Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/13/2000 S (LDC Amendments)December 13, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE 5:05 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, December 13, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing Board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: ALSO PRESENT: James D. Carter, Ph.D. Donna Fiala Tom Henning Pamela S. Mac'Kie Jim Coletta Tom Olliff, County Manager Marjorie Student, County Attorney Page I COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Wednesday, December 13, 5:05 p.m. 2OOO NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE An ordinance amending Ordinance Number 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for the 1 December 13, 2000 Unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Finding of Fact: Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Article 2, Zoning, Division 2.2 Zoning Districts, Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses, Dimensional Standards, including the adoption of the Goodland Zoning Overlay District or in the alternative a Declaration of Partial Moratorium on multi-family land uses for the Goodland area and the Bayshore Drive mixed use overlay district; Division 2.4 Landscaping and Buffering; Division 2.5. Signs; Division 2.6 Supplemental District Regulations including but not limited to Section 2.6.4, Exceptions to Required Yards; Section 2.6.11, Fences; Section 2.6.15, Solid Waste Disposal; Section 2.6.21, Dock Facilities; Section 2.6.33, Motion Picture/Television Production Permit; Adding Section 2.6.34, Annual Beach Event Permits; and Section 2.6.35, Communication Towers; Division 2.7. Zoning Administration and Procedures; Division 2.8 Architectural and Site Design Standards and Guidelines for Commercial Building and Projects; Article 3, Development Requirements, Division 3.2 Subdivisions; Division 3.3, Site Development Plans; Division 3.4 Explosives; Division 3.5. Excavation; Division 3.9 Vegetation Removal, Protection and Preservations; Division 3.10. Sea Turtle Protection; Division 3.11, Endangered, Threatened or Listed Species Protection; Division 3.14. Vehicle on the Beach Regulations; Article Six, Definitions, Division 6.3, Definitions including but not Limited to the definition of "Residential Hotel"; Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards; Section Four; Adoption of Amended Zoning Atlas Maps; Section Five, Conflict and Severability; Section Six, inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Seven, Effective Date. 3. ADJOURN 2 December 13, 2000 December 13, 2000 Item #2 ORDINANCE 2000-92 AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN CARTER: Call to order the Board of County Commissioners for Land Development Code, second meeting this evening. Will you please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. (Pledge of Allegiance recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have requested and it has been a question by other commissioners that we start with the items that had the most public speakers, so if we may proceed on that basis, Mr. Nino, the one, I believe, Mr. Olliff that has the most public speakers was the Goodland Zoning Overlay? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is that correct? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. Mr. Nino, just, just for sequence of events here, I think the Chairman wanted to try and cover those that had the most speakers and then -- you know, to accommodate the public, so Goodland would be the first, and the RT Zoning issue would be your second. MR. NINO: Yes. The summary agenda has been so ordered in -- to indicate those amendments that had some concern expressed at the last meeting. To the best our ability -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're so smart. You've anticipated that concern of ours and already got it done, and that's -- Is that good or what? CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's good. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. As you recall, the Goodland Overlay Zoning District was ended in a discussion that perhaps that decision ought to be postponed for 90 days pending an opportunity for an owner of a vacant parcel of land to meet with the community and agree to the submission of a PUD which would be forthcoming in the very near future. I understand that meeting has taken place. Mr. Yovanovich is here to, to describe the progress that they've made. Page 2 December 13, 2000 MR. OLLIFF: Maybe we can go straight to the speakers, Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. Marjorie, you had something you had to say first? MS. STUDENT: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney, for the record. I just wanted to remind the Board that we have an alternative provision for Goodland. That was the moratorium in case the overlay wasn't done, and I just wanted to put that on the record. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Marjorie. May we proceed with public speakers? Mr. Yovanovich. MR. OLLIFF: We'll call them two at a time, Mr. Chairman. First is Rich Yovanovich followed by Pam Stoppelbein. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Commissioners, Rich Yovanovich representing Goodland LLC, the owner of one of the VR parcels on Goodland. As we, we approached you at the last meeting, we, we had come up with what we believe was a win-win situation regarding establishing a PUD on the commercial property, the VR property, and the RSF property into one plain unit development document with the intent of going down to two residential floors over one of parking within the 35 feet. The Goodland Civic Association was gracious enough to host us last night at their holiday party, which Wayne and I missed the food portion due to the length of last night's meeting, but we did get to make our presentation. I, I would characterize last night's meeting as a, a -- was a -- as a good meeting. I think the Goodland Civic Association understood our proposal. We made it in greater detail regarding the limitation on heights, the desire to do the architectural theme that was explained to me as kind of Key West, Old Florida style. They wanted the buildings to be staggered and not in one straight line, so they understand there will need to be some flexibility in the setbacks nearest the canal so that there can be some flexibility there with those setbacks. We had also made a proposal on how we can resolve what we thought were some of the concerns on the commercial uses. Page 3 December 13, 2000 What we proposed to them and what I believe they support -- and Pam Stoppelbein will confirm that -- is that this would be the residential portion. Previously the commercial portion ended here. We would expand that a little bit to increase parking, which would result -- relieve some of the parking issues on the island as well as we would agree to reduce the height down to the -- a 42-foot height instead of the potential 100-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So even in the commercial, you're going to limit to 42 feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're going to come down to 42 feet, and that was, and that was so we would add parking on that other piece of the property. From what I understand -- and I talked to Pain Stoppelbein today -- that's, that's the proposal that the civic association supports. They are in support of the PUD with the height limitations I've explained to you and explained to them, we -- I, I think they know that we -- we're not going to have a final product in the PUD, but the parameters would be there in the PUD and that I think we're, we're all working together and hope that that will continue for the -- at least the near future. We do want to be back to you in 90 days, so what we're asking is that we will get into the process as quick as we can in January, if staff can work with us to keep on schedule to meet a 90-day approval period, hopefully, when we come before you, the PUD will, will be met favorably by the, the commission as it's already been endorsed by the civic association. I know I'm speaking a little bit for them, but Pain Stoppelbein will do that. We do favor a, a continuance of 90 days on the overlay to make sure that everything gets done. I know that's not the civic association's desire, but they -- I did want to at least ask for that so we're all working together for that 90-day period, and you have our commitment to move quickly to get this done, and it's already accepted by the association. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker's Pam Stoppelbein followed by Connie StegalI-Fullmer. MS. STOPPELBEIN: Good afternoon. Not knowing what Mr. Yovanovich would say, I prepared a Page 4 December 13, 2000 short statement so that we could put on the record exactly what our understanding was as an association. Obviously, I am Pam Stoppelbein speaking as an officer, and -- but we're -- we appear before you to officially ask for a zoning overlay to protect the items that were shown to be of greatest concern to our residents. Since time is of the essence if we're to protect ourselves from eminent development in VR, we voted unanimously last night after the meeting to vigorously pursue the two items on the agenda tonight. These are the two items that were previously submitted by staff on our behalf that would create a Goodland Zoning Overlay District to reduce the maximum building height from three levels to two for property zoned village residential, and to reduce the minimum lot requirements for single-family and mobile home lots to make them conform with the present code. We also voted unanimously to follow up on the less significant issues of parking at swales, storage of crab traps, and parking of commercial and recreations vehicles during the next -- the June LDC cycle. Because of dispute over the development of parcels at the entrance to the village, we invited Attorney Yovanovich, Wayne Arnold, and their client to attend our membership meeting last night. After assurances by them that they would work closely with our residents throughout the PUD process, we voted 73 to 1 to agree to the PUD and to rescind our request to reduce the height limit from 35 to 30 feet. Our residents felt it was in the best interest of the village as a whole to have one planned development rather than three separate development plans; therefore, there should be no impediment to passing an amendment to the LDC tonight for the important -- two important issues on the zoning overlay tonight. I'd like to make it very clear that our residents fully understood the issues before them last night. All residents were informed by hand delivery of a notice of the meeting to every home on the island, so we had a good turnout. Presentation by the developers were followed by a membership question-and-answer session, then a private discussion that culminated in only one dissenting vote. It's very important to note that our residents received Page 5 December 13, 2000 reassurances that their participation in the PUD process was welcomed by the developers. It's understood that there will be no further density than the 47 units presently allowed in the VR and RSF-4 areas. In addition, we would welcome smaller-scale, old Florida townhouse-style units with varying roof heights up to 35 feet with architectural details that would be varied rather than identical cookie-cutter buildings. The visual could be similar to the variable detailed and colored Bayfront and Venetian Bay projects but on a much smaller, two-story-over-parking scale. Four- and six-unit buildings are much preferable to larger identical production units. We also agreed that the commercial area would be confined to the CR 892 roadway but expanded along the entire frontage to accommodate sufficient parking for a low-profile, traditional neighborhood design commercial building with the possibility of residential over business rather than a tall 50- or 70-foot building. If this accurately reflects our agreement with the developers, we ask that you protect our village by passing the overlay tonight in accordance with our residents' wishes. With our stated intent on the record, there should be no impediment to the PUD process even with the overlay in place. Thank you so much for your consideration. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pam, did I understand the last thing you said there, that you are willing to support, you are going to support a PUD application within the parameters you've described? MS. STOPPELBEIN: Yes, that's why -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That the association -- MS. STOPPELBEIN: That's why I went into such detail. Those were the parameters that we understood, that the members understood, we spoke about specifically. Those -- that is our understanding. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, then in an effort to try to maybe save time and keep a lot of speakers from needing to come forward, if Mr. Yovanovich objects to any of those, he needs to come make a statement on the record; and if he doesn't, then I think we need to forget the 90-day wait. Let's Page 6 December 13, 2000 adopt it the way it is and, and encourage them to work together and bring back the PUD under those restrictions, and I bet that will make a lot of people -- sounds like everybody but one person -- happy. MR. YOVANOVICH: Pam and I did have a lengthy conversation that we were going to be working with each other on some of these architectural details. It will frankly depend on the size of the buildings as to some of the issues regarding the varying -- the specifics, but I think we're in agreement on everything she said regarding, regarding working together on those issues. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, would you consider taking a consensus of the Board then to -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would, and if -- the other speakers that are signed up, do you want to come up here and talk us out of it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they might want to know for sure that we all agree. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Let's take a vote of the Board. MR. HENNING: I concur. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I concur. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I concur. MS. FIALA: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Same here. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Entertain a motion -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you call them then and see if maybe they'll waive? MR. OLLIFF: I've got three speakers: Connie StegalI-Fullmer, Edward Fullmer, and Wayne Arnold, if you'll just wave your hands and tell me that you're waiving? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have done it. You guy go work hard for 90 days. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Goodland thanks you. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're welcome. Okay. Mr. Nino, next item. MR. NINO: Yes. The next item, I assume Declaration of Partial Moratorium goes away. Page 7 December 13, 2000 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course. MR. NINO: The next item on your agenda is the discussion of floor area ratios -- establishing a floor area ratio for residential hotels. This issue came up at the last meeting. There's some concern about our endeavor here to correct what -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Folks, if you're leaving, if you could just be real quiet, because we've got to continue. Thank you. MR. NINO: -- correct what might have been an oversight in the last amendment cycle. As I indicated previously, two weeks ago, when we went to a floor area ratio and eliminated discussion of dwelling units, the effect of our action was that those people who had a desire to build what would more correctly be called a residential hotel where longer stays and family occupancies are planned, that we really penalize their ability to build what they might have been able to do under the old -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Excuse me for being impatient again, but I think we're clear on what the issue is, and maybe we could just go to the speakers. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, if you're in favor of that, I'll go ahead and call speakers two at a time. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. MR. OLLIFF: And if the first speaker could come up, and the second speaker could just stand over here by the doorway and be ready, the first speaker is Joe Cormoily followed by Michael Volpe. MR. VOLPE: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. My name is Michael Volpe. I'm here this evening representing a number of residents along Gulf Shore Drive and in particular the owners of the units within the Vanderbilt Club and the Mansion. These are two older condominiums located along Gulf Shore Drive. By way of -- to refresh your recollection, when this was before you at your first meeting, you were not talking about residential hotels; you were talking about parcels of land two acres or less and what impact going to a floor area ratio may have had on those smaller parcels. In this intervening two-week period, what is now being Page 8 December 13, 2000 recommended is a little bit different and I think more correctly addresses the particular issue. Specifically, for the first time, we're talking about densities within an RT zoning district as it relates to residential hotels. Residential hotels have not previously been defined in your Land Development Code or elsewhere, and so for the first time in this status recommendation, they're providing you with a definition of a residential hotel. It's laid out. The point I would want to make is that a residential hotel, other than the length of stay, involves dwelling units that average, according to your staff, 1800 square feet and more. In the proposals that you have seen and that were submitted to you at the last Board meeting, the size of the units range from about 2,000 square feet to 3200 square feet. The -- in, in the RT Zoning District, multifamily units or condominiums are allowed at 16 units an acre. Previously, hotels had been allowed at 26 units an acre. During one of your cycles, you amended the Land Development Code to change to floor area ratios for hotels. The point is that this is, in our view, more of a condominium than a hotel. It's a condominium that is supposed to function like a hotel. Commissioner Mac'Kie, at the last Board meeting, brought up the question of enforcement. I mean, how do we know that this is actually functioning as a hotel? That's a code enforcement issue, which is something if you can avoid up front you probably would like to do. In your executive summary -- and I won't repeat it, because it's there -- it, it -- the staff has gone to some length to try to tell you how to make sure this condominium really functions as a hotel. My clients' concern is only the concern of density. We don't want to see this a vehicle of a residential hotel used as a mechanism to get around the density of 16 units an acre, and so we have proposed that what you would do is fine -- have residential hotels. I think we have a definition. It's a question of enforcement that you'll have to deal with in the future, but we would like to see you limit the number of residential hotels to 16 units an acre, which would be the same if this were a condominium; and even if this were developed as a Page 9 December 13, 2000 residential hotel at a later point in time, of course, they could always amend the condominium documents, which is what will establish this -- the fee ownership and make it a condominium. So I think our, our request would be that the Board take the necessary steps to include the definition of residential hotels but at the same time limit the number of units for these residential hotels in the RT Zoning District to 16, which would be the same for multifamily. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So you're saying residential hotel, 16 units, you could have it as a condominium, t6 units; it could be an either-or, but do not exceed on a residential hotel 16 units per acres. MR. VOLPE: That's correct, and, again, if, if you look at the definition of residential hotel and how it will function -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. MR. VOLPE: -- I think Commissioner Mac'Kie pointed out that the brochures -- and this is directed toward a certain project -- showed that there was a $t5,000 (sic) floor allowance. These are, these are, these are condominiums that are functioning as a hotel. If there are any other questions -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good. MR. VOLPE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. OLI. IFF: Next speaker is Diane Ketcham followed by Sally Masters. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the number of speakers we have on this item? CHAIRMAN CARTER: How many speakers do we have, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF.' We have about six -- four. MS. KETCHAM: We'll make it fast. The purple ladies and the black men, you look like a rock group up there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not exactly Christmas colors, but there you have it. MS. KETCHAM'. It's impressive that you-all dress the same. Hello, again, County Commissioners. Page t0 December 13, 2000 My name is Diane Ketcham, and I'm here tonight speaking on behalf of the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association, an organization of more than 300 homeowners on Gulf Shore Drive and surrounding streets. I am a member of that Board, and my husband is vice president of our condo Board now on Vanderbilt Beach, so we would like it noted that I'm speaking on behalf of both groups. I'd first like to thank you commissioners for responding to our concerns in this matter. As you may recall from the hearing two weeks ago, we on Vanderbilt Beach believe this request for a change in hotel density is being used to redevelop land on Vanderbilt Beach with a greater density than the code would allow for condominiums. We would especially like to thank Dr. Carter for -- who's met with some of the owners, and Commissioner Mac'Kie, who was kind enough to obtain for me some answers on questions I raised to her. I'd like to talk briefly about those questions and the answers that I received from Mr. Nino. This amendment to change the density only applies to properties zoned residential tourist, which is what Gulf Shore Drive is. It has been our contention that this amendment would only affect Gulf Shore Drive and its redevelopment, so we asked what other land in Collier County was zoned residential tourist. Mr. Nino wrote me the following, quote: With respect to the question of RT zoned areas, the majority of this zoning is along Gulf Shore Drive, but not exclusively. A substantial amount of RT zoning is in place in Marco Island. So I called the zoning administrator of Marco Island, which, as you know, is now a city. The administrator, Kelley Smith, informed me that no matter what you decide tonight, it will not affect Marco Island. The city makes its own decisions on zoning. So, please, Commissioners, make no mistake about this; this amendment only affects Gulf Shore Drive. Our -- we, the homeowners of this little one-mile-long strip of road, want you to know our feelings. We are vehemently opposed to changing this code back to 26 hotel units an acre. We are concerned about the character of our neighborhood. With our traffic problems, our Page tl December 13, 2000 beach access problems, we want less density, not more, and we want developers to know that if they're going to tear down our smaller condominiums and try to build more condos than the code dictates under the ruse of their building hotels, that this Board will not allow that. In my talk with Ms. Smith, I learned that Marco does have the older Collier code of allowing 26 hotel units an acre, but not along their beachfront, which is zoned RT. According to Ms. Smith, that density is 16 units an acre because it is outside an activity center, an activity center being an area like U.S. 41. We'd like Mr. Nino to address the fact that isn't Gulf Shore Drive also outside an activity center, and shouldn't we be allowed 16 units per acre just on that alone? As for the argument that the code is being changed in the middle of the game so to be -- so that not putting it back to 26 units would penalize hotel owners and developers, we want to say once again, this is redevelopment. This is a new ball game. All the land along Gulf Shore Drive has been developed. Any tearing down and building of new should be under new rules, and here's what we would like for those new rules to say: We would like a density of no more than 16 units per acre which the previous speaker addressed, either hotel or condo. We would also like you to address the fact that in the future, property that has been used as residential must remain residential in future redevelopment and that any new hotel project in the RT district would have a conditional use requirement so that we could come forward and say whether or not we want a hotel there. Also, we'd like you to look into the fact that RT zoning, meaning only Gulf Shore Drive, allows the highest allowable height for buildings in Collier County. It's 10 stories. That is truly mind-boggling. Ten stories for less than an acre. Gulf Shore Drive, if this redevelopment continues, could look like a street of leaning towers of Pisa without the leaning. All these concerns have been raise because the developer is saying he's building a hotel and not condominiums, and we believe the opposite to be true. So my Board would also like to ask the question which perhaps has been answered by this new concept, residential hotel: What defines a hotel, what does the developer have to do Page 12 December t 3, 2000 to qualify his building as a hotel, and who is in charge of compliance? And finally, Mr. Nino claims in his letter to me that there are a number of hotels on Gulf Shore Drive. There are not. There's one hotel, !.aPlaya, which is becoming a private club, which means we will have no hotels. We have only three small motels that are only two stories high, ripe for the picking if we don't protect the residential flavor of our community. We ask you to do that, please, help keep Vanderbilt Beach the wonderful neighborhood it is. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please? MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Sally Masters followed by Ann Petrillo. MS. MASTERS: I think Diane covered it for me. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How kind of you. MR. OLLIFF: Ann Petrillo will be followed by Tim Hancock. MS. PETRILLO: Good evening. Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, ma'am. MS. PETRILLO: For the record, my name is Ann Petrillo, and I formerly lived on the property that's going to be developed; and I hold a sales contract here that says that I can go back and I will have a unit on the second floor, in the middle, and it's supposed to be a condominium. I heard nothing about a hotel residential, and I don't know what the different is -- difference is. It does not say in here one of 15, but when we met with the developer, that's what he talked about. And I would like to leave it the way it was supposedly originally done, because I too love Vanderbilt Beach, and I do want to go back there. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Tim Hancock followed by George Varnadoe. MR. HANCOCK: Good evening again. Tim Hancock with Vaness and Daylor. When we left the last Land Development Code hearing, I left here with the impression there were really two issues that we Page 13 December 13, 2000 were struggling with: The first was how to quantity a residential hotel to make sure that it, in fact, is a hotel operation; and the second was really an assessment of how do we arrive at floor area ratios and what would be appropriate. So let me go ahead and address those two matters strictly from a land planning standpoint. I think although your staff has not had, not had the opportunity this evening to actually go through and itemize the, the list that you have in front of you that some of these residents probably have not seen that is fairly new, and that list includes a lot of the operational characteristics that you were requesting at this last hearing. With those characteristics in place and enforceable, the question of whether or not something under the guise of a hotel can be developed when it actually is a condominium, I believe, has been addressed; and more importantly in that is one that is very directly this commission's responsibility, and that is the reporting of TDC taxes. You-all collect the tourist development taxes; you have a reporting requirement on them; and only extended-stay hotels or evening or daily hotels have to make those reporting requirements, so that being included in there, I think it leaves little room for doubt as to whether or not you have to send folks out to confirm that it's a hotel. You have that information being confirmed to you by way of revenues received by the County. What remains -- or, or what remains kind of appears to be a determination of an appropriate floor area ratio for this residential hotel use. And the definition of a residential hotel, again, is laid out before you, but is simply to accommodate more extended stays than would a typical, smaller hotel room allow for. Floor area ratios were Originally adopted to address the size and mass of a building, and it's the size and mass that has the greatest impact on the community. You've heard from the residents in the past, and not so much this evening, but I think at the last hearing, you did hear that 16 units per acre -- a 16 per unit acre -- a 16-unit-per-acre condominium is fine; they have no objection to that. And that makes sense, since that's the density at which the residential uses within the RT district have been built in the past. Page 14 December 13, 2000 I'd like to hand out some floor area ratio examples to you that address specifically that matter. The base -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Nino, you already calculated this for us based on 16 units per acre? MR. NINO: I have some, I have some examples. Yes, I do have some examples. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You guys shared your work with each other? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Otherwise -- as long as we know, you know -- MR. NINO: Although, although I am familiar with historical floor area ratios on, on Gulf Shore Drive that apply to existing condominiums. MR. HANCOCK: This is a very simple point to make and, and is not a lengthy review, by any means. It's just simply stating that on a single acre of land at a 16-unit-per-acre density, you had -- if you had a typical condominium of 3,250 square feet -- and if you look at the market for condominiums out there, that's conservative; you see them in the 4,000 and up range. But a condominium at 3,250 square feet at 16 units per acre yields 55,500 square feet if you assume about 3500 feet for common area. That equates to about a 1.28 floor area ratio; in other words, a 16 -- 16 condo units of 3200 square feet equates to a 1.28 floor area ratio. So if you were to go build that 16-unit condominium on that one acre of land today, the floor area ratio for that building, mass and size, would be 1.28. If you look at the residential hotel side of that and you assume, along those same lines, a 2000-square-foot unit -- not 3500, 2000 -- with a 3500 square foot common area, at 26 units, it's the exact same floor area ratio. What that tells us is that a typical condominium size results in a floor area ratio of 1.28. The residential hotel concept we're discussing at as high as 26 units an acre results in the same floor area ratio; in other words, the massing is identical. And that's with the floor area ratios were intend -- intended to do, is to control the massing and the size to be consistent with the zoning in the area. That is really all I had to present to you. If you have any questions on it, I will be pleased to address Page 15 December 13, 2000 those. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please. MR. OI. LIFF: The next speaker is George Varnadoe followed by Jim Allen. MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe. I think it's, it's, particularly what Ms. Ketcham says, it's important to get a little background on where we are and what we're doing. We're here today on an RT amendment to the LDC, not on a specific project. Having been intimately acquainted with the LaPlaya project, however, I must set the record straight and say that is going to be -- continue to be a hotel; it is going to be a private club. In addition to that, but it will continue to function as a, as a hotel for the public in the future. The hotels are an important part of our local economy. Those who live on the beach or, like me, just walk on the beach, need to understand who's paying for the sand on that beach; and the sand on the beach is being paid for the tourists, for the tourists who're all been taxed from those who stay in our hotels and motels and other tourist facilities, and we can't forget that. The RT district as a residential tourist district was created over 25 years ago. It was in place when I, when I moved to this town. The stated purpose of the RT district is to provide lands for tourist accommodations and support facilities, although multifamily units are also allowed. It's one of the two districts in Collier County that allows hotels and motels as an allowed permitted use, that and C-4. The RT district, as you've heard, is limited in scope. It's limited in scope to waterfront areas in Collier County. It was limited to the beachfront on Marco Island; it was limited to the Vanderbilt Beach area, and there's a small RT district along the Cocohatchee River around U.S. 41. During the last Land Development Code cycle, you heard about the changes we made; and when we did that, we did not take into account the kind of hotel you've heard us talking about as an extended stay or what we are now calling a residential hotel. These are larger hotel suites which typically contain separate kitchen facilities, one or more separate bedrooms, and Page 16 December 13, 2000 a separate living facility. These are for extended stays, usually for families that want -- do not want to go out for all their meals, want more privacy, and want more of the comforts of a home away from home than a hotel room, a hotel suite would normally present. These facilities are becoming very popular in resort areas in Florida and other parts of the country. Orlando, of course, as all of us know, is replete with these kind of activities, so -- these kind of facilities so you can go to Orlando with your family; you stay in what amounts to a resort hotel -- excuse me -- a residential hotel. You can have you meals there. You can cook part of your meals. You don't have to go out for every meal with your family which drives the cost up. You've got, you know, you've got separate bedrooms for the kids. It's a very coming thing. We have one on Fort Myers Beach, been open for less than a year. I think it's Gulf Wind. Those units range from 1700 to about 2400 square feet per unit with the average being in excess of 2100 square feet. And in this instance, it appears that what you got from your staff in the last two weeks was an attempt to come with an FAR, as you heard Mr. Hancock describe, that would be equivalent in the size and mass of the square footage of the building of what a condominium building would look like in the same area so that you're not allowing more mass or more square footage or a different look that's incompatible with the neighborhood than what would be allowed if it were a condominium. I would suggest to you that this is an appropriate use; it's always been an appropriate use. The density in hotels have always been in excess of what's allowed for condominiums, and I would suggest to you that that's what we should be doing today. The Gulf Wind Hotel, for example, has about a 2,000-square-foot average for those units, and if you assume the 3500-square-foot floor area for the common facilities, the lobby, the check-in, meeting rooms, game rooms, workout rooms, your FAR for that facility will be 1.27, very, very close to what Mr. Nino has shown you in the staff report. As far as this idea that this - that a condo could function -- that you have a hotel that's a condo in disguise, I think you've Page 17 December 13, 2000 seen in the last two weeks the operational characteristics put into your suggested code amendments that would make sure that never could happen, doesn't happen. If you read section 5 -- chapter 509 of the Florida statutes, it's replete with reports and posting the daily rate on the hotel door; it's got a lot of reporting requirements; and, in addition, if you don't conform with those, the hotel and motel administration has the ability to come in and actually close down the facility, post a, a sign on the door just like the IRS does and says, this facility is closed because it's not comporting with state requirements. So I would suggest to you that this is an appropriate use at 1.28 FAR and would suggest that you go with that. Perfect timing. Thank you. MR. OLI. IFF: The next speaker is Jim Allen followed by -- there are two speakers. I'm not sure which item they signed up for, and I'm going to call their names, and if it's some other item, let me know -- Ben Gildersleeve and Phyllis -- Gryskiewicz? MS. GRYSKIEWICZ: Gryskiewicz, right. MR. OLLIFF: That's for this item? Okay. Ben Glidersleeve? Pass. MR. OLLIFF: Ben Glidersleeve? Pass. Phyllis -- and I won't try it again, the last name. MS. GRYSKIEWICZ: Fine. Phyllis Gryskiewicz. I'm a condominium owner at the Mansions across the street from the building that is proposed, a one-acre lot, and we have 26 units possible. Consider the traffic and the noise. One of those places that was torn down was a single-family dwelling and then two one-story buildings comprising six condominium units, so we are going to look out our fifth floor condominium window at a 10-story building, which blocks the complete view of the bay that we had. And it just seems that in that small a property, to increase the traffic on Gulf Shore Drive is not really fair. Thank you. MR. OI. LIFF: That's all your speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN CARTER: No more speakers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm, I'm confused though, 'cause last time we talked about this, we had -- we were worried about Page 18 December 13, 2000 the size of the box, and that was the floor area ratio, and, and that was being addressed; but then we were concerned that people were going to try to trick us into building a condominium with greater density that they purported was a hotel in order to get the hotel floor ratio, and now I think you have very adequately addressed at that concern. There's not going to be -- I mean, there's, there's a lot of statutory requirements; it isn't just code enforcement that we have to worry about this anymore about whether or not we're being tricked. I think you've addressed that. We're not going to be tricked. So, now, I'm afraid that we're starting to talk about density when that's not the subject of this. We shouldn't be talking about density, because if we start talking about taking away density, then we're going to be talking about private property rights and lawsuits. I'm, I'm, I'm concerned about this 16-unit cap and think that if it's RT and it's -- the size of the box is determined by the floor area ratio and the number of units is determined by the floor area ratio, we need to set aside density discussions and let the concurrency laws, the traffic and other -- those other issues -- you know, if the traffic won't support -- if the roads are too crowded for one more house, you don't get one more house. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, right. So then if they only have t 6 acres -- 16 per acre now, why would we increase it to 26 if we've already got a traffic problem? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're not. They, they -- we're not talking about increasing anything; we're talking about allowing them to do what that have -- we're talking about being careful we don't take something away, or we're going to get sued, and Marjorie's going to have to tell you about that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do have a question though -- MS. STUDENT: I can just tell you, because of the Burt Harris private property rights, there's always a concern when you take something away that you may inordinately burden a reasonable investment fact expectation. It's very difficult, without a specific case in front of you with all the analyses that would have to be done, to say it's going to happen or not, but it is a concern and gives rise to exposure by the County for such a claim. Page 19 December t 3, 2000 COMMISSIONER FIALA: But what I'm, what I'm asking is, when we're talking about taking something away, I thought we had 16 feet. MS. STUDENT: I'm going to have to let planning -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we're increasing it to -- MS. STUDENT: I don't think that's the case. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We'll let Mr. Nino address that for a moment. What I, what I -- and I'm only going to voice what I -- the way I understood it, we're giving you an either-or. You can do a residential hotel, or you can do a condominium. We don't care which one you build, choice. We're not taking away your option, but we are limiting it to the number of, of units. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, but you can do -- but that is taking away density on the residential hotel front. That's what concerns me. MR. NINO'- Let, let me try to give you -- the thrust of the amendment the last cycle was to eliminate the reference to dwelling units in a hotel, because a hotel is a commercial structure. It's not vis-a-vis a conventional dwelling unit.which the word implies. There's always 26 units per acre. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's important to hear. MR. NINO: That 26, that 26 units per acre was irrespective of whether the unit was 300 square feet or 3,000 square feet, and that didn't make any sense from staff's point of view. And we said, you know, what are we really concerned with here? We're concerned about the volume of building space that you can put on the property, and the FRA floor area ratio technique is the best measure of that. I suggest to you, if you're concerned about -- the analogy with units, why wouldn't we do the same thing for offices? How many units per acre of offices are there? We've -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's just apples and oranges. MR. NINO: We've always looked at commercial floor space in terms of, if you need the setbacks, you built a box that's left, and you put into that box whatever is allowed by that zoning district, and that -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: So by your formula, you're saying, the way you're proposing it, it cannot exceed 26 units. Page 20 December 13, 2000 MR. NINO: No. We're, we're not talking about units at all, because the unit becomes a function then of the internal design, and that may be -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It depends on how big they are. MR. NINO: -- that may be 16 units per acre; it may be 12 units per acre, depending upon the design of the hotel, but it also may be 40 or 50 units. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the residents are expressing a concern with the number of people there; they're not concerned with the number of units, but how many people are going to occupy it. Could we ever reach a compromise? We're talking 16 against 26. Could everybody settle on 217 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wait a minute, wait a -- you cannot dialogue with the audience, Commissioner; and a commissioner cannot dialogue with you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I was, I was addressing Mr. -- MR. NINO: The FAR drives, drives indirectly the number of units if you make the assumption on unit size. The 1.28 FAR will give you an average unit size after you account for common areas of about 2700 square feet. If you play with that FAR, you drive it down, then you drive down the unit size to achieve that comparable 16 units per acre. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wish -- MR. NINO: For example, if you drove it down to 1.15, for example, the average unit size to achieve 16 units per acre would be -- I'm sorry -- 2700 square feet. If you drove it down to 1.0, again, with the expectation of achieving the 16 units, the average unit size after common areas would be about 2300 square feet. Now, I can tell you, from our previous review -- when we instituted the FAR, we did do some FARs for conventional condominiums along Gulf Shore Drive, and we found condos along Gulf Shore Drive with FRAs of 1.8, 2.4. I mean there are some pretty big boxes on, on, on buildings. There's a lot of volume space, far more volume space than is proposed here. And as a matter of fact, in my communications to Mrs. Ketcham, I pointed out that under the current regulation, over 100,000 square feet of condominium space can be put on an acre Page 21 December 13, 2000 of land under the regulation of -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's just talking the math. I mean, this is just a mathematical. MR. NINO: Talking about the math, regardless of how many unit are within that mass -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But here's -- but this is the thing I want to get the Board back to focusing on, and that is, we're talking about a commercial use here. We should not be talking about units per acre, and we've got to be careful -- I know these residents want to have the fewer-the better new neighbors, but if we're talking about that they're going to build a hotel, and that's what this -- that's what they have a right to build, and that's what -- if we take away the right to build a hotel, we get in big trouble. What -- how we got in this discussion was, we were concerned we were going to be tricked; it was going to look like a condo but -- I mean, look like a hotel but really be a condo, and it was all going to be a trick to get more density. Our job here is to be sure that if it says it's an RT residential tourist that it is really tourist and not resident, and we do that by putting restrictions on the description of a room. We're going to get in trouble if we start talking about how many units a hotel gets, because we're mixing apples and oranges. MR. OLLIFF: The -- Mr. Chairman, the compromise position here might be, since we're talking about this floor-area-ratio issue which does regulate the size of the box on the property, which I think I think should be the primary focus here, but if the compromise position needs to be then that we put a cap in terms of the maximum density at what is the current maximum RT density today, then you're not taking away anything from somebody who's currently got RT zoning, but then you've at least used the floor area ratio to at least control what size that box will be. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And what's the maximum density today? MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Maximum density today is a building of -- actually, it's a building of .8, because we amended it in the last cycle, as I said, to the detriment of those properties that -- those Page 22 December 13, 2000 developers that might want to build what I would call a residential hotel. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, what's today's standard? I mean, that's what we've got -- MR. NINO: Today's standard, we'd be dealing .8, we'd be dealing with -- I brought my calculator today -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 'Cause that's where we need to go, Tom. You're exactly on point. MR. NINO: We'd be dealing with 35,000 square feet on today's, today's FAR, but the FAR that's being put out, you mean the current regulation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. NINO: The proposed regulation is 1.28. MR. OLLIFF: No. Skipping floor area ratio, what would the density-per-acre translation of that be for the current, current regulation maximum density per acre. MR. NINO: If we went to -- we don't have a 26 unit per acre any longer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it depends on the size of the unit, but we have a, we have a minimum unit size; don't we? MR. NINO: Not anymore, we don't. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I tell you what, this is too confusing to do on the fly and we're too -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I agree. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- likely to get sued -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I agree. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- if we do it wrong. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, the other option is, we can continue to the next cycle to work these details out. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I think that's a great idea, and -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I agree. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- maybe it would give the residents an opportunity to visit some of these long-term-hotel-stay facilities. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then we keep things the way they are. That's-- it's -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: And today-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the change that were going to Page 23 December 13, 2000 -- scares me. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah. What's today? MR. NINO: Today's regulation does not have -- does not refer to the intensity of use by virtue of units per acre. We have a floor area ratio in effect today. The problem with it is that it is -- doesn't give the developers of residential hotels the ability to do 26 units per acre, which used to be the old requirement. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here -- if this -- how about this as a proposal, Board Members, that we leave the floor area ratio exactly where it is, but we add the definition of a residential hotel so that this con game is avoided. MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Chairman, I know that I've had my term, but if I could just try to add a little clarity to what we -- what's in your code today. Today you have a definition or a floor area ratio for a regular travelers hotel of .6. You've got a floor area ratio for a resort hotel. We define that as -- what kind of stuff it has to have, your resort hotel, of .8. We don't have an FAR for a residential hotel. From my client's perspective, I will not object to a continuance, because I think this is a situation that does need to be looked at. What are residential hotels, how do they function? Let"s get some people that have them come in here and demonstrate, visualize for you what a residential hotel is, how does it function, and what typical type of FARs or densities they have. But if you continue this -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to move that we continue it. MR. VARNADOE: -- you are not -- excuse me, Ms. Mac"Kie -- if you continue this -- we don't have residential hotels today, so you're not allowing us to do that in the interim period. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're protected then. I'm going to, I'm going to move for a consensus that we continue this item to the next session. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Consensus of the Board. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed by the same sign. Aye. Page 24 December 13, 2000 Motion carries 4-1. Okay. MR. NINO: The next item on your agenda in the order -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we were going to by number of speakers. MR. OLLIFF: We can do the Bayshore Overlay. I think that's the next one. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Debrah, are you ready to -- Mr. Nino, what we will do in the -- for the next cycle is to meet with the community associations. We have a note of the associations' concerns. We need to meet with them in a public meeting to get as much as we can to deal with these issues. MR. NINO: We will do that. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I need to clear something up on the title here. If you read it a certain way -- if you remember, there was an alternative moratorium for Goodland Overlay, and it carries on to say, and the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay. That is not a moratorium for Bayshore Drive; it's the establishment of it, so I need to put in two commas there, and I think we'll be fine, but I needed to clear that for the record. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Ms. Student, thank you. MR. PRESTON: Good evening. For the record, Debrah Preston. The map on your visualizer reflects the changes that were made since our last meeting here on this reading. We've had a community meeting this past Monday going over these changes. These changes reflect the deed restrictions that we looked at at a staff level, also takes in some other public comment we received, and it has moved that neighborhood commercial line back up to where it currently exists in the Gulf Shore Plaza, but we have provided some parking options on the adjacent properties if they're owned by the same owner, if they own the commercial and the lot right next to it. At the meeting, we did have one other area of objection that you might hear tonight. It's regarding the neighborhood commercial to the north of Haldeman Creek, this large, red area there which is on Beeca. Staff has looked at some alternative language that would be -- we'd be willing to present tonight if you care to hear that after Page 25 December 13, 2000 you listen to your speakers or prior to that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Prior to that. I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Prior. MS. PRESTON: Prior to that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Prior. MS. PRESTON: All right. One of the issues we have up here in this corner is that we were not providing a multifamily transitional district between the neighborhood commercial and the neighborhood -- and the single family located next to it, which actually is zoned multifamily. We do have an existing beauty shop that's located on Becca Avenue, and that beauty shop has been there for a number of years and they have come in looking for rezoning on that; and that's located right on Becca Avenue, which is right there, and it would be lot 46, is actually where the beauty shop is located. The neighborhood commercial would allow for the beauty shop and a variety of other low-intense commercial uses to be permitted, but the neighbors that are adjacent to this property would prefer us looking at some other alternative, either providing some multifamily opportunities in between the neighborhood commercial or looking at another solution. What staff looked at was creating a neighborhood residential -- a neighborhood -- a residential neighborhood district, and this would take the home occupation abilities and extend that into that block, which means you would have a permitted single-family house or a multifamily house and be allowed a home occupation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Like a beauty shop. MS. PRESTON: Like a beauty shop. The difference between what, what is currently allowed in home occupations is, this area would allow customers to come to the home, and so they would be able to have a beauty shop or a dentist's office, a doctor's office. We've drafted some language I can hand out that shows you what the permitted uses would be and what some of the other stipulations are, such as the resident of the home has to be the owner and operator of the business. We would limit the use to 30 percent of the primary structure of the building could only be used for the commercial aspect here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How would that work with the Page 26 December 13, 2000 beauty shop that's currently there? MS. PRESTON: That would allow them to continue to operate. I have not had the opportunity to get their square footage, but it's -- my understanding would be, I think the 30 percent would give them ample area to operate their business. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What, this doesn't cover it after the sale of that property? Is that what you're saying? MS. PRESTON: That's right. All of these blocks located that's currently in that red would now be designated as residential neighborhood commercial, and that would be allowed the use of home occupations within that area provided they meet the other criteria that's outlined in the proposed amendment, so it now would be colored this purple area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's neat. MS. PRESTON: So you could possibly have -- and this would be sort of a test-case area. That way we could look at how this would function in other areas in the county, because I think this has been talked about in other locations, as well. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Preston, is this going to be in the -- this LDC cycle, the, the uses? MS. PRESTON: Would these uses be allowed through this I. DC cycle? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. PRESTON: Yes, that would be correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to take a look at it. MS. PRESTON: Sure. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, if you're ready for public speakers? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. MR. OLLIFF: First speaker, first speaker is John Emery, and I'm going to call the next speaker, as well, if they could be prepared, Jack van Veldhoven? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, and just for purposes of -- I, I -- are there Board members who object to this plan in general? I mean, it might help the speakers to know sort of where we stand. I, I-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't object. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like the plan. Page 27 December 13, 2000 CHAIRMAN CARTER: I like the plan, and I don't object. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Particularly with the change, I like this plan, so if you want to say, go for it -- MR. EMERY: Yeah, if we could just leave this up. Am I allowed to use a pointer here? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure. MR. EMERY: Okay. I own a home on 44, and I would like to see this moved over one or two just in line with the northbound line here. I have no objection -- I have no objections to the beauty parlor. Keep the beauty parlor, but when the property is sold down the road, I'd like to at least have one lot buffer zone between my house and, you know, the guy's Harley shop next door or whatever it's going to be. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, it can't be a Harley shop. You need to look at the list. MR. EMERY: No, I've read this list. I was at the meeting the other night. But just have it moved over maybe one or two, you know, I think that would be kind of fair. MS. PRESTON: Just two -- MR. EMERY: A one lot -- one- or two-lot buffer zone between my house and whatever, even though I like the new residential whatever. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You like the purple, but you'd like it moved over one lot to the -- MR. EMERY: To the east. MS. PRESTON: The, the reason we did this was just because of all -- it's all owned under one ownership, so for redevelopment purposes, we thought it would be easier to do. And at the meeting that we had on Monday night, we didn't have the list of uses or this proposed amendment. What we had proposed at the last meeting was to just move the neighborhood commercial over to allow for the first two lots on Bayshore to be covered with all the commercial uses provided in this overlay. But then looking at that, we have a single-family home behind that area, and then next to it, and then you have commercial over, so staff thought that this home occupational thing would address it a little bit better than moving the line over, COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me just read you this, and -- if Page 28 December 13, 2000 people haven't seen it. If this purple district goes, we're talking about no Harley shops next to you; we're talking about accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping; barber shops; beauty salons; engineer, architectural services; insurance agent and broker; legal services; real estate agent, the kind of things that you already do -- I practice my -- law from my home. I mean, it's a home occupation. MR. EMERY: What's your address? MR. OLLIFF: I think that was the use -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll give you my phone number if you're going to hire me. MR. EMERY: Well, okay. That's, that's fair. Just I'd like to see it moved over one, and I talked to the neighbors about that. They don't even want this in there, but I think that's okay. I can -- That's all I'm saying, just, you know, give a little, take -- give and take. That's all. Thanks. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Next speaker. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that possible, Debrah? MS. PRESTON: Well, certainly, it's up to the Board's discretion. MR. EMERY: Just after the -- the state reverts back to wherever, you know. MS. PRESTON: We can, of course, always amend this map and the language at another cycle. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We have his input. Let's go to the next speakers. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. van Veldhoven will be followed by John Hall. MR. VAN VELDHOVEN: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jackie van Veldhoven. I --just here very quick, very briefly -- I support the overlay problem, and let's go for it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks for coming. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please. MR. OLLIFF: John Hall will be followed by Cathy Hunt. MR. HALL: I'm John Hall. I live down in Demere's Landing right across from where the proposed commercial zoning was, Page 29 December 13, 2000 and I just came to be sure that Ursula could keep her beauty salon. And I think that Debrah's new plan is just fantastic. The lady keeps amazing me; I'll tell you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't she amazing? MR. HALL: Yes. So that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker. MR. HALL: Looks good. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please. MR. OLLIFF: Thank you, John. Cathy Hunt will be followed by David Woodworth. MS. HUNT: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, honored Members of the Board. My name is Cathy Hunt. I am definitely in favor of this overlay. Many of the neighbors that I've spoken to are getting excited about it. There's a few things that we will be working towards, a couple of ideas that have arisen already, the fine dining waterfront, perhaps an art colony and coffee shop. I just feel that there's a lot of work that's been put into this, and it's a, it's a good plan. The careful planning will encourage positive, new development, and will realign existing businesses to create an appealing new character that better fits the fine property owners united to improve their neighborhood. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, Cathy. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: David Woodworth will be followed by your last speaker, George Vega. MR. WOODWORTH: It, it seems like you've worn the opposition down. That's what I would say. You know, I talked to my neighbors before I left to come here, and they, they are tired, and they weren't willing to come out again. And I, I would say that the majority of the residents in this area do not want more commercialization. I, I talked with the county manager about a petition, and I guess that's probably my only option now, because you are -- you Page 30 December 13, 2000 don't want the residents of an area to be able to control what they want in it. Okay? There's always going to be an opportunist that wants to do something to make a buck, and we have a number of opportunists here to make a buck and move on. But I live in the -- I, I live in the neighborhood. I, I hope to live it in for a long, long time. And,*you know, if, if a petition of the residents that live in this area -- I don't know if, exactly, if it went before an election next September or whatever, would that have any effect on, on, you know-- I know you want to, you want to redevelop this area, but I just think that you can redevelop it with multifamily, single-family, that type of development. Okay? It doesn't have to be commercial. You can go somewhere around the, the Gateway Triangle. I think that lends itself to more commercialization. It's already commercial. I just think, you know, we should try to turn Bayshore into a pristine community of residential development. Okay? We, we need to encourage the businesses that are there to move on. Okay? I really -- if, if -- they were misplaced. to begin with, as far as I'm concerned. If they have industrial areas on Bayshore, there's no need for, you know, industrial property alone there. Okay? We have -- off of Airport Road, there's a whole industrial park there, and most of it is still vacant there. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please. MR. OLLIFF: George Vega is your last speaker. MR. VEGA: My name's George Vega. I'm here on behalf of the Thompsons. That's Ursula's Beauty Salon. And I believe those of you who have been at the previous commission remember that we had a petition pending in 1998, and at that point, with a lot of patience and a tremendous amount of work from the staff, you've come up with a tremendous plan; and as far as we're concerned -- I think you've heard some of the neighbors that were for it, and that will resolve the previous petition that we had, and there's no sense in discussing the grandlathering clause unless you want me to, because it's been there a long time, since '92. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with that. Page 31 December 13, 2000 MR. VEGA: We were pretty -- I think you know it, and I think you know how close the bars are, you know, all the, all the reasons why you should have this, and the staff has done a great job. We thank very much for the consideration. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Pleasure of the Board? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move approval with the, with the change proposed tonight for the residential neighborhood commercial section. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion passes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to request, as we're going on to the next one, if I may, that just for the record now that maybe our staff can work with the community character select committee and its advisors just for the compatibility of this plan and to offer any suggestions they might have to make sure that we're, we're working with community character at always keeping this area special. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: FYI, Donna, I've already coordinated. That's going to be happening. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. That's fine. Next item, Vehicles on the Beach. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, my suggestion would be, you've got five speakers that are all here on, on basically two items; they've registered on the same two items for every, every speaker; and if you want to, it is Vehicles on the Beach and it is Special Events on the Beach, and we could probably just go straight to your speakers and hear what those issue are. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, that would be good. Let's take them. MR. OLLIFF: First speaker is Irene Barnett followed by Ron Albeit. I can't believe that zoning district passed when you allowed Page 32 December t3, 2000 attorneys to go into a neighborhood as part of a neighborhood commercial district. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. Thanks. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I agree. MR. OLLIFF: They've asked for Ed Staros to go first as the public speaker order. MR. STAROS: Mr. Commissioner, County Commissioners, I'm Ed Staros. I'm the managing director of the Ritz Carlton Hotel, and as a matter of introduction, I go back to the beginning days of Ritz Carlton. I'm the second employee of the company; Joe Franey and I helped open that hotel early on. We're also -- just as a matter of fact, we're a huge employer now. Now we have over a thousand employees on an annualized basis and an annual payroll of over $20 million. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Congratulations. MR. STAROS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How do you feel about vehicles on the beach? MR, STAROS: All right. I just -- let me tell you, the hotel has been open for 15 years and 10 days. The hotel has been doing beach parties on our land since day one. We've been doing it and, and we -- The issue here that bubbled up -- I came 14 months ago on a full-time basis. I walked into the hotel and I found out that there was some third-party beach -- party planners that had come to the hotel and abused the beach. And quite frankly, the moment I heard that, I, being an extremely environmentally sensitive individual in my life, I called a meeting with all of the party planners, et cetera, at the hotel and said, ladies and gentlemen, this cannot be. We, we must in fact run our business and run our business well, but not destroy the beach or do anything that will be environmentally negative for Collier County. The issue of Vehicles on the Beach is simply a, a singular ATV. We're not talking about drag racing on the beach; we're not talking about Daytona; all we're talking about is one, singular, balloon-tire four-wheel vehicle to simply transport towels to and from the laundry, clean towels to the beach, dirty towels back to the laundry, picnic tables, tables and chairs, et cetera, to help set up the, the beach when there is a party on the beach. Page 33 December 13, 2000 There's a lot of parties on the beach; however, I happen to -- just go back, just to make everybody feel a little bit more comfortable about this, last year we, from September to September, we had a 161 parties on the beach, six of which were 300 people or more, nine of which were 200 people to 299, and 27 of which were 100 people to 200 people. The rest of the parties were parties -- well, I can't say it anymore, because so many people left, but the rest of the parties were the 50, 60-person parties, et cetera, that were on the beach. And all I'm asking for is the same consideration that you've allowed the hotel to have for the last 15 years, is to do business and to do it in a very environmentally sensitive way. And with reference to the ATV, all I'm asking there is, simply allow us to deliver product to and from the beach, but I have no, I have no interest in doing more than one, simple ATV vehicle with balloon tires for the simple purpose of doing business. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just a quick question: In all the, all the. parties you had on the beach, were there ever any neighborhood complaints? MR. STAROS: Yes. Yes. Not since I've been there, I can tell you that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. I mean in this last year. MR. STAROS: In this last year-- I got a call from a resident who's become a good friend, Phil McCabe, who lives at the Remington, and I got a call on one party that -- because of the -- the, the band was too loud. I banned that band. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You had 161 parties and you had one complaint. MR. STAROS: Basically that's pretty much it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so do you support what staff has proposed, or do you -- are you suggesting changes to -- MR. STAROS: I just want to have -- I, you know -- we had 161 parties from September to September. There's this issue about 150. Considering that there's only a handful of parties that are of any size whatsoever, what -- what's the 150 versus the 170 or the 1607 I, I don't know. Is it going to be 150, and all of a sudden on December 16the next year, hypothetically, I've had my 150, and -- for example, the group that just checked out of the hotel today was the U.S. Page 34 December t 3, 2000 Chamber of Commerce Council of 100. Had every CEO of every major company in the world. And hypothetically, if we had already had our 150 parties, if that's some special number, why -- where that came from I don't know, and all of a sudden the top CEOs of the Fortune 100 companies -- I'll close -- wanted to have a party, I think it's sort of ridiculous to kind of say it can't happen; that's all. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just, just one question, if I may. MR. STAROS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you have to at any time drive across private land to get to your land? MR. STAROS: Never. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, I mean public land. MR. STAROS: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't. MR. STAROS: Never. COMMISSIONER STAROS: So we're talking about you using your own land. MR. STAROS: I'm talking about me using my own land; that is correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman -- MR. STAROS: A hundred percent of the time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I think that this whole ordinance is just to protect the sea turtle so we don't have scrambled eggs on the beach. MR. STAROS: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I don't know why we're limiting the number of-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I, I don't why we care how many as long as there's -- I'm with you, protect the sea turtle and -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just a matter of opinion. MR. NINO: It's 150 days we're dealing with. There could be more events; there could be two or three events a day. I don't know if the 162 that you referred to were events or, or calendar days. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm, I'm just going to suggest that I don't think the Board cares about the number of days. I don't care about the numbers of days. MR. STAROS: Thank you. Page 35 December 13, 2000 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I care about compliance with the regulations that protect the wildlife. MR. STAROS: I do too. I'm, I'm -- there's not a businessman in this county that's more environmentally sensitive than Ed Staros. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' There you go. MR. STAROS: End of subject. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So Mr. Nino -- MR. NINO: Just eliminate the reference to days. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Then-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my motion. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And if everyone is -- do the other speakers want to speak to this or-- MR. NINO: We nonetheless want the reporting standards that are built into this, 'cause we do want -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Everything the same. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Everything the same. They can record, reporting, ta-da, ta-da, but we don't -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Eliminate the days. COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' They're responsible for the sea turtles as far as environmental permitting and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's already -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And that's part of-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: How many other speakers did we have, Mr. Olliff? If they want to waive, we'll waive, and we can deal with this. If it's the pleasure of the Board, then we will do it and eliminate -- second to that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Second by Commissioner Fiala. We're waiving the number of days, and we want all the other criteria left as is. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed by the same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, there are some people who want to speak, so I need to run through this list, and if they waive, they'll waive. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Page 36 December 13, 2000 (Chairman Carter left the meeting.) MR. OLI. IFF: Irene Barnett, Ron Albeit, Justin Finch. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, I'd like Barbara Burgeson to address an issue on the Vehicles on the Beach. MS. BURGESON: Yes-- MR. OLLIFF: Barbara, wait till we finish with the public speakers. MR. NINO: Okay. MS. BURGESON: Excuse me, but if-- MR. NINO: I got it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Him first. MR. FINCH: Good evening, Board. Justin Finch. I'm with Gulf Sea Adventures on the beach concession located behind the Vanderbilt Inn. Since our last meeting, the -- with the Board's help, they did make some changes to this amendment. There were some inadequacies that we spoke of last time. I would like Board to correct me -- or staff to correct me if I'm wrong, but with the new changes, as I read it, this does allow myself, the LaPlaya, and the Ritz Carlton to use ATVs to move the equipment on our area that we're given our beach vendor permit. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that correct, Mr. Nino? COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Except in turtle season, right? MR. FINCH: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can somebody make a record for this gentleman that that is correct? I could do it, 'cause it says that. MR. BURGESON: On the record, for the -- Barbara Burgeson with planning services, yes, that is correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Except in turtle season is in there, right? MS. BURGESON: Yes. Right. MR. FINCH: I do have one problem. There was an additional change that was made regarding a time limit on our operation. As I spoke to staff, they had in mind a, a time of one hour for our closing time. The problem I have with that is, currently, I have about four and a half weeks during that non turtle season period where I -- it Page 37 December 13, 2000 takes me probably about an hour and a half to close. This -- during this period coming up, I'm getting more equipment, so it would probably increase my closing time to around two hours. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Probably -- is there a reason we should care about two hours instead of one? MS. BURGESON: No, and Justin and I discussed this, and I told him that would not be a problem. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I'm going to move that we -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amend your motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, actually, it should be a different motion. MS. BURGESON: I would like to add something to this. The language that staff made a change to allowing the ATV use in the morning and the evening was just for the concessions. As the Ritz has just requested, the ATV use in the morning and the evening for the hotel's general use for towels and things COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MS. BURGESON: -- was not added in here, so I can add that language in if you want to know that that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then let's -- I would like to entertain a motion that addresses Ms. Burgeson's issue and this gentleman's issue about the two hours for closing. MS. BURGESON: The -- I'm sorry-- the language that's in here does not limit or put a time frame on that that would be site specific and understanding the immediate needs of-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two separates issue here. I understand. We're talking one is about concessionaires, and he needs two hours to close. MR. OLLIFF: And she says that it is not a regulation that limits it to one or two. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. MS. BURGESON: There's no time frame in the -- MR. FINCH: As I understand it, it's not spelled out, and I would either -- previously, staff recommended this same amendment for the Registry with absolutely no time constrains, so either -- MS. BURGESON: There's no time constraints. Page 38 December t3, 2000 you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There are no time constraints for MR. FINCH: Okay, just as long as that's on the record. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you've got that on the record MR. FINCH: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and you're covered. MR. FINCH: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we need staff to reconsider the motion or do any changes to the motion that we previously passed? It sounds like we don't. MR. OLLIFF: One more. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. MR. OLLIFF: Matthew Grabinski. MR. GRABINSKI: I just want to clarify the last motion regarding Vehicles on the Beach and the hotel's ability, whether or not they are now going to be able to use it to, say, take out beach towels in the morning and break-- MS. BURGESON: The language -- MR. GRABINSKI: -- it down. MS. BURGESON: The language as it's written in here right now is just for the concessions, and I'm proposing that we add that similar language to the hotel section to allow for a setup time and a removal time at the end of the day for ATV use. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm going to entertain a motion to that effect as soon as we're done with our speakers. MR. OLLIFF: You are done with your speakers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would someone like to so move? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Marjorie is-- MS. STUDENT: I think -- were you intending to amend, 'cause there's a motion on the floor, so were you intending -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, no, we voted on the motion on the floor. MS. STUDENT: Okay. I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. We voted on the motion on the floor; now we're moving on to this second issue. MS. STUDENT: I got it. Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN MAC'KIE: So -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it. Page 39 December 13, 2000 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HENNING: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you move? Right. All in favor please say aye. Passes unanimously. What else did we have? Do we have any other -- MR. NINO: I'd turn your attention to the Immokalee Overlay District. I have a -- an amendment that I need to give you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have some issues with some things. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. And then after this, we'll go to Board questions on any other items if there are other items that we need to give direction to staff or make changes on. So, Mr. Nino, if you'll tell us about this change. MR. NINO: This is a change to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. MR. NINO: -- conditional use for towers. Currently towers are permitted in the C-4 district at 75 feet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm running out of time, so I'm going to interrupt you to say, this is the one where the Board raised the concern that we might be eliminating essential services towers for fire, EMS, otherwise, and you've corrected that. MS. MOSCA: For the record, Michelle Mosca. Yes, we did in fact correct it. As you have in your packet though, it would required those essential service facilities to obtain a conditional use for such towers, which would create an unnecessary burden; because in the C-4 zoning district, it is permitted up to 75 feet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if we approve the amendment that was just distributed to us, we will have addressed that concern. MS. MOSCA: That is correct. I'd entertain a motion to that COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: effect. COMMISSIONER HENNING: COMMISSIONER COLETTA: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved. Second. All in favor please say aye. Page 40 December 13, 2000 then who Opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. What -- I know that Commissioner Henning has an item, and we'll speak-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HENNING: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: else has a -- Items? I'm sorry? Items. Has items, and then we'll see Commissioner Henning, what items do you need? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Fencing, we had some language in there for-- MR. NINO: Chainlink? COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- esthetics, the chainlinks. Can we exempt single-family? MR. NINO: Page 20 -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sixty-five. MR. NINO: Sixty-five. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sure makes sense to me. I -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I mean, it's, it's saying fencing in' arterial roadways. Well, we, you know, we have some single families in arterial roadways, and I just didn't want there to be a financial burden on families. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would agree with that. MR. NINO: Well, let me say, the concern we heard, of course, was that we didn't think -- you didn't think chainlink fences -- or some of you didn't think chainlink fences were the spirit of, of Naples, particularly along arterial and collector roads; so we responded with a, if you're going to do it, you need to set it back 3 feet, put a hedge in front of it, irrigate it. And that would only apply to arterial and collector roads. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Mr. Nino, we're going to lose our quorum in about five minutes, and what Mr. Henning is suggesting is that we pass that, make that change, but that we exempt single-family homes. MR. OLLIFF: Consensus. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry? MR. OLLIFF: Consensus on that, and we'll move on to the next item. Page 41 December 13, 2000 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Except single-family homes? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, exempt it so families -- it might be a financial burden to put in a hedge and, you know-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's fair. It's commercial that would have to do it; multifamily family would have to do; just single-family would not. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we're not talking about the front yard, right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's -- okay. Okay. As long as we're not talking about their front yard, I -- you know, back yard for their dogs and everything? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What Immokalee, where you already have this situation where a number of houses have -- MR. NINO: ~Doesn't, doesn't apply to Immokalee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Fine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we have a motion. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All in flavor please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Page 104, it's to do with gopher tortoise protection, brad language, all gopher tortoises in the habitat and associated with -- commensals? I don't know what that is. MS. STUDENT: I think, if I may, I -- our environmental people have left, but the commensal, as I understand it, is other additional habitat and other creatures that live in the burrow with the gopher tortoise. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is, what is going to habitat in there? MS. STUDENT: It is other creatures that live in the burrow along with the gopher tortoise. Our environmental people have gone, but that's my Page 42 December t3, 2000 understanding of it. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's right. Commensal -- Stan Chrzanowski with Development Services. Commensal organisms are organisms like varieties of toad, indigo snake, bugs that live in the burrow with the tortoise. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for asking that question. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The whole point of protecting the gopher tortoise is that they are what's call an umbrella species, and their habitat provides habitat for other species. That's the reason -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, so if the gopher tortoise moves out and the indigo snake stays there, that means we got to protect it? MR. MULHERE.' Well, in the case of -- Bob Mulhere, for the record. In the case of the indigo snake, it's a -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's already protected. MR. MULHERE: -- it's a protected species, so we do have to protect that, but other species, perhaps not. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have a bit of a problem with -- you know, we're just going too far; that's all. And it's -- are we going too far with this? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I, I certainly think not. I mean, that's the reason we protect the gopher tortoise, and if we're going to change this, I think it's the kind of thing we need to send back to the environmental committees, 'cause they know more about it than we do. I don't want to make a change like that that I don't really know the repercussions to. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. MULHERE: There's just one other-- perhaps this also is germane to that question, is -- and I'm not a biologist, but having dealt a little bit with this, as I understand it, the gopher tortoises may move in and out of burrows, so if you protect the burrows, you know, they can move from one to another then freely. You're protecting their habitat. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, that is the point. We're not protecting the individual turtle; we're protecting the habitat that provides homes for many species. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the point is to protect the Page 43 December 13, 2000 hole in the ground. As dumb as that sounds, that is the point, 'cause that's the their habitat. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I can't agree with that, because if you get one to move out, then you're protecting that home -- that hole forever. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HENNING: saying -- I don't see that. MR. MULHERE: We, we do. We already do. We already do protect it. It's When they -- when the developer comes in and identifies tortoise habitat, they'll, they'll give us a gopher tortoise management plan, and they'll set aside -- if they're doing it on-site, and in most cases we try to get on-site protection, they're going to set aside an area. They're not going to worry about the individual burrows; they're going to set aside an entire area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And -- but if they do that on-site. If they don't do that on-site, then it's -- MR. MULHERE: Then they have to relocate them off-site to an appropriate habitat. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then they don't protect them MR. MULHERE: Then they don't protect them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- though after the fact. MR. MULHERE: Right. And there's, there's no requirement for them then to protect those -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: HENNING: MAC'KIE: HENNING: MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess the zoning districts. And we're not changing that. Okay. And then one other one. One more? One more. Sure. Twenty-one, page 21. Page 217 It's having to do with -- oh, the -- MR. NINO: What page is it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Page 21. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I had a question on that too. Hours of operation? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Page 44 December t3, 2000 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that what you're talking about? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Henning first. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's, its number 23, second paragraph, the addition, permits or letters of exception from the Corps of -- U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and/or South Florida Water Management District shall be presented to the planning service -- MR. NINO: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- required to do site development plan approval. Is that really necessary to put this language in there? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they can't operate without those permits. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I know they can't, can't operate. I mean, I think they -- MR. MULHERE: Again, for the record, Bob Mulhere. Normally, we're aware, going through a zoning process, a conditional use, a rezone, we do not allow them to commence operation until they demonstrate they have the permits from the state agencies. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you just want to put it in writing. MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MULHERE: It's just, just qualification. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought he was going to ask mine, so -- I have the second one, and that is, the hours of operation shall be limited to two hours before Sunrise. Wouldn't that be kind of noisy for the neighbors, especially in, in a -- in such an area, asphalt, concrete, and so forth? MR. NINO: Typically these, typically these are out in the boondocks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, throughout this thing, though, it talks about neighbors and, and so forth, so I, I didn't know. And didn't it say somewhere in here that it could, it could be as close as 1500 feet? And I thought, gee, that would be kind of early to be waking people up. But if you're assuring me that there aren't residents around Page 45 December t3, 2000 there -- MR. NINO: That, that is current regulation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's current regulation? MR. NINO: For whatever -- COMMISSIONER FIALA-' Okay. MR. NINO: For whatever it's worth, that's current regulation; it's not an amendment. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fine. Then, if nobody's complained about it -- MR. NINO: Nobody's complained. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- then I'll be quiet. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have other items that commissioners have -- yes, sir, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. If I may, on the, the change to the ordinance to add carrotwood to that particular ordinance? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What page is that on our packet, if you would? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fifty-five. MR. NINO.' That's to delete the carrotwood. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fifty-five? MR. NINO: Oh, added to the -- yeah, added to the prohibited species, yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. The prohibited species list. A little bit of concern: What happens to the numerous carrotwood trees that are now on residential and commercial lots? Would they all have to be removed pronto, or is there some grace period, or what's, what's the story on this? MR. MULHERE: That's a very good question. Under this scenario, you do not -- you are not required to remove existing prohibited species for this list. You simply cannot use that species or replant that species in any new development. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there going to be any kind of financial impact on the nurseries that have got these growing in their nurseries? Is there a period of time, or how does this work? Has the nurseries been apprised of this situation? MR. MULHERE: I don't know if they have been individually Page 46 December 13, 2000 apprised of this. Usually they -- do you want to speak to it? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I could, I could speak on it also. I checked on this, and what it is, is -- carrotwood is, is, the state of Florida is being mandated it to be outlawed, and the nurseries already know about it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: taking a beating. So they're prepared for it -- -- and they're not going to be Is that correct? Is that what you were going to say? MS. SIEMION: For the record, I'm Nancy Siemion, · Landscape Architect, Current Planning Services, and Alex Silecki (phonetic), our environmentalist, shared with us at a recent meeting that this is a state requirement and that the industry is aware of it. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER amendments. MAC'KIE: COLETTA: MAC'KIE: HENNING: MAC'KIE: HENNING: Is there a second? Great. Okay. No other questions. Other questions, Commissioners? I motion that we approve the -- The balance of the amendments? -- the balance of the COMMISSIONER FIALA: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. All in favor, please say aye. Passes unanimously. And this is the new way we're going to run these county commission meetings. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know. I feel a little rushed. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually, I was looking forward to another couple hours. Now I don't know what the heck to do with my evening. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You get to go home and eat dinner with your family. MR. OLLIFF: You are more than welcome to hang around. Page 47 December 13, 2000 (There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:35 p.m.) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD (S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS ~:~i~'~.DWiG~iT~.E. BROCK, CLERK Tfiese minutes ~pprove~ ~ tile Bo~r~ on ~n~ ~ ~o/ CONTROL ~ ~ JAM ES~/C~,R~I~R;~. O., CHAIRMAN presented / or 'as corrected . as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Sandra B. Brown Page 48