. BROOKER: I don't believe so. I just believe that the -- in the declaration page, paragraph eight on the first Page 3, that's your generic notice provision that you find in most agreements. When you Page 63 July 20, 2006 actually -- or most declarations. When you get to the paragraph five of the agreement, that's a specific provision dealing with violations of this agreement and, therefore, that would control and delivery would have to be by hand and mail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, on that same paragraph in the agreement, DEP will have to first document the incident. Then they have -- within five days they have to supply you with a notice of that by hand delivery and by mail. And then you either rectify the issue or you dispute it within five days. Then you have some time to try to resolve it. And then if you make a reasonable attempt to resolve it, there's no -- or to rectify, there's no fine. And if you go to the next page, on number nine, for each instance of a particular violation committed by permanent visitors, and then it says not including unresolved dispute violations pursuant to paragraph seven above. If you've attempted corrected action, then would that incident be logged in as a violation that would accumulate to your total violation? MR. BROOKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 1 of the operations manual, you have italics, all employees and members of the club must read this document and sign the attached form acknowledging their understanding of its contents. So every time they come, they get on the boat, they've got to sign this? MR. BROOKER: No, I think they sign it once. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At what point would they sign it, when they get their 300 pages of condominium documents when they buy their unit? MR. BROOKER: Yes. Or I don't -- I don't know exactly when -- when the staff member would sign it, it would be when he or she is employed for this purpose. And a condominium unit owner, yes, it Page 64 July 20, 2006 would be -- I would assume it would be part of the documentation that goes along with club membership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the husband and wife leave the kids in the hall, they go in and they sign these papers. The wife usually doesn't read them, the husband doesn't read them but signs them. Their attorney may look at them and read it. But the person that's actually going to be utilizing this club is not sitting there probably reading 22 pages of an operations manual about how to walk on the beach. Is that -- are you expecting that to happen? MR. BROOKER: Two responses: Number one, if they violate, too bad, they're out. Number two, an educational program is going to be provided on the shuttle vessel out to the property, with the assistance of Rookery Bay. And what we are now considering or contemplating is some sort of video that basically hopefully will go through these rules in that 35 to 45-minute trip. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they'll only be signing at the one time. MR. BROOKER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about renters? MR. BROOKER: Yes. Anyone who uses the property would have to sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would you monitor that? MR. BROOKER: I guess we would have a master list or we would know who's a renter and who's not, and we would make sure that they sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that the fact that they've got to sign that and read it is real part and parcel to this whole agreement. And if there's not some bona fide way to make sure they do sign it, that could be a problem. MR. BROOKER: Well, I believe there's -- you know, again, there's many catches here. You know, we're going to have an Page 65 July 20, 2006 educational program on the boat, the vessel, we'll have an educational kiosk in the pavilion, and we'll have staff members who will definitely have read it and signed it who will be monitoring and correcting if anything they see goes wrong. So we hope to -- you know, I guess in a sense no enforcement system or no rule enforcement is perfect in the sense that you can guarantee that every provision will be abided by. But we have multiple levels of trying to inform everyone of what the rules are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have quite a few questions of staff. We'll move on to Mr. Adelstein. Do you have any further questions, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I do. Just go over a couple of things quickly just to clarify for myself. The sea level thing about the ADA compliant, if the water were to rise, you'd have to move everything up, wouldn't you? But you've indicated that the cistern is -- I wouldn't think the cistern is enclosed, but the septic system is enclosed and pressurized, from what I understood. That's correct? And it is down sufficiently? But it would not be impacted by any rise in water, any saltwater. MR. SNEED: That is correct, because essentially the septic system -- again, the advanced wastewater system, it has a volume of water in it to start with to maintain the -- that's what keeps the balance. Much like a swimming pool. That's why you don't pump down a swimming pool when a hurricane comes, because of the water that's in there. So as far as any flotation, there's no problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This appears to be a change from what was in the documents that called for a composting toilet. That's not going to be the case anymore, huh? The way it was described, there was a composting toilet and that the drain fields Page 66 July 20, 2006 would be used for excess in the event that there was overflow or something went wrong with the system. MR. SNEED: Well, as far as the composting toilet, I was advised that that mayor may not go in. But we've designed a system -- this actually would act as the composting system -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I got that impression. MR. SNEED: -- by putting the advanced wastewater system in. Which was requested at the -- one of the comments at the first public meeting someone made the statement that they would prefer an advanced wastewater system over a drain field type system. And that's what we've come -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But the drain field still exists, and I would poke that question next. The drain field that we were shown in the pictures that we saw, is that the enlarged drain field, or is that the original drain field? And I think -- and I surmise it's the original drain field. MR. SNEED: That was the original drain field, but it's also -- I believe the picture's indicating -- the state requires that you have a drain field of a certain size, and then you have to have a percentage over that. You have to double that to show it as green area, or unobstructed area around the drain field. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And is that subject to maintenance? MR. SNEED: It could be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that in the conservation easement? MR. SNEED: I don't believe. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's exclusive of the conservation easement? MR. SNEED: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I didn't see that from the depiction. Page 67 July 20, 2006 Getting into -- there are so many issues. Mark went into the agreement, but -- and thank you, sir. And I myself, I was concerned with the issue of complaint and your -- and Basil Street Partners being able to take issue with DEP and argue back and forth and so forth. And I think I overheard as I was coming out that the records would be maintained, even if it were subj ect to dispute. And even if you had won the dispute -- I want that to be clarified -- if you had won the dispute would that then still be retained in that record? And as an additive to your accumulative number? MR. BROOKER: What we are concerned about was sabotage. F or example, Conservancy could drive a motorized vehicle across the beach. Someone sees it, reports it, it wasn't us. We're not allowed a motorized vehicle. That shouldn't be a violation. Another example is what if someone at night beaches a boat and has a bonfire on the property unaware to us? That shouldn't be something that we are guilty of in terms of violating that rule, because they're not -- there's not a permitted visitor on the property. So the way it works is that if we dispute a violation for that reason, or for others, it still counts as a record of a violation. However, anything that's disputed, we don't pay that mitigation sum. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, but I'm trying to understand then about the accumulation, because you have a max of I think it's what -- MR. BROOKER: Seven in any 30-day period. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And 15 in a year. MR. BROOKER: In a 12-month period. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Twelve-month period. So would that still count then and reach that point? MR. BROOKER: Yes, it could. It's tough on us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right, thank you. Of the -- I'm sorry? The person who's responsible to take names or to verify those persons are allowed on the beach, allowed at the Page 68 July 20, 2006 pavilion, let's just create for the moment a condition where somebody who has signed their paper, doesn't particularly care anyway, and chooses to drop a bunch of their guests off at the -- right off there at the dock and takes off with their boat because they're going to go fishing or something. How are you going to get those people you're not going to allow -- because on my scenario here that I'm picturing we already are at max. How are we going to handle those excess people who have now been dropped off? Are you going to isolate them? You said before to Ms. Caron's question you wouldn't let others use the toilet. What would you do in that circumstance? MR. BROOKER: I guess there are a couple of things. First we would try to stop the boat from speeding away and put the immigrants back on, I don't know. A second thing we could possibly do is use the shuttle vessel to shuttle those people back to shore. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you would hold them at the dock, I assume? MR. BROOKER: Correct. In a holding cell. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's right. But now, you know, we can kibitz about it, but the truth is, is that you are trying to -- and you're trying to think out as many ways as you can that you can create controls. And I'm seeing when there's 15 people or less you've got one individual, and you've got a distance -- what did we say the distance was east and west, 1,000 feet? MR. BROOKER: Right, with half of that being mangrove community. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well-- but it's 1,000 feet of distance. MR. BROOKER: Sure. Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And people can be in a state of occupation within that 1,000 feet and the person who is I assume going to be centrally located at the pavilion, and probably presumably back and forth to the beach providing services, that person is Page 69 July 20, 2006 essentially a concierge individual and you're making him a service security person as well. So I'm really asking a legitimate question truly where -- it may come to pass where people will do things such as pulling up at the beach, and I really wonder what kind of controls you can realistically provide and what kind of police powers these people have. Because it does come down to a question of whether or not somebody comes onto your property; that constitutes a trespass in that context, doesn't it? MR. BROOKER: The legal term trespass, I don't know, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't know, you're prohibiting numbers -- you're prohibited numbers and you have guests who are there and they think they're legitimate but you're saying they're not. MR. BROOKER: Well, I think what will happen is, for example, say you have 12 people on the property and one staff person there and then another four or five people come to the property and all of a sudden we have eclipsed the 15 rule. We need to bring someone else onto the property to monitor that, and we intend to do that. That I believe -- I think answers your first hypothetical. Now, if it gets to the point where we're at our capacity -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was my hypothetical. MR. BROOKER: -- 50 or so people and another load of 12 people come along, it's going to be stopping them at some point. They can either arrive by the beach, which we think they would be easily observable, or by one boardwalk coming in from the dock where they will see people walking down a dock, the staff members, and can stop them at an appropriate time and say I'm sorry. That's -- you gave me a hypothetical and that's my thinking -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I respect the response, thank you. MR. BROOKER: -- that's how it would go down. Page 70 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question with regard to the boardwalk. The boardwalk, because you have A.D .A. issues, I assume there will be railings? MR. BROOKER: I don't know what the A.D.A. requires. I know if you get to a certain elevation above grade, railings are required. If not, perhaps a rope system. But we will comply with the A.D.A., whatever it states, whatever the rules are. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, in your effort to comply with A.D.A., I'm wondering whether that will have a negative impact on animal transverse of the property. For instance, deer, will they be inhibited from making way north and south? What means -- I'm assuming tortoises and the like can find their way around it. But larger animals, will they be prohibited from getting to where they'd like to go? MR. BROOKER: The -- perhaps Rookery Bay could answer that question better than I. But the height we propose was about -- I think we said somewhere between -- I'm going to be interrupted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine. MR. BROOKER: And I don't mind at all. MR. HALL: One of the -- I'm sorry, Tim Hall, for the record, agaIn. One of the issues that the DEP had brought up for Rookery Bay was the height of the boardwalk. And where we have it now at 24 to 30 inches above grade will provide ample access for animals to go underneath it and still be able -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Deer? MR. HALL: Yes, sir, a deer can go under a 30-inch height very easily. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, I didn't know that. There's a question that came up in my mind regarding time, the effective date of the agreement. Conditional use is good for three years. If I'm not mistaken, that has to be renewed and I don't know Page 71 July 20, 2006 how many times it can be renewed. I'm just wondering about that whole process. But it would seem to me, from the way the process works here, that your requirement would kick in at a certain point against a building which we don't know when will be finished, because that's when it will open, right? Wouldn't that be darn close to the end of your first two years of a conditional use? MR. BROOKER: It perhaps could be. We obviously wanted to include an effective date provision in the declaration, what people are calling an M.O.U. or M.O.A., for the sole reason that we don't want to say it's immediately effective and must be recorded in the public records as soon as people sign it, because what if you guys say no? Then we have something that's running with the land, a set of rules that doesn't apply to a structure -- or that apply to a structure that never can be built. So we tried to -- the timing may be a little tricky in that sense, but the effective date of this will be basically it must be recorded as soon as we obtain the last permit that's required to allow us to build the pavilion, which probably will be the building permit. Now, whether that starts bumping up to the conditional use time period, I don't know. I can't answer that. I don't know the answer to that question, other than we'll kind of keep an eye on it and make sure everything flows as smoothly as possible. But that's the reason why we put that effective date provision in there, just be unfair (sic) to us to impose a conservation easement over 88 percent of the property and then the county says oh, thank you, but no. And now that's running with the land and the DEP is running to the bank. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. My only concern was, is that it seemed that by the time everything gets done, you'll be darn close to your renewal period. And again, I'm not really clear on a conditional use having -- essentially your intent is for the useful life of the structure and beyond, Page 72 July 20, 2006 and I don't know that a conditional use really fits in that realm. But okay, there are a lot of things that have been covered now, so I'm going to pass now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, did you have something you wanted to add to Mr. Murray's -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- comments? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: -- for clarification, and staff can weigh in here, if they want. A conditional use expires three years after the date of the grant if the use that was granted doesn't commence. And then you can get a one-year extension. But -- and then there's another provision in the code that if you discontinue the conditional use, I think it's for a year, then it goes away. But -- generally. So what I had said earlier was there were certain types of conditional uses where the board -- and it was pretty rare, but where the board put -- you know, you get this for a certain amount of time and then you come back in. That's not the general rule. That's only in very limited cases where the board did that. Because the code states here that the conditional use again, once you've got it going and the structure's built and all that that it's granted for, then it just goes on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to thank you for that. Because actually, my experience here has been with those examples, and that's what I believed was the case without checking. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti and Mr. Tuff, I'm going to you guys next, but at 11 :30 I have someone who has asked to speak for seven to 10 minutes, because they have to leave under court order. So Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll be short. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can take longer, but I'm going Page 73 July 20, 2006 to have to interrupt you at 11 :30 is all. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I won't take that long, thank you. Clay, I'm not going to go through all the what ifs, and there could be a million scenarios as to what if this, what if that. But I just see a real problem policing this whole document thing. Basically the staff that will be employed here are in the hospitality business. To have hospitality employees with that mind set do policing is going to be a problem that you're going to have to live with for a long time. And I don't know how you're going to do it. I don't even know you know how you're going to accomplish each and every possible scenario at this time. MR. BROOKER: We would -- I mean, we're obviously going to have to hammer into the employees a very seriousness of the agreement and the rules. If they don't monitor them and enforce them, they are themselves subject -- the staff members are subject to termination. And just another comment is, you know, I'm hearing a lot of questions about the enforceability of this, and questioned about whether you're really going to enforce it, is it worth the paper that it's written on. This took a lot of work, and this is a sincere effort to address the issues that we believe are legitimate. It is in our own best interest to enforce this strictly. And if this goes away, you have a property that's unregulated. Everything that's prohibited in here, there might be some exceptions, can go on. So we would prefer to spin it in a positive light as we're trying to address issues rather than oh, nice try, you'll never succeed. If that's the way you want to look at it, that's your own prerogative, but we would prefer to look at this as a positive thing. This is a sincere effort to deal with these things and we intend to enforce it strictly. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't have a problem with Page 74 July 20, 2006 that. I have a couple of questions regarding special events, but I'll take them up with staff. Also, why in your opinion -- we've seen a lot of conditional uses, why do you feel you've received so much opposition on this? MR. BROOKER: I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Why -- do you believe in your opinion -- why have you received so much opposition on this petition? MR. BROOKER: That's a difficult question. I guess because of people's legitimate concerns about the environmental integrity of Keewaydin Island. And those concerns we acknowledge are legitimate. And that's the very reason we've spent hundreds of hours going over this document and getting it together and working with DEP on it. The Conservancy, we're disappointed. We met with them several times. They did indicate that if we would address their concerns, they would withdraw opposition. We thought we had addressed all of their concerns. But, you know, they want to oppose it so, so be it. But to answer your question, I think people perhaps did not -- well, it would be my hope that someone who wrote in an opposition had not seen this document. Because this is a -- I think when you place a property 88 percent under conservation easement, retaining 98 percent of native vegetation, that is in my opinion preserving the environmental integrity of the island. I think I should -- that's all I can answer to your question. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Just one more question. This here, the property and the pavilion, will be maintained and paid for by the homeowners association of the three facilities? MR. BROOKER: I think it will be paid and maintained by the club, which will have its own funding mechanism through club membership and dues. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm just trying to figure out if it Page 75 July 20, 2006 would have to be attached to the condo doc. Because if the homeowner's association was bearing the burden of expense, this would have to be part of the condo docs then and you'd have to make an amendment to the ones -- the units already sold. MR. BROOKER: No, membership -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But you're not going to do it that way. MR. BROOKER: Right. Membership in the club is mandatory if you purchase a condominium unit or a wet slip. So they are inextricably linked. If you buy a condominium unit, you are a member of the club. You must be. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I'm just wondering about how you're going to get this as part of a condo docs if they've already signed and sold units and you have to do addendums. But that you'll take care of. MR. BROOKER: Yeah, in the event there have been sales already and this was not signed by them, it will be required of them at this point in time, if it is approved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. No other questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, normally what we do is we hear staffs report and then we ask questions of staff. Okay, Mr. Schiffer. 11 :30 I'm going to have to cut you off. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fine, this is really quick. Tim, it's for you. And what the concern is is on the boardwalk. To eliminate the elevator, which could be a disaster out there anyway, I mean, there's steel -- you're not going to get stainless steel, it's going to have to -- you'll be providing an air conditioner just for the elevator just for the electronics. Could you slope that boardwalk up? Is there a problem? It would be a one to 20 to be an included plane, essentially -- I mean, Page 76 July 20, 2006 from my studies of it, your site is on a VE zone of 12 feet, so two foot of structure, you're going to go to 14 feet. You're saying your boardwalk might be up at six. You testified that the grade might be at seven or eight. So in other words, it's not that tall a slope. Would there be a problem in having just a slowly descending boardwalk and eliminate the need for the -- MR. HALL: In terms of construction or building it, no, it could be built that way. There are some additional requirements that would fall into place when you start going up higher than -- I think the county rules are 30 inches. If you go higher than, there's additional railing requirements and so forth. But in terms of the space, there's enough room to be able to slope it up and then to reach the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And environmentally that might be a benefit, to raise the boardwalk up anyway to get Bob Murray's deer under it easily. MR. HALL: Well, for passage of animals, yes. In terms of hurricane stability or something, raising it up higher would actually make it more susceptible to damage and high winds. So there's some trade-offs there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. There's no problem you see in raising it to get rid of the lift? MR. HALL: There's no problem from my standpoint environmentally. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You did try to catch my attention on that. Sorry, I forgot. Anyway, as I was saying, we normally hear from staff, then we have our conversation with staff. After that we go into discussions by the public. That's still all going to happen. Mr. Pires has informed me he is under a requirement to be in a court up in Lee County and he has to leave shortly. MR. BROOKER: Is he a criminal defendant? Page 77 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. BROOKER: Is he a criminal defendant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. Maybe it's for sentencing, I don't know. But I've given him his 10 minutes time now to speak so that he can get on the record. MR. BROOKER: For the record, I was kidding. MR. PIRES: Come join me, Clay. F or the record, Anthony Paul Pires, Jr. And thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. Thank you, Clay and staff, for allowing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you say your last name for Mr. Brooker? I see every time he said your name, you winced back there. MR. PIRES: Pires, Pires, Pires, Pires. I've been called Pines, Pirrez. Thank you very much. I am under a subpoena under court order to appear and testify in a criminal proceeding as a witness up in Lee County for a time period from 23 years ago when I was a prosecutor. So my recollection is -- events 23 years ago. Thank you very kindly. As I say, Anthony Pires, Jr., Woodward, Pires, Lombardo. I represent a number of individuals who own property on Keewaydin and also an associated group of individuals, and they are here, and they will be testifying and talking to you about their concerns. I'll try not to be redundant as to questions raised already by the Planning Commission by Clay's presentation. And I will hopefully slow down for the court reporters. But with regards to that, just to give you a brief introduction of the individuals that will be testifying, I believe, myself, you have John McNicholas who is knowledgeable with regards to the island and has some concerns with regards to the water use issues. Ophilia Jensen (phonetic), he's an owner of two lots undeveloped, less than 1,000 feet Page 78 July 20, 2006 south, and he'll address compatibility and precedent. Dr. van Dongen, an owner, address compatibility, physical beach of the beach and the property. His wife, Annette, who will provide you some interesting photographs showing the existing physical condition at the present time of the beach area and the dune systems. And Dr. David Buser, who also owns property, he will address safety issues in his discussions with the Isle of Capri fire chief, and the fact that you will not see any discussion in here of safety considerations. Not one iota of that. And he will address his communications and conversations, I believe, with the fire district. With regards to the application itself, I've said it before with the EAC, I'll say it today, one of our fundamental legal positions is we shouldn't even be here on this conditional use application. The Land Development Code provides for -- has pledged in certain circumstances, the comprehensive plan requires that in this instance that there be a PUD for development in this area. Now, there was a discussion that the comprehensive plan has a requirement that it be a PUD for a development other than single- family, the LDC says you have to have 10 acres; therefore, the LDC prevails. My understanding was the other way around, that the Growth Management Plan prevailed. That language has been in the comprehensive plan since 1989. Now, you may hear a comment by the County Attorney's office that they have questions about the legal validity of a 17 and a half year old provision that's never been administratively challenged, that's never been challenged in any court proceeding, that is extant and existing. They're in the process of possibly changing that, but that's not changed yet. There is the wrong application, should not even be here today. A PUD document is what should be submitted and go through the PUD hearing process, not a conditional use process. I would cite to you the existing provision of Section 10.3.12 of the conservation and coastal management element. It states, quote, Page 79 July 20, 2006 require the use of a planned unit development provisions of the zoning ordinance for new developments or redevelopments proposed to take place within areas identified as coastal barrier systems with the exception of one single-family dwelling on a single parcel. It initially was adopted in January, 1989 as part of Policy 11.3.12 of the then coastal -- natural resources element. It's been around for 17 and a half years now. We are ignoring it is in essence what's going on. Number, it shouldn't even be here today. And I raised it at the EAC. Secondly, with regards to -- so we object to that. We object to even considering this particular application. With that objection preserved, I'd just like to note if you're utilizing the conditional use process, we're not waiving that objection as to it should be a PUD. A conditional use, as stated in the Land Development Code, if controlled as to number, area, location or relation to the neighborhood would promote the public health, safety, welfare, morals order, comfort, convenience, appearance or the general welfare. None of that, we would submit to you, is provided by this particular application. It's interesting enough that Mr. Brooker takes to task Nancy Payton's letter saying that this is a poisonous precedent, because each conditional use application stands on its own, yet he constantly throughout his proceeding alluded to these alleged violations, alleged special events occurring on all these other properties out there as a basis for why this application should be granted. He's trying to have his cake and eat it too with regards to that. But looking at this particular application, we would submit to you shows that it does not promote the public health, safety, welfare, morals, order of comfort, convenience, appearance of the general welfare and does not achieve the criteria outlined in the Land Development Code. With regards to the boat traffic issue, the EIS blithely assumes Page 80 July 20, 2006 and asserts that, quote, boat traffic will not increase as a shuttle boat for Naples would be the method access for patrons via the existing dock. You heard it today, it's going to be by many methods. And the advertising that I submitted to the Planning Commissioners also indicated, and at the EAC, boat rentals, shuttle service, charter boat and the 97 slips, and however else the people can get there. It's not merely a shuttle. So we have an EIS that is deficient, we would submit. What's also interesting is that the EIS also fails to address the protection, maintenance, enhancements of the dune system. It merely asserts, it does not address use. The EIS merely asserts at Page 7 that, quote, the facility is proposed in a location that does not impact dune habitat. Does not tell you what happens when the people are on the island. And recall, Mr. Brooker also said there may be some confusion as to the 56 people, that that -- the limitation of the property. Again, the question that you all have been asking is, well, what do you do once they're on the island? They can arrive there and I guess the idea is you have to have faith that when they, the property owners, not they the developers, are in control of this condominium association, that there will be a constant monitoring by Rookery Bay, which I will get into, that will not have people showing up and dispersing, showing up and dispersing, showing up and dispersing. I submit to you that's what's going to happen. And I would submit to you that you're going to have a degradation of the dune vegetation system by all these people loading up on an island. And as Mr. Strain reflected, the intensity of use of this facility, as proposed, even with 56 people, is equivalent to 23 single-family homes. Two and a half times -- 10 and a half time -- or 10 times what is allowed per the density requirements out there. With regards to the -- once again, there's no mention -- if you Page 81 ,-..- ~'~'---""""'"."- July 20, 2006 look at the EIS, there's no mention of people. There's no mention of trips. There's no mention of what impact this use will have on this island. It says the facility will not have any situation so as not to pose a particular problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pires, I want to remind you, you told me you needed seven to 10 minutes. MR. PIRES: I will try to keep it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've used up eight-and-a-halfat this point. MR. PIRES: Okay. If you bear with me, I appreciate any consideration the Chairman has, and I'll be ready to wrap up in about two minutes, if I could, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There may be some questions, too. MR. PIRES: Okay. And one other aspect, too. It's interesting, and it's never been changed in the EIS. It states that, Page 10 under the question of 10.5.9, it says the facility is intended for public access. Again, no limitation, no cap. So I would submit to you that this whole application keeps shifting and changing. You've heard new data today as to what they're proposIng. As to the agreement, the agreement itself, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions, at Page 1 says the client seeks to develop part of the property as a beach pavilion for use by declarant, the Club of Naples Bay Resort, the club's members, members' guests, the club's employees, and others permitted on the property by declarant. There is no cap. The 56 -- they are trying to cloak this obnoxious use, this incompatible use with a mantle of respectability with an unforceable user agreement with FDEP. That is a shabby mantle indeed, we believe. DEP, in an article a while back, the Rookery Bay folks, when they were talking about the crocodiles down in the Rookery Bay area, basically admitted they don't have the staff to even monitor that. They Page 82 July 20, 2006 have a shortage of manpower. You heard no commitment of the manpower that would occur today. We would ask therefore that this application be recommended for denial. In fact, Mr. Brooker said in the EAC meeting that, quote, obviously we cannot -- we can't control the number of people on the entire island. That was a very honest statement. And that's what we would submit would occur with this application. The facility and use of this property and island is not just for owners and residents of the Naples Bay Resort proj ects as stated on the first page of the staff report. It's for a ton of people that we have no clue what the number of people is. Once again, we believe that this is incompatible with the existing property owners, incompatible in not promoting the general welfare, and we recommend -- or request you make a recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners. I'd like to make -- for the record, I have provided copies to the Planning Commissioners of the transcript of the EAC meeting. I believe I gave that to staff, but I would like to make that part of the record and hand that to the court reporter. And sorry for talking so fast, and thank you for the seven to 10 minutes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Tony, if you had said 10 to 15, then we could have worked there. But when you said seven to 10 -- MR. PIRES: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's what I counted on. MR. PIRES: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as your packet of information, this is the one you're referring to, this red packet? MR. BROOKER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did everybody on this committee receive a red packet? Page 83 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You never get anything. MR. PIRES: I did e-mail it last week also, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did read your e-mail. MR. PIRES: That was the same -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I would like to do is see if we could get this submitted into evidence then. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Adelstein to admit this particular package that Mr. Pires is going to provide more copies of into evidence. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, the pictures that were presented earlier, should they also be made available? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just finish with this one first. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of this? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go into your question, let me -- I know Tony's got to leave and I had a question of Tony. I understand your issue between the PUD and the conditional use. I looked into it. And I also know that staff made the call that it would be a conditional use and they did that with consultation, I Page 84 July 20, 2006 understand, with the County Attorney's office. All that being said, I'm watching this process as it evolves today and the documentation put on record. What difference would there have been in today or the BCC hearing if it had followed a different path? We'd still be here today with most likely the same witnesses and the same process. So where is the -- your problem with that? MR. PIRES: I think from a legal perspective, and Marjorie -- or Clay could correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't think they would be shy to do that -- with the conditional use process, that the applicant has the burden of going forward to show that they meet the criteria. If prima fascia they meet the criteria, then the burden is on the county or opponents to prove that they did not meet the criteria, which is a different test than that involved in a PUD process. So if there was to be a recommendation of approval, you know it's a shifting burden that occurs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Margie, did you have any comments to that? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, I have a response. Under Schneider versus Brevard County, which is a Supreme Court decision made in 1993, the burden also rests with the applicant to demonstrate that they meet the criteria in the code and the plan and so forth, and then the burden would shift to the local government to show if there's a public health, safety, welfare reason, even if they do meet that criteria why it couldn't be granted. So I don't see it as really very much of a different process between -- the same number of votes are required. Only before the county commission with a PUD the county commission has to have a super majority vote. With a conditional use, the board of zoning appeals has to make that super majority vote, but a super majority vote is still required for both a conditional use and a PUD rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Ms. Student. Mr. Pires, thank you. Page 85 July 20, 2006 Any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Mr. Murray pointed out that the photographs shown earlier by Mr. Brooker might want to be admitted into evidence. And it really depends on Mr. Brooker's availability of those photographs, he's shown them on record, but do you have any copies that you can leave so they can be submitted into evidence? MR. BROOKER: Which photographs are you talking? All of them? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All of them that you showed earlier. MR. BROOKER: Sure, yeah. I'll submit all of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a -- they will be available before today's end for the court reporter to have copies of? MR. BROOKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to accept those in evidence? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. Page 86 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I don't want to start the staff report at this five minutes remaining and then have to break, so we will come back here at 20 minutes to 1 :00 and resume this meeting after a one-hour lunchtime. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, if you'll take your seats. Welcome back to the Planning Commission meeting. Where we left off last time was final questions from the planning staff of the applicant and comments from Tony Pires, and now I'd like to have staff make their presentation. MS. VALERA: For the record again, Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. Petition is for a conditional use for a recreational facility. Recreational facility can be active recreation or passive. As I noted in my staff report and in the analysis of the Growth Management Plan, the conservation designation allows for -- within other things like recreational camps, also allows passive parks and other passive recreational uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, before you go too far, you said conservation designation. This is an AST, isn't it, not con? MS. VALERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to make sure, because I was a little confused when you said that. MS. VALERA: Sorry. And as I also noted in my staff report, their question about the PUD, the coastal barrier system seems to require this type of development to be in a form of a PUD. The Land Development Code -- and as you note, there is a maximum -- a minimum of acreage that you have to have in a property in order to be developed as a planned unit development, and Page 87 July 20, 2006 that is 10 acres. The Land Development Code has some exceptions of certain overlays and other uses that are exempted from this minimum of 10 acres. But it doesn't -- it does not specifically address this type of zoning and use, and that is why staff, their consultant with our legal department, decided that a conditional use will be the way to go about the process with this petition. I also noted that the EAC had their meeting on February 1st of this year, and they have recommended denial, as you know. And that we, staff, are recommending approval, subj ect to the conditions that are outlined in my staff report on Page 9 of 10. I would like to also make note that ever since last Friday at around 4:00 up to yesterday, the time I left the county around 5:30, I have received at least 30 e-mails from different people, and they all are in opposition of this project. And I have copies of all those here. I also received a letter just this morning -- I was handed a letter this morning from the Collier County Audubon Society, and it's addressed to the chairman. So I have it right here. And it's -- I haven't read it all, but it basically is in opposition to the project. I have also received e-mails, as you have, from the Florida Wildlife Federation and The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, also opposing this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, the one you said was from Audubon that was addressed to me -- MS. VALERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when was -- was that mailed or e-mailed? MS. VALERA: No, I just -- was handed to me this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that to be entered into the record, is that what you're attempting to do? MS. VALERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 88 July 20, 2006 MS. VALERA: It's not addressed to the staff, it's addressed to you, but it was handed to me, so I guess we need to put it in the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And we'd have to read it and there'd have to be copies for the Planning Commission, as well as the court reporter, so -- MS. VALERA: Would you like me to read it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, for the record that might make it eaSIer. Is that sufficient, Margie, instead of copies, or do you -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think if it's read and then copies should be distributed as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. VALERA: Mark Strain, Chair, Collier County Planning Commission. Copy to Carolina Valera, Collier County Community Development, Environmental Services, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, 34104. Reference to conditional use 2005-AR-7181, Basil Street Partners LLC, The Beach Club, Keewaydin Island. Dear Chairman Strain: After receiving the conditions presently placed on the above referenced proposal, Collier County Audubon remains opposed to the construction of a private recreational facility on 4.32 acres located at 10111 and 10121 Keewaydin Island. Our reasons include the following: The environmental value of this last remaining relatively pristine coastal area, north of Marco, will be jeopardized. If this proj ect is approved, the door will be open to similar developments on the island. Any such development on the island is incompatible with the conservation goals and management of land abutting the proposed club. Such a development is inconsistent with the Collier County's growth plans conservation and coastal management element goal 10, Objective 10.3 and Policy 10.3.2. The safeguards associated with the proposal are not enforceable. The evidence for this assertion may be found at the southern tip of the Page 89 July 20, 2006 island where lack of enforcement has led to the degradation of vital bird nesting areas and habitat. Thank you for consideration of these comments, Alan Keller, conservation chair, Collier County Audubon Society. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Carolina. And please, before the meeting's over, would you get copies from the commissioners office or someone so -- MS. VALERA: I'll do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. VALERA: And with that, I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have. We have staff -- I hope, yes -- from environmental department. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to start with my right-hand side again. Mr. Kolflat, do you have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Not of staff, no. I have one of the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do. Carolina, what do you think the definition of passive recreation is? I mean-- MS. VALERA: I did look it up in our SIC code, and it -- as I mentioned, recreational -- let me go back. Recreational facility can be active and passive, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what's an active and what's a passive; do you know? I mean, is it active a Ferris wheel and passive a park bench, or what? MS. VALERA: I don't think we have it defined as such. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do you think this meets the definition of a passive recreational use? MS. VALERA: Yes. Page 90 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The sites that are on the island, we saw numerous sites. Are those all potential residences? MS. VALERA: Let me put it this way: They're all-- they're all agricultural land. I mean, that's their zoning. And in that portion of the county, people can develop single-family homes at a rate of one unit for each lot. So yes, they could be developed as single-family. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think there's testimony that some are owned by the state. But essentially we could assume they're all private, at least those long skinny lots, and all of them have the potential for a residence. MS. VALERA: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The present use of the site, I mean, if the person who owned the site came up with a boat, they could walk out to the beach, correct? MS. VALERA: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If the person came up to the site with a bigger boat with 15 people on it, would they be allowed to walk out to the beach? MS. VALERA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So really, essentially what we're asking for today is the building, maybe. MS. VALERA: Yes, the petition is for what's happening within those two lots. The beach, as you had mentioned, is -- you know, is accessible to any amount of people. I mean, it's just not private. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So other than the -- I mean, if the person owned the site, then obviously he would be able to walk across it, so -- MS. VALERA: Absolutely, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What limits -- I mean, when would the county start to say wait a minute, you need a permit for this or you need a conditional use? Is there -- I mean, it's -- they're bringing ferries full of people up to that dock. When does this become Page 91 July 20, 2006 a commercial use I guess is the question. MS. VALERA: For the activities that happen within those lots, not what happens on the beach, the public beach. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Are you saying that -- MS. VALERA: Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- if they came over now -- I'm assuming the building's not there. MS. VALERA: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they drive up with their boat or the people come from the marina come with their boat, they could walk through that boardwalk and go to the beach, or would you start to consider that -- MS. VALERA: Well, that's private property. I guess people -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They own the property. I'm assuming they own it, yeah. MS. VALERA: Okay. Only if you owned the property. Other than that, no, I don't think people can go into other people's private property . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, let's say they own the property and the boat club people -- let's say nothing happened today, could they bring their boats, dock their boat? MS. VALERA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'm getting at, I don't mean to be weird here, is I'm trying to figure out when does this become commercial? Because the major concern from all the e-mail I got is that this is a commercial precedent, and I'm trying to figure out when it becomes commercial. MS. VALERA: I guess if you build a house, you know, if you don't do -- you don't go through the conditional use and you're not allowed to have this type of use that they're proposing and you build a single- family home, sure, you can have guests, any amount of guests in your property and allow them to come onto your property. And if Page 92 July 20, 2006 you don't have -- I mean, if you go to the island and you don't know anybody else, sure, you can go up and down the beach. It's public access. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think if somebody owns a property there -- and it looks like there's a lot of properties with docks -- this one, and no house, that people have been using it for their own private recreation, right? And again, when does it become commercial? Obviously if you've got in this case 56 people on the beach with no building, you start wondering about sanitation and things like that. MS. VALERA: Right. In order to operate a commercial activity, you have to go through the conditional use. And yes, some people may have been using it as a commercial activity. It's not allowed and it would be illegal. I understand from talking to the code enforcement person, Susan O'Farrell, that she has some cases open because of some property owners using their properties for other uses other than they're just a single- family home. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in other words, some -- if I owned a house on the mainland and I had a boat and I owned one of these, could I motor out, dock my boat, walk across my own boardwalk or path and go use the beach and not be violating any -- MS. VALERA: Correct. That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But if I made a business of people would hire me to take me to my private beach, then you start thinking it's commercial, correct? MS. VALERA: Right. And you -- well, it's a recreational-- it becomes a recreational use, either active or passive, and you have to go through the conditional use or any other process that the county may have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, do we know the difference between active and passive? And when does something become Page 93 July 20, 2006 active? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager. I think the active would be -- active recreation includes tennis courts and things of that nature. Passive is park benches and things of that nature where there's no physical activities. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you want to ask one question before I ask mine, or -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- do you want to wait? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I have only really one question. You have recommended approval based on all of your findings. Now, we know that there's a density here, or we call it a density for the moment, of "X" number of people. At what point would you not recommend that this island be used for that purpose? Would it be if there were the same situation 100 feet away, 200 feet away, multiple types of these? At what point do you realize or believe that it no longer is good for the island, as it were, or fall within the category? Or put another way, if this were to be approved, would that be a basis for approvals for any subsequent effort to do this type of thing? MS. VALERA: From a planning perspective, going through the conditional use process, actually it's requiring the applicant to meet all the Land Development Code requirements. They cannot deviate. Like in a PUD people may ask for deviations through that process. In a conditional use you have to meet all the requirements of the Land Development Code, and you as the board, or the -- and just like we're doing, staff may recommend any conditions above and beyond what the Land Development Code will require. Now, I believe that the Land Development Code and the Growth Page 94 July 20, 2006 Management Plan Management Plan has enough regulations and restrictions that will take care of the amount of people that will be on the property. MR. BELLOWS: And for the record, Ray Bellows. I'd just like to clarify. The approval of the conditional use is site specific to that site, and based on staffs interpretation of the code and what mitigation we feel is appropriate, and the recommendations of Planning Commission and board, if such use is approved. It doesn't -- the argument that the adjacent property owner came in and said we want the same thing because our neighbors are doing it doesn't necessarily guarantee the staff would support that. We'd still review it based on the criteria of the Land Development Code and the comprehensive plan. It mayor may not qualify for staff support. We'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. But just because the adjacent property has that use isn't a guarantee. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Carolina, I don't know if you can answer this or not, but we did a lot of talking about special events and permits. What would trigger a special event? MS. VALERA: We were chatting about that. Special events doesn't -- special event has specific type of events that you can -- that you have to permit. Now, it does mention membership activities, but it doesn't go into events such as a private wedding or a family gathering, a birthday party. Those are not addressed as part of our requirements for a permit. So those type of events will not require a county permit. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How about music of any type? MS. VALERA: Music? Again, I'll have to read through. But I think it mentions other things. But, you know, a music event or -- or a -- like I said, a birthday party or any of those. So they would not require a county permit. Page 95 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So if they wanted to bring musicians on and play music, as long as it's under their capacity of the threshold of the people, there's no problem for them to do it, they wouldn't need a special permit. MS. VALERA: They would not require a county permit, no. A special event permit. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Special permit, yeah. Okay, thank you. MS. VALERA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes, you may have explained it to Brad, but I'm not sure if I grasped it. But let's assume these guys own this property, they have their three units that they have where they rent and sell and all that, and so if they wanted to bring like 1,500 people there, there's no building. If there's no anything there, is there anything to stop them from bringing all of those people there today as guests, since they own the property anyway? MS. VALERA: Definitely will be a code enforcement matter. I guess if our code enforcement agency -- that there's an activity, there's people using the land as more than just what you will see in a single-family home, meaning, you know, there's, you know, people gathering there for passive recreational use, yes, there will have to be a code enforcement case. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I guess what I didn't hear is like they can all go there and it wouldn't be on -- that's the part I guess I can't get is -- MS. VALERA: Maybe I'm not understanding. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Maybe I'm not asking the question. These people have this and if I own that, I can invite all my friends that I want. MS. VALERA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER TUFF: That's why I can't see if that would be Page 96 July 20, 2006 an illegal function in any way you look at it. I guess that's what I'm -- is there any way to make that an illegal function? MR. BELLOWS: You mean a single-family home having a party, inviting -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: No, just as it is. MR. BELLOWS: A vacant lot? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah. And they own the property and I'm going to go look at it and use it and bring my friends and-- MR. BELLOWS: You can't have a use on the property without a permitted use being present. The permitted use in this district would be -- one of the permitted uses is single-family residence. If they don't have a single-family residence, then they could not have any of the accessory type activities that go on with that residence or that use. So you cannot have a party on a vacant lot and turn it into a party lot, so to speak. COMMISSIONER TUFF: So like my house, if I want to invite 100 guests or 300 guests, there would be restrictions on that? MS. VALERA: No. MR. BELLOWS: Well, there's no restrictions per se, but there would be -- the sheriff might show up and the code enforcement, and the noise, all those things would come into play . Various enforcement actions could be taken. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I guess why I'm asking that is by passing this would we be more protective than if they own it and they can use it, to be pretty vague, would we be making more protection for the residents and the neighboring people -- MS. VALERA: It is -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: It is limiting with all the restrictions at 56 than it is if we just let it be as it is and no -- MS. VALERA: In staffs opinion, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Carolina, and Margie, there's a section in our Land Development Code called Coastal Zone Page 97 July 20, 2006 Management 3.03.00. Margie, I'm going to ask Carolina some questions about other things, but maybe you could read this section and I'll come back to you on it? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: 3.03.00? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The second paragraph under there is 3.03.02, applicability. The first sentence in that applicability says, new and existing development in the coastal zone shall be in compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of the conservation and coastal management element of the county GMP and with this LDC until the formal adoption by the county of all land development regulations, ordinances, policies and programs which implement the coastal zoned management plan, 1991, as adopted by the BCC. That language, in reading it, struck me as kind of funny. Basically I think it says the GMP and the LDC are in existence until such time as the formal adoption of the policies to implement a coastal zoned management plan in 1991. And I'm wondering, how is that interpreted? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, I have seen that language, and I wanted to ask you for the citation to make sure it was the same one that I read. And I don't understand the provision that talks about it being in compliance with this LDC. I would understand the way it would be worded if it just talked about goals, objectives and policies of the CCME, because we had a lag time between when we adopted the Growth Management Plan and its elements in 1989 and between when we got implementing land development regulations. So that would make sense. And unless that language meant, you know, the code at that time until we came up with some new requirements. Now, I did talk to Mr. Lorenz about this, and Mr. Lorenz informed me that the land development regulations to be passed or implemented -- passed and implemented, that it's contemplated had been passed, so now we don't need to worry about the -- you know, Page 98 July 20, 2006 any idea that the Coastal Zoned Management Plan, because the regulations have been passed. ( sic). And I would ask if there's anyone in the audience from our environmental department, if they would -- but that's what Mr. Lorenz told me when I spoke with him about this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I understand now what he told you. But in your legal opinion, are we supposed to be relying on for our review the coastal zone management plan 1991 based on that sentence? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I have to have background information provided by staff. And based on my understanding, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm getting to some more, Carolina. I have a few more. And this is a Margie/Carolina question again. Of your staff report, Page 7 of 10, under your analysis, what you said in your first sentence puzzles me. It says before any conditional use recommendation can be heard by the BZA, the Planning Commission must make findings that approval -- and basically it seems to be a finding of an approval. If we don't make a finding of approval, does it still go on to the BZA? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, it still goes with your recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought that was the case, but I wanted to make sure, based on that sentence. And number four, the following page, Page 8 of 10. The question was compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. I read your two sentences that responded to that question, and they didn't respond to that question. It's talking about what is allowed in the conservation designation, which this is not. And it says you believe that the proposed recreational facility as cited on the property is compatible with adjacent properties, but you don't give any reasons for that. And I'm Page 99 July 20, 2006 just wondering how that answer came about or how that fits into the response of the question. MS. VALERA: Maybe I should have expanded upon the fact that the proposed development will be, first of all, surrounded by vacant property, which is owned by the state. And also, that the -- in terms of compatibility with surrounding properties, the nearest structure is more than 100 feet away. So the impact of the development to the surrounding uses is not there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you base this answer on the conservation designation, which this property is not? MS. VALERA: I'm sorry, say that again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This property is zoned AlST. MS. VALERA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not zoned conservation. MS. VALERA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the sentence says the conservation -- you're referring to the conservation designation. MS. VALERA: It's -- all that area is conservation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, it is not. Well, okay, let's take a look at one of the sheets you provided then and maybe we can resolve this. MS. VALERA: My understanding, there's both. ST -- AlST and conservation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not. Here's the full text out of the -- you want to pass that down to Ray, I'd appreciate it. The conservation is to the right of that red line. The AlST is to the left. The AlST encompasses the lots that are in question here today. MS. VALERA: You're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to get you to tell me, is your review based on the con. designation or the AlST designation? MS. VALERA: Well, since I based it on both-- Page 100 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You based it on both? MS. VALERA: Yes. I based my analysis on both. And actually I guess I was a bit more stringent. But you're absolutely right, it's ST, it's not conservation. My mistake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want the record clear. In the preap. conference that you all had, the fire department -- or the fire marshal or somebody from the fire review was there. I noticed the notes because I saw who attended the meeting. Was there any discussion of need for sprinklers, since this is an assembly, not a residential? Are there any need to have fire sprinklers installed? MS. VALERA: It wasn't discussed at the neighborhood -- let me rephrase that. I don't remember, I don't recall being discussed at the neighborhood information meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the preap. is what I said. MS. VALERA: Oh, at the preap.? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Preap., yes. MS. VALERA: I have to apologize, I was not the planner at the time that the preap. took place. I don't see it in my notes. From the preap. we had a different planner at the time of the preap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm asking is if there's a sprinkler system required because it's an assembly, the pressurization of that system is going to have a great affect on the generator and other issues that have been talked about today. MS. VALERA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't know if that's possible. Maybe our resident architect would have an opinion on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's too small. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you go by the size of the bathrooms, it would, but if you go by the size of the -- Page 101 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You really like those bathrooms, don't you? Carolina, the issue of 65 decibels, that's the code for the urban area right now, isn't it, 65 decibels? MS. VALERA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that vary in the rural area or any parts of the county, or is it 65 across the county? MS. VALERA: I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I would have to look it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't think of it until I heard the questions asked today, otherwise I would have looked it up ahead of time. And that's the remaining questions I have of you -- oh, one other question. They said that they would come to -- they would use a special event permit for more than 57 people. That's not the way our code reads. MS. VALERA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do we hook them together if that were -- I mean, how does that happen then? If the code doesn't read that way but yet that's the way it seems to be presented. MS. VALERA: It is a problem, because yeah, the code doesn't read that way. And as I mentioned before, there's also specific types of events that we require that to be permitted. And some of the events that the applicant had mentioned will not require special event permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they don't require a special event permit, are they still regulated to the number of times -- and I think Ray had come up with 28 times a year or something like that? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the code said for like religious events, community events, sporting events, those types of events -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a permit-- MR. BELLOWS: -- and other uses, I believe, they would be Page 102 July 20, 2006 limited to 28 days out of the year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-eight days out of the year, but they would be for permitted uses. MR. BELLOWS: Those are those -- yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rest of the uses would be unlimited, unrestricted. MR. BELLOWS: Based on the approval of the conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. That's all I have. Mr. Murray, did you have -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to follow up on your question which brought to my mind. Do we know for nesting birds or birds in general what the disturbance level in terms of decibels? Do we have any understanding about that? MS. VALERA: I'm going to defer to our environmental staff. She's coming. MS. MASON: For the record, Susan Mason, Collier County Environmental Services. I don't know of any information or studies that were done on noise effects on nesting birds. Just in general, anything that could constitute harassment. But I really would not be able to tell you at this time without further research what acceptable decibel level within a nesting population would be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any -- no other questions of staff? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Carolina. MS. VALERA: May I add one more thing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. MS. VALERA: Thank you. Staff asked me to clarify one more item. Page 103 July 20, 2006 During the Environmental Advisory Council meeting, one of our environmental staff members did clarify about the six-inch rise, but he only addressed the question in regards to the structure, he did not address in regards to any other structures that may be on the land -- on the ground. So I just wanted to clarify that. And also that yes, the six-inch level riser, as you know, is part of the amendments. It's not a requirement of the EIS, environmental impact statement. But if the conditional use will -- was approved, the applicant has to go through a site development plan and at that time the Land Development Code requires that they do review for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Okay, Ray, how many public speakers do we have? MR. BELLOWS: About eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you come up to speak, your name will be called and we ask that you state your name for the record and limit your discussion to five minutes, please. And with that -- and please try to speak slowly so the court reporter can take your information. MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is John McNicholas. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: John left, I'll take his comments. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't hear him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gentleman just said that Mr. McNicholas left, so we'll have to pass on his slip at this point. MR. BELLOWS: Phil Gendren (phonetic). UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: He's also left. His comments will be taken by one of us. MR. BELLOWS: And his wife, J.P. -- or, no, J.P. van Dongen. Oh, no, not wife. MR. van DONGEN: For the record, my name's J.P. van Dongen, 655 16th Avenue South, Naples. I'm here today representing myself as a property owner on Page 104 July 20, 2006 developed land on Keewaydin Island, and also represent a group of property owners on Keewaydin. I'm here to represent the community of Keewaydin's opinion that this is highly incompatible with the current use of Keewaydin. We do not welcome this in our community . We are adamantly opposed to introducing quasi commercial use onto this island. I'm not going to take a lot of time. A lot of your points that -- have already been mentioned and everybody's been here for long enough. But I do want to hit a couple of high points. One of the main reasons that we are against this is not because of the footprint of this. The footprint in the EIS is looking at a minor impact. The real impact is humans. I have to thank Mr. Brooker for actually demonstrating that with those photographs. You can see what humans can do. And when you have an intensity of use that is unseen out there at this time being permitted, it's going to be absolutely devastating to the environment. We're talking about the same human impact as a six-story condominium building. Twenty-three homes on this one little area is the human impact that we're talking about. I think we're being -- it's a red herring to talk about this M.O.A. It's not really a question of where these restrictions are or who's going to enforce them, it's do we really want this type of impact? Can the environment withstand this sort of impact? And as people who have a feeling for this island, we've invested out there, we have some basic understanding of this. We can tell you that that island is not going to withstand this huge impact. I do take -- I don't agree at all with staffs position that by approving this you're going to be protecting this land. I think that that's actually totally misleading. If you allow this, it's going to, A, open Pandora's box for other developers, and as Jim Jinton (phonetic) and Phil Jinton who was here earlier, would say there is a precedent set. There are already developers trying to buy land. There have been Page 105 July 20, 2006 proposals and contracts offered on land out there to do a similar project. In fact, more than one developer is actively looking at this time. The second aspect of this is this M.O.A. is an illusionary thing. It is unenforceable. That is one of our main problems with this. You are going to be -- I think if we accept this, we're going to be seduced into thinking that this can be enforced. I just look at that image of somebody coming up and saying, look, I'm the 57th, 58th person. I desperately need to use the bathroom, and somebody's going to tell me no after I paid money to be part of this membership? It's not going to happen. I don't think this is a practical or well-conceived project. I'm a physician in town. One of the very first things that we get taught to do as physicians is no harm to our patients. It's far easier to do harm to a patient than to help. I see this as an opportunity for us to say no to this project and do no harm. I plead with you to do no harm with Keewaydin Island. This is -- even when you read that M.O.A., it says in two years time they're going to revisit it, look at the impact and renegotiate this? This sounds awfully experimental to me. Please don't experiment with the fragile ecosystem of Keewaydin Island. I'm asking as a representative of the group of people who are invested out there, the community, please recommend rej ection for this petition. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker, Annette van Dongen. MRS. van DONGEN: Hi. I'm Annette van Dongen. And luckily my points have already been spoken. But I would like to address what Mr. Tuff brought up just a minute ago about what would be the difference between not having such a pavilion and having such a pavilion as far as inviting all your friends over every day. I think the difference would be inviting all your friends over, 50 at a time, 50 a Page 106 July 20, 2006 day, maybe, maybe hundreds a day, is different than having -- paying people for a profit. Coming and expecting to be entertained is one difference. Another difference is people who go out to Keewaydin today go there because it's nature. It's away from everything. Someone who's paying to have a luxury condominium experience is going out there to continue that comfort. As Mr. Brooker said, we have such a large pavilion to provide the kind of amenity, the kind of comfort and luxury that these people have come to expect. That's why they're going out there, to continue that. Without the cocktails and the comfort and the ceiling fans and the showers, it wouldn't be so cushy to go out to Keewaydin. And I think without the pavilion, you wouldn't see that many people out there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker is Dave Buser. And I believe he needs to be sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Buser, if you'll raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BUSER: Ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to state your name for the record. MR. BUSER: I'm David Buser, B-U-S-E-R. I live at 5187 Starfish Avenue, in Naples. I do own property on Keewaydin Island. I'm also the president of the homeowners association for Seagate, and I'm not speaking today in that position. Couple things. I've been trying to kind of stay clear of this whole issue, because my involvement out there is really -- I don't have a structure, I don't have a house and I don't have the money to build a house out there. But it is a nice quiet conservation area. I've got to touch on safety, but I've got to say a couple of things first. First of all, compatibility. I think it was said that the analysis Page 107 July 20, 2006 was more stringent. Looking at it as agricultural single-family or looking at it as conservation, I can't see how a thousand plus member club is at all in any way -- if anyone can make that argument that that's compatible with the current uses out there, I just find that amazing. This is a precedent. I heard a lot of language about a precedent, a precedent, a precedent in the presentation of the developer. But this is the precedent. And yes, there are other developers looking at properties, and yes, I have personally been contacted about the purchase of my own lot by a developer in the county. I'd like to say, you know, see it for what it is. This is a developer selling memberships that's building condominium units in the City of Naples that is asking the county to turn over environmentally sensitive lands for its use. These condos will be pre-sold to people out of state and they'll be told they have a private beach club. Now, whether or not that 58-people thing is ever going to work, the developer's going to be long gone by the time that those problems arise, and that will be stuck with the people that have bought those units. They'll be trying to figure out how they're supposed to fit within this framework. But is this developer to be held accountable for the fines, et cetera down the line five years, six years, seven years? Or is this something that's going to be thrown in the hands of community associations to deal with? You know, you're creating kind of a monster here. I think you're going to spend a lot of time chasing people from out of state for fines, et cetera, and you'll never collect those fines. And I'd be curious to know if the developer is really staying in this and they'll be responsible. I truly believe this is a marketing tool to sell preconstruction condominiums. And you are opening the floodgate. And I can say that because I personally have been approached by a developer. Page 108 July 20, 2006 But speaking of safety, you know, when I write that check out every year for my taxes, I think it's $7,500 now, I always wonder what am I getting, you know? I'm not getting water, I'm not getting power, I'm not getting a school bus coming to my house. I mean, I don't get any of that. So what I get is EMS services. That's what I'm told that I get, EMS and fire. So what I thought would be a logical approach is call the -- whoever services that area. I didn't really know, so I called Isle of Capri. And it wasn't the fire marshal, I guess it was the assistant in there. I said, well how does this work, you know, what's the real mechanism in here? Because when you guys look at your rural fringe development, you're looking at concurrency. Do I have the roads, do I have the schools, do I have the water, do I have -- well, you don't have any infrastructure on that island. Period. None. And so when I talked to the gentleman from Isle of Capri, he says, well, nobody's asked us. You know, we service that. And interestingly enough, the taxes paid by those individuals that own lots don't even go to Isle of Capri Fire and Rescue. And he said that he's tried to circulate petitions to get that money to them, because they have one EMS boat. One. So what I said was if I'm out there with my family -- I'm from southwest Florida now, I've been here 10 years, I could say that. You know, I know about storms, I know about dangers, I know about hazards, and I still get caught in them on occasion. And I struggle to get those people back to the dock. And he said, well, that's exactly the problem that we have. Because people go out to the island that don't know anything about that and they think they're in the middle of a hurricane and they're calling for rescue. So they have one EMS boat to service this island. I said, well, doesn't that dilute the services that you have that are already inadequate to service those people? And the answer was yes. You know, how can we go rescue or effectively help someone at a Page 109 July 20, 2006 development with maybe 50 some people out there or a special event, which who knows how many people. I've never even heard a total possible figure for those events. And what happens to the other individuals on the island that maybe they have a house, maybe there's a brush fire, maybe someone has a heart attack, maybe someone gets hurt in some other way? And from a safety perspective, you are far outstripping your resources with regards to your infrastructure. It simply does not exist on that island. This isn't a drive down to the beach. This is a 45-minute boat ride, partially through a no wake zone. You're hearing proposals for shuttles that cannot even evacuate that many people. And you've got three slips. What if you have two EMS boats come in? You only have one to service it now anyway. But then what? I mean, this is an unsafe venture. And I think that if you approve this, you sincerely are advocates for something that is truly unsafe. If a single-family homeowner or a lot owner goes out there, they're kind of going out at their own risk. But if you sit here as a board and you endorse this, I truly think you're getting way ahead of the infrastructure that you have in place. And I truthfully feel that you need to give that serious consideration. And it kind of upsets me as a physician that that hasn't been brought up. I mean, I'm an OB/GYN, a Board Certified OB/GYN, and I'll tell you what, when someone has an emergency, they expect you to be there that minute. They don't care what you were doing, they don't care where you were coming from, they don't care what the circumstances are, they're expecting state-of-the-art care and state-of-the-art response at that moment. And that's what these people are going to expect. And I do not think that you can deliver that. So that -- and I think if you do commit yourself to that, you're depriving the other property owners, that you're really not accurately servicing probably anyway, from having that same treatment. So I think it's a real problem with infrastructure that just doesn't exist in Page 110 July 20, 2006 this area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. MR. BUSER: The only other question was on the septic, and that is, is this septic designed for 58 people or is it designed for the special event totals of a thousand something? And does that mean they're going to tie into the underwater aquifer out there in order to flush toilets? Because that's a pretty limited resource. I can't see that that is a good conservation use. You know, how much of that water are you going to allocate to commercial needs? Well, thank you very much, and hopefully we won't have any problems out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Andrew McElwaine. MR. McEL W AINE: Thank you very much. I'm Andrew McElwaine. I'm with The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, here in Naples. And Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, appreciate the opportunity to briefly state our position. The -- many of the points we would make have already been made and so I will shorten my comments appropriately. The Conservancy, on behalf of its 6,000 members, 700 volunteers, staff and board, oppose the granting of a conditional use permit for this resort. We do so for numerous reasons. And several I think need to be on the record, because some statements have been made that need to be refuted. And in making these statements, I would ask that for the record the Florida Wildlife Federation and the Audubon Society of Collier County are associating themselves with these remarks in opposition. First the Collier County Growth Management Plan's conservation and coastal management element, Objective 10.3, the undeveloped coastal barriers shall be maintained predominantly in their natural state and their natural function shall be protected, maintained and -- Page 111 July 20, 2006 not or -- and enhanced. I think that's an important point. We heard some testimony this morning that this large development would meet that task. The Conservancy, Wildlife Federation and Collier County Audubon disagree strongly with that assessment. We believe that the environment would not be enhanced by the addition of this large structure and moreover by its potential expansion beyond that large structure to something even larger five years hence. So we feel that the proposal is inconsistent with the GMP on that basis alone. We also believe it is inconsistent with the CCME Objectives 10.3 and 10.3.2. It's managed -- this area is managed for the protection of natural resources such as sea turtles and shore birds. The current zoning allows for single-family homes, and while a home has some impact, it does not have the very large and intense commercial impact of the proposal before you. This intensity of use makes the project incompatible with the resource protection goals of Keewaydin Island and thus also with the CCME. We also believe that for a conditional use permit to be granted to the petitioner, you need to find four things: Consistency with the code and with the Growth Management Plan; egress and ingress with regard to access in case of fire or catastrophe, which you've heard from someone who knows a great deal more about it than I do; the effect the conditional use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects; and compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. Well, the other properties are lands that we have for the last 42 years sought to preserve and protect from encroachment. It has been part of our mission and our strategy. And those lands that surround this commercial development are protected lands. As such, a large commercial operation would be highly incompatible with resource protection and conservation in the adjoining lands. The staff mentioned that there is no structure within so many Page 112 July 20, 2006 feet, making it more incompatible to put a very large structure smack in the middle of a significant body over 1,000 acres of preserved land on Keewaydin Island. It is highly incompatible in the view of The Conservancy, its staff, board and members. We also feel that the economic use of the property is inconsistent with the neighboring properties, and thus you can and should deny a conditional use permit on that basis as well. We believe, therefore, that of the four tests that you as the commission need to evaluate this proposal on, that is: The consistency with the code and the Growth Management Plan, the egress and ingress with regard to a catastrophe or fire, the effect the conditional use would have on neighboring properties with relation to economic effects, and a compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. We believe you have ample reason to deny on anyone of those and potentially on all four. With that, I would simply like to add a response to a couple of comments that came up this morning. I haven't heard my organization's name mentioned so much in this hallway in quite some time. I think it's important to note, The Conservancy is not and has not been a party to this agreement. I joined The Conservancy as its president in December. It is now July. In all that time, I have had one meeting with the petitioner. And that meeting didn't go real well. We did send a letter back in January, indicating what it would take for us to not be here today speaking strongly in opposition. The key component of that letter was that this beach club not be able to expand in the future, which it can if it comes back to you. That plus the size now at 3,000 square feet was more than enough to justify our opposition. I would also note that while that letter got mentioned this morning, I never got a response to it. Normally in contract law there's an offer and then a response. And we never even got a response. And Page 113 July 20, 2006 when I did meet with the petitioner, he disparaged the letter. So I think the seriousness with which our concerns were addressed is certainly open to dispute. And so I think the argument that somehow we changed our tune or whatever falls on its face. So with that, Mr. Chairman and members, I appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Question, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a question, Mr. McElwaine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask a question, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there a number where you feel this wouldn't be a problem? I mean, we have people here that have private lots that they go to, that's not a problem. So when does it start to become a problem where it affects the natural function of the site? MR. McEL W AINE: Again, as a science-based organization where my turtle scientist -- as I understand it, before I was hired, my turtle scientists kicked around -- I don't know if it was with Rookery Bay or the petitioner directly -- the idea of maybe something that was 1,500 square feet, and in that area where it really would be so small that you couldn't have more than a few people there. I mean, at that point it becomes less of a concern for us. But certainly something of this size that could expand into the future and where the enforceable limits on its use are, as the staff has indicated, quite porous, there's no particular thing as a special event permit for the sizes the petitioner says he's going to get it. I mean, at that point we're off the reservation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is there any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, Maric (sic) Barnett. MS. BARNETT: That's Marie. MR. BELLOWS: Followed by Keith Laakkonen. Page 114 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're doing good on the names today, Ray. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. BARNETT: Good afternoon. It's good to be here. My name's Marie Barnett, I live at 1525 Bembury Drive. I have a bachelor of architecture degree and also a bachelor of environmental design and architecture, and I have been designing homes out on Keewaydin Island for the last 10 years. Obviously I'm opposed to this project. It seems very complicated to me. The thing about building out on Keewaydin Island is that it's all about simplicity. What's the simplest thing to do? How are we going to make it work? It gets complicated very quickly, and especially now. If you think it's complicated now, wait till it gets to the construction process. It goes crazy. There are things you hadn't planned on that happen, and everything has to be worked out at that point. I think all the homes that are out there are constructed to be -- to exist very lightly on the land. And I think it's an impossible task to equate a single-family home or two single-family homes to this clubhouse. That is an impossible task. Even if you take the footprint of one structure and compare it to the footprint of the other structure, it's the human impact that's the issue. It's not the actual structure, it's the interaction with humans walking around the site. What's the impact of 56 people versus four daily? What's the impact of party after party on this piece of land? Trying to figure this out is like letting rats loose in a maze and then predicting where they're going to go the next time. It's impossible. This septic system, I don't really know what to say about this. It keeps changing. It's changed since the EAC. I'm just hearing about the new system today. I really feel like that has to be reviewed by Page 115 July 20, 2006 somebody other than the petitioner before it goes forward, to find out if that works or not. I'm concerned about if there is a hurricane and there's wave action, what happens when the top part of that mound gets taken off and that septic system is larger than a single-family home? So then what happens when nobody can get out there to fix it? The other issue -- I wish I had the graphic up there that showed the site with the green -- just the site itself. Either one is good. No, this one. The -- something that has come out in designing homes for my clients out there is construction access. In the last 10 years no one has come by -- come from the Gulf. They've all come from the bay side. The Gulf on all the other properties that I've designed homes on, there's a sand bar out there. So the barge -- it's impossible for the barge to come up and land and then take off equipment and go up to the house or, you know, clubhouse in this case, to construct it. So my question is, are they going to come through the mangroves? Are they going to -- is the DEP going to mitigate with the client at that point when they find that out? What's going to happen? Are they going to negotiate to cut a path through the mangrove for construction? And that's a serious concern of mine. It's something that has to be worked out now. It can't happen later. Because it changes everything. So I guess Collier County is set with, you know, what are we supposed to do? Should we monitor this and let it proceed? Isn't it just a big experiment? I think there's an easy solution. I think Collier County has a long history of protecting Keewaydin Island. I think it's now up to us to protect it once again. Developers are trying to get their foothold into Keewaydin Island, and it's up to us as citizens to protect that. I would ask everybody to vote no on this today. I also would -- I've been unable to get the EIS or any of the documentation on this, Page 116 July 20, 2006 and I wish that that was on the Internet or somewhere where Collier County citizens could go look at it. But maybe I just don't know where to find it. I've asked questions but I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave today, the young lady that spoke from staff, Carolina Valera, why don't you get her card and you can talk to her. You can give her a call and she'll arrange for you to have that information. MS. BARNETT: Okay. What about somebody else that's just, you know, a citizen that wants to figure out what's going on? Is it available anywhere to them? Should they call -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager. Yeah, you could call the planner or you could call myself. I will get whatever information you need and we'll gladly explain any proj ect in the county. . MS. BARNETT: Okay, thank you. The last thing I'd like to ask is, if this is denied by the EAC and hopefully denied by planning, does it still go through to the county commissioners? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MS. BARNETT: Is there any way that it can go through another review with the EAC? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's ways to do that, but I don't know of them being enacted at this point. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. If during the Board of County Commissioners' hearing on this item, they may remand it back to the EAC, if they felt it necessary. MS. BARNETT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, the next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Keith Laakkonen. Hope I got that right. MR. LAAKKONEN: No. That's okay. It's been misspelled, Page 11 7 July 20, 2006 mispronounced my whole life. No big deal. Keith Laakkonen. I'm the resource management coordinator with Rookery Bay Natural Estuarine Research Reserve. I have a prepared statement I'd like to go through, and then I would hope that I get some questions from the Planning Commissioners. There's been several questions already voiced this morning that hopefully I can address some of those. I would like to provide a few points for consideration -- with consideration in regards to the Keewaydin Beach pavilion. First and foremost, the proposed project is located on private property. Rookery Bay Natural Estuarine Research Reserve has no management authority on private property. Basil Street Partners has worked voluntarily with the Reserve to craft an agreement that promotes informed stewardship to conserve the resources of Keewaydin Island. In the event this project is permitted, we feel that this agreement best protects the interest and natural resources of the reserve. Rookery Bay Reserve manages 110,000 plus acres in coastal Collier County, and -- including approximately 85 percent of Keewaydin Island. The State of Florida was unsuccessful in its efforts to purchase this subject property on Keewaydin Island, but thousands of other acres were purchased through programs such as CARL and Florida Forever. In fact, nearly $57 million has been spent to date to acquire these lands within the reserve. Management of these lands is achieved through our state approved management plan. One of our stated program issues described in our management plan is public access and visitor use. A few key points for this -- goals for this issue include: To develop public access and visitor use proj ects that promote uses of reserve resources that are compatible with the mission of the reserve, ensure protection of key natural and cultural resources, and keeps pace with the changing needs of local communities. Page 118 July 20, 2006 Utilized public access within the reserve is education and interpretation opportunities that encourage coastal stewardship. Use existing authority provided by local, state and federal laws and establish appropriate policies for public access that ensure protection of important natural resources and work cooperatively with partner agencies and law enforcement to provide enforcement. Obviously the Reserve recognizes that Keewaydin Island is a special place with fragile natural resources. While Keewaydin Island may be one of the least impacted and undeveloped barrier islands in southwest Florida, it is far from pristine. The Reserve staff monitors public visitation to Keewaydin. On a typical weekend day, it's not unusual to see over 200 people at the south end of Keewaydin Island, an area historically known as boaters beach. On a holiday weekend, such as July 4th or the canoe race, these numbers have soared to 1,400, even 3,500 people at the south tip of Keewaydin Island. These incredible numbers lead to resource damage in the form of trash, trampled vegetation, unleashed dogs and disturbed wildlife. Education has been the Reserve's best course of action in dealing with infractions such as these due to the staffs lack of enforcement authority . Reserve staff have already been documenting other impacts to natural resources on Keewaydin Island, resulting from actions of some property owners. Collier County Code Enforcement, DEP beaches and coastal systems, D EP submerged lands environmental resource protection, and Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation are all in various stages of investigating various violations on the island. These violations include: Unpermitted structures, clearing of vegetation without a permit, cutting and filling of mangroves, alterations of dunes without a permit, impacting Gopher Tortoises and their habitat, furniture on the beach can impact nesting sea turtles, unleashed dogs Page 119 July 20, 2006 and operation of a motorized vehicle without a permit. This agreement is designed to keep all those things from happening in the first place. Currently the lack of reserve staff enforcement authority has led to some unpleasant situations on the island. Reserve staff members have tactfully and politely requested visitors to remedy certain undesirable actions, such as littering and dogs off leash, but are frequently encountered with responses including more noncompliance and occasionally a stream of obscenities. A key point here that Rookery Bay Reserve, again staff have no enforcement authority. We must work with our state and local partner agencies that do have enforcement authority to remedy violations where they occur. This agreement provides the Reserve the enforcement authority needed to protect resources on the island and to ensure that violations do not occur. I have a list of some of the rules from the operations manual, but Clay went through those this morning. A few key points are that yes, the potential expansion of the footprint can be 4,500 square feet. There's already buildings that size and larger, some potentially unpermitted that already exist on the island. They -- some other stuff that we've really paid attention to on this agreement to actually protect the island, they're only allowed to use low soil activity herbicides. They have to maintain the site free of exotic vegetation, and they can only plant natives. Beach raking, live shelling, open fires, fireworks, pets and boat races are prohibited. Those things go on now in other parts of the island, and we don't have much authority to stop that. Reserve staff are permitted round-the-clock access, and will have a presence at the pavilion to ensure compliance. This agreement in many ways will allow for the best enforcement Page 120 July 20, 2006 authority that the Reserve can have on the island. We feel this agreement is the best mechanism to protect natural resources of Keewaydin Island in a proactive manner that balances conservation with the public's ability to enjoy the reserve. The Reserve is concerned with facilitating the best protective measures on the island that can be arranged. A number of commercial operations already exist on the island, and we do not make a distinction from impacts between private operations and commercial operations. Impacts are the same. The Reserve does not support development. We do support environmentally sound development practices that encourage stewardship of our natural resources. The decision to permit this proj ect lies in the hands of the Planning Commission and County Commissioners. We feel this agreement is a ground-breaking accomplishment, establishing a precedent that proposed development plans within the Reserve boundaries need to be addressed as a cooperative effort, with both parties agreeing to the priority objective. Protect and preserve our coastal resources for generations to come. From a land management and ecosystem perspective, we feel we have done our best with this arrangement to protect the resources of the Reserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions of Rookery Bay? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You mentioned there's other commercial uses on the island? MR. LAAKKONEN: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Which ones are those? MR. LAAKKONEN: There are currently -- Windstar currently has an operation out there, Marker 40 Club and the Naples Cruise Club, to name at least three off the top of my head. Page 121 July 20, 2006 And they currently have operations where people come to the back of the island, tie up to the dock and then head over to the front side of the island on the beach. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they have clubhouses, Keith? MR. LAAKKONEN: I know -- I think Windstar does. I can't speak for the others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's interesting. I was wondering why staff wouldn't have notified us of that during the report. Okay. All right, I'll find that out. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're inviting questions, so-- MR. LAAKKONEN: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I know you're eager and I can hear it that you want to be able to show that you have something that you can get your hands on and do good with. It strikes me, though, that each of the things that you indicated were problems really require the greatest attention in order to preserve the island. And while it may appear that this is a useful thing, I'm not sure that it would provide that. I guess my question to you is, do you not have any authority on the island today to do anything, any enforcement whatsoever? You have no controls whatsoever? MR. LAAKKONEN: Back in the early Nineties, Rookery Bay was actually -- actually used to have law enforcement. Back when -- prior to the Department of Natural Resources. Before the state merged DER and DNR into DEP. Back then we actually did have some staff with law enforcement authority. We currently don't have any staff with that now. And like I said, we can politely ask people not to do certain things, but we don't have any ability to enforce that. And that's -- all the things that we've worked into this agreement have been identified as problems in other areas of the island. Now we Page 122 July 20, 2006 can actually -- all staff, Rookery Bay staff, have the ability to go out and enforce this agreement. And we feel it sets a positive precedent in this way. Because this is a gap for us we absolutely recommend -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can appreciate that from your perspective, but it strikes me and might strike others that at the same time it hasn't done a thing to resolve any of the major problems that you say are extensive. That would be my comment on that, unfortunately. MR. LAAKKONEN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: How many people are you going to dedicate to monitoring the situation at this club? MR. LAAKKONEN: Rookery Bay has 35 employees. And my section, which is resource management, we actually have one position which is fairly new which is a public access position. That's 100 percent of this person's time is actually dedicated to monitoring impacts of visitor resource, and actually has been the lead in actually working with Collier County Code Enforcement Board, Fish & Wildlife to help bring some of these violations to light and actually start to remedy solutions to the violations. This staff member, he's also -- he's the one that actually monitors the numbers on Keewaydin Island, where the boats are, what they're doing, who's doing what. So we do have staff, you know. And I've heard that as a criticism, that we don't have the resources. Well, we in fact do have dedicated public access staff that can actually go out there and be out there monitoring us to see -- actually help them comply with it. And, you know, the other part of the agreement, it is good faith on their end. They're actually taking a lot of onus on their shoulders and they've actually given up a lot of private property rights. So we do have staff that will be out there, enforcements. And I'm not going to tell anyone when, because that's kind of part of the element of it. Page 123 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: One person, you said? MR. LAAKKONEN: We have one dedicated public access person, but we do have lots of other staff on the island. We have -- Rookery Bay has a presence on Keewaydin nearly daily, some form or another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, I thought you were done. COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have a question? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: These other clubs that are out there which are new to us, are you having any trouble with them? What kind of population do they bring to the island; do you know? MR. LAAKKONEN: It can be heavy probably on weekends, mostly. We've seen upwards of30, 40 people at some of these places. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And do they tend to police themselves well, or are they a problem for you? MR. LAAKKONEN: I think there's, you know, probably some situations that we've run into where people have actually left picnic tables out on the beach which can affect, you know, nesting sea turtles. And, you know, sometimes we'll see, you know, they'll be flushing birds off, you know, things like that, without realizing it, you know. And, you know, the nice thing about this agreement is we recognize that that's happened on other parts of the island. So actually educating people that a bird sitting there should not be flushed just because your kid wants to run through the seagulls. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing, unleashed dogs and animals that residential users have, aren't they a big problem? Wouldn't they be -- I mean, wouldn't the unleashed animals be more of a problem than humans? Page 124 July 20, 2006 MR. LAAKKONEN: Not necessarily. Although the dogs definitely are a huge problem on Keewaydin Island. Unleashed dogs, too. Our ornithologist describes it as to a bird a dog is like a tyrannosaurus rex. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, you talked about promoting public access, but you do realize that this is not public access, this is a private club for membership only. And even part of their membership they may be turning away. MR. LAAKKONEN: Once they go below their property, which is below mean high -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. LAAKKONEN: -- it's actually within the Reserve, it's public access at that point. You know, everybody owns the beach. COMMISSIONER CARON: And it is that today. MR. LAAKKONEN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: That doesn't change with that agreement. MR. LAAKKONEN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's the same. MR. LAAKKONEN: Right. And, you know, public access is the term we use for when the public is doing anything in the Reserve, whether they're fishing on the grass flats at Cape Romano or whether they're walking on the beach at Keewaydin Island. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Keith. I think I have a follow-up question with Carolina in regards to your comments about the other facilities operating in a similar manner. I'd certainly like to know what they are and what's going on. MS. VALERA: The way I understand it, most of the property, if not all, they are zoned agricultural, and they do not have conditional uses that we're seeking with this board. Meaning that if there is a Page 125 July 20, 2006 property and there is a recreational passive use, that is -- it's legal. I don't know the details of the Windstar PUD in regards to that property. I haven't investigated that. What I do understand from code enforcement is that they have an open case on that property, and they are researching to see if they have -- if their structure there was built legally or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in spite of there may be some activity, there's no activity that's tied to another conditional use on that island that you know of? MS. VALERA: There is none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Carolina. MS. VALERA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: You have two speakers. Judith Hushon, followed by David -- didn't get it, did I? And the other one is David -- (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. HUSHON: I'm Judith Hushon and I'm on the EAC. And it's very unusual for me to decide to come to this meeting, because we sort of do our own meetings and send you out reports. Except that the EAC felt really strongly on this issue. It's rare that we feel this strongly about something. We voted nine to nothing to deny the petition. That was unanimous for the board that was collected on that day. We had a number of concerns during our review. We are aware that at least three-quarters of that island is in conservation, and it's that way for a reason. Most of the barrier islands that have heavy use, which is what this would be, have city water, city sewers, they happen to be connected by a land bridge somehow . We're thinking about -- just think about the other ones somewhere else where you've been along the east coast or down near Miami or somewhere else you're on a barrier island. But -- and there's heavy development. But they have Page 126 July 20, 2006 water and sewer. Our biggest concerns came with the large crowds and the water and sewer issues. They will be bringing water on. They said they have a two-day supply underneath. Well, obviously that's not -- the cisterns aren't contributing very heavily to that, because our rain comes in the summer and their crowds are coming in the winter and you can figure that one out. And a two-day supply will only allow them a max of 250 people. They weren't maxing that. So understand, I mean, that's pretty simple math. The structure size has grown since the EAC reviewed it. And wasn't it 2,500 then? Okay, so it hasn't grown. But they were looking at footprint. There's also the possibility over the same approval going up. We have that as an issue. We have footprint approved. They could do something else. That's also a concern. But it is a large size. But the size of the house -- of the shelter area is not really the concern, because they are leaving most of the land in conservancy, as is true, I should say, of most of the homes on that island. Our architect could probably comment on that. But most of the homes have left the bulk of the property undisturbed. Because mainly they come in along a little trail, they go to their house, they go to the beach. And so they're little trails that kind of lead that way. We had concern about the sewage, and I think we still do. The problem is that this is a barrier island. They are likely to get storm surge there. It's almost a given that at some point they're going to get storm surge on this island. When is the issue. How often. But as sea level rises, storm surge becomes even a greater possibility. And so as they -- if they should have that problem, their septic field, we will have the contents of their septic field washing out with that into the bay. It's true, all the homes will have that happen, too. It's just that their septic field's going to get hit a lot harder than everybody else's. It has a lot more in it than those from private homes. It's bigger. Page 127 July 20, 2006 So we're talking -- it's order of magnitude here on the problem. That's where we're coming from and that was our concern. In terms of the number of people, it's probably -- the EAC was very concerned. We figured they probably are going to have a very hard time really turning people away. People will get nasty. These few people that they have of staff on-site aren't going to be prepared for turning that away. Somebody who has come in with a boat load of people, they're already at 50 and they've got 10 people on this boat. He paid his money, he's going to come on. They're not going to be able to keep these people off. And then another boat comes up. I mean, the whole thing can just multiply. On a really nice day -- what about the 4th of July? What about a really nice day during season? A big time. We just -- we were very concerned about that. There was no claim to ever limit the number, period. And that leaves it really wide open what could happen. The real concern that the board had ultimately, because you look at it and you say well, you know, this land's in the middle of these two conservancy areas, you could actually take all that land and average it out, maybe it would all average out just fine, is precedent. We had had two people testify before us who came and said that real estate developers had come up to them and offered -- this one man had two adjoining lots, looks very similar to this property. He was down the island a little ways. But he said, I've had somebody come up to me and try to buy them. In fact, if you go look at the Sunday paper, somebody's offering a lot for sale. Says it's perfect for a beach club. This is precedent. We could have all of the private home lots, which is the 15 percent that is not in conservancy in beach clubs. It may become a lot better to sell your beach house on this little barrier island and turn it into a beach club. And that was our concern. Once you have let one in, there's no Page 128 July 20, 2006 way to turn the others away. And so the EAC put our heads together and we came up with a nine to nothing against it. We hope that you -- I just wanted to bring our logic and what we had been concerned about to you as your board. Because you'll look at it, too. We felt strongly enough -- we only do this very rarely, but we sent a memo to the commissioners stating this. And that didn't come to you all as part of your packet, but it did go to the commissioners, or will go to the commissioners when they see the packet, with your recommendation as well. And so I just wanted to let you know what we -- how we had felt, where we have thought, and how our decision had come down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. In the four years I've been here, I haven't had anybody from the EAC speak before us before, so please tell your board this board says hi. Thank you. Ray, I hear we have another speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, Kerry Geroy? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. GEROY: Good afternoon. My name is Kerry Geroy. I live at 1917 Holiday Lane. For the record, I'm not a landowner, have no private interest on Keewaydin, and I'm not representing any group on the island or in the community for that matter. I'm here today as a private citizen. I've lived in Collier County for over 25 years. And having lived here for this long, I feel both blessed and cursed. It's a real mixed feeling because having such roots here. And this is the first time I've come before, other than City Council, any other commissions. I feel blessed here because I've been able to live, work and raise a family in paradise. People travel thousands of miles just to vacation here. And I feel cursed because I know what Collier County used to look like. And cursed because I've watched the slow erosion of Page 129 July 20, 2006 paradise due to development. I know that what we have as paradise in Collier County is quickly disappearing. Please do not let Keewaydin fall victim to this development of any kind. I know you're already aware of the sensitive environment of the shore birds and the turtles, the plants and the animal species that live there. You don't need me to tell you that environmentally Keewaydin is a critical part of an extremely sensitive habitat known as Rookery Bay and within the 10,000 Islands, and it's a habitat like no other in the U.S. It's unique and we're lucky to have it here. So the environment is one reason to vote no on the petition. However, I believe another important reason to vote no on the petition is the precedent it would set. A precedent that once the first commercial development, no matter how big or small, goes in, the door has just been opened, a door that can't be shut. If this is passed, here's what you might expect in the future. Basil Street's expansion from 2,900 square feet to 4,500 square feet. They say today that that's not their true intentions, but it doesn't limit them in the future from doing it. Other developers will purchase property currently held by individuals. They want to do the same thing and have beach clubs. Then the request will be for the facilities to get bigger, larger. Water, sewer, roads. Already in the pipeline the intentions of Collier County Parks and Recreation Department to run a shuttle from Bayview Park to Keewaydin Island for the county residents. If that goes through, we'll need parking. Do we put a parking garage at Bayview? If Bayview gets a shuttle for county residents, what will the people on Marco want? They'll want to go, too. Will they get parking and a shuttle? With all of that, the county resources being used for this -- the county resources being used for infrastructure, maintenance, code enforcement, mosquito control, law enforcement, utilities and trash removal, county funds being used to purchase vehicles, including boats, four-wheelers to access the island so we can enforce this deal Page 130 July 20, 2006 and others on the island, staffing issues. For goodness sake, we can't get enough staff to fill the jobs we have now, how are we going to do staffing issues for a barrier island? These are just a few examples. And I know these examples don't even scratch the surface, but it's been a long day, you all are ready to go home, I'm sure. And I won't continue the list that just snowballs to disaster. And now that I've stated some of the negative -- obvious negative ramifications that would follow passing this petition, I would look for possible solutions in order to help Basil Street create an amenity for the residents. I charge Basil Street with the task of getting creative to work with what we already have established and built in Collier County. I've come up with a list of my own. A few alternative options might be collaborative alliance with other facilities such as Pelican Bay. They already have two beautiful facilities, the Commons and the Sandpiper, with all the amenities, and they have golf. Naples Grand Resort and Spa, Naples Beach Club, The Edgewater, LaPlaya, all beautiful beach facilities with amenities and spas. And there are other options that can be explored and satisfy Basil's need for marketing. There are other ways to -- I'm sorry, there are other ways to enjoy beaches of Collier County without building on every square inch of shoreline. Please, please, vote no on this position. There's absolutely no benefit to the county by passing it. It will only set a very dangerous and poisonous precedent. One more nail in the coffin of paradise. And I just hope one day my daughter will remember Keewaydin as it is today. Please vote no. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Clay, I typically allow a rebuttal. How Page 131 July 20, 2006 much time do you think you'll need? If you sayan hour and a half, it isn't going to fly. MR. BROOKER: I don't think I could make an hour and a half. Three or four minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, why don't you do that and then we'll -- MR. BROOKER: I should have said 10 to 15 now, shouldn't I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead and take -- well, let's do your rebuttal now and afterwards we'll take a short break and then come back for discussion. MR. BROOKER: Okay. First, commenting on what's shown on ELMO, there were comments earlier on in the earlier presentation -- or in the question and answer session about the justification for the size and the 56 people and so forth and so on. But I want to point out that the number of seats shown there on the diagram number 56. So yes, we are trying to provide a convenient atmosphere for people to sit down and make sure everyone does have a seat. You should know that it's -- you know, taking the restroom out of the square footage, which I think is about 560 square feet, the remainder is divided about half and half between covered and uncovered, to allow people to be in the sun while they're sitting or be in the shade while they're sitting. So in the event of rain, people will most likely want to move underneath the cover. The bottom line is we are just -- we're trying to provide a convenient spot for people to rest, possibly get out of the sun, and for everyone to have a seat. There was talk about -- one of the public speakers mentioned this is luxurious. I guess that's a subjective standard. I don't personally see it as all that luxurious. This is not a Ritz-Carlton. But what I -- the thought that keeps running through my mind when I hear a lot of these comments is the 6,000 square foot house on Keewaydin Island Page 132 July 20, 2006 that exists today that advertises for weddings. Is that not luxurious? Aren't we entitled to the same thing? Especially when we are providing a 50-page document of rules that they don't -- that aren't applicable to anyone else. It just seems a little bit unfair for people to say, you know, stay off our island, yet they get to do whatever they like to do, they don't have any of these rules that are -- that we have proposed applicable to them. In terms of the enforcement of the agreement, again, I don't want to repeat myself. Good faith, we intend to enforce it strictly. Will there be unfortunate or uncomfortable encounters? Possibly. But we intend to deal with them in a way that we have abound ourselves to deal with them, by written agreement. However, notwithstanding that, what we are willing to do is pay a fair share of the cost of an additional Rookery Bay compliance officer to enforce the code against all Keewaydin Island properties to their best abilities and against our property and to enforce our proposal against us. Again, our fair share. What would be a reasonable fair share to add another compliance officer there and share that cost with the island. With regard to Mr. McElwaine's comments from The Conservancy, he harped on the fact that the Growth Management Plan, the CCME in particular, requires enhancement of the island. I challenge anyone to give me an answer of how a single-family home enhances the island. If that in fact is true, there's not one single structure on that island that enhances it. Then Mr. McElwaine says if a structure alone -- well, he says that the mere placing of a structure on this property is incompatible. Just the concept of placing a structure on the property is incompatible. Again, it begs the question, then how is every single-family home out there compatible with a natural barrier island? The 4,500 feet, 2,925, Mr. McElwaine -- we did meet not with Page 133 July 20, 2006 Mr. McElwaine but with Nicole Ryan maybe one or two times prior. I don't want to get it wrong, that's why I looked back to her. One or two times prior to the meeting, we actually met with Nicole and Mr. McElwaine. And at that meeting, the 2,925, that number had been in existence for some time now. Or at that point in time. And when we suggested the idea of a 4,500 square foot cap on a future expansion possibility -- of course along with that would require a conditional use amendment -- Mr. McElwaine's comments would be we'd be very interested to see that. That's near a quote. And so when we get their response now, you can understand why I made the comment earlier, we were a bit disappointed. The hydraulic lift. I know Commissioner Schiffer brought that up. We will look into removing that hydraulic lift and will do so if it is viable. Precedent. Again, we are located in a spot that no one else, no other private property owner, no matter who has been contacted by other developers, if that's -- if other developers are thinking about trying to propose what we're proposing today, the problem they're going to face is they are not buffered by 800 to 1,000 feet of conservation area on each side of them. Weare. That in and of itself creates compatibility and a buffer and creates -- does not create a precedent. In terms of someone else relying upon that approval, they're going to have to show how are you buffered like the Basil Street Partners' property is buffered? No one will be able to. And in conclusion, I think I'd like to just follow up. Keith said it very well, but the documents and agreements -- I believe this follows up on Commissioner Tuffs comments. The documents and agreements that we are proposing today provide more protection for the island and for this property than would exist today or would -- do exist today or would exist if it was developed as single-family homes. And with that, I'll conclude. We obviously respectfully request a Page 134 July 20, 2006 recommendation of approval, and I thank you for your attention and time through this long hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, your time frames are like Tony Pires. With that, we'll take a 10-minute break to 2:25. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody will take their seats, please. When we finished up a moment ago, it was Mr. Brooker that had his rebuttal. It turns up Mr. Schiffer had a question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So did Tor. And I guess, Clay, you know, I'm having trouble with some of the parts of this. Really, the commercial thing. Could you live with this without the special events? How important is that? I mean, because here's the thing, is that I can kind of see this thing. I'd like to make it smaller. But one of the problems is I think the special events are really the commercial aspect of this. Other than that, it's citizens just using a beach club. MR. BROOKER: Well, I guess our response is this: We are approaching special events in a forthright manner. We know that they occur on that island now and are not permitted. So we want the same rights that everyone else has. And we are offering to do it in the right way. Having said that, if it's a condition of approval that -- to move forward with a recommendation of approval and having no special events, we'll go back, we'll talk about it, we can maybe be able to live with it, we may not be able to live with it and we'll deal with it at the BCC level. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the concern, and I think it's a valid concern, that we don't want to start bringing commercial stuff out on the island. The special events are essentially the commercial stuff. I mean, if you were booking this for a wedding Page 135 July 20, 2006 or a group party, then that's a commercial activity. The other thing is the size of it. This building, by the way it's designed with one exit, could only have 50 people in it or you couldn't -- you could have less than 50 people in it. Would that be a problem if you limited the occupancy of the island to that? MR. BROOKER: The occupancy to 50 people? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Less than 50, actually. Forty-nine, let's call it. And here's the -- first of all, that building can't take more than 49 the way it's designed with one exit. Now, I know that in the plans processing you'd add an exit or something. But -- and I'd also like to see if you could bring it down to 750 feet, which would be a small cute little beach pavilion for the people to use it and honestly use it just as a beach pavilion, not make it anything more than that. MR. BROOKER: Well, again, it would be-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because here's the problem -- MR. BROOKER: -- a lot smaller than the existing structure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You have a lot of bathrooms that could take, you know, essentially sized by code, hundreds of people, over 500. When you have a square footage that could take-- and you're right, some of it's covered, so it's not -- you know, it's around a little over 100, not the 160 I said. Then that means that you're building a facility larger than you need. And I think that's what's scaring everybody is that it could become what it's built to be. Where I think that if you actually in good faith built a small little beach club for the residents of these private communities, I think that might be more acceptable, and eliminate the renting of it out for special activities. MR. BROOKER: Well, again, if a condition is made to recommend approval, then we'll go back and look at it and deal with it at the BCC level. But my comments on that are 750 square feet that you mentioned is smaller than The Conservancy structure, smaller Page 136 July 20, 2006 than Windstar's structure, and as a matter of fact, it's half of size that even Mr. McElwaine, when he was up here for The Conservancy, mentioned. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, let me bump my suggestion to Mr. McElwaine's 1,500 then. And what that is, is that would give you by code the ability to have about 100 people. MR. BROOKER: For seating purposes or for just standing inside it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For open seating. I mean, that's what we would figure. Any kind ofa dining room, any kind of an assembly area, it would be one for 15 square feet. That's my statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments before we close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I had a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, Tor. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Just had a question. Clay, what concerns me is the precedent angle. You've several times said that you don't feel this would set a precedent if the conditional use is granted. Do you still feel that way, that there wouldn't be a precedent estab lished? MR. BROOKER: Absolutely. I feel that way for -- and this may be my third time of saying, but the buffer, and I'll just leave it at that. Because we are situated in between two large, large tracts that no one else can claim that they are situated in the same way. Also, the conditional use by definition is something that can be limited by location, size, number, so forth and so on. So as a matter of law, regardless of the actual factual scenario we find ourselves in this particular -- with this particular subject property, as a matter of law, no one can claim, no one can stand before you legally and said (sic) you granted it before, you must grant it to me Page 137 July 20, 2006 now. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, I'd like to remind you of a letter that was sent to you dated January 13th, 2006 from Gary Litton, an environmental administrator for the D EP. And I quote, we would remind the applicant that this project might set a precedent for development and visitor use on Keewaydin Island. So apparently you and he don't agree, even though you're partners. MR. BROOKER: Well, I guess it's more of the idea of something like this coming up that people may think oh, well, I can go and do the same thing. Well, as a matter of practicality and as a matter of law, they cannot claim that as a right. And by the way, Mr. Litton, Gary Litton is I believe Keith Laakkonen's supervisor, and we see eye-to-eye with Gary and Keith on these matters. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, it still gives me concern about precedent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all, Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Clay. MR. BROOKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ray, we have no other speakers; is that right? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing and we'll have a -- we'll start our discussion. And what I'd like to do is have our open discussion first and then go into a motion after some discussion. Is that okay, Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That sounds fine. Page 138 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I also know of two offers for commercial property here on the island. If this is approved, in my feelings, this will not come as a section, this will come in a dredge of people who want to do the same thing. This is a very fragile island and there's nothing else we can say about it. In a perfect world this would be a very nice, 56 people on a beautiful island. But this is not a perfect world that we live in. And therefore, if this gets imposed on and this is derived by other people doing so, this entire island could be made unusable. I don't think we want to do that. I think it is time for us to realize that there are certain places where -- that have a right to stay as they are, because they are in fact so very fragile. And I think that's the way I'd have to handle this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me ask Lindy a question on this. Lindy, do you think -- I mean, they do have a good point that they are really surrounded by state-owned and -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But that won't stop the next developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He can answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I know he can answer you, but you guys can't talk at the same time. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But that's -- your statement is true, but the truth of the matter is this if this is approved, an awful lot of people with commercial values will come in at the same thing to try to do the same thing. And if the first one gets in and then the second one gets in, and then maybe the third and the fourth, then this whole thing is going to come apart. Because as fragile as it is, it is very fragile. There is no way to say, oh, they'll all do the right things. No, Page 139 July 20, 2006 they won't. They'll do what people mostly do. And as far as I'm concerned, if we could say this is a proj ect and nobody else can do it, that might have a different feeling to me, but I know very well, and knowing people that that's not what's going to happen. If they get it, other people will go get it also, and again this whole thing will be collapsed because of the actual value that is there and the fragileness that can be destroyed by this kind of thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Lindy, why is this land then zoned agricultural, not conservation, like it is on the other side of the waterway? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I didn't ask anybody. They don't -- I understand that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What if we limit this in such a way -- I mean, I definitely think we have to take away the ability to rent this thing as a commercial activity. What if we took that away and let this solely be a place where people in these communities can get to the beach? Right now a lot of private citizens have that right. And it's single -- I mean, they own the lot, they can bring how many or whoever they want. When I was giving Carolina -- going up the scale, there was never a threshold that said they couldn't bring that many people. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But they can do that right now. I mean, they can send anybody from that place to this location because they own the land. But the minute we make it a commercial item and it becomes a commercial item, then anybody else in this community can also come for a commercial item, and that will destroy it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's my problem, because I can't find when it becomes commercial. Once they provide sanitation for it, that's an asset, that's not commercial. Once they build enough of a shed that I think minimally the people could run to in a rain storm or a place to hang out in a shade, I don't think that's commercial yet. Page 140 July 20, 2006 Once they start renting out for weddings and banquets and things, that's commercial. So if we could keep it below that threshold, do you think we're there? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They are paying a price for this to become members. That's commercial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As the people who don't live there buy a lot to essentially become sole members of a club to use -- access the island. It's the same thing to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you guys -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Enough said. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, we can go on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys could debate this for the rest of the day. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a comment. I was intrigued by Mr. Brooker's -- and should this go forward, I was intrigued by Mr. Brooker's offer. I think you made an offer that they would pay for another conservation officer or whatever the title is. And it struck me, in relation to all of the other -- the assertions about all the other failures that are on that island and how obviously we need -- the county needs to be looking at those things and making things happen, it would have been in my mind far better that they were willing to pay for a county code enforcement person to expedite what obviously is a serious, serious problem on the island and that needs attention. Because if I learned anything from this entire thing today, it's that Keewaydin Island is in serious, serious jeopardy. And not only from the weekend boaters that we could probably tolerate, but from the assertions that there are parties and there are commercial enterprises and there are things going on that were never intended. And the county needs to be in control of that. So I don't know that it's possible that they could pay for an Page 141 July 20, 2006 officer, but that was my thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Mr. Brooker, the hearing's closed and we're having our discussion. Whatever -- if a motion evolves where there's stipulations, I'm sure that something of some nature will be entered into in that regard. My comments on this are -- and I'm listening to Brad and Lindy. Brad, it's kind of like a tube of toothpaste, once you push the toothpaste out, it's really hard to get it back in. And I'm concerned that the compatibility issues involved with such an operation are going to open that island up to change its entire texture. My belief is that the density issue is much, much more than a footprint of a building. Well, that has been where it's been tried to be limited to today. I believe density is also related to intensity and it's related to the number of people and the actions of those people. And the special events and the amplified music to 65 decibels is not compatible to the nature of an island such as this. So I certainly empathize with the residents that are there, and I am not in favor of what I've seen here so far today. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think a very good issue was brought to this commission, and that is one that the petitioners have not addressed and did not take the opportunity to address, and that is safety . You can bring -- they can bring any number of people, essentially an unlimited number of people to an event and there is no -- there is nothing here for the safety of the public. The Isle of Capri Fire Department, according to testimony that we have, has one boat. One EMS boat to satisfy the entire island. Never mind what's happening with 1,500 people at an event on this piece of property. I really think that we should be concerned. That's not in the public interest. It's not compatible. And I just don't see it as Page 142 July 20, 2006 compatible with the district. I don't think it's good for the property owners on the island. It does not have my vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me get Mr. Vigliotti, Mr. Tuff and then Tor, and then I'd like to get it wrapped up so we can entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a problem with the compatibility and also the self-policing. I can't see how self-policing is going to work. You're going to cause problems with the members. And again, the mentality is hospitality industry. I can't see it self-policing as a means of working. And again, I really don't see the compatibility. Everything else is one family, single-family residence. This is a commercial, open to the public situation. I just can't see how they fit together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I guess the thing that brought the red flags when Clay was talking is that he said -- you were saying this may set a precedent and saying, I just want what everybody else has. That's what the next guy says and the next guy says. And so I -- and the theory of it I think is very, very good. And Annette says that no, it's not going to be that nice if you don't have all this stuff. So I don't believe the compatibility exists in practice, just in theory . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Based on the testimony and information I've received, I've arrived at the following findings in my judgment. One, in the proposed implicit commercial use is not an authorized use in the LDC, nor is it compatible with the conservation designation. Two, granting this conditional use will adversely affect the public interest in other property or uses in the same district. Three, conditional use is inconsistent with LDC conservation designation. Page 143 July 20, 2006 F our: Inadequate ingress or egress in the case of emergency or a catastrophe. Five: Adversely affects neighboring properties relative to noise and glare. Six, incompatible with other properties within the district. A lot of people in the 25 years I've lived here put a lot of money and effort into keep this Keewaydin Island a nice and pristine pleasurable island to go to. And I for one don't want to be part of conversion of Keewaydin Island to Conywaydin (sic) Island, so I will vote against this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that I'd like to end this part of the discussion. We'll have a short hopefully discussion during the deliberation of the motion. Is there a motion from anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to make kind of like a Phoenix motion to see if we can pull it out of the ashes, and we'll see where the vote goes. I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of CU-2005-AR-7181 with the added -- in the staff conditions with the added following condition: Is that the occupancy will always be less than 50; that the total building area can never exceed 1,500 feet; that there be no handicap lift that will be done through a ramp system of the boardwalk, and that there be built into this first aid, defibrillator, and the staff will be trained in first aid. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer has made a motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Back in the ashes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Going once, going twice, gone. Y '? es, SIr. MR, BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, I just -- one clarification. Would that include the document that was prepared -- Page 144 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He didn't get a second to his motion, so there's no point in this. Is there another motion? Mr. Adelstein's been asking -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I want to get it done. I move that AR - 7181 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of non-approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second to Mr. Adelstein's motion? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat made a second. Is there discussion? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I need you to articulate one or more of the reasons in the Land Development Code for your motion so it's on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a series of items that I can start, and if you guys agree with it, fine. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And the motion maker and the second could accept them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I find it inconsistent with Land Development Code Section 3.03.07 because of the density issue. 2.03.07 because of the preserve incompatibility issue. 10.08.00, numbers one, three and four. One because of GMP inconsistency, three because of noise and economic issues, and four because of compatibility. And I find it inconsistent with the GMP, CCME 10.6,1.1 due to the density, 10.3.8 due to the density, 10,3.2 due to compatibility. And the FLUE Section 5.4 due to compatibility. Those are my reasons for voting no on this motion, Yes, Ms. Student? MS, STUDENT-STIRLING: I do hear -- I've heard safety discussed. I didn't hear that -- there was testimony about it. I didn't Page 145 July 20, 2006 hear that as one of the reasons, but I heard other people up there talk about it. And it is a criterion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I didn't have reference numeric for that. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Access in the case of fire or catastrophe. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right here, B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: B. Oh, you're reading off this. I was reading from -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I was reading from conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be findings of fact, Item B. I agree with you, I just didn't have the reference, Anyway, those are the references from the code that I believe are COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will accept them, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are accepted by the motion maker. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Accepted by the second, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Accepted by the second. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to have a raise of hands, all those in favor of the motion for denial, please signify by raising their hand. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicating,) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) Page 146 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'd like to make another motion and that motion be that the Chairman also send a letter to the Board of County Commissioners emphasizing how important we think this issue is and urging their support and our recommendation of denial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does the rest of the board feel about that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a motion made and seconded to send a letter to the Board of County Commissioners indicating our position on this. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, opposed, aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think we should deny this with prejudice. Page 147 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just following a motion at this point, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Count my vote against that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-1. So a letter will be sent to the Board of County Commissioners. That will end this hearing on the Keewaydin issue. Thank you all for your patience today and for attending the meeting. COMMISSIONER CARON: The commission needs to remember to turn in their conditional use slip. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will take a five-minute break while the court reporters switch, Item #9 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now that we have a fresh court reporter we can wear her out like we have everybody else. We're still in session on the other meetings so we're not to the LDC meeting yet. Now, in regards to the other meeting, there was one issue under old business that Mr. Kolflat had added, and I want to certainly give him the opportunity and thank him for his patience for two other meetings that we didn't get to his issue. Mr. Kolflat, it's all yours. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Ray, could you put that -- yes, thank you. This is old business, I mean, it's really old, because I think we've been talking about this for several months. But this is an article that I obtained out of the Naples Daily News. And what it shows in some of the major developments in the county is the amount of units that have not yet been built. Now I understand this is out of date. Mr. Schmitt pointed that out to me a week or so ago. Page 148 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it ever! It certainly is out of date and inaccurate. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: As far as numbers, I'm not arguing that. But I wanted to point out that sometimes you find some areas where there are a lot of unbuilt units in various developments surrounding an area that we would perhaps be reviewing another petition for a new development. And is there any way that the transportation department can estimate or come up with some factor on the traffic impact from construction traffic to put through the other traffi c? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Transportation, mysteriously has left. They were here for the first six hours and didn't need to be, and now when we needed them for an issue that was on the agenda they have departed. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: He's going to Cincinnati. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is it something that we could direct to them or ask to them, if they would give it some consideration to see if there is a mechanism to equate what's the impact of these proj ects that are in construction? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: Let me just talk philosophically. Philosophically, from a concurrency standpoint, and I'll turn to Jeff for some attorney advice as well, but there is no criteria for evaluating the impact of construction activities associated with development. Development, and the impact of development on our road network, is predicated on a transportation study that is basically founded -- or at least determined based on residency, that's the intensity and density but not the impact of the construction, And it certainly is something definitely worth discussing and maybe to consider, or you as a board wish to forward to the Board of County Commissioners, but from a zoning perspective and a transportation impact study perspective there is no evaluation from the impact during Page 149 July 20, 2006 construction. It is the impact of the development. Frankly, if you want to refer to it at its end state, that's the residential units for the intensity of that commercial use, MR. KLATZKOW: We don't have real-time concurrency, We operate a couple of years in advance. And construction traffic is going to be temporary. By the time you are fully developed the construction traffic then is gone. So my understanding is it's not taken into account, and, quite frankly, probably shouldn't be taken into account since it is short-term duration anyway that will, once the development is completed, will be gone. I think it could be prejudicial in the decision-making process but I don't really think it's that relevant at the end of the day. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You don't think the magnitude is large enough to make a significant impact? MR. KLATZKOW: Ifwe had real-time concurrency I would agree with you for roads. The way legislature has constructed and restricted us we don't have that. We're always building roads a couple years after we really need them, and I don't know how you fit that in. You can certainly ask transportation to provide you the numbers. I'm sure they could calculate the numbers. I don't know how relevant it is, though. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: This is as far as number wise. But when it was published and when I pursued it, at that time, if you look at the intersection of951 and U.S. 41, I think I came up with 80 percent of those units were unbuilt as far as those three developments in that area. I recognize that that no longer exists, and I'm not thinking of that particular area specifically, but any area that comes before us after review and analysis of the staff could say, well, there are some adjoining projects here that we know are going to be heavy in construction or at least find out what the construction schedule is, see if it has any impact or any significance on our decision and have that Page 150 July 20, 2006 information to us here by staff from the transportation department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is -- Mr, Kolflat, I have talked to transportation about this issue a couple of months ago, and I talked to Don Scott, because we had approved some developments in -- the intersection you talked about is one of the ones where I experienced a serious problem, Wal-Mart going in there. The traffic is backing up substantially for a mile or two or three almost every day. It's unbelievable, because what they have done is they are expanding 951 from Manatee to U. S. 41, and in order to do so they are shutting everything down to one lane in each direction. It is an absolute nightmare and it goes on all day long except for at night. I asked Don if there was a way that when we made approvals from now on and there was requirements of those developments to contribute to the surrounding road system, could we prohibit the developments from getting any building permits until such time that they completed the road improvements first. He thought that would be something we should be working on and we could work towards. So maybe that is the solution to get the construction issue resolved, because once the development's impacts are constructed on the road system, then all the traffic, whether it's construction or development traffic, is then accounted for and basically the road system is improved enough, theoretically, to accept it. That may be an opportunity that we may want to look at in all our future findings on this board as we go further on. And transportation isn't here to chime in so maybe we can hit them again with it when they show up at our next meeting. Okay? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CONTINUATION OF THE JULY 19,2006 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CYCLE 1 MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now with that, I think that was the last Page 151 July 20, 2006 thing on the agenda for the first meeting. So with that, we'll adjourn the first meeting, consider it done, and now let's open the continuation of the Land Development Code Cycle 1 meetings for 2006. And this meeting was continued from last night. Last night when we left off we had a certain schedule for today that I want to keep. And we're running two hours late but nonetheless we'll start where we were supposed to, and that was with the smart growth issue. And then at 4:00, Bill Lorenz and Barbara will be here and will be available for the environmental continuation issues if we get to them, assuming we get smart growth completed, Before we start smart growth, what is the temperament of the board for departure today, because we have a court reporter who I know will have to get home at some point, so will the rest of us. I was thinking 6: 00 would be a good time to end. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No later than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, We will be ending at 6:00 today with as much done as we can. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is that morning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And Catherine, last night's meeting was a little different than we had done the LDC meetings in the past. If you recall I had asked that staff not do the presentations, but because we are all very readable and knowledgeable let us read the document and go page by page for the issues that we're discussing and then ask our questions. Last night I felt it necessary for Bill Lorenz to go into the extreme impeccable detail that he did to understand the two issues that he had to supply. I also realize that if we continue on that pace we won't get done until 2010. So I want to go back to the other process unless there is an issue that comes up that is so hard to understand that staff has to make a rather detailed presentation, So with that and the smart growth issue, Mr. Murray had asked Page 152 July 20, 2006 by E-mail to all of us if he could make an introduction to the smart growth because of his involvement on the smart growth committee, and I think that's appropriate. I would like to ask Mr. Murray to limit his discussions to ten minutes if that works for you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Probably sooner than that. Shall I do it here or go to the podium? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, did you have something to say? MS. STUDENT-STERLING: I wanted to make a clarification on the number of meetings and voting and stuff. I don't know if you want to do it now or you'd rather wait. But I thought the sooner the better, It would only take a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then why don't we do it now because I -- later on we're still going to have to decide on the next meeting date. MS, STUDENT-STERLING: Okay. And this is just a clarification from last night. I do understand that the schedule was enacted on by the board in advance, as it sometimes is. So when there is two public hearings, and there is a second one scheduled for August 23rd, on Wednesday at 5:05, we'll need to have the Planning Commission make a motion to have that second meeting, And then, to keep it simple, I think it's better if you vote on everything at the second meeting. Thanks, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on August 23rd at 5:05 we are going to have the second LDC meeting; right? Is that what you're MS, STUDENT -STERLING: It's scheduled. And according to the code the Planning Commission has to vote on it to have the second meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, Ms. Student, I keep hearing these are scheduled but it's not on my schedule. And I don't know why, because as soon as I get it this little handy thing gets it and Page 153 July 20, 2006 keeps it. And this one wasn't on my schedule until after it was advertised, And we had always asked not to have them back up like this; that keeps happening too. The 23rd looks like a good date because we don't have a CCPC meeting that week, And I'm satisfied with that if the rest of the members are. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I can't be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as we have a quorum. How about everybody else? Okay. Do we have a motion to have a second meeting held at 5:05 for the second reading of the Land Development Code Cycle 1 for 2006? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved, COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Schiffer, second by Mr. Adelstein. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion please signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye, Okay. MS, STUDENT-STERLING: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray, if you want-- Mr, Murray is presenting to us from his position as a member of the former smart growth committee not as a Planning Commission member at this time, Page 154 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, For about four and a half years, a little more, we've been working on smart growth issues and growth management plan amendments were put forward and passed and they had to do with mixed use and the Land Development Code needed to be put in place. When the committee sunsetted a few of us remained and decided as an ad hoc group that we would bring it to a conclusion, and with the great help of staff, we went forward and we produced what you see. Now I want to make it clear that this is, although today if this were to be approved, it's certainly not perfect, and it undoubtedly will be amended as time goes by, but its purpose is to try to motivate people to change and to bring into play opportunities that haven't necessarily existed before. And it is believed that in the commercial section of this, that this might be helpful in some respects for the affordable housing issues. And the residential, it was conceived of more as an internal, if you will, entrance into a development, and internally it takes on its look. And as you go through you'll see that there are a number of, how shall we call them, means by which we motivate people to build better, build nicer. We put these little incentives in there with the sole purpose of trying to create something very akin to Fifth Avenue. I don't know that that would be applicable for the commercial with a residential portion but it is certainly applicable for the residential with a commercial portion. And as you go into it, and staff gives you more detailed answers, you will find that they are essentially the same. If you've read the one you've essentially read the other. There is one change that I wanted to offer for you -- offer to you that needs to be put in here. There is an area -- if I find the center page, real quick, where it speaks of 0.25 -- as soon as I get that page I'll -- Page 30, I think it is, come to think of it. And it would be applicable -- yes, Page 30 -- would be applicable as well to the other Page 155 July 20, 2006 portion. It says under VII, residential areas that are within a block or within 0.25 miles. I believe that our program was originally intended to be 0,125 miles. That would be about 660 feet, as opposed to some considerably longer distance. There were a couple of redundancies, which we will find as we go along, but beyond that, I just -- my purpose in standing here before you now is to acquaint you with the idea that this is an attempt of trying to incentivize building with the hope that strip malls will go away and something in its place will come along and, in the commercial area, will provide residential opportunities for people who currently don't find their way to housing and are in need of that. I thank you for your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bob, I have one question, since -- as a committee member, has the committee received, reviewed and endorsed the language that is in front of the us, so we know that what we're reviewing has been reviewed by the committee as well? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I am the committee of one. That is the Last of the Mohicans on this committee. What you can say -- what I can say, rather, is that staff working with me have concluded that the language is reasonable, They may have some differences with some of it, I understand, it's possible, But this is the committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you are familiar with all this language we're going to be going through? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I helped to write it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, With that, Jean, I think you are the presenter then. MS. JOURDAN: Yes, I am. Good afternoon. For the record, Jean Jourdan, comprehensive planning. Thank you, Commissioner Murray, you did a very goodjob of explaining what was going on. I'm going to give you a little more history. The community character-smart growth committee was established in 2001 to assist staff in implementing a community Page 156 July 20, 2006 character plan and other smart growth concepts for Collier County. The committee sunsetted in June of 2005. During the committee's tenure they created two mixed use subdistricts, the residential mixed use subdistrict and the commercial mixed use subdistrict, that were incorporated into the future land use element of the growth management plan, And they were adopted in December of2003. The LDC was to be amended within one year to incorporate the regulations that would implement the two mixed use subdistricts, put them into language for the growth management plan. Prior to the committee sunsetting staff was directed to meet with the committee and review regulations the committee had drafted to implement two new mixed use subdistricts in the growth management plan. Staff reviewed the proposed regulations and concluded the language needed some revisions. Shortly thereafter the committee sunsetted, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to slow your pace down a little. She's trying to type and I'm watching her and she's struggling to keep up with the way you're speaking. You're like Tony Pires -- MS. JOURDAN: That's kind of descriptive-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Not quite as bad. MS. JOURDAN: Shortly thereafter the committee sunsetted and staff continued to work with some of the former committee members to refine the regulations with the goal of meeting the submittal deadline for the 2006 Cycle 1 LDC amendment process. The regulations before you today are a result of those efforts, First of all, I would like to bring to your attention in the first amendment that we're going to go over, which are the residential mixed use neighborhood center PUD design criteria, in criteria A through -- my book fell apart -- A through R, all of these except for D. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Could we ask for a page Page 157 July 20, 2006 reference on these. MS. JOURDAN: I'm sorry, Page 18. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. MS, JOURDAN: And you'll see you have Criteria A through R, which actually ends on Page 20, All of these criteria, except for D, G, J, which is just changed a little bit but it's mostly the same criteria, are out of the growth management plan. So it's actually already existing in the growth management plan. And I just wanted to bring that to your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That does pose a problem, as Marjorie Student had tried to warn us many times. MS. JOURDAN: Yes, it's very specific, the language is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jean, I don't know how you wanted to approach this presentation, but in the past it's worked pretty well for us to go through page by page, each of us would ask our questions on each page of staff, trying to get clarification or understanding or interpretation from you, Is that -- would that work for you? MS. JOURDAN: Yes, that will be fine. There will be several other staff members that will have to come up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I noticed landscaping here, I know Brad is going to beat that foundation plan to death. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I do want to -- I do have concerns about the GMP language and I want to put those on record because in the conclusion of all this there might be some -- the GMP may be better off changed or modified. As Margie had indicated long ago, we should never have put the detail that we have done into the GMP, more of a concept drawing. And unfortunately, now that we've got the detail it's hurt us, I think, in some of the language that I find in this document. MS. JOURDAN: I had discussed this issue with our planning manager about the specificity of the language that is in the growth Page 158 July 20, 2006 management plan, and he said that he had no problem with going back to the growth management plan and looking at the language and making any changes that needed, that was needed. So we have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish it was that simple, but it has to go through the GMP amendment process, MS. JOURDAN: Yes, Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JOURDAN: Most definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If David could sit there and do that himself -- MS. JOURDAN: Yes, we would love to just change it and be done with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, then let's start with Page -- well, let's assume no one has any question on Page 17, which is the LDC amendment request. If anybody has, speak up now or hold thy peace. Let's go to Page 18, are there any questions on Page 18 from the panel? Let's -- you know, if I look around and I miss you, just kind of informally speak up. Mr. Murray and then Mr. Schiffer. MR. MURRAY: Okay-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry, I forgot who I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Just, under one where it says purpose and scope, I think, the second line you might want to add the word "is intended to encourage." That's an interpolation, that is intended to encourage development. And then, I have to be honest with you, I don't remember the neo-traditional statement, and I didn't have a chance to talk to Jean about this, I know it sounds odd that I should be the author of it to Page 159 July 20, 2006 some degree but I don't remember the statement neo-traditional. Do we know what that means for this? MS, JOURDAN: I am going to have Mike Bosi address that. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, comprehensive planning. Neo-traditional and smart growth are normally used interchangeably. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Interchangeably. That's what I wondered. Okay. We probably, in that area, probably had smart growth, but that's okay. That was it for me. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was my question, the neo-traditional. I don't think neo-traditional equals smart growth. What you are referencing is traditional neighborhoods which people are doing smart growth off of. But the danger with that is any kind of a term that is based on design. You are not talking smart growth design, you're talking about -- I don't know what you are talking about. So the danger of that is that it leaves it up to personal interpretation, it's not an objective representation. So, in other words, I could design a building, you just don't like it and you are going to claim it's not neo-traditional, and there is no way to prove what is neo-traditional and what is not. Neo is new, old is what you are saying there, so -- I mean do you, you could encourage it, but in other words, you could be denying proj ects and that could be your handle. MR, BOSI: Mike Bosi, once again. Specifically, the context of neo-traditional design, the regulations are set forth within the context of the amendment or the regulations, therefore it's not an arbitrary decision. It's based upon the regulations contained within this section. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why don't you say that? MR, BOSI: I didn't author this component, but I would be happy to encourage some wordsmithing, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think one thing that this commission has tried repeatedly in the Land Development Code amendments that Page 160 July 20, 2006 have come through is take out the arbitrary nature of any kind of language, And so, if you hear us talking about it, unless someone on this panel objects, please assume that the person speaking about the arbitrary issues that are being pointed out need to be clarified. So maybe with that direction we can move forward. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There is one thing more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad's still-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a Page 2 item, it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on 18, still, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm sorry. I have an old copy, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eighteen goes down to E. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It did move on to 19. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still on -- I've got questions on 18. Did you have some more, Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Only one that I wanted to point out. The bold has been lost for definitions, certain bold that is on, like the word development within that number one and the word adjacent are bold, and that's dropped off. So that needs to be redone. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Jean, on Page 18, G,l, where you were talking previously about neo-traditional, the next line gets into an item called human scale. I don't know what human scale is. I'm sure that maybe we need to think of that out as far as what we're trying to say there. And the other one is pedestrian orientation. If that is a planning term that you're comfortable with and staff will have no disagreement with applicants coming in and saying, as far as we're concerned this is orientated to pedestrians, then I'm comfortable with that. I want to point out that there is no -- it doesn't mean a lot to me. I have a lot of questions. Page 161 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go through mine and we'll get back to you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 2 says residential PUD mixed use projects shall comply with the following standards and criteria. All residential PUD use proj ects. How is that -- when it says shall, PUDs are allowed deviations and I'm just -- are they going to -- are all those elements going to have to be utilized with no deviations? MS. JOURDAN: The way that this subdistrict, this neighborhood center PUD criteria is listed they would have to comply with these criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know-- MS. JOURDAN: If they were coming in under this, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They wouldn't be able to use any of the deviation process at this point? MS. JOURDAN: Not at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the perspective of county staff, is that a good or bad thing to do? I mean -- MS. JOURDAN: Mike, do you want to address that? MR. BOSI: I wasn't present during the committee meeting so I'm not sure if that was the intent of the committee members, but traditionally, when you are trying to promote a smart growth or a neo-traditional design you want to encourage flexibility within the regulations, therefore your point is very well taken, Commissioner Strain. I would think that within the residential mixed used PUD process that the opportunity to depart for specific reasons, as long as justification is provided within the application, that those deviations should be allowed at least to be considered, But I wasn't -- I'm not sure. Maybe we would have to have Commissioner Murray comment upon whether the committee had wanted these regulations to be cast in Page 162 July 20, 2006 stone with no specific deviations as a traditional PUD is prone to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, do you recall that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I can. It's occurring to me that perhaps we would be better served if I were down there so that you could direct questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I would rather direct to staff. I would rather have staff respond, because when the people come in, when the applicants come in, these are the people whose interpretations are going to be the ones that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mind you answering, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, As long as you don't mind my being here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me just comment on that. Keeping in mind -- and I'm going to try -- it may seem oblique but I'm going to try to answer your questions -- keeping in mind that all of what we did, we as amateurs did, was try to create a series of incentives. It was never our intent to deny opportunities that might come along, such as deviations. So a constriction, that is unintended here. And Mike wasn't present for that. And I may have missed that part of it myself, quite frankly. If we could look at this, and if we can modify it if necessary, we can certainly work on the language, to allow for those deviations. It is not intended to constrain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- yes, okay. To sum it all up, deviations are something we should provide the flexibility for in this paragraph. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JOURDAN: If I can just address that. The reason I said that you can't deviate from these criteria is because they are in the growth Page 163 July 20, 2006 management plan and you can't deviate from the growth management plan, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're going to be getting into that as we go through these pages because if this language is out of the GMP, it's problematic. And if we have to live with it I think we've even got more problems. We may want to go back and look at amending the GMP to make this workable, We can see how that gels out. In the meantime, I'd keep that thought in the back of your head on these other issues. Under B, the commercial component shall be no larger than 10 acres in size and shall not exceed 80,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Well, first of all, that works out to an FAR of .18. That's economically unfeasible. Right now in the RLSA we have ,5, and we have .25 for hotels. But if you are looking at a commercial component and you are limiting it to .18, do you really think you are going to get an economic return if the developer is limited to that small amount of square footage on a parcel? MS. JOURDAN: Well, I spoke with the planning manager, who actually assisted in writing this language here, and asked him where that came from. And he said that there was actually a Florida guide as far as how many commercial square footage you need per so many acres, and it came out to 40,000 per every 5 acres. So that's where that came from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we built anywhere in this town at that low of an FAR? MS. JOURDAN: That I don't know, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the cost of our land I would think you would be implementing a situation that none of it -- this would never be used. And I know the intent of the committee was to see this used, I would assume. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I? Page 164 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The fact is that this one was considered to be a residential with a small, and I emphasize small, commercial component. But if it's not feasible -- see, we didn't have anybody who was helping us with regard to the marketplace and whether or not that would fly, So maybe this needs to be qualified on that basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest staff look at it in regards to feasibility, because you are limited to I think, I know it's somewhere in my notes, out of every site you can have only so much that is commercial. But on that commercial you are still limited to a very small FAR. And that's where my concern was. You've still got to make a dollar out of the commercial that is remaining, I would think. Mike, did you have a -- MR. BOSI: I think the point that you are raising is very well taken but I think it kind of highlights the overriding problematic area of trying to incorporate a mixed use design within a Land Development Code that is strictly used to separating uses. When you say, the commercial component, I don't think the natural component is that that commercial component is not going to contain a residential component. And I think the way that -- if it was just a straight commercial component that had 10 acres that would be extremely limiting financially, but with incorporation of residential uses within that commercial component I'm not sure if the 80,000 square- foot limitation is as financially problematic as -- so I think the way that you are looking at it and the way that we're used to, trained to look at uses and the separation of uses doesn't always have a place or a natural fit with the mixed use concept. And I think that's one of the problematic areas of trying to bring these type of regulations to a Land Development Code that is used to the stratification or separation of uses, And that's the problematic (sic) Page 165 July 20, 2006 that I think the committee had and staff has had in trying to make these usable and compatible with our Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will go forward and just keep expressing concerns and if you guys see something that needs to be. addressed, then next time we hear it let's hope it gets addressed in time. If it has to stay like it is then we'll accept that as well. On B, when you have these sites, how are they factored into the FLUE? How are they shown on the maps? MS. JOURDAN: You mean presently? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, how will they be? MS, JOURDAN: How will they be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are you going to incorporate them into the commercial areas -- don't they have to be in the future land use? MR. BOSI: They would be designated urban residential. If you would look at Mediterra, Mediterra has a commercial component. That commercial component is not called out within the larger PUD, it's a mixed use PUD, And that's really -- for the future land use map it would just designate that area as urban residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under C and D, when you are talking about the maximum minimum size of the proj ects, you are talking about the gross acreage or net acreage? MS, JOURDAN: The gross acreage, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would include water management areas, open space, parks, I mean, whatever is part of that. And if you have a project with a supermarket that exceeds 45,000 square feet it's not smart growth, that's what E says? MS. JOURDAN: That was just like that language that came out COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This was a determination based on counsel, having to do with the size of grocery stores, if you will, or a supermarket, small supermarket, again emphasizing the small Page 166 July 20, 2006 residential, infill, if you will. Let me tell you this, What we did, we struggled for many, many days trying to figure out where you could put these, and we found it difficult to know where we could put these, but concluded ultimately that infill for these would be -- and redevelopment -- would be the likely location. So we tried to keep it on a minimal scale. We turned to the commercial with the residential as the real kicker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's move on to Page 19. I know Mr. -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, with that said, why did you limit it to 5 acres? I mean, infill with 5 acres is a good-sized site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not sure that -- when you say we limited it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You said that the maximum-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The minimum size of the project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The minimum size. I mean -- so, if I have a 4-acre infill site I can't play this game. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We concluded that it would become problematic for cost. As you get smaller it could become problematic. And remember what I opened up with, we visualized that this would be something that would be constructed internally. Once you had ingress into the property it would have its designs and would accommodate the people, You could almost visualize like a -- what's the one as you go up to the city, the Bayfront. If you think of Bayfront, that would be the kind of thing we visualized. If that helps in any way to relay them to you. But, quite frankly, I'm not smart enough to know how many alternative methods there are or ways or places that it can be put. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What we'll probably do is I would like to get through the part that is relevant to the GMP. And after we get done talking about that section we need to make a suggestion to staff Page 167 July 20, 2006 whether or not the GMP should be modified in order to get this back into a workable system if that's where our thoughts are. So let's get to Page 19. I think we're done with 18 now. Mr. Kolflat and Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On Page 19, under item J, the term grid street system is used. On much more of a question, doesn't -- grid may imply that it's a right angle street system rather than a winding one, which could also be acceptable, MS. JOURDAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm concerned that grid would automatically be determined to be right angle grid. MS. JOURDAN: And within this language here, also it's in the growth management plan, but instead of saying the project shall to the greatest extent it says the project is encouraged to use a grid system. So this language is a little more, I want to say -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stronger? MS. JOURDAN: Yes, stronger than it is in the growth management plan, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would we want a grid street system? I mean, Golden Gate is a grid system and I don't know anybody that likes it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, interconnectivity was the real basis to start with that, and then also for parking in the rear, and to try to create ease of access for pedestrians walking to their respective residences or to their cars or wherever, going shopping, because we encourage parking to be in the rear, Now, it isn't necessarily a true 90-degree grid they can create. Also if there were a water feature that needed a crossover, we would like to continue the grid system so that there is full interconnectivity. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I understand that. The only thing I was worried about is someone first reading this coming in and look and see grid and said that automatically means right-angle streets. Page 168 July 20, 2006 So if we could change the word and it would still give the interconnectivity that is desirable but not necessarily limit it to, That would be my only suggestion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Curvilinear? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we can't change the wording, can we, because it's GMP? MS. JOURDAN: Well, not in the GMP -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, this is not GMP -- MS. JOURDAN: But in the GMP it just says it's encouraged, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but the word grid. MS. JOURDAN: Correct, that's in the GMP. MR. MURRAY: Is that? MS, JOURDAN: Yes. It actually reads, the project is encouraged to use a grid street system or portion thereof so as to afford maximum opportunity for interconnections with surrounding properties and to provide multiple route alternatives, MS. VALERA: If I may? Also wanted to point out that even though it says the project shall, it says to the greatest extent possible, That is hard to enforce. Carolina Valera, principal planner with zoning and land development review. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Let me go to one other point, if I might. Under L, you have in the last line "no less than." My only suggestion is to substitute that with "at least", sounds a little more positive than "no less than." And then the next line, I wonder, rather than saying five stories should we not possibly identify feet as a height for that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too fast let's go back to Mr. Kolflat's last one where he says "no less than." Is that GMP language or is that language that can be modified? MS, JOURDAN: I'm sorry, which letter were you on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: L, the last line in L, where it says no Page 169 July 20, 2006 less than one type. MS. JOURDAN: GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. M, the other point that Mr, Kolflat just made, is the five stories referenced in the GMP? MS. JOURDAN: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we're stuck. That's where I'm trying to go. I figure what we'll do is we'll find out how far we are stuck with these GMP issues and then maybe that will make us -- help make a determination for a resolution. Mr. Schiffer, your turn. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think I'll be stuck too. And what you are saying, Mark, stuck is because we did so much detail in the GMP, as we were warned about, we have to use the exact wording of the GMP? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's my understanding, unless the county legal staff tells us otherwise. MR. KLATZKOW: Your GMP pretty much is handcuffing you here. The purpose of the LDC is to implement the GMP and, you know, you are pretty much stuck with it, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me see if there's -- F, the maximum floor area ratio of the commercial uses, is that -- that's 25 percent of the commercial component, is that right, as opposed to the gross site; is that right, Bob? MS. JOURDAN: Yes, that's correct, the commercial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we add a commercial component to make sure? MS. JOURDAN: I'm sorry -- oh, you want to add that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Commercial component is an acreage word, right, that means land area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you reading from? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm reading from F up at the Page 170 July 20, 2006 top. COMMISSIONER CARON: Doesn't say anything about component. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm a little lost. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It says the maximum floor area of the commercial uses is .25. But I want to know what is the land on which you are calculating that on. I assume it's the component. It could be the gross area. There are two choices. MS. JOURDAN: It is supposed to be the component. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that GMP language? MS. JOURDAN: Yes, it is, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am going to keep asking that until we get through with that section, MS. JOURDAN: It is. All of this is GMP language that was here, except for D and G. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't we -- but isn't that explaining the GMP intent? I mean, that's not hurting the GMP language, it's clarifying it. MS. JOURDAN: We could put that in the LDC but we would have -- in this LDC and add to that but we couldn't change the growth management plan without amending it. So if there is something that you have a real issue with in the LDC we would have to amend it in the growth management plan also. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if on the end ofF we added "of the commercial component," that would require a GMP change? MS. JOURDAN: No, that would not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can add to but we can't take away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's my suggestion. MS. JOURDAN: Yes, that would be fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The height, I agree with. That's five stories. It doesn't say much. MS. JOURDAN: We could add not to exceed a certain feet. Page 171 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because there is a problem with stories. I could build a room and put a mezzanine in it and every definition of the word story would not include that. So therefore I could build a ten-story building in your world claiming a mezzanine on five stories, So, as architects who like to do tricks we could leave it. If the intent is to be able to have ten-story 10ft units you probably wouldn't want to leave it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on that page, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Should we set a height? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think a not to exceed is -- did you want staff to make a recommendation or do you have one now? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Once before we argued that 12 feet was a story, that came out of Bayshore only. You remember that 12- foot requirement? MS. FABACHER: We argued that but the GMP said 14 feet and we were stuck with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Was that only in Bayshore or was that the GMP definition of a story? MS. FABACHER: That was in Bayshore. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think that's 12, five time 12, 60 feet -- MS, FABACHER: I'm sorry, Catherine Fabacher, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, we're learning a lesson here today, about the GMP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then we can add at the end of that with a maximum zoned height of 65 feet. That's the zoned. That's for the roof. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, did you want zoned or actual? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I said zoned, So with a zoned height. I said actual zoned height. MS. FABACHER: Which one? Page 1 72 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Zoned. Five times 12,60 gives us a little bit of wiggle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, does anybody know what zoning district C-1, 2, or 3 allows 65 feet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It doesn't -- 50 feet. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So why are we taking something that isn't compatible with the system we have now and making it even bigger? Why 65 feet? That's huge. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's huge, that's insane, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Floor to floor. MS. JOURDAN: This would be in the residential area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I tried, You want to just make it then not to exceed the underlying zoning? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, So the zoned height is not to exceed the underlying zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be much more probably-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was the intent, sir. Too bad we were not smart enough to say it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have anything else on that page, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jean, F, the maximum floor area ratio of .25. B on the prior page, where you can't exceed 80,000 square feet, no larger than 10 acres, the FAR there by my calculations is ,18. So there is a discrepancy between Band F -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if your maximum allowed is ,18 but F says the maximum allowed is ,25. MS. JOURDAN: Here it is talking about the acreage in its total. Over here it's just talking about the commercial component. Page 173 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I talk about one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- because I think that really should be -- when you get ten acres, when you get to that number, you are up on a 60-acre site. Commercial includes not only the ground floor stores, it includes all of the offices, stuff like that. To really make this be the mixed use I think you want, you might want to encourage multiple layers of commercial in that building. So I think, what if you calculated out the .25 and -- that would be -- you have to do the math -- if you could figure out 25 percent of 10 acres, it wouldn't be that much more, That would be appropriate. MS. JOURDAN: The only problem would be is that it would have to be a growth management plan amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We are back to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron, did you-- COMMISSIONER CARON: And besides, the primary focus of this is a residential proj ect. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: The commercial is secondary so you don't necessarily want multiple forms of commercial within this mixed use, from what I'm reading the headline of this section is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Ms. Caron, that's exactly correct. In this particular one what we visualized in our little sessions was to have a store, and then possibly an office above at one level and then the remaining levels would be for residential. And this was not to be heavy intensification in the commercial. We didn't believe -- we were having a problem even making sure that, whether or not it would sustain. So we were really thinking more in the way of some small mom Page 174 July 20, 2006 and pop and then more office and then you would have your residential. And stand-alone residential with it, as well as above it, to the side of it, et cetera, whichever creativity could occur. So here was -- the purpose was pedestrian -- residential. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think in terms of smart growth the intent almost comes out to be the same, doesn't it? What you are saying is that this is -- you can work where you live, and the other ones you can live where you work, so you are essentially -- MR. MURRAY: I don't think that we believed there would be sufficient commercial to carry the residential in any of these, quite frankly, but we were hopeful -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- that they would be enough to carry a good portion, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since it's a moot point anyway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Items K and L, K says the project shall provide street pedestrian pathways and bikeway interconnections where possible and practicable. And L, commercial component, shall be interconnected with the residential component of the project by streets or pedestrian pathways and bike lanes. Which is it, or is this GMP language we can't change? MS. JOURDAN: Well, actually, the first one, K, is talking about adjacent property, whereas L is talking about the commercial component of the project itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, So a commercial component is assumed that it's going to have an option in the way it connects to adjacent properties but K doesn't provide adjacent properties themselves that option. MS, JOURDAN: Well, correct. But L makes it where the Page 175 July 20, 2006 commercial component has to have some interconnection with its residential component for walkability and things of that nature. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I noticed in K it says where possible and practicable. How do you interpret that or enforce that? MS. JOURDAN: That would really be difficult to enforce. But I know in our department we look at it and we look at the adjacent property, and if we feel that they can have interconnection and they are not making an attempt to provide it and they don't tell us why they are not making -- they don't have any real justification as to why they are not providing it we will reject it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Little bit arbitrary, MS. JOURDAN: Uh-huh, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: NumberN. I think I've got my answer for number N. Number O. 0 on the last one -- on Page 19 I still have 0 -- you guys, okay, the new one. For some of you on 20, for me I'm on page 19. If the commercial component of a project has frontage located on a road classified as an arterial collector, then it says the project may have access to that roadway. Does the may mean that it's up to the applicant or it's up to transportation? MS. JOURDAN: It's up to transportation, We could add that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we should because some applicants may believe that gives them the right to have the access, That may not always be the case. Is that -- well, you can add to GMP language. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, all right, you can add to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that gets us into Page 20. Are there questions on Page 20? Mr. Schiffer then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It kind of goes back to 19. This NOP is on the sheet I studied together, What is the reason why you wouldn't want commercial that's internal to be connected to the adjacent roadways? Page 176 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. The idea was because the Land Development Code as it's presently constituted is extremely strict, requiring so many factors, in order to create a difference, we wanted to take it away, frontage taken away from, taken away from the main or the collector road, allowing then opportunities -- I'm sorry for mumbling and bumbling here but it's hard for me to relate to all of this at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern is for the success of the commercial component. If you pulled it -- MR, MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- inside your project you would, first of all, be drawing traffic into a residential area, and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, you are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you'd end up, you know, aspirins would be double the price they would be on the main road, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And we understand that. We're not saying to a developer if he wants to put something on the frontage, ifhe wants to front the road and have an opening, he should be able to request that and to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We expect though that some stores will be internal. Again, I'll use Bayfront as an example, maybe a good one, maybe a poor one, but that's the kind of thing we were thinking of. It represents a -- I don't want to use the word unclogged -- but it represents a place to come to for certain type of services that will attract people from outside but it will provide the other benefits of smart growth, which are those people who wish to live in that type of community will be there and some services will be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Some services will certainly not be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't the -- the success of the Page 1 77 July 20, 2006 things in Bayside I don't think are dependent solely on the residences. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, they are not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The person doesn't have to do that. The concern I'd have if the guy did want to put a little town center in his design, why wouldn't he be able to have a road -- I mean, the roads would have to connect to it, how would you not connect to it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They will have ingress to the project but in fact they may choose to have frontage, whatever configuration they wish to make. But it's encouraged to be inside to allow all of the frills that come with it later on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know -- and I'm trying to figure out how we're going to get through this because we're only through two pages or three and we've already spent almost an hour on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're not even getting explanations from Bill Lorenz. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I won't tell if you don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think staff has got to interpret this in order to implement it. Bob has some history on it, and I think maybe we ought to rely more on how staff sees the interpretation and then when we need to fill in this to maybe -- or we're mystified by how the interpretation got there Bob could help out with the history. But I think to initially get through this maybe staff needs to work more with us on a one to one with this -- getting into these issues so -- do you want to continue with your -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then exactly what does N mean? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jean, if you don't have an answer, that's quite all right, that just tells us the more opportunity we might have to modify the GMP. MS. JOURDAN: I'm reading it. Actually, even though this is Page 178 July 20, 2006 growth management plan language, in the growth management plan it's kind of combined into one and it may make a little more sense this way. Actually, it says the commercial component of the project.shall be internally located with no direct access to adjacent external roadways or the commercial component shall have frontage on a road classified as an arterial or collector in the transportation element. And these two were kind of divided between Nand 0, and I think the meaning kind of got lost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It sure did. That's quite a difference. MS. JOURDAN: Yes. There are a couple of words, I think, that are missing now that I'm reading it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And my apparent confused answer no longer appears as confused, I hope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we need to clean that one up. MS, JOURDAN: Yes, most definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to go on, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On Page 20, Item C down at the bottom, the first sentence says arcades, overhang, signage, marquis bay windows and structural supports shall be allowed to extend over the pedestrian travel zone. If you then look at Page 21, and you'll see that for that 5-foot pedestrian travel zone is that means you would have an overhang allowable 13 feet out from the wall. I think even for an architect that's too far. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's just a line on a piece of paper for an architect. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But, see what I mean? If you look there you have 8 feet of dining display zone plus another 5 feet of pedestrian travel zone, and so if you add those two together that's 13 Page 1 79 July 20, 2006 feet. So this, in essence, is saying you can extend an overhang 13 feet out from the wall. And that's not good design, MS. JOURDAN: I'll have to defer to another staff member for this section, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As Carolina comes up with this puzzled look. MS. VALERA: And I'm sorry, I cannot comment on that. I didn't make any of the decisions on that. MR. BOSI: Just for clarification purpose on that, I think if you exchange the words pedestrian travel zone, if you look over at diagram 21, pedestrian travel zone is referring to the 5- foot clear area. You are right, that would allow them to extend it out 13 feet. What that needs to say is that these extend over the pedestrian pathway. So it talks about the entire area. So it can only, it could only extend over the pedestrian pathway. So it doesn't say that you can go out to the travel zone if that travel zone is displaced. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The pedestrian pathway goes out 21 feet, that's even farther. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It can extend into it, I think. MR. BOSI: And that may be the clarification. We don't want to convey that they can put an awning over the entire area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe you might want to limit the depth of the awning? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: If this is in the GMP I think it's a significant enough item to consider recommending changing that because this is something that is not a good sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think this is part of the GMP. MS. JOURDAN: No, this isn't from the GMP. This was actually initiated by the committee. They wanted to have the same feel and look as Fifth Avenue, So that's where this language came from, COMMISSIONER CARON: I think Mr. Bosi is right, the word Page 180 July 20, 2006 into will solve that problem, It may extend into the pedestrian travel zone -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pathway. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- a minimum of 8 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pedestrian pathway. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it says travel zone on the revised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He suggested changing that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What number was that, Donna? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's on 3,C, on Page 20. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that 8 feet is a height. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, on 3.E not C. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's also a height, eight foot clear above. I mean, what this is referencing is the height -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's only the height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not the cantilever. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The problem is that we did the words first and then we asked people to do some drawings for us. MS. JOURDAN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I think that's where the confusion lies. And I would agree, looking at it, because the travel zone can meander. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It could run into a snag. But that's the origin of that confusion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And all these things are referencing a height, not cantilever. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And they are, only the height we were talking about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where do you see that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, do you have a comment on this issue? Page 181 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, When you come back with these is there a way you can note what is in the GMP, what is GMP language and what is not so we know by looking? MS. JOURDAN: Yes. Actually, I've already done that. So I can have it available, yes, to go to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat and Mr. Schiffer, did you have any other comments on Page 20 or did you get your comments resolved or at least direction provided on Page 20 to the extent that you wanted? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We are good enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 20, 3.A it talks about the pedestrian zones along the main street will be a minimum of 21 feet wide and they shall have a sidewalk that is unobstructed and continuous. Is that on each side of these main streets? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MS. JOURDAN: Actually, the staff member that helped us, assisted with this was from transportation, that was Pam Lulich. And she could not be here today because she had other things and of course our department had no authority over getting her here. She just kind of assisted us here and there, And I spoke with her today and she said that she really never took into consideration if it was going to be on both sides or not. She said she was looking at this as if, you know, it was in front of the commercial component and this being on one side and the spacing in an arterial roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, The reason I'm trying to find out is if you've got to incorporate this and let's assume that it's going to an interior commercial area, that is suggested on one of the prior references, you're going to have to have an interior roadway, And this is required on both sides of that roadway. Then you have the interior -- the width of the roadway and any medians or landscaping elements that are in the roadway itself and the curbing and the bike lanes, You Page 182 July 20, 2006 are talking a huge width for a small interior road. You are looking at a hundred feet probably by the time this is all said and done because you are at 42 feet if you do these on both sides of that interior road, I'm wondering how much the county is going to assume as public right-of-way, because -- and maybe the County Attorney can tell me or I was hoping transportation would be here -- because if it's all considered right-of-way how do we handle the liability of awning overhangs into a right-of-way, benches and trees that taxpayers then would have to pay for and planters they would have to upkeep and maintain and sidewalks that could have in a lot of cases sidewalk cafe tables alongside and things like that in the then official right-of-way if it's the full 21 feet. Has anybody looked at this issue? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me find out from staff. MS. JOURDAN: In the short conversation I had with Pam she had said usually what happens, of course the county doesn't take responsibility for anything, she said, above the sidewalk, besides the hay and grass. And that usually what happens is an agreement is entered into between the developer, and what they do is actually create an MSTU or an MSTD. She said that's what she has found with these types of situations where they have all of this in the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In order to protect the county and the taxpayers, the county from liability and the taxpayers from future expenses, wouldn't we then want that a requirement of this implementation that they have to form some kind of MSTU or MSTD to pay for these? Somebody needs -- I think somebody needs to address that issue. MS, JOURDAN: She said the county wouldn't take liability, they would make them enter into that agreement before it was actually approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would someone know that reading Page 183 July 20, 2006 this document or should they know that reading this document, that would be their natural assumption? MS, JOURDAN: According to her that's already in place and that's what they do, that's their mechanism, But without her being here I can't say for sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody know where the utilities are going, because generally on ten feet on both sides of the roadway you have your telephone, your gas, your TV, your FP &L and those type of lines. MS, JOURDAN: Speaking with her she said under the sidewalk. She said there are actually lifts that they have now where you can get to it without tearing the sidewalk up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with her, MS. JOURDAN: -- but I'm no expert in that. Like I said I'm just going from -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just put some of those in. They aren't very decorative, MS, JOURDAN: Based on memory of my conversation with her. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I could just add? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The intent of this, good or bad the way it came out, but the intent was that they would be private streets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can we say that? If that's what-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was the intent. So I'm not familiar with the conversation that you had and I appreciate that you want to determine that, but that was the intent -- it would, so. MS, JOURDAN: The only thing, if this is on the main -- they are components on a main arterial and we have these out, I mean, that -- the way the language reads they could possibly have that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Anything on an arterial. Here is Page 184 July 20, 2006 the base rule that we had, anything on an arterial or collector was subordinate to all of the requirements of the Land Development Code MS. JOURDAN: Of the LDC. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- once you come in here it's private and it can be adorned, modified any way in reflection of these items. MS. JOURDAN: So we want this to reflect that it's internally, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So those issues would be handled because it's a private street. And the last thing I have, and it's basically on that diagram, your 5- foot pedestrian travel zone, I can't find it right offhand but there was a reference to a section of the LDC that requires -- that section of the LDC had 6- foot pedestrian travel zones as a minimum requirement. Are you familiar with that section? You're probably going to tell me I have to find it, right? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can tell you to shortcut that. We don't have a problem with 6 feet. It could be a 6- foot sidewalk. That came up at DSAC, MS. VALERA: Commissioner, I know for a fact that the architectural standards will require 5 feet. And 6 feet, I believe, is just for an arterial collector, any road outside of the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'll see what I can find. We're on to Page -- well, 21 is the diagram, Does anybody have any questions about the diagram? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Other than I think we should add on the top that it's internal street section. And then one question is, why do you show a curb or -- never mind, that could just be a decorative band. Never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The intent is that floor elevation Page 185 July 20, 2006 would be at street level; correct? MS. JOURDAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll move on to Page 22. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Down on the last line on the page it talks about a 4-foot spread. Is that in diameter or radius? MS. JOURDAN: Nancy can address that. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Nancy Gundlach, I'm a principal planner with the zoning and land development review department. And to answer your question, that would be 4- foot diameter. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you, One other question. Up at the top under B it talks about compatible materials. When you say compatible what does that mean, color, texture or materials? In other words -- MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- you couldn't have iron with wood. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And then the color must have some kind of compatibility as far as tint or whatever? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who decides that, Nancy? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The developer. MS. GUNDLACH: Staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under what criteria does staffuse to make that decision? MS. GUNDLACH: Well, the definition of compatible, a simple definition would be matching. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So everything has got to look alike now. MS. GUNDLACH: It doesn't have to be the same, it just has to Page 186 July 20, 2006 work together well, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a defined criteria so someone-- it's not an arbitrary decision? MS. GUNDLACH: It's subjective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Things we don't like. Are there any other questions on Page 22? Well then, I have a few. Up on top, A, street furnishings may be provided in conjunction with the street planting zone. The street furnishings seem to really add a lot to the street and they seem to be the smart, part of the smart issues. Why wouldn't we -- there is something that I'm wondering why we wouldn't require, especially when you have a 21- foot wide zone across there like the picture shows, benches and things like that, and the waste containers. Wouldn't we want to see that instead of leaving it as an option? If you leave it as an option the developer most likely won't put it in. MS. GUNDLACH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there is a way to do it maybe we should be a little harsher, a little stronger with that sentence. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under D, it talks about street planting zone and the size of it. How often does that planting zone occur, one per block or -- MS. GUNDLACH: Well, the planting zone is going to be dictated by the street tree placement, which is 40 feet on center, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So at least every 40 feet you have these. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The street tree pattern may be interrupted by overhead arcades, utilities and pedestrian accessways. With that language there is no minimum to what extent it can be interrupted. I think you might want to address that because someone will come in with an absurd case and you're going to have an interruption Page 187 July 20, 2006 going on for a longer distance. Palm trees, In the same paragraph, palm trees are allowed to be a substitute for canopy trees where buildings are closer to the street. What is closer? MS. GUNDLACH: When there is not enough space to do a canopy tree it would -- this is a good example of selecting the right type of tree or palm for the space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you have 21 feet. So how do -- they can't be any closer than 21 feet, right? MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, this is contemplating the distance from the building and if there is a sign or a canopy structure or an arcade that sticks out, who knows, maybe they might want to have the pedestrians have a little bit of protection from the rain, and they might have an arcade for them to walk under, and then it becomes difficult to put a large tree there. A narrower palm species would be more appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this will occur when the building is closer than 21 feet to the road? MS. GUNDLACH: I don't want to say the building. It could be -- it could be -- it doesn't say the building, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says buildings, MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tell me where it doesn't say buildings. Where buildings are closer to the street. If that's the wrong word I'm trying to get at then we need to correct it. MS. GUNDLACH: Where are you reading? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The middle ofD little i. MS, GUNDLACH: Okay. It says interrupted by overhead arcades, utilities and pedestrian accessways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're beyond-- MS. GUNDLACH: Oh, here. Okay. I'm sorry. Here we are. Okay. Page 188 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're reading from the wrong pages, aren't we? MS. GUNDLACH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not even on the same page. MR. BOSI: Commissioner Strain, I would agree with that. I would say probably the elimination of the words "buildings are closer to the street and," Remove that and put "palm trees are allowed as a substitute to canopy trees where the amount of space for landscaping, unobstructed clear path and street furnishings will not allow canopy trees. " That would -- because you are right, the building can't be close, by definition of the regulations it can't be closer than 21 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Good. Areas for canopy trees should be included in plaza street intersections and other areas where buildings are set back if space would allow. The "should be" and the "allow" are pretty arbitrary. Are you comfortable to be able to apply criteria to those words to make that happen? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, because it allows flexibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under five, you have landscape issues you talk about in the little Roman numeral double i. Canopy trees to be used in landscape areas other than street trees. What is the difference between a canopy tree and a street tree, now that we're using both terms? MS. GUNDLACH: The street trees occur in the streetscape. The cross section you see here is an example of a street tree. Canopy tree that would occur in other areas would be throughout the rest of the development. It could be a tree that might occur maybe in a parking lot or in a community green space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could it be the same type of tree? MS. GUNDLACH: Well, it could be the same tree. It could be a live oak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's talking about a 10-foot high 4-foot Page 189 July 20, 2006 spread with a caliper of one and three-quarters inches. Now that's, what, big as the bottom of a coffee cup or smaller? MS. GUNDLACH: That's our minimum code sized tree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How practical is that in a windstorm? Does it not break? That's a real small diameter. MS. GUNDLACH: It is consistent with the Florida grades and standards. And actually they do go a little bit below one and three-quarters. It is possible to go below one and three-quarters diameter and still meet the Florida Number 1 grades and standards. It will vary from tree species to tree species. But this particular specification for this tree has been our minimum code size specification since 1991. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it says plantings shall be a maximum 25 percent turf grass. Are you concerned about mixing and matching turf grass? Between Bahia, Paspalum, Floratam, you got a lot of different kinds of grasses out there. MS. GUNDLACH: I prefer to leave that up to the designer because -- depending on how they want to use these landscape spaces. Some of the, I'll call them, the mixed use developments that I've visited, sometimes their landscape spaces are heavily used and they might want to choose a grass based on something that is more durable, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to Page 23. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask. The unobstructed clear path, is that the pedestrian clear zone or -- in the next section you call it -- in the commercial it's called pedestrian travel zone. Is that what you are referring to? MS, GUNDLACH: We're back on the diagram? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Actually, it's D.I, that sentence you had difficulty finding with Mark -- MS. GUNDLACH: We're back there then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it says the unobstructed clear Page 190 July 20, 2006 path, I just think use the terms that we have been using up until now, which is pedestrian travel zone, which -- now in the other -- MS. GUNDLACH: That's good, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- commercial mixed use we call it a pedestrian clear zone, Do we want to call it the same thing in both? I don't think it's different. Is it different, Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please take me to where you are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In this one we have a thing called a pedestrian travel zone. In the commercial version of this, the next thing we'll be looking at -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- we have a pedestrian clear zone. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They were intended to be the same. And I thought we got that corrected. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since we have a definition added -- COMMISSIONER CARON: According to the diagram they are two different things. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They are? COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. MR, BOSI: When you refer to the pedestrian travel zone, which is provided for on Page 32 as a definition for the Land Development Code, that is the 5- foot area that's diagramed as the pedestrian travel zone. And I think in the regulations, though, sometimes they slip back in, because originally it was called a pedestrian clear zone and the name was omitted, I think, for consistency's sake. We'll have to go back and make sure when we refer to that component that it's consistent throughout both of those documents. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may. Wehadsmartgrowth language that was in part of this and that's part of our problem with Page 191 July 20, 2006 that too, but our intent was to try and have them the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 23, Mr. Kolflat, you had your hand up. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Down at the bottom there, 6A, the reference, it says the building regardless of the size shall provide an equivalent of 10 percent of its level floor area in building foundation planting area. Well, now if you take two examples of an area and say one area is ten-by-ten, which equals a hundred square feet in area, and take 10 percent of that, that's ten. If I have another area that's one foot wide and a hundred feet long and multiply that I come up with the same hundred square foot times 10 percent, equals ten. So they both end up with the same ratio there of ten. However, the perimeter in the first ten-by-ten building is 40 feet. The perimeter of the one-by-a-hundred building is 202 feet. We're talking now about perimeter sizes for the foundation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This goes back to the foundation planting issue, which is something Brad has talked about several times. Why are we changing it for this? I mean, we already got a foundation planting requirement in our Land Development Code, why do we have two foundation requirement plans? MS, GUNDLACH: It was the desire of the committee. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I am going to amplify on this if I may, We talked a lot about how if you could visualize walking down a street, you have a restaurant over here, so the sidewalk, the travel free, travel zone or whatever you call it, travel free, clear zone you are walking down. You have spaces where it becomes visually interesting and the rest of it. We thought that if you always had to have plantings directly at the foundation it becomes very boring, very dull. And to allow the building to have some interest, we put plantings outside of it within Page 192 July 20, 2006 the 21 feet, and some can be on the side. That's up to the designer on that basis. That was the intent, to create something. If you were to remember how the last time you walked down Fifth Avenue you might visualize something like that, that was the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Decade ago they didn't have many trees, that's the last time I walked down Fifth Avenue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's true. I worked with Nancy, and we thought we had a pretty good thing here, and she had -- she had been working to help expand, if you will, the idea here where we could make something look attractive using plantings, calling them foundation plantings even if they are a distance from the actual building, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if this is such a good idea and it's so smart, why don't we just change the full Land Development Code, make it all right, if it's so wrong? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe that will happen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We do have an amendment to that in our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this isn't it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This isn't it. There is only one thing good about this, is that it does say that it has to be in the form of landscaped courtyards or eating area landscaping. I think I would like to change eating area to seating area unless eating area is like rows of carrots or something to eat. So I think one thing that it's starting to address, which is the problem I had at Bayside, is that they are really allowing urban landscaping, which is what you want, not suburban, which is what we have in the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't it be better, though, if it addressed the urban landscaping in a similar name? If this stuff is so smart why are we just limiting it to specialized areas that are so Page 193 July 20, 2006 restrictive they may never be used when we might take advantage of it if we use it on a countywide basis? I'm wondering why we didn't do that to begin with. MS. GUNDLACH: I think it's we have a county that is in transition from suburban to urban and so the suburban landscape, as Brad has often said, is very different from an urban landscape, and the smart growth amendment is more urban. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What Mark is actually saying might make sense is we could move this into the foundation planting describing that it's used in the mixed use areas. That might be when we start clustering some of these requirements together rather than spreading them throughout. Anyway, I'm not a fan of it to begin with, so -- foundation planting. I definitely am a fan of courtyards, that's what makes the area have a nice ambiance, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: From my point of view sitting on the committee we were faced with a requirement for foundation planting, and what I got was, working with Nancy, a modification that we concurred was at least a benefit, that it would enhance a building and the view. So, I can't disagree with you, maybe, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the amount of it, though, was there any study done -- one of the concerns, the foundation planting requirements are done without showing anybody a study of what it looks like. Even Bill Lorenz showed us what he was doing and it had some mathematical logic to it. Ten percent, I think, is a lot for an urban area. The 20 percent is not going to be on the front, it's going to be all over. And you are stating that it can't be combined, which, normally foundation planting can't, maybe this can -- MS. GUNDLACH: You mentioned something about the 20 percent? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ten percent. Page 194 July 20, 2006 MS. GUNDLACH: I think this is written contemplating the current code. I understand that you are reviewing an amendment to the foundation plantings, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We are. MS. GUNDLACH: This language right here is a significant reduction in the building perimeter landscaping. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. This is really an enhancement over what really was there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not -- I wouldn't throw it out, I'm just -- MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only thing, let's just change eating to seating area and -- MS. GUNDLACH: So noted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- see what it looks like. You won't know until you start designing something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on Page 23. Did you have any more? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did have one more thing and that is, H.I, it says up to 30 percent of the landscape may have a minimum of 5 feet. That means the rest of it has to be greater. MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It didn't make sense until I read it out loud. MS. GUNDLACH: The thought process behind this was the internal islands would remain the standard 8- foot design width. We're concerned about turning radiuses. And for the internal islands it's a little bit easier to give up some dimension on that, it doesn't affect turning radiuses or site clearing zones. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? Mr, Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Under item B(iii), it says a Page 195 July 20, 2006 minimum height of 24 inches for walls and fences. Isn't that a rather low height, it's almost like a tripper wall? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What page are you on, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 23, Item B, little triple i. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. GUNDLACH: That was the desire of the committee. And it's consistent with our current minimum code hedge height of 24 inches. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: They do go that low? When I think of a wall or a fence I think of something higher. MS. GUNDLACH: I think they are just trying to screen the adjacent parking area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have it, Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: Excuse, me, Catherine Fabacher, for the record. I think, Mr. Kolflat, the purpose is just to kind of screen the cars from the street so you are just not looking at grills and headlights and taillights, I think. Am I correct, Mr, Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's correct. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 23, the top of the page, it says irrigation control boxes shall be located away from the direct public view . Away from, where is that, and what is direct public view? I mean, how are you going to walk down the street and not see an irrigation box when you have the street covered with islands? And how direct can it not be? MS, GUNDLACH: Typically, in the streetscapes they try to hide them in the landscape beds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what you are trying to accomplish here? MS. GUNDLACH: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then it says in B, the one below that, the last sentence, landscape buffers shall not be required internal Page 196 July 20, 2006 to the mixed use development proj ect. So that means throughout the -- whatever acreage this takes up there is no landscape buffer required? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. I'm going to back up a little bit. But these requirements were based upon Fifth Avenue and a mixed use development PUD that was recently approved for North Naples and also Ave Maria standards. And typically in these mixed use developments there are no internal buffers, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, And then we've reduced the foundation plantings, which now go 21 feet out from the buildings. No internal buffers. Is there going to be, in your opinion, more concrete and less trees? MS. GUNDLACH: Absolutely. That's the nature of urban development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a good thing? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's what smart growth calls for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just read a -- Thomas Sole just wrote a smart growth thing in the newspaper about two days ago. Did any of you read it? It basically says smart growth is for the developer. I'm not buying off on the smart growth concept at all. I don't know if the best thing is to have solid urban landscape of concrete and asphalt and start eliminating green space as we've seen in this county, Bill Lorenz is fighting for every factor ratio he can get his hands on and here we're doing just the opposite, we're taking it all out. I don't know why we're going there, The urban landscape they have in Miami is not what I thought we wanted in Collier County. Anyway, that just seems to be working strictly in the opposite direction I've seen this county going for the 30 years I've been here. As we go on, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe, Mark, that is the answer, it is working differently, This is an urban code not a suburban. These are PUDs that will come before the board, so we'll see the designs, will we not. And that's actually a good question, Page 197 July 20, 2006 because normally we don't see designs, we see -- how will these things be presented to us differently or will they? MS. GUNDLACH: My understanding is the premise for this is the committee that was working on this, they had to bring forth their -- and this is for the North Naples development, their mixed use development in North Naples in the form of a PUD, and they felt that it was something that they should be allowed to do by right in the LDC and not have to come forth with a PUD to do it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aren't these standards for a PUD? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: These are, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they will have to come before us -- what, wouldn't actually come -- how much design would we see when it does come before us? MS. GUNDLACH: It would result in less deviations from the landscape code by having these standards here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know what I'm saying is we usually get just essentially a crappy Venn diagram and that's our PUD review. Would this require a more thorough -- because then some of the concerns like Mark is expressing we could discuss at a better detail at that level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you posing a question to staff or just stating a philosophical viewpoint? Both is okay, I just want to make sure we get a response if that's what you are looking for. MR. BOSI: I'll give you a staff response. There is no heightened level for specificity in design in a traditional PUD submittal that's contained within these regulations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe we want to do that. And Bob, your group, is that one of the -- in other words, obviously standards can be met and then people can go away from here with their Venn diagram and work within these parameters, Do you think we should maybe want to see something require a site plan? Page 198 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know. Maybe our lawyer would tell us the answer to that, because a rezone, when they're coming in for a rezone, it's not really a requirement to come in with anything very specific. They do that at site development. But all these components would have to be subscribed to. And I would love to see more than what we see. But I don't know how to attack that, and quite frankly it had not been thought of before by me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Further on Page 23 we start with these building architectural standards. And again, we're moving away from the commercial architectural standards that we already have in the Land Development Code just like we have in landscape standards. If it's so smart to make these changes, why don't we just make them for the whole code? If it's not so smart, why are we making them for here? I notice that in A, it starts in the second line, architectural features that provide a visually interesting building design and at a scale appropriate for pedestrian and automobile. Those are ambiguous terms, from my understanding. I don't know what I would see as visually interesting versus what staff might see. And if I was submitting something I wouldn't know if I was doing something right or wrong. But overall I went through the -- as I know staff has gone through some of these architectural elements and I can't see the need for the change between the LDC and this. Is there -- was there a -- did staff see a need for change? And then of course, why? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: While you are doing that, I think this is the area that DSAC recommended that we do away with these standards, if I'm not mistaken. Aren't these the ones? MS. VALERA: Actually, I'm not sure. Catherine? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Jean might know. Page 199 July 20, 2006 MS, FABACHER: I'll do it. For the record, Catherine Fabacher. Yes, DSAC recommended we take the architectural standards out of here -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm fine with that. MS. FABACHER: -- and go to the LDC, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm fine with that, because somehow or other these got a little bollocksed up. MS, VALERA: If the idea was to encourage additional -- to encourage this type of development maybe we can add them to the architectural standards for this type of development, meaning they will have more options on top of the ones that we have within the architectural standards for the rest of the county. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was the intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The way I read this as an architect is that you have the existing standards with these actually added on top. These really don't provide relief at all from the existing standards, do they? MS. VALERA: In some cases it will, in regards to the amount of options. Within the architectural standards you have a listed amount of options, for example, for primary facade requirements, if you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This doesn't defer you from that, it says you have to meet those standards and, you know, by the way, you have to do one of the following, MS, VALERA: That is correct. My suggestion was to add them. Instead of what is said here to add them as an option, added options. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It says, all buildings shall incorporate a minimum of one of the following. MS. VALERA: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That has to be done, and that doesn't in any way take away what requirements for the architectural standards are -- some of these actually are. MS. VALERA: Correct. Page 200 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, I mean, it's giving you a minimum column size. I mean, I don't see these as any problem, Bob, I think what you are trying to do is -- I think what you guys envision when you imagine the street, you imagine one of these four items on your street, and this is a way to make sure it's there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. But I'll be honest with you, I don't have a recollection of it being compulsory, in any event, but that may be because I wasn't always following it as good as I would like to say I could. But irrespective of that, since the DSAC thought it was a complexity that they didn't entertain, I don't have a problem with them being withdrawn from here and made, as you've indicated, Carolina, to allow for some additional opportunities. MS. VALERA: What I understand from the committee is, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that you -- the committee wanted to give incentives by lessening the requirements of the architectural standards, so in lieu of the architectural standards you would do this. N ow my suggestion is that instead of making them in lieu of, you add them as more options. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In addition to, MS. VALERA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm really concerned here. It says all commercial buildings shall incorporate a minimum of one of the following, So all I have to do is put shutters on the buildings and I'm off the hook, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. That's exactly what it says. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's a parenthetical. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what this says, this chapter says that you have to meet the requirements of 5.05.08. COMMISSIONER CARON: Where does it say that? Page 201 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Up above, a(i). And in addition to that, in the mixed use we want your building to have at least one of the following things, which are downtown -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's a big difference between whether you are putting in balconies and bay windows or arcades and covered walkways or hurricane shutters. I mean -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you see number four, the Roman four? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That should be extracted. That was there. I included it because this somehow got confused, I included it as a parenthetical to Roman three. Okay. So delete Roman four on here, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not one of those that is intended. That somehow got to be all by itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I've heard you say something several times that I'm concerned about. You kept saying, you have said repeatedly, I've included that, I put that there. What did the committee do? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Abandon Bob. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see -- I want to find out if we are writing a code tailored to one persons's viewpoint or the viewpoint of a committee that was approved -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. Thank you if you think I'm that smart. No. What it did, it devolved down to one person. In fact, what I got was great help from the people who are in staff who helped to qualify the information. We worked from what the committee had put together and then as we fashioned it, as we crafted it, we came down to different issues that arose and we dealt with them. I certainly don't want to be known as the person who solely fashioned this, I didn't do it. Page 202 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has the committee reviewed all this? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I made the mistake of saying I, then. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has the committee signed off on all of this language? Has anybody gone back to the committee as a whole, and I'm asking staff, and presented this language to them, as it's been presented to us and have they asked questions and resolved issues like we have? MS. JOURDAN: No. Unfortunately a lot of the committee members no longer can be involved, Some people have gone to different companies that don't allow their involvement. Some of the committee members have actually moved out of town. But the ones that are still here, no, this has not been sent to them. They have not seen this once everything -- once the committee sunsetted, There was still a few people besides Commissioner Murray -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There were five, MS. JOURDAN: -- that were involved. But then different jobs, those are the ones that took them out of town and so, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we need to take a break for the court reporter. She's been typing away for the last hour and a half, Let's take a ten minute break and we'll come back and resume our discussion. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I know that at some point in the past there was a smart growth committee that over time, as happens in many cases, volunteers can't stay together and things change. From what I've -- we've spent an hour and a half to go through four pages, maybe five, and we've got I don't know how many pages it is because we are not even through the first half of it. And as much as it's been thought that the commercial is the same as the residential component, the commercial is going to have different types of discussions in order to get through it. Page 203 July 20, 2006 So what I'm realizing is that with all -- even with the intentions and the hard work of Commissioner Murray and staff, this document has been hemmed in hugely by the way the growth management plan was written. And I'm wondering, I'm looking for input on this before we go through hours more with this one piece, Would it be better to suggest a comprehensive look at the comprehensive plan changes that would be needed so that everybody can sit down, start anew with a full committee, full input and possibly come back with more practical language not hemmed in by the GMP? And Bob, I mean, I'm looking to you for your thoughts on this since you spent the time on it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, sure, I would agree that's a great idea. I don't know what committee we would have, We could probably -- see, I'm a little bit unclear of something. The actual advisory committee sunsetted, so it became an added element to finish this. We were under a requirement to finish this within a certain time, and that's what we really were driven by. What you are suggesting is to come back and do the GMP again or am I misinterpreting you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It looks like the GMP is part of the reason this document has got so many -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Problems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- intricacies on it. I think if you were to fix the GMP first, come back with better language to implement smart growth principles and then find out what the principles are that the BCC wants -- I know that some of the commissioners who I've spoke to in the past, while they have not specifically talked about smart growth principles, their concept for Collier County never seemed to be the Brooklyn style urban concrete jungle that they have in places like Miami and Edison, This is actually increasing our hard surfaces and decreasing the landscaping and items like that and I'm wondering if that's the direction that they intended to go. Does anybody know? Page 204 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know the answer to that about all of the commissioners but Commissioner Henning was our liaison and he was not discouraging us in this regard, Simply put, we were tasked to do something and that's the way we approached it. As to its -- I believe we were going in the right direction, we were encouraged to do that. So I don't know. I don't know what the other four would do. I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What, Brad, do you have any thoughts? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, I think right now it's in the growth management plan. If somebody didn't like it that would have been a nice time to discuss it. And I assume it went in there with the majority of the commission saying this is what we want. Right now with commercial the only thing you could do is get the county manager's approval to put a caretaker cottage on your project. So this is our only shot at getting affordable housing. First of all, I think while it's taking long, we're doing a good job. I hope we complete it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just said something, affordable housing. We haven't had a discussion yet, where is this affordable housing issue -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is going to be the shot at it. When you start putting people living above commercial that tends to be your community affordable housing. That's the housing that is missing in our community. COMMISSIONER CARON: In Bayfront? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In Bayfront? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, our town does affordable housing. I mean, so you think we're only going to build luxury housing in town. I think this is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I was a developer I wouldn't do all this and have a commercial below it that is going to be frequented by people who probably can't afford to buy or eat in the commercial Page 205 July 20, 2006 establishments that I'm putting in. I think unless we force them to, and if we force them to that may not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We haven't gotten to the density part of it, we really haven't. I guess it's -- what's in the FLUE, which -- I think, Bob, isn't that 12 units an acre on top of this? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, I mean, we would build -- these commercial properties are getting 12 units. What you are saying is everything that is built in Naples ends up to be expensive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in terms of, you know, everybody that says we need density to get affordable housing, this is where you're going to get it in a controlled manner. You are not going to get it in these suburban single family houses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with the Chair, I would agree with Mark that in this particular area it is not as likely, You might get some young professionals to be able to buy some gap housing in this here. You're not going to get the 80 percent person. The commercial with the residential component is more likely where you are going to find your affordable housing opportunities. Okay. I'm not saying it precludes it but it's not likely, as likely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Are you living where you work or are you working where you live. One of those might tend to generate more affordable housing. But I do think we should pursue through, Mark. I think that unless you want to take a stop, get a straw poll from the commission to see if they want to move through more quickly -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just to get to that point in the process wouldn't be worth the time. If this committee wants to continue Page 206 July 20, 2006 critiquing this we should continue critiquing it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've watched commission meetings where they've discussed, you know, you could build units above shopping centers, That's going to come out of this. That's the only way you're going to build units above shopping centers. You can't do it today, you could build caretakers' cottages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Providing the opportunity to build units above shopping centers, implementing the mixed use, the setbacks and the densities needed is a lot less than modifying our architectural standards, modifying the landscape standards, modifying the design standards and going into an entire new process that decreases the nice things that we like about living in Collier County, the green space, the open space, the trees and stuff like that, and increases the things we never wanted, which is concrete and asphalt. That's where my concern IS. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's an old argument, that's your community character plan. You went out, bo~ght it, the commission wanted to implement it, that's what we are talking about. The community character plan is the urban plan, even more so than this. They are talking about on 41, building right on the front setback. So this thing is much less than that and it's supposedly the outcome from that. Isn't it? Isn't the mandate to do this an old story, an old vote? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I don't know how to answer your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob nodded. He was on the committee. That's why his committee existed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's why it existed. The purpose was to produce a smart growth opportunity, have it be brought before the BCC and see if they wanted to go with it. They went to the GMP. This is an earnest effort to do the LDC, to make it desirable to do this type of thing. Page 207 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just keep plowing through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, this isn't changing the architectural standards, What this says is you have to use the architectural standards but you have to add from this list of three elements. The list of three elements is different form the architectural standards, What they are trying to cause is covered walkways like a town would have. You'd have storefronts set back from nice covered walkways, that looks good, and/or a bunch of decoration on the front of bay windows and stuff. These are all things that aren't in the architectural standards but will be in this mixed use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you're going to have your position on this and I can assure you mine will be diametrically opposed to yours, so why don't we just move on through this and get our stuff on record and then we can send it to the BCC and they can hash it out? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on. Page 24. We left off -- I think we talked quite a bit about the architectural standards, the sign types and definitions. Does anybody -- and that starts on Page 24. Are there any comments on that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Just to reinforce what Carolina said, and I go along with what DSAC said because, frankly, this did not come out to my way of thinking the way the committee intended it. However, what Carolina said would be to add that in and that would be a future activity, and it would put that as advice to you only. But that might be my only comment in that regard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the sign section? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'm sorry, on Page 24. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was still referring to the prior, I hadn't yet gotten to the signs, But go ahead. You are using the white, I'm using the colored. I was just concluding my remark, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other remarks on the architectural Page 208 July 20, 2006 end on Page 24? If not, the signage starts on number eight on colored Page 24 and goes to Page 25. Let's take those two pages and the sign issues. I don't even have to look over and see if Brad has a question. I know he has. Brad, do you have any comments on signs? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just in general. I wonder why nine and ten aren't part of subsection eight. In other words, they have gone through different things and then we come up with signs. I think we can combine nine -- eight, nine, extend it as one number, which would be a number that covers all the signs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's more to do with structure, tried to lay it out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But prior to that all your highlights have been -- you don't have to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Out front we wanted to get the sign types, the definitions out of the way and then we qualified the detail. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The signs go over to Page 27. Let's just take them as a chunk. Anybody have any other comments on signs? I have a real basic one. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: On which page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They start on Page 24 and go to 27. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You want comments on any of those pages? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, anything to do with signs. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On Page 27, under G, Roman numeral one, two and three, two and three in particular, it's a 20-foot pole with a 20- foot sign and the other one is a 30- foot pole with a Page 209 July 20, 2006 36-foot sign. Won't those go beyond the ground as they are longer than the pole? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's square -- MS. FABACHER: No, it's square footage, square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- feet. Four-by-nine on top ofa 30-foot pole is what I think they are trying to say. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Sorry. Okay. Nothing about length or how long the banner should be? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think they would have to be proportionate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the last sentence it says the maximum sign area shall be proportionate to the height of the pole. I don't know what that means but -- I have a question, why are we changing? We have 26 pages of sign restrictions in our Land Development Code -- probably are the biggest sign -- I don't know what you call it, we have the biggest sign problem in the history of the United States, I wouldn't doubt. We do everything with signs. Every breath of a sign issue is addressed in our code. We address it bigger than anything else. Why are we coming up with four more pages? Why can't we just use the current code that we have? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Keep in mind these are all internal to a proj ect, they are not on an arterial or a collector. They're not -- everything outside on that arterial or collector does conform to -- must conform to the present code. These are intended to dress up a place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can staff tell me does our current sign codes apply to internal to the projects as well? MS. VALERA: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The current sign codes that we have in the Land Development Code, of which there are numerous pages, do they apply to the inside of a project as well as the outside of a project? Page 210 July 20, 2006 MS. VALERA: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now I go back to my question, why are we coming up with four more pages of sign issues when we have multiple pages in the code already? MS. VALERA: I believe -- and I'm not completely sure, but I believe that there are some kind of requirements here that are prohibited in our sign code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If they are smart enough to be in this place why aren't they smart enough to be in our sign code? Mike goes and walks back. You don't like that question, huh? MR. BOSI: I wouldn't want to offer any harsh criticism of our Land Development Code in contrast, but it is a departure from the concepts of smart growth. I mean, the inherent construct of our LDC is based, it's been referred to many times, is based more on a suburban type of development. And I think the sign code even more -- is more restrictive than the suburban type development. It's one of the most restrictive local sign regulations that I know of in the state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. MR. BOSI: And I think the reason why they addressed signs was to make more flexibility. Whether that is going to be the purview of the Board of County Commissioners as a good thing or not, I'm not sure, But under the auspices of the creativity and the flexibility that is inherent to the intention of the committee, I think that's why they addressed signs and made more allowances for signs within the mixed use projects. MR. BELLOWS: For the record -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, the PUD process generally allowed for deviations from the LDC sign code, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MR. BELLOWS: And allowed the builder or developer at the time to tailor his signs on a site-specific basis. Page 211 July 20, 2006 In this case we're coming up with standard deviations from the Land Development Code sign section and creating a whole new section where it may cause some problems for permitting when signs come in, The building department will have to be made aware that this is different from the LDC sign requirements. It does create some problems when you have two separate sign codes floating around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One guy in one project has a sign out front and the guy next door to him can't have the same sign -- MR. BELLOWS: It's possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because this is infill. Would we be having issues like that arise? I'm just wondering -- and I keep going back to this, I thought that smart growth principles, if that's truly what they are, why didn't we just apply them in the Land Development Code instead of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- forming another whole new code in which to implement just those policies? MS. JOURDAN: I just wanted to answer where all of these different sign codes come from, They were from the original committee, all of these different sign deviations, and they had been parts of a few other developments and overlays where they had these same deviations and allowances, So the committee had taken them out of there, And that's where they originally came from and why. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, are these modeled after what we did on the rural area? Is that where these came out of? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not sure that they -- they are more modeled really after what we perceived at Ave Maria and what's allowable, I think, and more so for Fifth Avenue, and trying to make whatever commercial within a development of this type be successful because it has enough attractiveness, it has enough interest. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just wanted to know where it Page 212 July 20, 2006 came from, I didn't check them against what is existing, Mark, did you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw no reason to read them because I saw no reason for them to exist. I had too much to read and I saw no -- I'm not going to sit there and waste my time on language that in my opinion doesn't need to exist. So, no, I did not read them. And as far as I'm concerned we have a sign code. If this is better than our sign code then put this in the main code and let's not have duplicate codes in this county. The public is going to be so puzzled by what to do. When people drive down the street one business has a sign here, another business has a sign here, and the two businesses are going to wonder why I can't have a sign like my neighbor's. I just think we're asking for a lot of trouble by having two codes in one. MS. VALERA: If I may, Commissioner, and I guess we started from the premise that, you know, we had a language that was specific to certain -- that was specific. And it was specific for a certain type of project. As you mentioned our community character plan is there as part of our GMP and I believe it better addressed the whole county with its different palette. It goes with the area of our state, which is very, very different from more of what you will find on Fifth Avenue, Maybe if we started from there then we could apply it to the whole county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I had always seen that plan, that growth plan that came out, as some of the Dover, Kohl plan, as something we were supposed to look at implementing on more of a countywide basis, We seem to be taking it and creating a separate code with it. I'm wondering why we're doing that. MR. BOSI: I think you are correct. And I don't want to make any assumptions for the zoning department, but at no point in time have we ever looked at the Land Development Code and compared it against the community character code and said we need to update this Page 213 July 20, 2006 Land Development Code to bring it up to the concepts of the community character plan, Maybe that's the undertaking when we do finally decide that it's time to relook at the Land Development Code and look at the composition structure and the character of it. But for this purpose, I think the committee was trying to bring some of those components to this specific commodity of mixed use, On the other side of the argument you are a hundred percent correct. If it is the concepts that the community wants embraced as a whole we should probably bring it as a whole to the regulations that apply throughout the county. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may. Well said by Mike and Carolina. It's a chicken and egg type of thing here. We were tasked to do certain things and we had a whole series of things that we thought we would be able to achieve as a committee, and it basically got down to these, these issues, mixed use. I wish we could have brought in all of the other principles that we didn't have time to bring into play. But this is what the committee produced. And maybe, if it's acceptable and desirable, maybe these will be the foundation for change to the entire LDC. I don't know, But how do we get incentives unless we provide them as a package? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron, COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you'll find that when people come into this county, one of the things that they all remark about, and some of you were down on Marco Island when half the state came here recently, and what do they remark on: How fabulous our landscaping is and how incredibly tasteful all the signage is, and now we're going to take it all away? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's common sense. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't get it. I just don't get it. I don't see where that is smart growth for Collier County. Maybe it's smart growth for Miami, Chicago, Boston, L.A., Dallas, Houston. I don't understand how that's smart growth for Collier County. Page 214 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Let's try to move our way through this. I think you are getting various opinions of the staff -- I mean the plan also. Maybe that will factor into our next hearing on this when we get to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question on Page 26. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-six. Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's D, triple i. And I hate when you number things with 1. But anyway, it says subject to the restrictions. Could you actually itemize what restriction that is? I think that's -- in other words, that's -- I don't know what that is. COMMISSIONER CARON: Make them look it up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure where you'd even look it up. What is that restriction on barriers around a swimming pool-- what restriction are you referring to? MS. VALERA: I think it referred -- I believe, I'm not completely sure -- but I think it refers back to the poling ground sign requirements of the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But just to humor me, could you maybe actually put that restriction in so they go right to it? MS, VALERA: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We able to move to Page 27 or is there more back on the signs? Page 27, number 11 starts with the parking requirements and it continues on Page 28. Why don't we catch them both. Is there any issues that anybody has on those? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's 45. Which way does that go? The space is 15 feet long -- (Commissioner Adelstein left the room.) COMMISSIONER CARON: Which item? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's item -- I'm sorry, e(i) -- hold Page 215 July 20, 2006 on, I'm looking from -- I'm lost. I'm looking at an old printout of it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Parallel parking? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Parallel parking. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's Page 28, d(I). I feel like I'm doing Bingo now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, it will be in the commercial, never mind. It's not something that was carried over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No questions on Page 28. Let's move to Page 29, Any questions on Page 29? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Twenty-nine, F,5, the overall parking requirement may be reduced at the time of site development plan approval. I really don't think that we should be able to reduce the parking at that point. I believe that that should come before the public and the public should know what to expect or not expect. And I think this board, and I think the BCC, more importantly, should know what kind of parking is going to be required. I don't think it should be, you know, there should be some arbitrary decision made at SDP that we can suddenly reduce the parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody from staff -- hello, earth to staff. Is anybody from staff listening to us or are we just up here amusing ourselves tonight? MS. JOURDAN: No, no, we're listening. We are discussing it back there. Mike, did you want to interj ect? MR. BOSI: No, MS, JOURDAN: Okay, This language, as far -- the thing of it is, is there was different people who were involved with this, some of them which are not here, so we're trying to answer those questions. COMMISSIONER CARON: We understand. Page 216 July 20, 2006 MS. JOURDAN: But the shared parking was actually currently in the LDC and that was just put in here. So the shared parking analysis, that's language that was in the LDC that was just put in here, COMMISSIONER CARON: It's not shared parking that I'm concerned about, it is change -- reducing the parking at the time of the SD p, If there is going to be shared parking and a shared parking analysis I think that that should happen during the hearing process as opposed to as a staff action after the fact. That's all I'm saying, MR. BOSI: And the problem that you'll get from the applicants in that stage is that they can't provide you, they give you heartburn about providing you specificity to the design level at the PUD stage, and they are going to say how can we enter into a shared parking agreement with individual business owners in terms of we don't, we're not even sure about the site design. I'm not sure how we get around that counter. COMMISSIONER CARON: That they are not going to know who their retailers are going to be? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, isn't this the same language we have in the rural towns? We argued this shared thing. This is exactly what we came up with. I think most of this is cribbed from that, isn't it? MR. BOSI: I believe from -- MS. JOURDAN: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We stole every time we could. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so I think this is stuff that we've all agreed upon, commissions have voted on a long time ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. You just said a statement that is untrue. You said we all agreed upon. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe you didn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I voted no for Ave Maria, I was the only one on this panel that did. So I didn't agree upon it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That explains why Mark is Page 217 July 20, 2006 uncomfortable doing what we're doing here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. I still have my same complaints. Any other questions on Page 28 or 29? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just have to point out that on F triple i that should be instead of zero point decimal -- or 025 -- God, I can't speak well, it should be 0.125, Do you see that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: An eighth of a mile? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, you wouldn't want to make it -- that's 660 feet versus 25 percent of 5,280. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we leave those two pages, Jean, on the handicapped parking on 28.D, it says, shall be located to facilitate the most direct and safest route to the building entrance to get to their housing units. Wouldn't that always be along the curb in front? MS. JOURDAN: Yes, this is out of the LDC -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the whole street is going to be all handicapped parking, which means your curbs have to be all ramps because you can't have a slope of over, what is it, 12 to one, so your gutter is going to get problematic. How are you going to do that? I see Ray shaking his head. MS. JOURDAN: Because I got this -- we actually got -- this language was given to us by another department and asked us to put this in here -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you ask them-- MS, JOURDAN: -- I can't answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to consider that question, please. MS, JOURDAN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question for you, sir, because I need to understand that. When we envisioned this we didn't Page 218 July 20, 2006 necessarily envision that every parking spot there would be -- you're saying that based on the size that it would be all ADA? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. What I'm saying is if you have to have handicapped parking the way this is stated, the most direct and safest route would be in front of the building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That we always wanted. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means whatever you have to have it's going to have to be out there, then. And if you have it out there, that's going to impact the way your curb and everything is structured. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No problem on that. I misunderstood you. I thought you said it was going to be all ADA parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the extent that you need it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To the extent that there is -- okay. Then, I agree with you, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the continuation on that, the same 28 and 29, the parking structures on E, little double i, parking structures without ground floor retail or residential uses along the front facade. Does that mean no, zero or just -- what if they have one cubicle that is ground floor retail or residential, will they then be able to not have to come under this building foundation landscape element? MR. BOSI: The way that it's written they would, they could find an exemption by having one small office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSI: That would be a creative way to get around that specific regulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll bet you somebody will bring that one up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm glad you brought that up. That was never the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The little triple i, all structures with uncovered parking on the top level shall have rooftop planters around Page 219 July 20, 2006 the perimeter, integral to the structure, or similar architectural features to soften the building edge. I'm wondering when it says "or" does it mean a mixture of both, and if it has to apply is it 100 percent of that entire top edge of the building or do you have breaks, or do you intend to have breaks? MS. JOURDAN: It's not defined in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe it should be, that's all I'm suggesting. E five, the little Roman numeral, they are talking about structures below grade, and that's fine. Where in Florida would you put a structure below grade? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We talked about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you would have to have back-up pumps, electrical-- in an emergency so you could pump the facility out when -- why would we even want to suggest people do that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I've done that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would imagine you had. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it does require sumps. But I think their intent is if you're going to do it it's a pretty ugly site, what you'll see is the top of the garage structure going down, so you want to make sure that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sun Bank has one in Pelican Bay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. The price of land, you're lucky we're not going down two layers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Keep in mind these were not developments that we thought would only be in western Collier near the coastal high hazard area, they could be wherever is applicable. And the water table may be just a little bit better elsewhere. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we're higher along 41 than you guys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just thought it was an odd thing to talk Page 220 July 20, 2006 about. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree with you, We talked about that a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 29F, small double i, commercial areas must utilize on-street parking to meet at least a portion of the parking requirement. Does that mean they can have one parking space and they have met the portion? I mean, that's pretty loose language, MR, BELLOWS: I think that conflicts with some parts of the LDC and the parking requirements. We don't normally count on-street parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that brings in another interesting question, because the way this is written it seems you can count parking. And Mr. Murray has said there was some corrective numerics within an eighth mile. But you can count parking within an eighth mile as meeting the requirements for the facilities you are building, that is what this seems to say. Am I right or wrong? I'm right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Should be right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Ray, that's -- MR. BELLOWS: Problematic. I think it needs to be looked at a little bit more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hope that through -- if nothing else you guys realize that there may be lot of cleanup to do if it is even going to float to the top. In Roman numeral five -- that's been answered. Okay, we're on Page 30 now at this point. Anybody have any questions on Page 30? Under the V double little i, it says residential areas that are within a block or, and I'm assuming it's 0.125-mile of a commercial area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the others it said, after the .25, Page 221 July 20, 2006 whichever is less. Did you mean to omit that purposely on this page or did you mean to include it as you had on the prior page where you had the same reference? MS. JOURDAN: I think we should make the language the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so too. That's all I wanted to find out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It should be the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you look at number 8V triple i, last line, you are talking again about parking spaces may be utilized to meet a portion of the commercial requirement. I'm just wondering how you define a portion and you tell someone their portion is too little or too big. It's back to ambiguous language again. Twelve A, you talk about loading docks, they shall be placed to the rear side yard of a building in visually unobtrusive locations with minimal impacts on views. Do you have a way of weighing out what is visually unobtrusive in your review of applications when they come in or will that be something you are going to get into an argument with an applicant? MS. VALERA: It will be a problem to enforce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll just keep saying things and I figure you guys will keep coming back with clarifications whenever this happens again. Twelve B it says, walls will be -- in the middle, walls will be constructed of a material compatible with the principal structure it's serving. I know what compatible is in like materials when you refer to color and texture, but does this mean if you have a concrete block stucco building this has to be a concrete block stucco wall? And then, since this is for containers and stuff, your enclosures shall include solid lockable gates to avoid blowing refuse. Do you mean latchable or lockable? Because if they are lockable how do people get into them? And if they are solid what are they made of? Page 222 July 20, 2006 You can't use chain link fencing or wood fencing, chain link gates are not allowed. What can you use for a gate? You are not using chain link, I don't have a problem with that. But you are not using wood either. What do you make them out of? MS. VALERA: Actually, in fact, our present architectural standards do prohibit chain link and wood, meaning that you can use PVC plastic type of -- or you can use solid like aluminum or any other but not chain link, any other type of metal or plastic or combination thereof. And the reason for it, and the reason we have it in the architectural standards is because chain link fence and wood are very hard to maintain and it's proven that they fail over time and it becomes a nUIsance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem. I just want to understand your options. I didn't realize what your options were. It says enclosures shall include solid lockable gates. Do you mean latchable or do you really mean lockable? Lockable, I'm thinking of a tumbler and key. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Latchable. MS. VALERA: I'm not sure what the intent was. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Latchable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You wouldn't want lockable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wouldn't think so. Anybody else have any -- that's the last page, Page 30, basically, of this section. Does anybody else have any issues on that section now that we've passed it? If not, while we still are awake and the paint is not quite dry yet, can we go to Page 31. And I think we have some language starting on 32. I don't know if it's new language because it's not underlined, it looks like it might be existing language. Is that some of this? MR. BOSI: If it's not underlined that would be existing languages (sic). On 32 the only language is you have the section containing definitions, which is new languages or new language. Page 223 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSI: And the permitted use tables have been adjusted to permit residential development in C-1, C-2 and C-3, with the footnote meaning that it has to meet the design criteria contained within the commercial mixed use subsection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The pedestrian travel zone definition is defined as being 5 feet in width, yet -- and I don't mean to jump to another page but I have to to get the reference -- D2 on Page 3 -- it's 38. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thirty-nine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 38 in the brown one. COMMISSIONER CARON: Are you looking at this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the definition on Page 32. If you look at the -- on Page 28, D2, it references LDC Section 5.05.08.E.2. 5.05.08.E.2 is what I was trying to mention to you in the residential section refers to the minimum dimensions, pedestrian pathways must be a minimum of 6 feet wide. Yet the graphic shows 5 feet. I've got the code in case anybody wants to look at it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're fine. I would like to respond to that. It's not a problem to go to the 5 feet and be consistent. It's not a problem to go to the 6 feet and be consistent. The current standard is 5 feet, if I'm not mistaken; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the current standard is 6 feet. MR. BOSI: It was 6 feet. DSAC had asked that we reduce it to five, and we, not thinking that we would be in conflict with the regulations, we had succumbed to the suggestion from DSAC and changed it back to five. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Go ahead. MS. VALERA: I'm sorry. If I may -- and Catherine, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we already amended the code, the architectural standards, to reduce the 6- foot wide requirement to five only to be consistent with the rest of the transportation internal Page 224 July 20, 2006 requirements. MS. FABACHER: Correct. MS. VALERA: When we went through the amendments of the architectural standards the transportation department was projecting that they were going to require 6 feet internally. They changed their mind, they kept it at five, so we had to go back and amend our architectural standards to be consistent with the transportation department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor, are you trying-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, where is the 6 feet-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not in our book. It references -- on Page 38 D2 it references a section of the LDC. I went to Municode, I printed off the section of the LDC. I have it here. It says 6 feet. You are telling me it's not 6 feet even though Municode has it at 6 feet? MR. BOSI: That's the problem with the LDC process and the lag between when regulations are enacted and when they actually show up in our actual book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Municode is wrong. If someone was designing this they would design at 6 feet and they're wasting their time. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: They were so set on 5 feet they repeated it twice. The pedestrian travel zone shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width, the pedestrian travel zone shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know. I'm just saying the LDC, though, says that the minimum shall be 6 feet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The existing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The existing LDC. But now I'm finding out that the existing LDC doesn't really exist. That it's really 5 feet because the law hasn't caught up with the text. So even though the Page 225 July 20, 2006 website's saying 6 feet it's really five. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on the Muni site, the front page shows there is three series of amendments they have not yet put in. So you have to go into one of those and find it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought I did. Maybe I'm wrong. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some questions on the definitions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Should we add a definition for street planning zone? We refer to it a lot. And then the pedestrian zone is confusing, back to the right-of-way again. In other words, it really isn't -- we had this conversation on the other one so we don't have to go far here, but it really isn't between a road right-of-way. If there is on the sketch we should show where the property line is supposed to be. MR. BOSI: And here is the problem. That design standard that you look for the pedestrian pathway section that was first in the residential, that's considered for an internal right-of-way. This C-1, C-2 and C-3, that's on existing arterial and collector roads that are out there in existence today. So there is -- there is probably more problematic areas where we try to incorporate this design with an infill. So if you have infill you have a commercial urbanized development that has development on either side and they've got traditional sidewalks. And if they come in to implement the commercial mixed use and want to do commercial mixed use on the infill their sidewalk requirement all of a sudden goes to that 21 feet. So there is a problematic in terms of these type of infill trying to find a context within the existing urban development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me say that back to you. If I have a C-3 site on 41 and I come in, I can put my building 21 feet Page 226 July 20, 2006 from the curb of 41 ? MR. BOSI: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is where you should be going. I definitely think you have to establish where a property line or road right-of-way is because you are telling people to build stuff that is -- I mean, the front of my building might still be in the right-of-way. I definitely think we have to do something to -- that's going to change the look of the town. That's really going to change it. What's the minimum acreage on this one, Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, what? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The minimum acreage to do this? MR. BOSI: There is no minimum acreage. This is for existing parcels that are out there. This is infill. The other project was a design where you were going to try to incorporate it internally. This is for -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got you. There is no minimum. In other words, to get approval to do this, I own one of these lots, what do I do? MR. BOSI: You'd submit a site development plan, comply with the regulations and the administrator would review -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nowhere near a public hearing. And then one day Donna is driving down the street and she wonders what is this building 21 feet off the curb. COMMISSIONER CARON: No one in the neighborhood has had a chance to comment. MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, no one in the neighborhood, in the commercial neighborhood, I would imagine. If it's C-1 zoning I would imagine it would be surrounded by commercial zoning. But the concept of a public hearing for this isn't present, this is by right. This is a permitted use within commercial one, two and three zoning as proposed. Page 227 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think somebody should -- we should really cold water (sic) the commission to make sure they are comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm concerned about, I don't know if they will find the same concerns that we have. And if they don't and this gets put through and this stuff happens -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They might not notice it, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They might not even notice it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what concerned about. They have -- their agendas, if you've ever seen them, are three 6- inch binders this thick. And to go into this kind of detail they are going to have concerns with it all. And I don't know if we need to figure out a way to put a stop to it now in order to correct it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Certainly, collector and arterial roads we should not be on, we should not be able to do this. MR. BOSI: Based upon commercial-- the C-l, C-2 and C-3 zoning, collector and arterial is really the only place that they are in this county. And what we did is we took the concept of designing a PUD, a mixed use PUD from scratch, and we tried to massage those regulations into an existing urbanized area and that's why this Land Development Code has a hard time finding a context in the environment that it's going to be situated within. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then what I think what we should immediately propose is where the -- if you look at Page 39, where there is a 3 - foot car door zone, I would -- 3 feet in, I would say that that's the right-of-way if it's adjacent to a public road. This could be a great cross-section for an internal road and then we're going to be 18 feet from the property line. Mike, what do you think the normal setback would be -- or Bob, do you have your little setback cheat sheet with you? Page 228 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What do you think would be in C-3 or -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have it. It's a ways, though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would it be 50 feet, 25 feet? MR. BOSI: 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially this is only 18 feet. MR. BOSI: I mean, that's -- I mean that's the concept of neo-traditionalism, is you bring the buildings closer to the street. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not killing it, I'm just keeping the building out of our right-of-ways. That's not a good idea, cars hitting them and things. So let's -- so maybe we add another section that is up against the public street and then maybe we set this thing back 25 feet with the same kind of stuff. But here we are going up 41 in our district, Donna, comIng up on -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Any district. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We are coming up on Longhorn, so I-HOP, right up on Trail Boulevard would be a building. MR. BOSI: I mean it kind of -- imagine just north of Vanderbilt Road -- Vanderbilt Beach Road on 41. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's right. In front of all of Naples Park there are many of those -- MR. BOSI: Older style buildings that have that context. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right up to the road. However, then plunking on top of that residential, on the ones that are right up to the highway, that does not sound like smart growth to me either. MR. BOSI: You know, I mean, I guess it is all dependent upon your relevant perspective. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That will back off the million dollar units. Page 229 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. Let Donna finish. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think anywhere where you could have some sort of setback, I don't see that as a problem, putting residential over, but when -- if you are going to essentially be able to create a line up 41 with absolutely no setback and have 50, 60 feet of MR. BOSI: These would be limited to the specific height of the C-l, C-2 and C-3 zoning district. This doesn't contain the same five story language that the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: With housing on top of it, though. MR. BOSI: It would be able to contain a mix of commercial and residential, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We often joked about having the penthouse on the Home Depot, okay. That was -- remember we were joking about it, because we were doing what you are doing, we were saying how ugly will that be, how bad will this be. And again, maybe it doesn't say it right in here but we were hoping that we conveyed effectively that the residential was to be internal to the product not external to the product. Not the stock -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's not what it says. MR. BOSI: To give you guys a -- to give the commission a context, Ed James Owens from the GIS department ran the numbers in terms of available C-l, C-2 and C-3 zoning. It came out there were 576 parcels total. Vacant was 203. Of those 203 there was 260 -- they comprise 265 acres. So the average size of a C-l, C-2, C-3 is 1.3 acres. So there is really not a tremendous opportunity. It's neo-traditionalism. There is not a separation between residential and commercial, especially in the way this is infilled. This infill, the residential and commercial are going to be housed within the same building. By the time you have to add the parking functions and everything else that goes along there won't be enough room for that type of separation. Page 230 July 20, 2006 And it's -- I'm not saying it's a bad concept, it's just having to find the -- having to find context in the environment it's going to be placed in, it's going to be a difficult task. And you are right, we have to go back and look and see where -- we have to establish how the existing right-of-ways are determined within these collector road systems and then have the setback from that. COMMISSIONER CARON: As always, the devil is in the details. And I think that is what is lacking here, the details haven't really been fleshed out the way we need to see them fleshed out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Mike, let me ask you some questions about density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would go to 36 up at the top, four. To get the density we want, a developer has four units per acre. He has his commercial so this is on top of what he's going to be able to do, whatever he can fit in with commercial, no restrictions on ground coverage or anything. To get that additional density above four he has to do affordable housing; is that right? MR. BOSI: No, to get the density above three. Three units per acre is permitted by right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then to get it above -- MR. BOSI: And to get above that three you have to -- the only way you can get above that three would be the utilization of the affordable housing density bonus agreement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Look on Page 33, I see a four as the base density. Is that incorrect then? COMMISSIONER CARON: It might be old. MR. BOSI: That is from the affordable housing section of the Land Development Code and that's prescribing the base density that's prescribed throughout the county. When you get to the specifics of Page 231 July 20, 2006 the commercial section, if you look at C -- on Page 37, look at C-3, you go down and it talks about residential and density calculation, and it will -- density in excess of three dwelling units per acre must be comprised of affordable workforce housing. And that's seven -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't that -- anyway three or four, let's not get stuck there. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then to go above that it's only via the affordable housing. MR. BOSI: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on the parcels that you just said were available, how many units could actually be created where you could use that increased density because the parcels are so small? MR. BOSI: If you have a 1.3-acre site, put a first ground -- ground floor commercial -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. BOSI: -- and maybe two stories of residential, but because of the parking requirements, even though you may want to be able to squeeze little efficiencies, like a 500 square foot efficiency, the parking requirement might make that prohibitive because it's just -- we do have -- created a link in some of the regulations inherent to our Land Development Code, and I'm not sure at how high of a density level you'll be able to arrive at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're creating this whole thing for possibly a few, a handful of affordable housing units, maybe on some very small parcels? MR. BOSI: Depending on the parcel you are speaking about -- but if you look at the average, if you have 265 vacant acres of commercial and they are made up of 203 parcels, that on average says we have about a 1.3-acre parcel to deal with. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know. Is that a fair way of putting that? I'll grant that when we were doing this we struggled Page 232 July 20, 2006 to find certain places that it could possibly fit but we never approached it from the average. MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, look at the design of commercial C-l, C-2 and C-3, I mean they are not large parcels of land, traditionally, because of the design and the functions -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, they are not. MR. BOSI: -- and the limitations that are inherent to the size of the retail that could go upon there. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's just maybe the true intent of, of being able to realize a terrific level of density to be able to provide for affordable housing there still would be limitations that are placed upon it but there are limitations placed upon any parcel of land. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I should add, maybe at my peril, that it was too late when we realized that we should have had C-4 in there to allow for bed and breakfast or to allow for a hotel. That would have added a dimension to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was a question I had, why you didn't have C-4. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When I say too late, it was relative to putting the package together in time. And I think it doesn't call -- the GMP calls for C-l to C-3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron and Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 36 under four, three-quarters of the way down, it says that, and must recommend to the Planning Commission and the BCC to deny, grant or grant with conditions the affordable housing density bonus application. And then the next line says, the recommendation of the county manager must report -- must support recommendation. Is that conflicting or am I just not reading that correctly? Sounds like -- MR. BOSI: No, that's existing language. That's existing -- what I added on that section, and you are talking about Page 36 -- Page 233 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: I know. I see what you added but I just -- MR. BOSI: That section refers to how an affordable density bonus agreement goes through the approval process. What -- the section I added was basically to say that affordable housing density bonus for a mixed use commercial project does not have to go through the public hearing process. Maybe I missed the intent of your question, but the language you were referring to, that's existing language. COMMISSIONER CARON: I hadn't gotten that far yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't this just fall back on the densities by right issue that we had? MR. BOSI: It is density by right. That was -- I mean, I'm not sure what the climate of the Planning Commission was for the first suggestion of density by right -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We rejected it. MR. BOSI: Yes. But this is the same concept of density by right. But what -- and I had a conversation with transportation early on. I said, now if we would do this and prescribe a three units per acre base would that cause problems with what we have on the books right now for our concurrency and the numbers we've allocated for each of those sites? And they said, no, and actually what it would do is actually probably decrease the intensity of the traffic counts because you have to forego square footage of commercial to provide for the residential, and that exchange is going to actually be a benefit in terms of lessening the transportation impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you have something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, just a question. The -- and I'm not sure, maybe I missed it, but there is no requirement for the amount of commercial, correct? In other words, you could have some commercial and all this residential density but there is no ratio like Page 234 July 20, 2006 there was in the other one? MR. BOSI: No, there is -- there isn't -- well, there -- yes, there is a ratio in the sense of in C, 37C it says if you've got a residential free-standing building it could only be 70 percent of the total gross acreage or if you've got one building that has two uses it can only be 70 percent of the square footage for that building. So, yes, there is a commentation (sic). COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question is, do we want to work on that, because we have a requirement for PUDs, residential PUDs have a 60 percent open. Mixed use have a 30, and sometimes we get a phone booth for the commercial. Should we put some sort of minimum amount of commercial? Because what this may be is people may just go in and use this to get, put a small little convenience store or something and get a huge amount of density by right on a property. MR. BOSI: They have to do something -- they have to have a seven to three ratio. If you've got 70 percent of it is residential the other 30 percent has to be commercial, of the square footage uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't that a free-standing residential? MR. BOSI: No. For a free-standing residential it can only be 70 percent of the total acreage. For the -- when you've got two uses in one building that's when it goes to square footage -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think you are right, so 30 percent of every building will at least be commercial. MR. BOSI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, when we as a committee recommended to the BCC to rej ect the density by right issue did the BCC agree with us and rej ect it? MR. BOSI: They agreed with you. I believe so. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, they did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why are we bringing it back to Page 235 July 20, 2006 them again in this form? MR. BOSI: This was another manner that was suggested towards potentially addressing a critical problem within this county of affordable housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we just talked, it's really not going to do much of anything for affordable housing because -- MR. BOSI: I mean, if you do anything you are doing something. And maybe I think that's what this community needs to embrace. The component that -- the intensities have already been accounted for because it's commercial zoning. That intensity -- the greatest concern this community has is transportation impacts. And if this proposal, if you give three units per acre by right and it actually results in a decreased intensity of traffic, well, that's why maybe the staff felt the commission may be palatable to density by right in this verSIon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to move on because I would like to finish up this next 12 pages and get out of this mess before we go to our August meetings. We're on Page 37, we finished with, I hope. How does Page 38 look to everyone? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark, on Page 38, item three, it talks about pedestrian clear zone but that's not shown on the corresponding diagram. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think staff is already going to make the corrections from the first round that need to be applied to the second. That was a correction we recommended, so I'm sure they will follow through with those corrections. MR. BOSI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think probably what we need to do is any issues that were not addressed in that first 20 pages need to be brought out now. And that gets us -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry. On 38 on D3, Page 236 July 20, 2006 pedestrian clear zone, isn't that a pedestrian travel zone? MR. BOSI: Yes. And we will go through and make the coordination as marked. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then four, where it says that outdoor areas may be enclosed by planters, wouldn't it be safer to use surrounding? The impression is you don't want them to build walls and roofs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 39 is the diagram that we've already talked about. If we can we'll move on to Page 40. Forty, we had a lot of changes in the prior document. I'm assuming staff will look at those in consideration of this document. I don't see anything any different. Page 41, we get our famous building foundation plantings but we've already talked about that. Any issues that anybody has on -- if not, we'll go on to Page 42. And Bob, your D Roman numeral little triple i in IV. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's Roman four? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. There is where you tried to-- you did it in triple I the way you wanted to but then Roman numeral four should be deleted on that page. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It should be deleted. I moved it up into a parenthetical on Roman three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see that. That's what the other one was supposed to look like. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's right. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 43, we start out on signs, and I have no more I want to say about signs. I don't know if anybody else does. Page 44, more signs. Page 45, parking. Page 46, I am not seeing anything much different than what we've already talked about. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's pretty much the same. Page 237 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question, I'm sorry. On 45 it would be b(i), and it's -- a parking space is 8 feet by 15 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He picked up on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The corners to the travel lane are angled at 45. What that should be is it's 15 feet along the curb and then that angle occurs; is that right? I'm just -- I wasn't clear which way that 45 would go. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I got to tell you if I can, and Nancy, maybe you can help on this, because we spoke at length about how we would have alternatively on a street, on a given street we would have some diagonal parking. And wherever we had some parallel parking, which was intended for ADA purposes predominantly, what we would have is extending out into the, if you will, the right-of-way, by I think, I chose 6 feet or -- not 6 feet, 3 feet or 4 feet or something -- and then it was reduced. But it was intended then as a planter surface, something attractive. And I'm not sure if that's been removed. I looked at it quickly and I didn't see what you and I had discussed. Do you recall that, Nancy, what I'm talking about? MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, I don't. Perhaps the conversation was with our transportation landscape architect Pam Lulich? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think so. We talked about MS. GUNDLACH: What occurs in the street, it's under her jurisdiction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me see if I can quicken your memory on it. When we talked about parking and the best ways to put parking in and what is attractive and so forth, and then I talked about how I would like to have a jut in a street so that we did -- we deemphasize parking in the street and so that we would minimize the amount of parking in the street. And we would have a jut and -- like an island, remember, with the plantings and the question of the Page 238 July 20, 2006 plantings. And then you had come back with that you talked with somebody and they made a suggestion that the curb be rounded and that the plantings be somewhat different. Now, maybe I'm wrong, maybe it wasn't you. I think it was you, though. And you don't recall it? MS. GUNDLACH: I'm not usually free to talk about things that occur in the right-of-way because our authority on that would be Pam Lulich in transportation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't remember dealing with Pam. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this something that you could research between now and the next hearing, and if it needs to be implemented we can take care of it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But anyway, that was the intent of the on-street parking in part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that answer your question, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kind of. Since what you are forming there is a trapezoid landscape strip, I think maybe defining it as 15 feet on the outside, 31 feet on the inside would eliminate anybody doing the confusion I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, Bill Lorenz, we're not going to get to your stuff today, sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hope it's been fun. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 46, is there anything on Page 46? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Are you talking angle parking here and parallel here? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything new on Page 47 or 48? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Forty-seven, I think you'll want to do -- Page 239 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same as we did on the other pages. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Roman seven, looking for decimal .25. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just like we did in the other corrections. MR. BOSI: I took all of the comments from residential and I will make sure that they translate over to all the issues that were -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've gone as far as we can go with the smart growth issues and we will just have to wait for you to come back to us with new language and we'll go from there. And we're winding up close to our time. Our last few minutes I would like to make sure we pick the dates of our next meetings. And at the great speed that we're moving forward I would suggest we lock in all three days at this point. Does anybody have a -- now it was August 1st from 9:00 to 5:00, August 8th from 9:00 to 5:00 and August 9th from 9:00 to 5:00. I'm hoping we won't need August 9th. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Could I have those again, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: August 1st, 8th and 9th, 9:00 to 5:00. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why 9:00 rather than 8:30? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because someone gave me this on a piece of paper. And I don't know how to read anything at this late date, after daylight today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, can it be 8:30 or does it have to be 9:00? MS. F ABACHER: Do you have a problem with 9:00? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but we always have started at 8:30. MS. FABACHER: If that's your preference, whatever you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Whatever. I can think ofa few things. MS. F ABACHER: Whatever is your preference and direction on this. Page 240 July 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if we start at 8:30 it will just give us another half hour to get a jump on it. MS. FABACHER: Okay, fine. We'll make it 8:30. MR. KLATZKOW: For the purpose of public access and public availability for this, do we know what issues we'll be covering? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First issues we'll come in with is the preservation -- or not, the environmental issues. I want to get those finished because that's where we were supposed to go this afternoon. And immediately after that we'll respond to whoever from the public is here. And if no one is here it's up to staffs priority at that point. I don't see a reason not to. And I would like to continue as we have in the past, no presentation, just questions from the commission on issues that bother them unless we get to a very complicated issue. MS. FABACHER: I had one thought about the boat canopy issue. We didn't have a lot of people turn up, just a couple. But when we had the four public meetings on it we had advertised August 23rd at 5: 00. So I'm thinking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's our second hearing date, though. MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why don't we have the first hearing so these people know to come back on the first and we'll just make that on that day. MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Regardless of how many are in the audience on the first after the environmental, we'll go right into the boat canopies, which is not a lot of language, and then we'll go into the rest of the stuff after that. Does that meet with everyone's approval? So, do we have a motion to continue this meeting to 8:30 in the morning on August 1 st? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. Page 241 July 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, second by Commissioner Murray. Discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just cannot do the ninth. I can do the first and I can do the eighth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's hope we get the first and the eighth done. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Thank you. The meeting is continued to August 1 st. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, I just have a quick update. We originally talked about having an Immokalee meeting on August 10th. That petition has been continued. I just want to remind everyone there won't be a meeting on the tenth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. With that, this meeting is continued until August 1 st. Thank you. **** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:52 p.m. Page 242 July 20, 2006 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM AND ELIZABETH M. BROOKS, RPR. Page 243 AGENDA ITEM 8-A Co~T County - ' ~ -- STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: JULY 20, 2006 SUBJECT: PETITION CU-2005-AR-7181 (NORTH BAY RESORT BEACH P A VILLION) PROPERTY OWNER! AGENT: OWNER: Basil Street Partners, LLC 365 5th Avenue South LLP Suite 201 Naples, FL 34102 AGENT: Clay Brooker Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, 821 5th Avenue South, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34102 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests approval of a Conditional Use for a recreational facility in the Agricultural (A) zoning district, as specified in Section 2.04.03 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject properties, consisting of 4.32 acres, are located at 10111 and 10121 Keewaydin Island, in Section 14, Township 51 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (see location map on the following page). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner seeks a Conditional Use to permit a recreational facility limited to passive recreational uses including a 2,925 square foot elevated and screened covered pavilion, screen deck, restrooms with showers, and seating for 56 people, which will serve as an amenity and provide beach access for owners and residents of the Naples Bay Resort projects. As depicted in the conceptual plan (Exhibit "C" of the resolution), access from the Naples Bay CU-2005-AR-7181 Page 1 of 10 >- ~ ffi ~ 0.. <( ~ UJ I- - en ~ " i!; ~ II co ....... r-- ~ <C I Itl o C C'. :nvos Q1 iON / ~ - . c.: :;t: :2 C l- I- U a i 0.. ., ~a <( " ~ Z 0 - I- <( 0 0 ...J ~ ~ ~ o ~ " i!5 ~ Resort property to the subject site is by boat via the Gulf of Mexico on the west or by the Rookery Bay Channel on the east. An existing dock on the east side of the property provides mooring for the shuttle traveling via the Rookery Bay Channel. The existing boardwalk is proposed to be extended to provide pedestrian access from the dock to the proposed elevated pavilion, the west side of the property, and the beach on the Gulf of Mexico side. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North: East: South: West: SUB~ECT PROPER (A-ST) Rookery Bay Estuarine Research Reserve, zoned Agricultural (unimproved). Rookery Bay Channel State of Florida property, zoned Agricultural (A-ST) (unimproved). Gulf of Mexico ~ ,lK:"-':":" '...."// .........../,1 //1....../'...............//........... //"'",1"/,1"/,///,..." ./.../....'/ ~"">''')'''>I ,1/". /.../;-".,../ /...."..../ .../...///..."'..../ ,,1,,',,// /./" .../..../.../.../..."'// "'<1 '..."',/'/ ////"74.......)/ .:::.;1.-{...../.. "/,1/,/....<./ /..,../........./..../f.... ..../............/../...............qc(j.Lji -' .... /.... ,/ /.1 I' ... ..." 1/ / ,I .... I'.... .I./.... /' .... .... 't .... .... / .... ... _/ .... ... / . . , . ~ ., .. ".." ./ I''''' ...... /1/ ....,/ "1"" / ... '" t" "",F / ,/ /... """'''';'.... /' ... ,/ .... ...;,', . ...../"......../,1""",,,,, "V A........... .... ,,' ll,/ v,/... """'.1'............ .I /'............... ,.... I''/ ",..."" -...... --....-. .... //~X,)..I,.// //// "''''y'A/" ///.K/"1~/ //.rJr//;,y -1/1"........ //...//;, //////"1'//./, .... //' .... j{/,/ ,/... /~. ,../ /!( /'y "",' ,/ ... '\/ /'... ....... /1"" ... ,/ / r ... ./.... I'''',/....-' .... .........1... /'.... ... ;'........ .... ... ....... /'''''.' ... ....;,"",I'", / ........,1 .IX ...~/ '" '" ,I / ....""'" / .... .. ...,.-..-,...,..- ;' I' .... .-" /' ... ~ ,,/' "" " ,.. I' / "/" / ", " / / / / ~<., ,.. -: /"'//.// / /I~"',,/ / / / ~//f'/<// /, /,.././ <"",,"/1'///,, ,,/>;if'//,1/// /"//",,////"// ,,1/'>///1.;'// 1'<,.<,//"//,//""" ,'" I... X . / /0 / ,/" .. / ./;' "\ ./ / / ,.....,/ / ",.. ,.,,"';' " /,.., ,../ / / / ,.. " ", / / /'/.1 / /. / / ... " / "J', / , / /' / ;'.;' ~ /. / /,.. / / ", ,/ / ;'"" / ./ I' / / '" ... / /,,, /'./ / ~/ / "... ..,/ / / ,.. ;' / / ,.. '" \/ ,.. > / /./,/ / / '" ,.' / / / / /' '" ... / / ;'./././ / ,. l( ,..... " / " ".I" / /~ / ./ .... ,.. / "'" /' / ./ / '" ", >\ / /' / / ,.. ,/ /,1 / / ,/)( / ,/ ,/ ,I).; / / ;,'" '" / ,/ /)!.",/ /' / / I_~ / ./.., ... /' / ,... ,... / ,... / /' " "//////'.///'<0(/./\/ / -.;<,,///,,/,// ,,/,...",,/...").:>/X// /.....-/////'\..~/<//.... / / / / / ~--r-;.'/////">/,..", ,,"'/or'o''',,''';,''//o''''' 1/ / '" /./ 1// //\,/<t'x:///- "';I1-P.:.FC.ofl}.tA.;II,//'///Y/// i'//// //I"W"/ I/~/ ////~ //1//"""'" <I'I' ///"'/I'>X//~-;:'1':-<// ,//", /'>//"/"...>'.".:" ...(,(~//;,</"'/""'",' />'" ","~/// ///"'//,,",,/'// ",. //~/./"/~~; '" '" / /" ",/ /-:..,.. //'///"'" /'" /.///0 // .////...////"/1.-/...../ "'//.....,1'X....."//'.//",,I/\ ////,1 /...../ ,,/////,,/, '//' /"'....">'//,/'// .....// ""/;>/,,/,//./......~/ ..... / /' ""'...."'" /" " /./ ,/./ ~'/ / >( .,/5./ t' / ./ / ,/ '" ./ ),~..... ...... V' / ..... ./..... / ./ ," / ./ / / / ./ /1./ / ,/ /./ /./,1 / ..... t'./ ,.. / /,/ /" .... t' /,.. / "'./ ./ ,,&p./\/ ... '" ./ ,.- '" ,/.... ,; '~./ ./"" ........../ '" '" / /' "', /... / ,.- / / ./ / ,/ / /' / / / /' / / ,; '" ./' ./ ,r /,/ ,/ ./ "'X\ t' .... / ,/" /.... '" /':-.::"" ", '" / / ,I '" ..... / / .... / .I' "'J/ / ./..... ./" ... / / /-.,/./ /,1 1'.....,/./ /,/ ... ,.///'...--/////,//\ 1'/ .// />/...../....///////,//.../"'0 v;, ,.. ///<,// ./ //; //"'//,..//.-'/"/ (".-'0'/'''''/ I<. /"/' /1/,/ /./ '" ...../... />,/.... ,. "'~ ,'/./// ./~A//./.( ~'//I'//'" /);;// /// ./// ,'.1 //.//t// /1~E/,.1>-l~t/,,/1 //\</; ~/ o.! / ... "... ,/./ ..... \ / /\/ '..../.. y-/ / 1/2/ '. ././ / / .i' / /' ./././ /./ /.....",/;'""..... / ./ /0 / / ./ / >x / ..... - ./ o' '" / / ,/./ ,... , ..... .-\ / /' ...., y~ /./ " / /. ..; / /,/ "'./. / / ..... ./ '" .... / '" / " " , / / / / ./ /... / / ._ / / .. .... / '" ./) / V if J''''''::;:: ./ / .. . '~.,.. / ,..,/ ~ / /' / / ." / ... /1 / ./ ... / " ./ ,/ .... /...../... .....,/ ./ /./ / ",I' " '," //","/////// ./>x,'//\..'/////.//////// ,,"> ./ '" /////I'/\')Lx //,,,>...//// /1't"//./"/////,1I/,r/ /;//...../":,,//'/~ ,/ <"'/.//././Xx//v/.///,/ ././/^/ /<"// /") <"//'/ ///./<"'" /.... /;'/"/-""/X / ,/ '" / " .... /..... /- x,/ / Y '" / <" / _'" ..... ;' " )0: / '<0;' " .... / / .... " / / ./ /' ,....... / / " .... / ,. /... / /./ /,/ / I / /,1///.//,/,/"/" ~/~f///.(.,/,;,,///// ,<" F",""'(_j'/~ /..../,,/., ),/////~ .>'-..;.;.::.-...../.t>~ //////"//;/.,..t'////,,,"",,/,..//'~/./""'/ ......--:./ / ',r / .... .... ~ . ,.~ r /'.~... .' \" ..... ' __ -r':1'7 '~'.--' ",<,..,..1(< / ~ .. y ..... .... / """ ~ ..... .....( ..I. / ,/ .... / .... /',/ / ..I, , / / '" .A / .... ..... / ./ .... / .." / f\ / )II .. /~ I" .... ,,~.... "~/ 'v .t " _/ l~......... / I ~ A './ " ., ......... .t .... / ........ .... " ..,.,., / ,/ '" , / / . / " ,/ ... '\ /' ).. / '" /..... / I / / ..... , / '.... ..- }..... ... /.... ","" ;'"" /'~~./ / / ,/ .... / / ..... , ... / / "" "" V /'1..- '-'#"'7//// /....'... "'./ X ",. '>; .~.o; /.... /..... "'/ '.-~/.L.;7;\ '" ;;.:.- '.I' '"I' /,,"'.....1/ '/// /...../ /\:=-5.....~..,(..... / ~/ /./' /'..../ ,...~///' ///~.... I'/~-:"'~~ ,/ .... .... / / '" .... N' / V ..' l( .......... "'8/ .... ," / ..... ~!!v".."'" ,/ , ~ _./ ......" ./.... / ",,\- .... '?i~ ..... / t' ....,/ /' / ,/ / / ,. '/ / ,/ .... / / / ./ / V /\/./ \--.... /" ./ .... / /- / ./ .1\,/ /' / ./ ./ "./ ..I" / 0,/ ....., / / ""-,.!,/ ".... " .... ./ ... /''' ............. """''''-''1"-r.'' / ,I' -. 'x. _.:( . ".F " ""'-r . T /\.... , / ,/ .... / "",./.' '" / , 7'- / '" .... .... / / ,/./ ,/,/ ,/ .... / / /,/ .-1.-0 / Y .... ^ .. / 1''''''' ........,/ ~J,.",/:.p/ " ^ .... f( .' '''y j/ /'~./ / /" Y / ./,.- / / /........ :-_:f/ /' / ,,/,r./ "V" ",,"'./,/ / /~/../ ~.., .t ~ ;;t..' ";/,/ "...... //-::../....~..",," ..../"',,/....,/ ,,-///,/...../:....-) .... ........ / / /, ,'"", ;\.." /, / ... .... .... / " .... .." " Y ,/ if / ./~) /v ..'" . /.... / / / / )' / /' / '/ (41"" -L/.. ///.///)......L.,)'\.';.,.//1tY/////\(/')(//\///'/ /....;",/./ ,////// ......// //./ .....//,). ....~/? /~;~{,//.(_/.~,,_///.. ."'~"';;./~ /"'./~/' ~...F.X//._/_"/.",,/ ,-t GULF or t.lEXICO EXCERPT FROM ZONING MAP \\ \. \ \ ,,' "\ ----,.~ \ \," ',-- \. (I. \ ... ...l '\ i \ CU-2005-AR-7181 AERIAL PHOTO Page 3 of 10 AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property is designated Conservation, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. According to the Future Land Use Element, the overall purpose of this designation is to conserve and maintain the natural resources of the County, and their associated environmental, recreational and economic benefits. Because of their ecological value and sensitivity to perturbation, all proposals for development in this designation are subject to rigorous review to ensure that the impacts of the development do not destroy or unacceptably degrade the inherent functional values of these areas (FLUE, 2000). In addition to limited residential development, the Conservation Designation permits recreational camps, passive parks, and other passive recreational uses; and the essential services necessary to serve these permitted uses, such as private wells and septic tanks. According to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Policy 10.3.12, for areas identified as Coastal Barrier systems, new developments or redevelopments are required to be in CU-2005-AR-7181 Page 4 of 10 the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). However, as noted in the cover letter submitted with the application, the petitioner has discussed this issue with County's planning and environmental staff, who has taken the position that the conditional use process and not a PUD rezone should be utilized for this project. Furthermore, in the past, the County legal department has been reluctant to enforce this policy, determining that the County can not legally mandate PUDs, but merely encourage them. Based upon the above information, staff concludes the proposed conditional use may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. C<Mflld _~ M.. 1 240 ~J Scr_Dolel<Ar"" 1125IH """~"""' ""ell ~S.F TOTAl -"AM 2911$ $I ." .........'......::....'............'........... .... . ... _:,,:.'.... '\ . " ."l FI.OOR PI..AN BEACH CLUB KEEWAYDIN ISLAND :) 'E t-q'': oJ 5 E ~'0r)~r~ i\T~ CONCEPTUAL PAVILION FLOOR PLAN CU-2005-AR-7181 Page 5 of 10 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~. ~ ~ ~~~'~u ~z~g~ c- ;:>~ ~ . ~~QC'" ~ !T1 : ~ ~ . ~i~ o~ ~a~~ P~~5 G) 0 ~~~ d (Jl ~~~~zg ~ > m ;;l ~ > ~q q =1 ~ ~'i.:i! ~~~~\1 c- ~ : ~ .. g.~ !T1 ~VI~r~:= ~~~~il: ! ~ '" ~ p~ ~~ ~ ~~o > '6~;~12 ;:;;gotr1~ ~ . ~ ~ ;8 ~:: > ~~~;~~ ~~~~S ~ ~ ~ ~. 3~i \1 ~ . COl~.-I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... . ~ ~~~~g~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . H~~~ -8e". a ~~ :J \)1~Z:"'z ~ i a ~.<( ~ n~5~~ ~~~g~ ~ 'C ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ 8 i ~.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ r;~5~~ ~~i~~ E~ gz: c....!ll ~ 0 . ~~ ~ "~~~8Q ~ ~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r-Z"~ ~~ ~~.. . " . '"80- S ~ ~ 1 n I~<i~z 5~~~i 9 iiH~~ R < ~ ~ ~~:~;J; ~ ~ g ~ ~~:;. ~ ..;..-~>, _ 0 ~ ~ ;" ~ f') f~~~ ~ ~ ~ > 0 0 z 1 . ~ ~ 00. C') ~ 5\ . rn - N ~ ~~~ ~g~ ~~~ ~i~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~; "Z~ 8~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~;ll~ ;~~ o m . . ~ ~f8~ lfl;1""" ~~~~ ~~~~ ~tJI:E~ ~~~> ~~~~ .m~ 2~S;; ~.;: d~ ~!i~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~z tJI;;j<.fl ~~ zo o ~m~~~~a~~~~ z~~ ~ i~~~;!S~~~B~ ~~~ Pl ~g~~~~~~a~~ 2:;:~ Q~~~J~>~~lij!Jl ~~~ ~~~~;~~~~i~ . ~~ '~~'5~~~~~~ ~. ~::l: !Ji!Jl"'-(~Zm~ ~~ ~~~~~~'>~:~m ~~ ~<!5~m~~~E~~ ~~ o~,. ~Z-l->- >m ~o~~SzE~~~~ ~~ t;!l~~>...~~::!>~;:: )00 !:-oiit~(l;O:tZ~;IlI ~.... ~~~~'"~ ~~~ ~~ i"~:tl.n C'> "O~ FtJI ~~ m~ ~~ " m Ol"'>-X'";t I , h i ~~i m ~ I "'iM-aaJ.YM 1V,l-SvO:n11,I.N1 " ...'''''',,'. ao"L~"A"" ........~H0>4 ,._,~\ >74_...... KUHLMAN ENGINEERING. INC MASTER SITE PLAN 1" = 40' T :tt~L:'o~::':',~':.\ ~ ''''''''0'0<'''''''_''''''''' SHEETOESCRf'TON: THE BEACH CLUB - KEEWAYDIN ISLAND II: -71-;;;a-. REVISIONS DHE "'''fU<: 5-2 I .If.. =g VIEW LOOKING EAST FROM BEACH 5 10 15 I r---t THE BEACH CLUB KEEWAYDIN ISLAND CU_200S-AR-1181 PROJECT 111004070018 DATE' U11i05 ROBIN MEYER II ClYEHOUSE COMERIATO CONCEPTUAL PAVILION ELEVATION ANALYSIS: Before any Conditional Use recommendation can be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Planning Commission must make findings that: 1) approval of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest; 2) all specific requirements for the individual Conditional Use will be met; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable: 1. Consistency with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. As previously noted, the request for a recreational facility is permitted as a Conditional Use in the Agricultural zoning district of the LDC and it is consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the GMP. 2. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. CU-2005-AR-7181 Page 7 of 10 Adequate ingress and egress to the site is proposed, as it exist today, by boat via the Gulf of Mexico on the west side of the island, or by the Rookery Bay Channel on the east side. The proposed extension of the existing boardwalk would provide adequate pedestrian access from and to the east and west side of the subject property and to the proposed pavilion. 3. The effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor. The subject site abuts vacant agricultural zoned properties uses that are owned by State and Federal Governments. A Conditional Use is defined in the LDC as: "A use that, due to special circumstances, is not permissible in a zoning district, but may be appropriate if controlled as to number, area, location, or relation to the neighborhood." Staff believes the control criteria have been met as the site plan shows that the majority of the site will remain densely vegetated and is more than 900 feet from the nearest structure, therefore, the project will have a minimal effect on neighboring properties. 4. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. In addition to limited residential development, the Conservation Designation permits recreational camps, passive parks, and other passive recreational uses; and the essential services necessary to serve these permitted uses, such as private wells and septic tanks. Therefore, staff believes that the proposed passive recreational facility use, as sited on the property, is compatible with adjacent properties in the district. EAC RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Council heard this petition in their February 1St, 2006 meeting and unanimously recommended denial (9-0) of the subject petition based on concerns in regards to carrying capacity of Keewaydin Island, not only by this project, but the precedent this petition will set for future projects; concern with enforceability of the proposed maximum capacity of 56 people on the site; that The Memorandum of Agreement with the Rookery Bay Estuary Research Center and the property owner should have been drafted; and that the sewage capacity needs to be addressed. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING: The applicant held the required meeting on July 20, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. at the Norris Center, Cambier Park. Approximately thirty-five people attended, including the agent's team and county staff. Several neighboring property owners stated opposition to the proposed conditional use due to concerns over human impacts to the environmentally sensitive area. Other concerns stated included lights, noise, littering and safety of island residents. Representatives of several area environmental agencies expressed concerns regarding species habitat impacts particularly to turtle nesting and protected mangroves. Mr. Clay Brooker, agent for the applicant, addressed the property owner's worries stating that the developer will comply with all federal, state and local permitting regulatory agencies and assured them that construction of the structures would occur outside of the turtle nesting season. (Synopsis provided by Linda Bedtelyon, Community CU-2005-AR-7181 Page 8 of 10 Planning Coordinator). ST AFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward petition CU-2005-AR- 7181 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval, subject to the adoption of the following conditions: 1. The use is limited to what is depicted on the site plan identified as "The Beach Club- Keewaydin Island - Conceptual Site Plan" prepared by Kuhlman Engineering, Inc., dated January, 2005, except as further conditioned below. 2. All proposed improvements shall be designed in accordance with the standards of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Division of Beaches and Shores and an approved FDEP permit shall be obtained, and copies provided, prior to issuance of a Collier County Site Development Plan. 3. Permanent conservation easements dedicated to the County will be required over the 0.43 acre area preserve within 90 days of SDP approval or prior to CO of the building, whichever comes first. 4. Site Development Plans shall depict a staging area for the construction equipment and the impacts to the area along with replanting/re-vegetation plans. 5. The Conditional Use will expire three years from the date of approval if no development is commenced; however, Conditional Use extension approval may be sought if such is allowed by the LDC regulations in effect at that time. 6. Approval of this Conditional Use shall not be construed as approval of the attached conceptual site plan; the site plan shall be formally reviewed and approved as part of the Site Development Plan (SDP) process. No variances from any LDC requirements have been granted as part of the acceptance of the subj ect site plan. If it is determined that the site plan is not in compliance with any LDC requirements, the site plan must be brought into compliance prior to the issuance of any site development plan approval. 7. The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Director may approve minor changes in the location, site layout or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized by this conditional use. Expansion of the uses identified and approved within this conditional use application, or major changes to the site plan submitted as part of the application, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use application, and shall comply with all applicable County Ordinances in effect at the time of submittal, including section 10.02.03B.3. of the Collier County Land Development Code. CU-2005-AR-7181 Page 9 of 10 PREPARED BY: L- D . BELLOWS, MANAGER MENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ~~ ~SAN MURRAY, AICP, DIRECTO DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: Lt. ,2.. O~ DATE 11 !11~ 0 b DA E '-f ./7.06 DATE If /1/3 /o;b DATE .C:::J tf-V-Ob DATE CU-2005-AR-7181 Page 10 of 10