Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/19/2001 S (LDC Amendments) December 19, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, December 19, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:06 p.m. In SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: James D. Carter, Ph.D. James Coletta Fred Coyle Donna Fiala Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Tom Olliff, County Manager Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney John Dunnuck, Acting Community Development Services Admin. Susan Murray, Current Planning Manager Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA December 19, 2001 5:05 P.M. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY 1 December 19, 2001 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE e AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS: SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT: SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: ARTICLE II, ZONING, DIVISION 2.1. GENERAL; DIVISION 2.2.. ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES, CONDITIONAL USES, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS INCLUDING THE ADOPTION OF THE IMMOKALEE NON-CONFORMING MOBILE HOME PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT, THE ADOPTION OF THE ACTIVITY CENTER #9 OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND THE ADOPTION ON INTERIM DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS IN THE RESIDENTIAL (RT) DISTRICT LOCATED IN THE VANDERBILT BEACH AREA, AND AMENDMENTS TO THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT, IMMOKALEE OVERLAY DISTRICT, SANTA BARBARA COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT AND BAYSHORE DRIVE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT; DIVISION 2.3. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING; DIVISION 2.5. SIGNS, DIVISION 2.6 SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS; DIVISION 2.7. ZONING ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES; ARTICLE 3, DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, DIVISION 3.2. SUBDIVISIONS; DIVISION 3.3 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS; DIVISION 3.5, EXCAVATION; DIVISION 3.6, WELL CONSTRUCTION; DIVISION 3.14 VEHICLE ON THE BEACH REGULATIONS, DIVISION 3.15 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES; DIVISION 3.16 GROUND WATER PROTECTION; ARTICLE 6. DEFINITIONS, DIVISION 6.3 DEFINITIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DEFINITIONS FOR THE TERMS FRONT YARD, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TRACT; REPLACING EXHIBIT B ENTITLED TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGN STANDARDS WITH A REVISED EXHIBIT B; REPLACING EXHIHIT C ENTITLED FINAL SUBDIVISIONS PLAT REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS 2 December 19, 2001 WITH A REVISED EXHIBIT C; REPLACING EXHIBIT E ENTITLED ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN MAPS WITH REVISED MAPS; SECTION FOUR; READOPTION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS, MORE SPECIFICALLY READOPTING THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE 2, ZONING DIVISION 2.2, ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMITED USES, CONDITIONAL USES, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS; AND DIVISION 2.7, ZONING ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES; SECTION FIVE, ADOPTION OF AMENDED ZONING ATLAS MAPS; SECTION SIX, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION SEVEN, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION EIGHT, EFFECTIVE DATE. 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 3 December 19, 2001 Item #2 December 19, 2001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - CONTINUED TO JANUARY 9, 2002 (The meeting commenced with Chairman Carter not present.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Vice-chair, we have a number of speakers tonight on certain issues. I think it would be appropriate to, you know, take the agenda and break it out to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with you so we don't have to keep them here all evening long. What do you think, Mr. Olliff?. What's the main items? I know the Immokalee trailer situation is -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can see Vanderbilt Beach. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Vanderbilt Beach. MR. OLLIFF: I've actually asked John Dunnuck if he would sort the items by the number of registered speakers that we have, and I think he's got that sorted out there for you. And, Mr. Dunnuck, have you got a recommended agenda for us? MR. DUNNUCK: Good evening, Commissioners. Yes, I do. It's looking like the hot topic for this evening is the moratorium in Gulf Shore, and I would suggest that we take that one up first; followed by the residential parking, the changes -- the amendments to the residential parking restrictions in the community; and followed then by the residential boat docks, proposed amendments. And I think those are your top three topics. And I think followed by that will be the Immokalee amendments towards the Immokalee initiative, Page 2 December 19, 2001 housing; and then after that it's really -- you have a few speakers after that. But your -- definitely your top topic this evening is the Gulf Shore moratorium. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mrs. Student. MR. OLLIFF: Just so that we know, John, roughly how many public speakers are we looking at for the evening? MR. DUNNUCK: I think -- I haven't had a chance to add them all up, but I think roughly you're looking at approximately 75 speakers this evening. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No problem. We'll accommodate everyone. COMMISSIONER FIALA: At ten minutes each? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Five minutes apiece. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three minutes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have a five-minute limit. But I'm going to ask you to use common sense, and if you have already heard the position stated one time, please waive, and we'll keep moving right along. But everyone is welcome to speak that's registered. Anyone else that wants to register that hasn't, please come up and register, and we'll keep going until we go through the whole process. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What page is this, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: Thirty. MS. MURRAY: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Susan Murray, and I'm the current planning manager, and I'll be walking you through some of your amendments tonight. But before we get started, I just wanted to go over how to read through your packet and how the packet will work so you can flip immediately to the pages. If you take a look at your packet beyond the executive summary text, there is 12 sheets that are comprised of-- they're called summary sheets, and they're in a spreadsheet format, and it's Page 3 December 19, 2001 the first 12 sheets in your packet. And the summary sheet is basically a summary of the LDC section that's being amended, a brief summary of the proposed amendment, and then you have the recommendations from all your boards written in there. So those are the first 12 sheets. We'll be working from the handwritten page numbers at the bottom of your page within the remainder of the document, so we'll call out the page numbers to you, and you can go right to that page. As well, there's a number of handouts I gave to you, and when the time comes, I'll tell you to reference those. So you'll be starting with the Gulf Shore moratorium, which is on page 30, and Marjorie Student will be handling that. Thanks. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. And this part of the Land Development Code amendment was prepared per the board's direction for a moratorium in the Vanderbilt Beach area for any development in the RT zoning district. I will be brief. I know there's a lot of speakers, and I think that the ordinance amendment speaks for itself, really, but the direction was to look at the RT districts in that area. I'm going to ask -~ defer to Ms. Murray, because she is a professional planner, to put on the record the reasons for the moratorium and the fact that staff will be conducting a study to look at appropriate development regulations for that area. And then I'll briefly highlight the different provisions of the amendment. I do want to say this follows the pattern of the one that we did -~ we did two moratoria -~ pursuant to the final order of the governor and cabinet in the growth management case, and this follows the pattern of that amendment as well. So I'll defer to Susan now for the reasons. (Commissioner Carter entered the boardroom.) Page 4 December 19, 2001 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know that -- that the board members itself last LDC cycle last year was asking for something like this, a study area in Vanderbilt Beach. I can't understand why anybody would be opposed to it. Is there any opposition to that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning was asking if there's anyone that wants to speak in opposition to this. Would they raise their hand at this time? One, two, three? Does that answer your question, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I didn't see you, Commissioner Carter. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's all right. I would just go to public speakers to get that input. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got 75 of them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Susan hasn't presented yet. MS. MURRAY: Just for the record, Susan Murray again, current planning manager. The reasons for the moratorium, as you know, the Gulf Shore area is a pretty unique area. It's somewhat of a peninsula-type of area that's been experiencing a lot of development pressures recently and, again, it being a very unique area in that it provides access to the beach, and it's an older development that's been around -- that, again, is experiencing a lot of redevelopment. We're -- we have a study plan to look at uses in the RT zoning district, specifically in that area. We've got a study to look at building height, setbacks, and other type of requirements, beach access and things of that nature. So I think just with the unique character of the area and some of the development pressures it's been experiencing lately, that is justification enough for a planning-level study that we'll be conducting. MS. STUDENT: And, also, I just want to state, too, with issues like the height and setback issues, there's a concern -- and you'll have Page 5 December 19, 2001 to excuse me; I'm getting over a cold -- of a canyonization effect, where you have a lot of high buildings with minimal setbacks that create kind of a canyon effect. And that's one of the concerns about the area, because there is redevelopment pressure there. And I'll just highlight the provisions. The duration is for one year. The geographic scope is depicted on the map. But it basically runs from Vanderbilt Beach Road to the south, and I think -- I also get road and drive confused, but it's the one that runs in the east/west direction -- then the Gulf of Mexico to the west; to the north, Bluebill Avenue and its westerly extension to the Gulf of Mexico; and to the east it would be the Vanderbilt Lagoon. And it would -- the moratorium would cover all lands that are designated residential tourist in that area, and there are three residential tourist areas depicted on the map. And the prohibited uses would be basically all the uses that are now permitted, accessory, or conditional uses as set forth in the code. And I set them out exactly as they are set forth in the code with their denomination as either permitted, accessory, or conditional. And any development order, you know, for any of those items would be prohibited for the year time period, and also any variances would be prohibited. And then there is an exemption, kind of a modified grandfathering, if you will, that would allow applications for development orders to come in, as long as they are completed applications for any type of development order, before the effective date of this amendment, which should be roughly sometime in January. And then there's the attached map. I do want to point out that the numbering should be 2.2.36 instead of 35, because when you're putting a code together and drafting, there are other sections that affect the numbering. And I will add, the street names and other physical areas are mentioned as the boundaries of the area. Page 6 December 19, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The grandfather clause you're putting in giving people a exemption until January, is this entirely necessary? It seems like there would be a rush to -- MS. STUDENT: Well, it's recommended to put people on notice. And until the moratorium goes into effect anyway, yeah, someone could come in and apply because it's not legally effective until it's passed by this board. And it's recommended. There's not a whole lot of case law out there about moratoria, but it's recommended by the commentators that such language is put in to alleviate any problems later so people are put on notice as to what the requirements are and that you wouldn't have to later, you know, resort to a court to make that determination. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Ms. Student, can you tell me why ~- well, I believe that what we're trying to do is to limit density and traffic impacts and heights. MS. STUDENT: And setbacks. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And setbacks in this area. MS. STUDENT: And it's a study to -- and look at uses as well, I believe Ms. Murray stated. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've included accessory uses as uses that are not going to be permitted under this moratorium. MS. STUDENT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are many accessory uses that have no impact upon height, setbacks, traffic, or density at all, such as putting a screened enclosure around the pool or building a private boat dock. Is there -- MS. STUDENT: Well-- Page 7 December 19, 2001 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there any reason to make this moratorium so broad as to prohibit those -- those kinds of things that private homeowners might wish to do? MS. STUDENT: First of all, in this district the permitted uses are hotels and motels, multifamily dwellings, family care facilities, time-share facilities which are multifamily, and town houses. So by their nature, all these items are either multifamily or hotel-type uses. We don't have single family as a use in here. The reason -- and I looked -- I considered that when I drafted this, and I looked at the accessory uses. And a lot of these uses could involve setbacks, and setbacks are one of the things that are at issue. And also, even a -- private boat docks are listed in here. And you got some setback issues not for protrusion into the water of the boat dock, but side setback issues. And those are one of the things that are an issue, so that's why they were included. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Has there been a lot of concern about a boat dock or -- MS. STUDENT: There have been concerns about setbacks, and you have side setback issues with boat docks. And, yes, there have been concerns about the setbacks, and that's why I thought it was better to make it, you know, as broad as possible because setbacks are an issue. And they affect -- and I may defer to staffhere a bit, but setbacks affect any structure that you build, so that's why it was written that way. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Although we're talking about setbacks, protrusions have also been a problem. We've had a few come before us in the Vanderbilt Lagoon area, but this -- those protrusions aren't going to be mentioned in this; right? MS. STUDENT: The protrusions and boat docks are ref-- are dealt with by another part of the code, and I believe it's 2.6.21; is that Page 8 December 19, 2001 right, Ross? Is it 2.6.217 And, in fact, that is an amendment here tonight as well. But the reason it was written that way is because when you construct a dock, there are setback issues in terms of how close that dock -- where it's perpendicular to the shore and if it comes onto the shore, the setbacks -- there can be issues about those setbacks. So that's why I included anything where there could be a setback issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just one more. The intrusion that we were talking about, I think that was brought out by the Coconut River Estates people, but that will affect the lagoon as well; right? That was another question I had for that. MS. STUDENT: Well, when we do the moratorium, there won't be any development permitted for that period. And it may well be that in the course of the study that staff conducts, that there may be an issue that comes up with that where they may wish to process an amendment to the boat dock section of the code. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. MS. STUDENT: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I -- I still have some concerns about accessories, and that would relate to, what about existing properties that have already been approved there? And let's say they wanted to put a chickee hut by the pool. Is that an accessory, and does that then -- MS. STUDENT: It's an accessory, and it would be covered by the moratorium. And, again, the issue is -- we have the development standards issue, and setbacks is an issue. And any time you construct a structure, it is -- excuse me -- setbacks become an issue, so that's why I made it as broad as I did. And while chickees -- let's see. I just -- because these are -- we have the general language, uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the uses permitted as of right. So that would be anything that would be an accessory use to a Page 9 December 19, 2001 hotel or motel, a multifamily dwelling, a family care facility, a time- share facility, or a town house. And that's broad in nature. And perhaps staff could advise as to what those uses might be, but height could be an issue -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Absolutely. MS. STUDENT: -- for these. Setbacks could be an issue for these. And then when you start to call certain things out and you're looking at the whole area and all the development standards, you know, I have a concern that it might be problematic to exempt some things when we're looking at the whole array of performance standards for that district. And I know that setbacks were a big issue. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I -- and I don't disagree for a minute, because I'm the one that initiated going after this, because the issues were intensity, density, and heighth. And all those -- everything else seems to fold in around that. But if I have a condominium association by a pool that wants to do something that might be defined as an accessory, does it involve setbacks, I do have some concerns that it might inhibit those properties from being able to do something which I think might be pretty simple, and yet we're going to say "You can't do that," and that troubles me. MS. STUDENT: And I think -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: So I would like us to review that -- MS. STUDENT: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- before the next session to make sure where -- we've got some things, yes, you want to cover under that, but there might be some things that are not -- are not difficult to include but still would allow those properties to do that -- MS. STUDENT: And what we can -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- and not take away from homeowners -- MS. STUDENT: What we can do is to coordinate with staff and Page 10 December 19, 2001 perhaps come up with some uses such as you mentioned -- I don't know that a screened enclosure would necessarily come up; it may -- but look at those types of things where there may not be a problem and then have a little exemption section for that as well, those accessory uses. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have how many speakers? MR. DUNNUCK: Thirty registered speakers for this item, thirty. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thirty for this item? MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We need to go to public input. MR. DUNNUCK: Diane Ketcham followed by Joe Connolly. MS. KETCHAM: Happy holidays. I wanted to put my little blinker on, but it -- it'll stop in the middle. I don't think there's been a holiday we haven't seen you in the last year, except for you, Commissioner Coyle. Hello and happy Valentine's Day and Easter and everything else we -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: You might not see me next holiday. MS. KETCHAM: My name is Diane Ketcham, and I am the president of the Save Vanderbilt Beach Fund and a board member of Vanderbilt Beach and Bay, which represents more than 700 homeowners living on Gulfshore Drive and nearby streets. Tonight we talk about what we have talked about so many times before: The future of Vanderbilt Beach. There's no other beachfront to be developed or redeveloped in Collier County. Vanderbilt Beach is the county's last frontier. And like any frontier, there are parties fighting over it. Who will win? The settlers or the land barons? Can there be a compromise? All that rests in your Page 11 December 19, 2001 hands. What happens to Vanderbilt Beach will be your legacy. Other boards of commissioners gave away the beachfront in Pelican Bay and Bay Colony to private communities. Other boards allowed the developers to start amending the Land Development Code to put in what was best for them with little regard to the public interest. Other boards allowed the height of buildings on Gulfshore Drive to be increased to a hundred feet without homeowners ever knowing about it. Other boards allowed the planning department to approve site plans in our residential tourist zoning that stretched the code in favor of developers so they could build higher and wider with greater density to make greater profit. It was primarily another board that allowed the Land Development Code to be changed in June of 2000, which caused all the horror on Gulfshore Drive for the last year and a half, including the massive expansion of La Playa, something that will haunt us for years to come. That land code change also brought about the Beachcomber Hotel project which would have allowed a 68-unit, 1 O-story hotel on less than an acre in the middle of a residential area on the fragile Vanderbilt Lagoon. Well, that is where most of you came in. Commissioner Coyle, we're expecting the best from you. You voted to rescind the changes in Land Development Code and voted with us on the Beachcomber Hotel. You ordered the permit for the Beach -- the building to be rescinded, a permit that never should have been issued because the side yard setbacks were way less than half the height of the building, which is the law. And there are still problems on that property with legal side yard setbacks, so the Beachcomber controversy is not going away. But what about the rest of Gulfshore Drive? You are considering a moratorium on this building in RT, something that will give us time to plan together what the future of Vanderbilt Beach Page 12 December 19, 2001 should be, not how it should be developed. Every plot already has been developed, and we like our small mid-rises and our homes. We're talking about developer plans to redevelop our area, and we don't want to turn it into Fort Lauderdale. We do not want concrete canyons. We ask you to pass this moratorium and that you include all the properties in it. This is what the Planning Commission recommended to you unanimously. Exclude one parcel, and you are leaving the door open for all the problems that have come before: Stretching the code to allow greater density, more traffic on this narrow, two-lane Gulfshore Drive. It cannot endure it. Increasing density and traffic can -~ not only threatens our infrastructure, it threatens our lives. This is a coastal, high hazard area. Gulfshore Drive is our evacuation route. Any major new project on this road should be discussed -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're in wrap-up. MS. KETCHAM: -- calmly and -- I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're in wrap-up. Your yellow light's on. MS. KETCHAM: Okay. -- not rushed through at the 1 lth hour. So I ask that the legacy this board leaves be responsible -- dealing with growth in responsible fashion. Pass this moratorium for all of RT zoning. And if it comes down to having to choose between the settlers and the land barons, I hope this board will side with the covered wagon crowd. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: We need to go to the next -- the next speakers, but I hope everyone recognizes tonight the Board of County Commissioners does not vote on this tonight. We have the second meeting in January where the votes are taken. I'm just going to informally poll the board to see if there's anyone in opposition to establishing a moratorium on -- in the Vanderbilt area. And that may Page 13 December 19, 2001 help all the people who want to speak to us tonight, to let you know that we plan to go forward with the moratorium, looking at some fine-tuning of the language, but keeping in mind that intensity, density, and heights are the key things that brought this to us and the things that all of us sitting here tonight will be reacting upon. So I'd just kind of like to get an idea how the board feels. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, could I just suggest one minor modification? That I think it's a good idea, but there are people here who oppose this, and I think there are three or four of them. Perhaps we should listen to those people, those three or four, before we take that poll. Would that be fair? CHAIRMAN CARTER: How many people are here to speak to oppose it? That's what I need to know. Okay. We've got four. And everybody else is speaking for the moratorium. So after Mr. Connolly speaks to us, perhaps we could go to those who oppose it, with the pleasure of the board, and then you will have that input. And then we'll see what the board is feeling at that point and perhaps save all of you the time of having to sit here and tell us and tell us and tell us when you know we're already going to do what you want us to do. Mr. Connolly. MR. CONNOLLY: Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners, and welcome to the newest member. Last year was a really traumatic year for the people that live on -- my name is Joe Connolly, and I live at 10633 Gulfshore Drive -- was a really traumatic year for the residents of Gulfshore Drive, and we don't want that to happen again this year. And it was at your initiative that this whole concept came about. And I think it was called not a moratorium to begin with, but I like it better, an interim development control study. CHAIRMAN CARTER: The legal people told me, "It's a moratorium, Commissioner." MR. CONNOLLY: But, you know, it's going to give us a year Page 14 December 19, 2001 to take back and for you people to look at it, because what happened last year is a disaster. The La Playa, you didn't know what you were approving when you approved that, I know, because that's an albatross that we're going to live with the rest of our lives. We have a situation now on the Beachcomber, which, you know, it's going up as a 15-unit condo. Much better than the hotel, but it still is stretching the density issue, because ! understand the Supreme Court has ruled that any navigable waterway, the state controls the submerged land, so you can't consider that in density. And also, they have a building permit that I don't think is legal from the setback aspect. By the way, it is now the Bellagio Grande, not the Beachcomber. And you better get your code enforcement people, because knowing those developers, it sounds to me like it could be a casino. But -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, Joe, I got to keep an eye on you. You might be over there playing. MR. CONNOLLY: But, you know, really, traffic is one of the issues. And you're going to hear from the other people here that don't want to participate in the moratorium because they want to redevelop their property. They want to put 72 condominiums, I believe. They want a three-story parking garage. More importantly, they want a thousand-member beach club. Now, how are you going to get a thousand-member beach club into that little area? You won't four lane 11 lth Street, which was recommended by Dover Pohl (sic). And we have the La Playa beach club. We have the Signature Properties beach club that's coming along with their new ritzy, bitsy gated community that they're developing now. And, you know, from a traffic standpoint, it's just going to be horrible. It's -- you can't move in season now. What will happen if you let something like this take place? I'm not going to take any more time, other than that I hope you Page 15 December 19, 2001 will, you know, stick with what you said you wanted to do, which everybody agrees is the right thing. And let's not have any exemptions to that. A year? They can wait a year. They couldn't do anything with it in a year anyway. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. (Applause.) MR. DUNNUCK: Dwight Nadeau followed by Bruce Anderson. MR. NADEAU: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau, planning manager for RWA. The reason why I'm standing up here before you is primarily that I oppose moratoriums really without having taken a look at the ramifications of what a moratorium would do to that -- to that area. Now, first of all, there's a mor -- the proposed language would be a moratorium on building permits. Well, a moratorium on building permits would preclude any improvement to existing facilities that may need to have repairs for maintenance purposes. Further, what happens in the time of a hurricane or tropical storms? We've had instances, primarily Gabrielle, when it came through, it caused severe damage to many properties along the beach not only in the RT zone, but also in the RMF-16 zones as well. And, for example, the Vanderbilt Inn. When Gabrielle came through, there was 3 feet of water in the lower units -- or the lower rooms of the Vanderbilt Inn. And by precluding building permits, are you going to take away half of the revenues of the Vanderbilt Inn or any other property that may be damaged by a tropical storm? So going -- going into a moratorium without really thinking about the ramifications of it may not be prudent. And to quote Mrs. Ketcham, don't exclude any properties. Well, there are -- in addition to the RT-designated lands on Vanderbilt -- on Gulfshore Drive, there's a lot of RMF-16 land. And it's allowed to build to 75 feet, and Page 16 December 19, 2001 it's subject to DEP requirements, and they can have under building parking, and they can have any exemptions that are allowed by the Land Development Code for building height. If we're going to look at the Vanderbilt Beach area, why not look at it all? That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Bruce Anderson followed by Michael Moore. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I just ask a question? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. Excuse me, Dwight. Commissioner Fiala has a question for you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, actually not for him. I just wanted to ask, does this prohibit any repairs to things that are damaged by a hurricane, Susan? MS. MURRAY: Yes, Commissioner. The way it's written now, you would not be able to issue any development order. That would include a building permit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Even a repair permit? MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if a -- if a place had a hole knocked in it, could they not repair that big hole? MS. MURRAY: That's the way I read it. Marjorie, unless you have a different opinion but ... CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Dwight. MS. STUDENT: Yes. It was -- it was written broadly to give the commission, you know, something to go from. If the commission pleases, we could put an exemption for repairs. But one of the things I'm con -- and also if there was damage from a hurricane. But one of the things that causes some concern there is if you had a structure that was not built to the maximum standards for the RT district now and there was a hurricane and it was blown down and they came back in Page 17 December 19,2001 and wanted to build it to the maximum standards, then you would be right back, you know, where we are now. And it may be that we could craft some language -- look at that and craft some language to the effect that if-- in the event of such an eventuality, they would have to build it back to what -- what they had, for purposes of this moratorium or interim development control only. And we can look at that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Marjorie. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Just one other question. Don't we have the 50 percent rule in our code? MS. STUDENT: Yes. That if-- if you are destroyed by over 50 percent and you're nonconforming, you have to build back in accordance with that. But if we put the hurricane exception in here, then they could go under the RT as it now stands. And if memory serves me correctly, Susan, isn't the height limit there still either 10 stories or a hundred feet? So it's not that, you know, there's any nonconformities at that height or anything. That's what the standard is now. So they -- it's not that they're legal conforming at that height. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the kind of damage that was just described is less than 50 percent of the entire structure. Consequently that damage could be repaired without building to the new standards. MS. STUDENT: That's in a different area. That's in the legal nonconforming situation where the code was changed and you have a structure under the old code and the -- have different standards now. And that would mean if it was destroyed at less than 50 percent of its value, it wouldn't have to be built back, you know, under the new code. It could be like it was. And we could possibly look at some language like that for this, that in other words, if-- in the event of a -- and I'd want to limit it. I don't know that I'd want to put all casualties Page 18 December 19, 2001 in there, like fire and all the things that could happen. But in the event of a hurricane storm event, we could put some language in there that tracks that, that if it's, you know, 50 percent or more -- well, in that case, if it's 50 percent or more, I don't know if they -- if we'd want to catch them in the moratorium; and less than 50 percent would be that, you know, they could build in accordance with the RT. But it's something that we can look at and compare against the language in the code and, you know, bring it back for your consideration. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wouldn't we also want to permit someone to repair fire damage if we had fire in one of those units? MS. STUDENT: Well, the 50 percent rule comes in again there. And we could -- we could add that, any casualty. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, fellow commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I represent Van-Dev, Inc., the owner of the property on which the Vanderbilt Inn is located. And let me digress for just a moment about the conversation that you-all were just having. That's a perfect example of-- of how hastily crafted and poorly crafted this moratorium ordinance is. It is so overbroad that it catches everything. And if somebody needed to put, you know, a new fixture on their toilet that required a county permit, they'd be S.O.L. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Folks, I've sat through a lot of commission meetings. I've been through some that are more emotionally impacted than this. We don't need the ohs and ahs and clapping and yelling. This commission will hear everybody. Everybody has a right to be heard. I will not tolerate unacceptable behavior, folks. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My client had Page 19 December 19, 2001 planned to make application before the middle of this next year to redevelop their property from a 148-room hotel with two public restaurants to a 76- to 78-unit condominium with a private beach club. The redevelopment proposal that we have been working on would have asked for a conditional use approval for an extra 25 feet in building height above the 100 feet in building height that has been allowed by county zoning on this property and other RT-zoned property since the mid 1960s. I couldn't help but chuckle when I heard the discussion about the land barons and the settlers. Well, my client is one of the settlers. And when they bought their property back in the '70s, they were allowed to build 26 units per acre and up to a hundred feet in heighth. And on behalf of that settler, I'm here to make a claim. Now, as part of the redevelopment proposal that would have been submitted is the first new publicly dedicated beach access in about 20 years in Collier County. Now, in conjunction with that new public beach access proposal, the beach accessway would be improved. And we would propose to triple the number of parking spaces at the end of Bluebill Avenue and turn those parking spaces and the new improved beach accessway over to Collier County. We would triple the number of parking spaces. There are 20 there now. We would repave those, restripe them, and provide an additional 40 inside the building that we would be constructing there. And if FEMA would allow it, we would also provide public rest rooms. My client -- I handed out to you a copy of the zoning map, and you'll notice at the top there the little yellow highlighted portion is my client's property. It is RT-zoned property that is not connected to any other RT-zoned property. We're requesting that our property be excluded from the proposed moratorium boundaries for the following reasons: Number one, the approvals that we would be seeking for this property already Page 20 December 19, 2001 require advertised public hearings and approval and review by the public anyway. Secondly, we are unique among all other RT-zoned property because we are an isolated piece of RT zoning that doesn't abut any other RT zoning. We're way at the northern end of the zoning map sandwiched between two 146-feet-high condominium buildings on the south and Wiggins Pass Park on the north. Also unique among the RT properties, we do not depend solely on Gulfshore Drive for our access. We also have direct access to Bluebill Avenue. We are the only property owner along Gulfshore Drive that is proposing to provide a new public beach access facility at our cost. As I said, it's been almost 20 years since any new public beach access has been provided in Collier County. And in a time of tight budgets, you have a property owner who is offering not just a way to get to the beach, but a place to park as well. The foregoing are valid factual bases for treating this isolated piece of RT-zoned property differently from the rest of the RT-zoned lands that are clustered together farther along -- south along Gulfshore Drive. Let me just wrap up here. The feeling that I'm getting from talking to some of the neighbors is that they've already made up their minds about what ought to be done about lowering building heights and lowering densities. And if that is the -- really the ultimate objective and everybody really has their mind made up, why go through the needless expense and charade of a year-long hearing? Let's just cut to the chase, cut the building heights, cut the densities, and figure out what the damages are going to be and how the county is going to pay for the Harris Act claims that will result, because for 40 years the RT zoning here has allowed 26 units per acre and a hundred-foot building height as a matter of right. And if a new law lowers the building heights and lowers the density and it has Page 21 December 19, 2001 an effect on the fair market value -- which it will; I'm not an appraiser, so I don't know a number. But the Harris Act provides that the county is going to have to pay for that difference in fair market value. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up, Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. All the people who purchased homes and condos along Vanderbilt Drive had the knowledge, either actual or implied, that the neighboring properties allowed hundred- foot building heights and 26 units per acre as a matter of right. The rest of the taxpayers in the county should not be stuck with that tab if the building heights and the densities are lowered. Instead, the county ought to set up a Harris Act special taxing district just for the residents along Vanderbilt Drive so they can write the checks to pay for the damages and the rest of the taxpayers in the county who would love to have an additional beach access point and public parking on Vanderbilt Beach don't have to pay that tab. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please. MR. DUNNUCK: Michael Moore followed by Michael Moore. MR. MOORE: Good evening, members of the commission. My name is Michael Moore, and I am speaking on behalf of the Vanderbilt Beach Resort, which is a small property at the end of the beach closest to the Ritz-Carlton that's been in my family for over 30 years at this point. I guess I never knew before tonight that my family was a bunch of land barons, and I'm certain that my grandfather would have been very surprised by that characterization when he first set foot on Vanderbilt Beach more than 35 years ago at a small hotel which then was only 30 rooms. Our hotel -- some of the structures on our hotel are more than 50 years old. In fact, this year the middle building of the resort celebrated its 50th anniversary. And as far as I know, it's Page 22 December 19, 2001 the second oldest beach hotel only to the Naples Beach Hotel downtown. Needless to say, when my grandfather first purchased this property, there was no traffic. We have pictures of him in a Jeep. There wasn't even a road, much less any other development. Over the years, of course, things have sprung up around this property, and this commission -- not this particular board but this commission -- has allowed the development to take a certain course and more recently has approved certain things, including the La Playa development and the Beachcomber -- or not specifically the Beachcomber, but approved changes to the land code that allowed certain properties to take certain steps on the -- on the beach. The zoning worked very well for a long period of time. Respectfully I suggest that the recent congestion problems are due to upzoning that may have occurred to allow increased density, which I understand have been corrected, commendably, by the board. I echo the comments of the speakers who have gone before me that a moratorium is a drastic step. And in particular with regards to my family's property, which is a very old structure which, if a hurricane comes, is going to need to be repaired and which also is eventually going to need to be redeveloped -- it's a very old piece of property -- a moratorium is a very drastic step. We urge the court (sic) to reconsider this, especially in light of the broadness and the breadth of the -- of the provision now which prevents any renova -- any renovations to the property or any repair to the property in light of a hurricane. With that said, I think I'll just defer to the comments made by my predecessors who I think stated some of the other problems with the moratorium. But we just wanted to go on record that -- that we don't support it. And we've been here a long time, and we think we've been good stewards of the land on Vanderbilt Beach and -- and Page 23 December 19, 2001 hope that the -- the good folks who have come here tonight to oppose this can understand a different point of view from people who have been here and have appreciated the same view off the beach for a long time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Before you leave, sir, just one point of clarification. Currently you do allow access through your property to the beach, but that is strictly your prerogative. There's no agreements in writing with anyone, and that's something that you have just done because you choose to do so; am I correct on that? MR. MOORE: You are correct in the sense that our property is a more open property than many of the properties on the beach. In fact, one of the beauties of the property is that you can see the beach from just -- almost even just driving by the property. And people do occasionally pass through the property to go to the beach or to eat at a restaurant. That's not something that we necessarily tell everybody come and do that. Obviously we have guests at the resort who expect a certain degree of privacy. But you are right, that that does happen, and it's not anything that -- that we necessarily prevent. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MR. MOORE: Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Your next speaker is Michael Moore, Senior. MR. MOORE: Commissioners, my name is Michael Moore, Senior. I'm the present owner of Vanderbilt Beach Resort, and I'll keep it very brief. I agree with all the sentiments of my son. And my main concern is that if we do -- like was spoken before, if we ever had a hurricane or any need to redo our property and we didn't meet the 50 percent rule, this moratorium would exclude that, and I'm extremely concerned about that. So I think everything else that was said against the moratorium I am in full agreement with. And thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. All right. Members of Page 24 December 19, 2001 the board, you know the rest of the speakers -- I believe that's all the people wanting to speak in -- against the moratorium; am I correct? MR. DUNNUCK: I believe so. CHAIRMAN CARTER: The rest of the speakers tonight will be coming in for you -- in front of you to say why they think we ought to have one. At this point does the board have questions of staff or anything that's raised concerns on your part before we proceed? Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. The only thing I do have is I'd like to see something -- some kind of provision made so that if there is damage to someone's property, that they have to replace it as it was. We give them the opportunity to do that without forcing them to redevelop. We want to keep it in the same -- same -- what do I want to say -- limits as they're built in right now. Like, for instance, Mike's property, his property is old, and we would hate to see a ten- story building there to replace a hole in the wall and a one-story building, but allow him to repair it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Other commissioners, other No. I just wanted to add, I -- I take it you mean everything, not just a hurricane. It would be any kind of a -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, any kind of a tragedy. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm sensing casualty losses, you could replace whatever you have today; is that what I'm hearing? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. In addition, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the staff take a look at the issue we raised earlier about accessory structures and exclude the prohibition of accessory structures that do not in any way contribute to height, density, traffic -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Intensity. Page 25 December 19, 2001 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that including dock -- docks into the lagoon or anything, or are you talking just about, like, chickees or screened enclosures? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm concerned about the docks. That's why I'm -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure I understand the problem with docks. We have setback requirements right now, and I am -- I'm not sure how much of a concern there is. But if docks are an important issue, then I'd -- I'd be willing to have them excluded under this particular provision. But there are a number of items that are currently planned to be excluded that clearly have nothing to do with the issues that are at hand. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I think, Commissioner Fiala, your concern, if I'm understanding, is docks that extend -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- into the water. But if you had parallel docks, would that be an issue? See, I think we got a whole LDC under docks, and I'm concerned that we wander into one code with something that belongs in another. And I need help from staff on this because I don't want to mix apples and oranges. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray for the record. I guess I'm not really sure how to answer your question, other than I think we need to take a look at docks in the area. But, you know, at this point in time, I could say that's not our main focus. I know we've had concern about docks in the Vanderbilt Lagoon in the past, and to say that I'm not going to -- we're not going to look at it I think would be wrong. But the -- I'll leave that up to you in terms of-- MS. STUDENT: And I just want to state for the record that this was brought to the board in a broad fashion so you could look at Page 26 December 19, 2001 everything and make a determination of what you felt was appropriate to address and what not. About the accessory structures, I do want to state that some of them are shops, personal service establishments, eating, entertainment facility, eating or drinking establishments, and so on. And I'll have to consult with staff to see what one of those -- a parking garage might be an example -- may trip a height issue or even a setback issue, because one of the problems was the language of the setbacks and how it was worded and the fact that the setbacks may not be wide enough and there's no opportunity for a view corridor that a pedestrian or motorist in the area -- and it is unique because we have water on the lagoon side and water on the Gulf side. And so setbacks are a concern. So we can look at that with staff and come back with some language, as well as the casualty language, which would be hurricane, fire, etc. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would think between your expertise among 16 attorneys in this county and our legal counsel in Tallahassee that we could come up with some crafting that would make everybody reasonably assured that we could cover all the bases. MS. STUDENT: Thank you very much, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: If you have no further discussion about that topic, I believe your next topic was the automobile -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we have a lot of speakers yet. MS. MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. We were just -- we're just trying to get a sense of where the board is on this issue. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm supportive of the changes -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- with the clarification that Page 27 December 19, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's one, two, three at this point. I've got four -- four nods up here. So I think unless you have a burning desire to speak to us this evening, that you're sensing the direction of this board is to go with the -- with the proposal with some crafting under the words of accessories but staying with the main things. But anybody that wants to speak certainly may speak to the issue if you signed up. I see a hand -- I see a hand or two into the air, so maybe we can go to those. I see a lot of hands. So why don't you just run the names, see if they want to speak. If you don't, you need to waive your right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: A lot of people want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. MR. DUNNUCK: Dick Lydon followed by Carol Wright. MR. LYDON: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Nice to have you aboard, Mr. Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. MR. LYDON: This will be very brief. Moratorium, fine. One year, fine. What happens in that year? We now have a Wilson -- or a Vanderbilt corridor study that has been given to WilsonMiller to do the whole area. We are now talking about staff who are going to do a study to tell us what's going on. When we get down at the end of the year, I suspicion the problem will be that we've committed it to death again. So I wanted to pose that little point and say that it would be nice, rather than just sitting there on our hands, to really sit down and put it all together and do something. And let's not let those two studies, the staff study, the WilsonMiller study, conflict. I am very concerned about what happens at Twin Eagles. I trust this will stop that. That's been stopped for so damn long now we just sit there with an empty building wondering if and when Signature's ever going to do anything with it. You can't get anybody to tell you if, when, or what. So those are just a couple of thoughts I have. But Page 28 December 19, 2001 please, moratorium, whatever, let's sit down and get something done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. MR. DUNNUCK: Carol Wright followed by Donald Patnode. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Ms. Wright waives. MR. DUNNUCK: Donald Patnode followed by Roberta Jean Patnode. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Two waives. MR. DUNNUCK: Paul Picher followed by Rita Doody. MR. PICHER: Paul Picher. I waive also, and I support the moratorium. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. MS. DOODY: I'm Rita Doody. I'm for the moratorium. MR. DUNNUCK: Winifred Picher followed by Robert Doody. MS. PICHER: I'm in favor of the moratorium, and I pass. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MR. DOODY: Robert Doody. I'm in favor and I pass. Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: J. D. -- J. W. Callisur (phonetic) followed by Dr. Bing. MR. CALLISON: It's Callison, and I'm in favor of the moratorium. And I'm with the covered wagon group. DR. BING: Richard Bing, president of Vanderbilt Gulfside Condominium Association. Thank you for your public service. We're just south of the Vanderbilt Inn. We have 8 acres which is zoned differently. It is zoned 16 stories. And comparisons have been made, well, why can't we do this because we're next to these tall buildings. Well, it's a different RT area that's north of us. And if we really want to stay as the settlers, maybe we should give that property or sell that property to whoever owns the park, the state, and allow that to expand, because that closes because it's so full. And there's a Page 29 December 19, 2001 lot of public access to the park. So all I'm doing is reiterating my support for the moratorium. And I agree with the speaker who said let's have a plan of how we're going to address that during the course of this year so that at the end of the time, we're all clear, and everybody had their chance to make an input. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Both those studies will be integrated, by the way. MR. DUNNUCK: Karen Norman followed by Marjorie McCallison (sic). MS. NORMAN: Karen Norman. I just want to reiterate that the -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ma'am, if you're going to speak, you'll have to come to the mike. If you're waiving, thank you. Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Marjorie McCallison followed by Suzanne Wegner. CHAIRMAN CARTER: She waived. MS. WEGNER: I support the moratorium. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Dulcie Poznansky followed by William Eline. MS. POZNANSKY: I support the moratorium too, but I'll pass. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MR. ELINE: Commissioners, I support the moratorium, but I -- CARTER: For the record, sir, you'll have to CHAIRMAN identify yourself. MR. ELINE: CHAIRMAN MR. ELINE: William B. Eline. CARTER: Thank you, sir. I support the moratorium request, but I would like to ask that we include in the study, when it's made, the ramifications of FEMA and insurance on the property in the whole Vanderbilt Page 30 December 19, 2001 Beach area. At our Vanderbilt Yacht and Racket Club this year, our insurance has gone up 25 percent. If we get in trouble with FEMA, it would be a disaster. So I just respectfully request that it be included and that the county workers get into it deeply and make sure what we're going to do so we don't get in trouble. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think, Mr. Chairman, we are challenging FEMA's finding. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we have a consultant who is working on that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's being challenged, sir, and it's in the process, and that is a different -- MR. DUNNUCK: And this is probably a good opportunity to put the plug in. We're in the finalize -- we're finalizing sending the challenge in and putting it in this week, as a matter of fact, and we've been very encouraged with our findings. We went out and did surveys individually with a lot of surveyors in town, and using their methodology we have found that in each case, every single one of the cases, they were incorrect in their findings. So I think we have a pretty strong case going in. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It shouldn't surprise anybody. CHAIRMAN CARTER: It shouldn't surprise anybody that FEMA doesn't have it together. But if you listen to -- listen to them coming in front of us, you would think that they had been anointed and had all the answers. But we did not buy that. We did our own studies, and we will get there. MR. DUNNUCK: You've got Dr. Poznansky followed by LaiTy Wegner. DR. POZNANSKY: I support the moratorium. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. MR. WEGNER: Larry Wegner, and I'll support the moratorium Page 31 December 19, 2001 with -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. MR. DUNNUCK: Earl MacArthur followed by Ben Gildersleeve. MR. MacARTHUR: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Earl MacArthur. I'm the president of Vanderbilt Landings Condominium Association, which would be directly across the street from the proposed Vanderbilt Inn redevelopment. I have listened to Attorney Anderson now twice in his presentations, and I think the people in Vanderbilt Landings are most significantly disturbed about the traffic congestion that could occur. If you just think about the number of automobiles that could be traversing Gulfshore Drive and Bluebill Avenue, 11 lth Avenue to access that beach club, even if only 30 percent of them, that's 300 automobiles combined with the 1300 which would emanate from the Dunes and Vicker Carol Pointe (phonetic) and then the normal traffic that moves up and down Gulfshore Drive. I have written to every one of you and indicated that we need to be aware of the law of unintended consequences, that you may take an action and you may do it in the best spirit of your action, but the consequences of the act have to be weighed. It's my opinion that this moratorium is the best action you can take and that we have a new plan and a new set of rules by which we all can play. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MR. DUNNUCK: Ben Gildersleeve followed by John Hickey. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ben Gildersleeve waives. John Hickey. MR. HICKEY: Beachwalk Residents Association supports the moratorium, and I will waive. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. MR. DUNNUCK: Jack Stevens followed by Gordon Dix. Page 32 December 19, 2001 MR. STEVENS: Jack Stevens in favor of the moratorium. I waive. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. MR. DUNNUCK: I believe that's Mr. Dix waiving back there. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Dix is waiving. MR. DUNNUCK: Fred Rice followed by Thomas Tegen. MR. RICE: I waive, but I support the moratorium. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. MR. TEGEN: I'm waiving. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. MR. DUNNUCK: Frank Halas, and your final speaker is Maurice Moriarty. MR. HALAS: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Frank Halas. I live at 405 Flamingo Avenue. I came to this wonderful town -- my first visit here was 1986, and about -- as I was driving around the city here, I found a wonderful jewel. It was located up just north of Naples city limits, and it was called Vanderbilt Beach. And one of the first places that I visited was the Vanderbilt Inn. And what made it so romantic was the fact that you could go out there and enjoy the sunset with a cocktail and see everything, the dolphins in the water. Now, as I've moved here and now I have a residence in Vanderbilt Beach, I sometimes wonder if that was the right move. What I see now is a canyonization of what -- what's taking place up there along Gulfshore Drive. When I first came to this town, there was a few smatherings of condominiums along with some homes. And as you drove along Van -- drove along the Gulfshore Drive, you could see the beautiful Gulf. I think -- I'm in favor of the moratorium, but I also think that other plans ought to be looked at, and that is that Mr. Carter at one of his recent speeches made a mention that the No. 1 industry here in Page 33 December 19, 2001 Collier County was tourism. And with that we got right now a density of 250,000 people here, and we have limited access to the beaches. In fact, many of the beaches along Gulfshore Drive, whether it's in Naples or whether it's up at Gulfshore Drive in Vanderbilt Beach area, are what I consider semiprivatized and is strictly only for the select few that can use that. And I feel that with the advent of us looking in the next 20 years of 500,000 people, that we ought to take into consideration what we're going to do with those people along with how we're going to build Vanderbilt Beach area. I got some suggestions in that as we rebuild Vanderbilt Beach, that heights be put on buildings of five to seven stories and that adequate greenspace be put between each building so even though you don't live in that area, that if you're a tourist or if you're a resident, that you can take a drive down along Gulf Shore Boulevard off season, when we don't have the 500,000 people here, and at least see -- get a glimpse of the Gulf. And also, if we could have some restaurants. Right now we've got the Vanderbilt Inn and the Vanderbilt Beach Resort that's only open to the people that, if you find a parking spot, you can go and have your favorite libation and watch the scenery and watch the sunsets. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Your final speaker is Maurice Moriarty. MR. MORIARTY: Good evening, and thanks for sitting through your dinner hour. I hope this'll be brief. I appear here because I live on Vanderbilt Drive at Vanderbilt Villas. And I met with an attorney today to see what was going on in our place, and it was, of course, encroachment there. The reason I'm really appearing is this morning -- the mm-in to The Dunes is right across the street. And the last two days I've been here, it's awakened me. But what really got me down here this evening is that the diesels Page 34 December 19, 2001 that are going by there and turning in there, I went to the sink and here's all diesel dust in my place. This is right across the street from The Dunes, and they turn in right directly across from me. Now, last year I was greeted by my place with a new place right adjacent to me. I look out at it. And I've e-mailed all of you, so you're aware of where I'm coming from, and thank you very much for your kind consideration there. But to be very honest with you, that's really not why I'm here this evening. It happens that I have kind of a unique basis or a background in technology and energy. And I see this very fragile, beautiful area as something that's different in the whole world, for that matter. I mean, it's -- it's a treasure, and it has to be dealt with in that sense. But I - without getting into detail on this -- and believe me, afterwards if anybody wants to ask me about it, I'll sure share statistics and all kinds of information that will prove my point. The State of Florida last year -- let's put it there. In California they had a monumental energy problem, and they're still suffering from it. In fact, the seventh largest corporation in the country went down, that being Enron. It has to do with natural gas. What we don't realize, a lot of us, the reason the lights go on is not because of electricity; it's because of natural gas generation. General Electric likes it because they sell generators. We're running out of natural gas. And I'm going to make a prediction to this group tonight. In 20 years we'll be out of natural gas. I'll repeat that. In 20 years we'll be out of natural gas. Now, this is why I appear, because when you think long term, short term, or have something like happened in California last year or Texas or anywhere, for that matter, we are subject to not only water and the environment, but energy. In fact, I say that unless we come up with something in the next ten years, we're going to be in energy peril. Page 35 December 19, 2001 And every place that we live in -- and many of us have two places, so we're a little greedy, I think. But it's a condition that's coming upon us. It isn't just the density anymore; it's the number of units that require air conditioning, power. And if you wish, H1 state all the facts that I know of about energy. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sir, you need to get to wrap-up, and I appreciate -- MR. MORIARTY: Okay. What I want to tell you is that when you look out here into the future, expand that global reach and your visions here, because it goes further than just a moratorium on something of this nature. We're all going to be a victim of it sooner or later. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. That would be a good plug for nuclear energy plants. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It might be something that we should consider as a concurrency item too. COMMISSIONER FIALA: My son's a nuclear scientist. Maybe he could help design it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That might be a conflict of interest, Commissioner, but next -- next -- MR. DUNNUCK: That concludes the speakers I have on my list unless I missed anybody. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any further comments on this from the board? Ms. Murray, are you comfortable with direction now to some language issues that we have? MS. MURRAY: Yes, I am. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: move on to the next item. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Okay. If we've done that, then we can The next item would be the parking in the residential areas, and that's on page 38 of your packets. Page 36 December 19, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: And thank all the people here tonight. If you'll kind of exit kind of quietly, we'll move on to the next one. Appreciate it. Thank you so much. MS. MURRAY: I'll just give you a brief summary. I guess it had become apparent to the board that single-family residential areas in particular, but not exclusively, have too large of an area of the front yard utilized for automobiles and that you-all expressed concern tO us that -- about the degree to which parking is permitted and allowed to kind of overpower the view of these residential structures. And I point out two areas of the county in particular, Golden Gate City and Naples Park, as examples of where this is a problem. And you feel that this has produced a negative effect on the quality of these residential areas. To that end, we've developed, at your direction, this proposed amendment to the LDC which deals with automobile parking in conjunction with residential structures. And I'll just give you a brief summary of what it's comprised of. Basically it provides for regulation -- and, again, we're talking about parking within the front yard, and the front yard is defined as the front building line to the right-of-way line. And where we have single-family dwelling units, unless automobiles are parked in an enclosed structure, then there is a limitation on parking in the front yard to 40 percent of the required front yard. And that would be on, as it's drafted now, pervious or impervious surface area. And this would not stand to limit the width of a driveway to less than 20 feet. That would be for single-family residential. For two family dwellings, including duplexes, unless otherwise parked or stored in an enclosed structure, there would be a limitation to pervious or imperviously treated areas of the lot which may not comprise an area greater than 50 percent of any required front yard and, again, with a -- a minimum driveway width of 20 feet. And this Page 37 December 19, 2001 also provides that a driveway may be provided on each side of a two- family structure, if that's so feasible. In multifamily where you have three or more dwelling units, again unless otherwise parked in an enclosed parking structure, it will be limited to pervious or imperviously treated surface areas of the lot not to exceed a ratio of 2.5 automobiles per dwelling unit in the event that, as it's drafted, all parking spaces are not located within an enclosed structure or any combination of open air and enclosed structure. So this is slightly different. This would allow your carports and your garages. Where multifamily structures consist of single-family attached dwelling units, again parking is restricted to driveway areas and garage and/or garage combinations. And I want to add "or specifically designated improved parking lots serving a development." A lot of these developments have side parking lots that they have for guests and whatnot. They are improved and striped, as appropriate, so ! thought that should probably apply as well, but that's not in your packet. The further -- the code further goes on to say that the automobiles which are parked and stored in connection with residential structures shall be owned by the occupants of the dwelling units unless the vehicle is owned by a firm or a business which employs the occupant of the dwelling unit, and this shall not be construed to apply to automobile/vehicles which are owned by persons or business firms either visiting the site on -- for business purposes or social purposes. Then the ordinance goes on to say that no other portion of the front yard should be used to park or store automobiles including that portion of the right-of-way not directly a part of the designated driveway or designated parking area. So in a sense, this restricts parking to those areas that are previously or imperviously treated and Page 38 December 19, 2001 specifically designated for parking. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. How does duplexes apply to this language? MS. MURRAY: Well, the duplexes, again, would be limited to an area no greater than 50 percent of the required front yard. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this considering the setbacks, side yard setbacks? MS. MURRAY: Yes. Well, this deals just with the front yard. Okay. This-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: The front yard setbacks? MS. MURRAY: Exactly. So it's the area between the front building line and the right-of-way line that this ordinance would apply to. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And your input about guest parking, can you tell me how that applies? MS. MURRAY: The guest parking we addressed by just saying that the regulations do not apply to vehicles either owned by persons that do not live in the dwelling units but are visiting for social purposes or business purposes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I like it. MS. MURRAY: The one thing I wanted to bring to your attention which was a little bit of a source of debate at the Development Services Advisory Committee is we had originally drafted this as being restricted to impervious areas only, that being areas that are paved, but at their suggestion, changed it to allow impervious as well as pervious areas. So it would be -- it could be treated with gravel or something of that nature as well. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could it be construed as grass? MS. MURRAY: No. It would have to be specifically treated to allow parking. Page 39 December 19, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta, and then I believe Commissioner Coyle had a question. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would these rules apply equally to Golden Gate Estates or Immokalee and the agricultural lands also? MS. MURRAY: These apply to automobile parking in conjunction with residential structures. So to answer your question, yes, anywhere where a residential structure is permitted by right in the zoning district. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, you wouldn't be able to take a vehicle out in the back of your property in the estates and park it out behind the house? MS. MURRAY: No. This applies only to the front yard. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to -- MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. It would apply to estates as well. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. In other words, at no point in time would someone be allowed to take their truck out in the back yard and park it back there. MS. MURRAY: You can, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can park it back there? MS. MURRAY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And how about Immokalee being an unincorporated community out in the far reaches of Collier County? How would that affect them, the same as it would Golden Gate City? MS. MURRAY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have a number of people here from Immokalee. Maybe they would wish to address that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coyle and then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to ask you to restate the Page 40 December 19, 2001 conditions upon which an automobile can be parked -- or any kind of vehicle can be parked on the shoulder or right-of-way of the road. MS. MURRAY: That's not permitted as -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not permitted at all? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I thought there was a question about guest parking, and it was permitted -- MS. MURRAY: The -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- if someone was -- go ahead. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. No. Go ahead. MS. MURRAY: The issue -- I believe the question was -- and it pertained to the section of the code as drafted that says the vehicles that are parked there have to be owned by the occupants except where you are a guest, and then you still have to -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: MS. MURRAY: In the -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Parked where? Right-of-way? MS. MURRAY: No. In the front yard -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, in the front yard. MS. MURRAY: -- on the specifically designated areas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But there's no parking whatsoever permitted on the right-of-way. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. This ordinance does not allow that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you say you wanted to add specifically designated areas? Is that what you wanted to add, that little sentence? MS. MURRAY: I wanted to add where you have multifamily structures which consist of single-family attached units, in some case Page 41 December 19, 2001 what you'll have is individual driveways and garages, of course, to serve each unit. But in some developments they'll develop, off the main access point to these structures, designated parking areas for guest parking. And I didn't want to exclude that -- or actually, I wanted to include that because that is the case sometimes when you go into some of these developments, so I didn't want to exclude it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And if I'm understanding this, this is on some time line basis. I mean, if Mr. And Mrs. Smith have a party at their home and there's cars lined down the street for four or five hours, what happens? MS. MURRAY: They all need to be parked in the specifically designated area of the lot. CHAIRMAN CARTER: If it's a street, though, where they're not parking on grass -- they may have four cars in the driveway, they may have three or four parked on the street -- then what? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. My understanding of this regulation would apply to the permanent storage or, you know, the -- it wouldn't be temporary storage when you're having a party or having some guests visit for purposes of, you know, performing a function at your house or just visiting for a short period of time. So it would apply to the permanent storage of vehicles. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then as long as you weren't interfering with people traversing the street is what I'm kind of hearing in this too. MS. ARNOLD: There always is a concern with the safety when there's vehicles parked in the right-of-way, and that's why we don't want to encourage that. Now, if there's available space within this -- improved areas, of course, we would be encouraging people to park in those areas. But it's going to be a difficult thing to enforce when it's, like, a party, someone's having a party, and there are too many Page 42 December 19, 2001 guests. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you. Are there other difficulties in enforcement with this? MS. ARNOLD: Well, one of the things that -- that I'm not clear of-- on is, is this going to apply retroactively? I think that was probably the intent, to develop these regulations so that we can correct some of the existing problems. And then will there be any period of time that we want to give people to comply with these regulations? Because it's going to be a costly measure for people to improve these surfaces. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. We ought to give them at least a couple weeks. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. When we -- when we put this in place -- we have a big problem with this in Naples Manor. A lot of people park in the right-of-way, on the grass, anyplace that they can find. And, of course, they do this at night and on the weekends when code enforcement isn't working. And if the -- if the sheriff's office is called, they say it's a code problem. What are we going to do about enforcement in the Manor? MS. ARNOLD: Good question. our commercial vehicles regulations. Similar to how we're enforcing We would probably have to set up special sweeps of neighborhoods, so we're doing those regul -- we're doing the enforcement measures after our regular business hours. So we'll have to set up those things. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's been my experience that code enforcement is not an effective way to deal with -- with these kinds of circumstances because there is no immediate punishment for violating the law. You provide them a notice. They have a certain time to remove the vehicle. They move the vehicle. They come back Page 43 December 19, 2001 in a half hour. And they can do the same thing, or they do it the next day. Is there any other way that we can deal with this issue, like issuing citations for fines in order to enforce these regulations? MS. ARNOLD: We do have the ability to issue citations. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you're going to be able to do that under these circumstances; right? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we will be able to assess fines if people violate these -- these regulations? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We have a citation process. It's as you described. Initially we do have to provide notice and time to correct. And thereafter, if it reoccurs, we have the ability to cite them with a hundred-dollar fine. And then each time thereafter the fine gets a little bit larger, but not to exceed $500. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I had a question by Commissioner Fiala, and then I'll go to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't have one. Just thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Did I miss -~ did you have your hand waiving down there? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I did not. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Last final comment, and we probably ought to go to public speakers. I think this ordinance is going to be simple to enforce. The only difficult thing is Mr. Olliff authorizing evening hours to work on this. And there should be a grace period. Two weeks is just -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good sense of humor, Commissioner Henning. I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would hope that we can clean up these communities such as Naples Park, Naples Manor, Golden Page 44 December 19, 2001 Gate, and Bayshore by the end of next year and -- so that, you know, we don't run into this problem again. And what we want to do is to bring back neighborhoods -- what they're intended to be is, you know, single-family home, whether it's a -- a working family of two kids working and a parent, parents, two parents, four vehicles, there's still ample -- should be ample room for them to do it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, you're right. I know Naples Park and District 2 is the one that struggles with this all the time. And, you know, we've got to find a way to make it work, whatever we do. So how many speakers do we have, Mr. Dunnuck? MR. DUNNUCK: You have nine registered speakers. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Is the -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: How many opposed? CHAIRMAN CARTER: How many are opposed to this? What is the feeling of the board? Is there anyone that is not in favor of doing this? I don't see anybody saying that they are opposed. So what I am sensing from this board is you have five commissioners that want to fix the problem. If you want to speak to us, you may. But if you want to waive, we'd appreciate it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter, I would like to hear from some of the -- I know we have some community leaders that have worked on some of this issue, and I think it's important to really see if this is going to fix their problem and how else can we assist them. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Fine. If there's someone that's speaking for a community leadership group -- or in the role of community leadership for a group, fine. And anybody else that wants to speak certainly may do so, so let's go to speakers. MR. DUNNUCK: Vera Fitz-Gerald followed by Glenn Wilt. Page 45 December 19, 2001 MS. FITZ-GERALD: Okay. I'll try to keep this brief because I certainly don't want to snatch victory -- or defeat out of the jaws of victory. I want to send this around, although this probably isn't necessary. I'm sure you all know what the problem is. And I really -- Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Commissioner Henning for doing this. My God, we've wanted to do this for years, and I'm so grateful. Everybody in Naples Park is grateful, and thank you. We really support this. There's only one thing that I am concerned about, and that is the duplexes, giving 50 percent. In the single families, you have 40 percent. So 40 percent of a 50-foot lot is 20 feet, and so why isn't that sufficient for a duplex, two 20-foot driveways? Why do we have to have 50 percent? Why isn't 40 percent sufficient? It's a hundred- foot lot; you get a 20 foot driveway. Could we think about that? And as for enforcing it, there are community groups. Glenn Wilt certainly is big in Golden Gate, and we have a gentleman that's head of the -- chair of the Naples Park enforcement group, and we Will certainly locate a lot of the regular -- whatever you want to call them, yeah -- violators and turn them in. I can't think of anything else that I have to say. Oh, I do want to make sure that this -- there's no grandfathering, no grandfathering. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're not going to let any grandfathers park out there. MS. FITZ-GERALD: All right. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Vera. Happy holidays to yOtl. City. MR. DUNNUCK: Glenn Wilt followed by Jack Mischung. MR. WILT: Good evening, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good evening, Glenn. MR. WILT: My name is Glenn Wilt, and I live in Golden Gate Presently I'm chairman of the code volunteers, and we support Page 46 December 19, 2001 this change 100 percent. These are code volunteers in Golden Gate City. In addition, I'm the incoming president for the Golden Gate City Area Civic Association, some 300 members strong, and we also support this change. As you may recall, at the code enforcement workshop, which I was permitted to attend just a month or so ago and I was permitted to make a presentation, private vehicle parking in residential properties is one of our major problems in Golden Gate City and one of our priority items to get action taken in something like this that's enforceable. I've been working with Vera Fitz-Gerald and people here for the last three years discussing this problem. It started out as grass parking, but we found a new term for it, you know. It's permitted parking. There needs to be a limit to the area and the amount of yard available for parking in each private residence. I think the change points that out. Now, I realize in the area we have a number of vehicles; however, unlike other areas of Collier County, we cannot enforce deed restrictions and have the homeowner keep his car in the garage. If we did, we'd probably have to move out some beds of the people that are over -- too many people in one residence. I mention that for the fact because we're working on another change to come forward to you to make a very vital change to the Land Development Code, and that is the number of people permitted to reside in a single-family residence. You'll be seeing that in the future sometime. You mentioned right-of-way parking, I believe, the question came up. Right-of-way parking, if you read the law book, it's not a code enforcement problem; it's a Collier County Sheriff's problem. Parking in the right-of-way is his responsibility to enforce as part of the roadway. It's a major problem we have, this residential parking, and we need the tools in place to restrict it to some extent so that not every front yard is a parking lot for eight to ten vehicles. Page 47 December 19, 2001 As I mentioned at the start, the code volunteers and civic association of Golden Gate are in full support of this change. And let me emphasize, we do not want and do not support a grandfather clause in any case whatsoever. In an effort to be fair to landlords and to property owners, we do support -- we do support a time frame for landlords to bring their tenants into compliance. At the outside, absolute minimum -- absolute maximum, one year if the person has just signed a one-year lease, no longer than that. We will not -- we do not consider anything longer than that -- and, in fact, if we could shorten it in any way, we'd sure like to, but we try to be fairer than that. To put in a grandfather clause, needless to say, would destroy any of the attempts that we're trying to do to correct this problem. In closing, I urge your support for this. I would like to commend Commissioner Henning for pushing to keep it coming forward. We need your support in this. I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. MR. DUNNUCK: You have Jack Mischung followed by Bud Sausser. CHAIRMAN CARTER: While Jack's making his way up here, I think all of us, Commissioner Henning, deeply appreciate what you did on this. I know you worked very hard to get through a plethora of issues trying to bring this back to the commission, and I thank you on behalf of my district, as I'm sure every commissioner does. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mine too, yes. MR. MISCHUNG: Good evening, Commissioners. Welcome, Mr. Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. MR. MISCHUNG: My name is Jack Mischung for the record. I'm a longtime, 30 year approximately, resident of Naples Manor. Although we are attempting to form a neighborhood association, I do not speak for the association. In fact, I would imagine the average Page 48 December 19, 2001 resident of Naples Manor would be a hundred percent against this, since they are the violators. I, however, am in favor of it. I have one problem, and that's the enforcement. As the gentleman from Golden Gate has already stated, the parking in the right-of-way is clearly the responsibility of the Collier County SherifFs Office. They do not, they have not, they will not enforce that road -- that law. They will not. On any given time, you will find between 5 and 25 cars on the three blocks of my street, which is Carlton, parked in the right-of-way or on the lawn. In fact, I believe it's the dream of a property owner in Naples Manor to get a piece of property and immediately plant between two and five cars in the front yard, some of them permanently. Enforcement is my only problem with this. As Michelle Arnold well knows -- and I appeared before you on the 18th of September at the code enforcement workshop wherein -- where at I brought up commercial vehicles. We've been trying to fight the commercial vehicles in Naples Manor tooth and nail for years. With all the help that code enforcement gives us, we'll still probably right now go out there and find a dozen or more commercial vehicles illegally parked in Naples Manor. This is what's going to happen with this ordinance unless it's really, really aggressively enforced. If code enforcement does not have the authority to cite a vehicle in the right-of-way, it's easy. They know the sheriffs not going to do it. Move that car from the yard to the right-of-way. Code enforcement can't touch it. The sheriff won't touch it. That's all I can say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. SAUSSER: Bud Sausser, Naples Park property owner, and I'm for it, but it needs to be retroactive. We don't need anybody lingering. This has to be a sudden thing, and the sooner the better. Page 49 December 19, 2001 Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. MR. DUNNUCK: Peter Lilienthal followed by Pat Lucci. MR. LILIENTHAL: It's all been said before. I waive. CHAIRMAN CARTER: MS. LUCCI: Pat Lucci. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. I waive, and I'm for the ordinance. Thank you, ma'am. MR. DUNNUCK: A1 Newman followed by Thomas Mooney. MR. NEWMAN: Tom Newman. I waive. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. MR. MOONEY: Happy holidays, everyone. My name's Tom Mooney, chairman of volunteer code enforcement for Naples Park. I wanted to introduce myself. And I'm for the ordinance, and as soon as we can get it going, the better. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. DUNNUCK: Your last speaker is John Skubick. MR. SKUBICK: I waive, and I agree with the -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. All right, Ms. Murray. It looks like I'm getting the nods from the board. We can move forward. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'd just like to say that I'm going to -- I'll meet with the sheriff and see how he can step up enforcing parking in the right-of-way. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He could make a lot of money that way to build a new jail. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We better remember that at budget time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- and I'll pass on your comments. Do we have enough staff to enforce this ordinance, Mr. Olliff?. MR. OLLIFF: Well, obviously, you know the magnitude of the Page 50 December 19, 2001 issue that's out there. And I think there's going to be a great deal of community desire, especially in Naples Park and Naples Manor and Golden Gate City area, to see us move this code, if you will, to the top of the list and have us start to deal with it fairly soon. I'I1 tell you that we are going to have to adjust some schedules, and we will not be as aggressive, probably, in some other proactive areas in order to be able to address this. But until Michelle actually gets the code in place and goes out and starts doing some enforcement, I'd rather hold off on telling you whether or not we have any staffing issues until we've actually taken a look at it and seen how it's going to work. I will tell you, though, that from my perspective it's probably going to be one of the more intensive codes that you've got to try and enforce, because from my perspeotive it's probably going to take two trips on every site in order to be able to determine that the vehicles aren't there for a party this evening and are there permanently on some regular basis. We're going to have to develop some sort of a record of the fact that these cars are there on a regular basis, and we're probably going to have to do that in some way that's defend -- defensible. And the other thing that I want to make the board aware of is while we continue to support this, you do need to understand that there are going to be those occasions on narrow lots -- Naples Park lots are a great example -- where there's probably going to be multiple children in a family who have cars, and they're not going to have enough parking in the front yard for the number of cars associated with the people who live in that house. And that issue is going to arise on some occasion, and we are going to have to deal with that in some fashion. I was talking to the staff about what do we do in that particular case. And what we're saying, frankly, is that there is no prohibition against side yard or rear yard parking of those kinds of vehicles. And -- and that's not a great solution, but frankly, Page 51 December 19, 2001 it's the only one that the code would allow for today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have some ideas that you and I can discuss about that that'll maybe make it easier for code enforcement. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I would also like Naples Park to participate with staff. And you're a volunteer. I'd really like to see the community support groups working along with our staff, because you might identify where there's two or three situations you'll say, "Look, guys, because of the physical constraints and we know the family size and they're good neighbors, we understand the situation. But here's ten others who we say we're going to go after them with both barrels." But we need the communities to work in this area and within the parameters that they're allowed to, Tom, I think, to help us enforce this and make it work, because we can't do it by ourselves. MR. OLLIFF: No. I think we will continue to rely heavily on the neighborhood code enforcement groups which are, frankly, almost an extension of an arm of your own staff. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But these neighborhood groups -- and there are a few representatives here this evening -- are going to see that these vehicles are parked there in the evening and during the weekends. They're not parked there during the day when code enforcement has hours, so I'm sure you're going to have to help Michelle along with giving her people evening hours and weekends. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may, could we possibly contact the sheriffs department to see what kind of feedback he can give us on what proactive measures they can take to take care of the right-of-way problem? I think we need to be able to keep a measure on that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought that's what I -- MR. OLLIFF: We'll -- we'll contact the sheriffs agency, and I'll send word, actually, through the deputy that's here this evening that Page 52 December 19, 2001 we'll want to try and contact him and get some comment back before your second hearing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I sense that there might be some interest in some type of grandfathering time frame to allow -- but if not, I just need that direction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's not grandfathering. MS. MURRAY: No, it's not. That's not the correct term. I'm sorry. But just the time frame where you would allow people to come into compliance. CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's like a drop-dead date. Up to this point, you know, we are working with you, but after this point -- MS. MURRAY: Is that something you wish us to add into the ordinance? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What you might want to do is to check into add a second driveway, a cement driveway. I would imagine that would be the most expensive. And I think the board can determine at their next meeting whether it -- what kind of time frame that we should allow. MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I would look to the communities to feed back to us what you think's a reasonable time line. MS. MURRAY: Okay. If we're done with that, the next issue was the docks issue, and that's on page 43. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Magic Fingers, how are you doing? THE COURT REPORTER: Fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. This next one will be fairly lengthy. We've been going, what, an hour and a half?. How many speakers do we have on the docks? MR. DUNNUCK: You have 12 speakers. Page 53 December 19, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Twelve speakers on docks? MR. DUNNUCK: Of the speakers, I believe you have ten that are specific to one issue in a community. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. And what other topic do we have that has a lot of registered speakers? MR. DUNNUCK: The next topic that has quite a few registered speakers is the Land Development Code changes to the Immokalee housing initiative. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I lost a commissioner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're going to lose another one for a second too. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Why don't we just take ten. We'll take ten. We'll be right back. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ladies and gentlemen, we're back in session. We are now to, I believe, boat docks. Is that where we are, boat docks? Are you having fun? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good. As long as you're having fun, that's all that matters. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We were having dinner. MR. OLLIFF: Something about pie-shaped lots. MS. MURRAY: The boat dock provisions start on page 43, and my staff member Ross Gochenaur will be doing the presentation. Don't let the extent of the changes -- it appears that we're striking through the whole ordinance and adopting something brand-new. And procedurally we are, but the changes are not to the extent that they appear with the strikethroughs. So Ross will walk you through those changes, so you'll -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're not going to read all these, are you? Page 54 December 19, 2001 MS. MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And how many speakers do we have? MR. DUNNUCK: You have 12 speakers on this issue, I think ten of which are specific to a community. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is that the Coconut Grove community? MR. DUNNUCK: Yeah. Coconut Creek, I believe. MR. GOCHENAUR: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. As some of you may know, this amendment's coming back to you for the second time. It was previously defeated at the previous amendment cycle. It was originally drafted at the instruction of the board to try to clarify the criteria -- mainly to try to clarify the criteria for boat dock extensions, to make these criteria more objective. In reviewing the ordinance, we found a number of other things that we wanted to change; some minor, a few major. And my plan here is to very briefly go over the major changes that we're going to make with emphasis on one change that has become somewhat contentious. There was an issue during the previous amendment cycle. This has not been raised during this cycle to my knowledge. If it comes up, hopefully I'll be able to answer specific questions. And let me just briefly go over the major changes that we're proposing. The proposed amendment contains, in addition to these lesser changes, three significant changes to the current section. Number one, dock extension criteria would be revised to incorporate changes endorsed by the Collier County Planning Commission which would make these criteria more objective and easier to evaluate. Number two, docks on unbridged barrier islands and state aquatic preserves would be exempt from the LDC protrusion limits provided that the required DEP permits are obtained prior to the issuance of a Collier County building permit. These DEP requirements are in every way more restrictive than the county's. Page 55 December 19, 2001 Number three, a provision would be added allowing administrative approval of more liberal waterway measurement for determining dock protrusion distances on waterways under 1 O0 feet wide where the mean high water line has receded from the property line. With regard to the last item, the Planning Commission has recommended a change to the staffproposal. The Planning Commission's recommendation would allow docks to protrude even further into these waterways by reducing the waterway width left clear for safe navigation well below that currently accepted. The Planning Commission's recommendation is based on an appeal presented at the hearing by residents of the Coconut River subdivision. The principal reason for this appeal would seem to be 29 code enforcement cases citing unpermitted docks on the Coconut River within this subdivision, given that most or all of these docks would not be able to comply with current code requirements. The code now requires, and would continue to require under the proposed amendment, that docks protrude no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway and that at least 50 percent of the waterway width be maintained for navigability. This requirement is a standard generally accepted or exceeded by most Southwest Florida counties and municipalities, at least those counties and municipalities which directly address protrusion limits. The Collier County Planning Commission is recommending that the waterway width maintained for navigability be reduced from 50 percent to 33 percent on dead-end canals under 100 feet in width. We feel strongly that any reduction of this standard would not be in the best interest of the county, and we do ask you to accept the original language as proposed by staff. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to try to answer them. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. Coconut River, how Page 56 December 19, 2001 wide is that canal? MR. GOCHENAUR: It's platted at 60 feet. The amendment that we're proposing would allow a different way of measuring waterway width, not from the most restrictive point, as required by the Land Development Code, but from the mean high water line to account for waterways where the actual waterway has receded from the property line so that plainly people would have to build docks over dry land to get to the water and that this would take up part of the protrusion limit that they're allowed. What we're proposing here is within certain limitations, that we hope are going to allow for fair standards for all property owners on the waterway, they'd be able to take it from a different measurement once it's been determined by a survey that the true canal width is given and that their percentage doesn't exceed 25 percent of that waterway width. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there other examples in the county that has 60-foot canals? MR. GOCHENAUR: I can think of at least two subdivisions offhand that have canals that range from 60 to 40 feet: Gulf Shores in East Naples -- the older areas typically have this -- and I think Palm River Shores in North Naples also has 50-foot canals. There may be more. Those are the only two I -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where in East Naples so I can get an example of what's out there between now and the next hearing? MR. GOCHENAUR: Lakeview Drive. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right off Bayshore. It's the new -- that's the -- right after the bridge, you know. All of the -- all of the "view" streets. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right after Tipsy Sea Gull. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right after the Tipsy. Page 57 December 19, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions? Let's -- let's go to public speakers. Is Mark Morton here for Coconut Grove? Okay. Mark, maybe you could speak first for your community. MR. MORTON: Good evening. It's Coconut Creek -- Coconut River Estates. Mark Morton, 2233 Clipper Way. And I'm not representing the whole community, I just wanted to be clear on that, because there are people that there is disagreement with in the community. But there's about ten of us that are here tonight that are all in support of what I'd be saying, and they also have signed up to speak. If you look up here on the wall, this is -- this is the subdivision of Coconut River Estates, and the canal is here. Here's the dead end, and it goes out -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you want to pick up that mike over there, Mark, you can. MR. MORTON: It goes out eventually through the Gordon River, and you have to travel down past River Reach -- if you know that area at all -- past -- over some fairly shallow areas, and you have to go under the two bridges at 41. So that creates a little bit ora limitation on the size of the boats that typically are in this area. And in terms of people that travel up and down this canal, that was where the Planning Commission was -- this idea of a dead end was that it's not the kind of place that somebody who doesn't live there is just going to wander up there and not know where -- you know, not be familiar with the conditions in the canal. So you can see the dock -- the boats here that are docked. The main -- the main problem that we have is the boats and the docks existing there today. It gets as narrow as 20 feet between boats to as much as probably 30 feet. But under this criteria 50 percent of the canal width, which is in the county code for -- it would be 30 feet between boats, and we basically don't have that but in a few spots Page 58 December 19, 2001 with all the existing docks we have there today. So we would have to try to figure out how to -- you know, somebody on one side or the other has to move their dock back if we stick with the way the code is today. And there's no -- no relief to ask for an extension. The extension limit is the 15 feet. That's the most we could go. Let me give you some pictures of the canal so you get some feel for it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He looks like he knows what he's doing here. MR. MORTON: You can see -- this is kind of at low tide, and you can see with this boat here that the distances between the boats there, again, is somewhere between, like, 20 and 25 feet. That's another one. You can see how some people have their boats on davits; some people have them on lifts. Here's a boat that's just moored and then another that's on davits. What we have is on the north side of our channel, it's a little -- typically it's a little deeper, and on the south side we have -- it has silted in. To give you an idea, here at low tide is the north side of the channel. And as you can see, on the riprap the people's docks come right down to the water, almost at the toe of the slope, even better there -- you can see it there. So the folks on that side, as you see, don't have to extend very far out into the canal to get to the water and can just moor their boat 10, 15 feet out, as the code allows. Here's an example. This is the guy that's across from me. You know, his dock's probably 5, 6, 7 feet there. Again, he has plenty of water depth. He's got a snook light in the back, and he's got a big snook that hangs out there, but I think it's his pet, so I leave him alone. On here you can see where a guy that just -- he has put in a lift. You can see -- he's on the north side. He has, like, about a 4 foot wide dock that goes right down the toe, and then he has his lift that sticks out. He, again, is probably within the current 15 feet because Page 59 December 19, 2001 he has the water depth on that side. Again, you can see how the boats right at the toe of the riprap on the north side have water. On the south side there's more natural shoreline with more of a slope. The first thing that we agree with is the staffs recommendation to allow you to measure from mean high water versus the lot line. In this particular case, the lot line is here. And if you take the 15 feet, you're about out here, so the person literally doesn't even have a boat. So the idea of measuring from the mean high water makes a lot of sense. Here is -- that one's probably not showing up very clearly, at least it isn't for me. You can see where the boat is here, and it's a very naturalistic shoreline on that one. I've got to show this one because my kids are in it, and they're hopefully -- they may not still be up watching. But you can see here my son. He's on one -- just the variation on the lot there. Here the guy in the one canal filled out and riprapped, and you can see -- he's on the south side. But the guy here on my -- where my daughter is, this person didn't fill out and riprap, and he has that slope that we're talking about. So when you measure this guy from mean water, you know, he's out here. This guy, he's back, and he may not have enough water to float his boat. That's the -- where is that -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Tell me, what's the solution to this? I mean, I understand -- MR. MORTON: I think the -- the solution that the Planning Commission came up with, which was an idea of going -- what we really need to have happen is on this canal -- it's 65 feet and less wide because of the silting and -- and where the water level is. If we were to go to a 30 -- the 33 percent for the channel width versus the 50 percent, that gets us down to about a 20-foot canal width -- I mean channel width -- which is pretty much what's there today and people are functioning with -- and allow the docks to come out to the -- to Page 60 December 19, 2001 come out to that -- that size channel. The way the code is set up right now with this 25 percent on the hundred foot, every single person would have to come in and ask for a dock extension for starters just to -- even if you went to the 20-foot minimum, then they'd all have to come in and ask for dock extensions to get out. But we think the way to clean it up is if we put some kind of language that just said, you know, for 65 foot and less, or 70 foot, whatever the number would be, in a dead-end canal, you can go to a third, a third, and a third, which was really kind of the recommendation that Commissioner Strain put out which was, I thought, a pretty good idea. So depending where you measure it on this mean high water to mean high water that staffs recommending, if it's 57 feet, it's a third, a third. That's what your channel is, and that's what your docks can be. So that is what we had -- it seemed like a reasonable solution for it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mark, the -- the only concern, I think, that we should have is the safety issue of a passable canal. So you got docks on both sides, moored boats. You got two boats in the canal going down in opposite directions. MR. MORTON: I can't -- I can tell you the truth. In all the time I've been there, I've never even met another boat, not that it means anything. I think the other people, when they get up, they're going to tell you a similar thing. It's just not that high-traffic a canal. I mean, with only 60 boats in it total, 30 each side, basically less than that, and everyone knows -- everyone lives in that area because it is dead end. You don't have a lot of cut-through traffic. People are familiar with the -- you know, the waterway. And there's plenty of room between docks to pull over to the side if you had to; if not, pass them. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. My question is, Page 61 December 19, 2001 although this is specifically for your neighborhood, what happens to all of the other waterways that this change would affect? MR. MORTON: Well, I would think if there's another waterway that's -- you know, that has this exact situation, they have the same problem; they just don't know it yet. And if they come in to add a davit to their dock or to a lift, they're going to have the same problem. So they're going to -- and if there's anybody that got a permit many, many years ago and it's currently -- they've lost record of it and they want to add or modify their dock and they come in for a permit or they decide, you know, gee, I want to legitimize my permit -- maybe the contractor didn't call his last contract -- they're going to get -- you're going to have this problem again. So this situation itself, I think it fixes a lot of people's -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does staff agree with that? MR. MORTON: No. They want the -- they want the 50 percent. MR. DUNNUCK: If I could jump in for a moment, you know, I think the other alternative we have is -- what you have is your variance process. And I think what we've opined from our county attorney's office -- which may be helpful to Mark, and he may not know that -- is that they've said that they could apply as a group variance. And you have a $2,000 after the fact, and you may be able to take care of this. As staff, we would be recommending that you're not legislating based upon these specific instances. We think you should be looking at all your waterways in general, and we think your variance process is that avenue for you to be able to look at the case- by-case instances. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If-- if we looked at this canal in its entirety and the people applied for a group variance, are you saying the charge would be $2,000? MR. DUNNUCK: Correct. That's what -- I believe what our Page 62 December 19, 2001 county attorney's office has said to us. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And there are -- why would it be $2,000? MR. DUNNUCK: That's your standard variance fee for after- the-fact variances. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. We're not cheap. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- MR. DUNNUCK: And it -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- we have people who have docks in place right now and they've been there for quite some time, and we're going to ask them to come in for a variance. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I think the way we would answer that question is that from our standpoint we have no record of the permits for these docks, so you have unpermitted structures that have been up there for a period of time. And for us to have a chance to review it -- the $2,000 is a staff review charge, is what it is. Now, the board would have the opportunity, if they so desire, to waive that variance (sic) and direct staff to help them through the variance procedure as another alternative. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. MR. MORTON: The only thing I would say is that -- and that's great if an overall variance can work. But I'm -- I'm just not familiar how that process works when the land code clearly says, the way it's written right now, you cannot go past the 25 percent, and you cannot reduce it by 50 percent. So I'm not exactly sure how they're going to grant a variance when the code is that clear. So if that's the case, then that's great. But I think when -- I really think the way the code is set up, it is meant for sea-walled canals. It's 60 feet. There's full depth at that -- at that 60 foot, and that's how you get to this -- you know, the 50 percent works out fine. But when you have these kind of natural Page 63 December 19, 2001 shorelines with a lot of sloping, people have to move a little further out to get to their -- to get to the water. And I think that's really the -- that's the real difference in the -- in the canal. So if you have another kind of naturalistic canal like this, people are going to have the same problem, and then they'll be coming in for a group variance. So I think you really - CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we can deal with that. I really think we could deal with that by a period of time in which people have those situations, that it's noticed, they're notified, and they could come to us and work through a process. You pick the amount of months, and we could treat it as a group variance. Let them come. And there's a window, again, properly noticed so everybody knows out there, plenty of time to figure out what you're going to do, and after that date you're back into the system the way it's always been put together. But that's just one option. The board would have to deal with that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If-- if I could just expand upon that just for a moment, Mr. Chairman. As I see it, the people are not our enemy. You know, we're not here to punish them for doing something that they thought they could do and have thought they could do for a long period of time. I -- I do not believe they're creating a safety problem in their own canal. And by -- by imposing a rigid standard which isn't, I don't think, acceptable or applicable to this particular canal and forcing them to go in for variance applications that could be timely, I would prefer that -- that the board consider, whenever they consider this -- this change, to grandfather those things in at the time and -- and establish the 30 percent rule for canals less than 60 feet wide. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's another option open to us. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm -- I'm more in line to go that way, is -- is to do the third, third, and a third for narrower Page 64 December 19, 2001 canals. I don't see any communities building narrow canals. These are -- canals are in -- historically in the working-class neighborhoods, working-class neighborhoods that can't afford to have waterfront access or Gulf access anymore. So I'm not sure if we're just regulating -- are we regulating the future, or are we regulating the existing? CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's a great question. I mean, my take on it would be that you're trying to get to the future and not punish the people who are here in the present who bought in good faith and followed the rules. And, as Mr. Commissioner Coyle says, we're not here to punish people. But what you're trying to do is prevent in the future something developing that is not going to be acceptable and compatible with where we're trying to go as a community. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely right. If you had a hundred-foot-wide canal, I can't see the 30 percent rule applying there. I think what the staff has recommended is -- is absolutely right, and it's probably the least we can do as far as navigable waterway is concerned. But when we get into a 60-foot channel, particularly with one that has a sloping bottom and shallow water on one side, what we'd really be telling people is you can't have a boat here anymore unless they want to start dredging, and that's a very expensive process. And I -- my preference, Mr. Chairman, would be that we not -- not do that, but I know we're not voting on this right now. CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. But it's an input that we need to make to staff and work this through this evening. MR. MORTON: If I could mention one other -- I had talked to Marjorie earlier, and I don't know if she had -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I've got eight other people I've got MR. MORTON: Okay. Just let me -- this will be helpful, I Page 65 December 19, 2001 think. And I -- you know, as original chairman of the Land Development Code, you know, we -- the Land Development Code is structured to be very broad, and it tries to catch as much as it possibly can. It doesn't catch everything, and there's always areas that don't exactly fit into the Land Development Code. And the thing -- the beauty of the Land Development Code when we developed it is when you go for docks, you look in the dock area. If you're a resident, you know to look under docks, and it tells you what you need to do. It doesn't -- you don't have to hunt around and try to find a different area to look. And I had mentioned to her if you -- even if you have something specific like this where you have this many people, citizens, affected by something and you want to just put one paragraph in the dock section -- if you wanted to just say Coconut River, you could do it, or if you just want to go to this 65 feet. Wouldn't it be smart, you put it there, everybody sees it. So anybody in the future that has an unbuilt dock, they go to the dock ordinance, they look where they're at, and they read all the -- oh, Coconut River, I got to do this, or 65 foot and less, I have to do this. And I think that the code is -- since you're in the cycle, is probably the simplest and cleanest way to do it and be done with it. But thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. MS. STUDENT: I just want to state for the record I believe when I talked to Mark, I was under the impression that Coconut River was the only one with this constraint. But if we had other areas that were constrained that way, equal protection, you know, we'd need to write it in such a way that we don't give them a benefit that other similarly situated properties don't get. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll bet you there's others out there. I don't know exactly where they are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Ross named a few. And -- Page 66 December 19, 2001 and the people that I've been hearing from where people that lived on larger waterways, and they really wanted to support what staff is proposing. So maybe we do have to pinpoint it as to which developments. Like you say, go down the list, find your development and your waterway and -- I don't know if staff could -- is that too difficult to do? MS. STUDENT: I think in that case -- and I would have to talk -- work this out with staff. But rather than trying to do that with developments and run the risk of error and maybe omitting somebody, that if you look at what the criteria are in terms of the width of the waterway and write it that way so then it would catch whatever developments, you know, have a more narrow waterway or whatever the criterion ends up being, you're not going to accidentally miss somebody. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But where do you measure the waterway? From where the water is -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mean high water. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mean high water. MS. STUDENT: That's already set forth in the code, and how that's applied then just will determine, you know, the waterway width. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Next -- any questions of staff before we go to other speakers? MR. DUNNUCK: You have Steve Jones followed by Jeff Dorini. MR. JONES: Hi. For the record, I'm Steve Jones. I live at 2441 Clipper Way in Coconut River Estates. I've owned this property for about nine years now. And we've tried very hard in the past to make sure that we've always been in compliance with everything we've done, but there are issues with the canal, as Mark said. We really feel like we need, as a group, to have the code Page 67 December 19, 2001 changed to the third, third, and third so that we can use this canal. As one of the commissioners stated, the Gulf-access properties have, as we all know, skyrocketed in price. And as working-class people in this neighborhood, we can't afford to go to the other side of the bridge. This is the only alternative we have. I want to address one issue about boats passing in the canal. This very same thing come up when we were before the Planning Commission. I would dare say that other than maybe one or two people here in the audience tonight, that I probably use my boat more than anybody there, and they'll agree with you -- with me on that. In nine years I've passed maybe three or four times another boat coming in or out of the canal. We have a gentleman here that he's going to tell you he's been there 20-something years and never passed another boat. I'm going to waive the rest of my time because ! think Mark's doing a really good job handling this issue for us. And if he needs to come back up, that way we'll have time for Mark. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Jeff Dorini followed by Brenda Dorini. MR. DORINI: Hi. I'm JeffDorini. We're at 2376 Longboat Drive. We're on the north side of the river. I have a boat dock and a lift that extends, like, 19 1/2 foot out. The width of the river is 62 foot. I have a survey that shows that. So that leaves at least 20 to 25 foot in the middle for boats to pass by, and I think that's ample and that'll work. And I'll waive the rest of my time unless there's questions. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. MR. DUNNUCK: Brenda Dorini followed by Edward Boot. MS. DORINI: I'll waive my time also. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Brenda waives. Thank you. MR. BOOT: My name is Edward Boot, and I live next to Jeff, Page 68 December 19, 2001 2360 Longboat Drive. And I've got a 27-foot wide -- or long pontoon boat. I've maybe -- I've been there for ten years, and I've met maybe three or four boats in that ten years, and I go out quite a bit myself. It's not been a problem whatsoever. One thing I want to let you-all know, though, is realize how far we are, you know, up that river in our -- we really have extreme low tides. ! mean, we don't get the high highs, but we're way up by the freshwater weir, so we get the low lows. We're a little bit different than the people down by Bayshore Drive. And I support what these other gentlemen have had to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Glenn Wisler followed by Peggy Jones. MR. WISLER: Good evening. For the record, I'm Glenn Wisler, and I live at 2393 Clipper Way, and I support just about everything. But my problem is where I live it's about 57 feet across that canal. And I've got a lift and a dock in there, and on a low tide, you -- my outside pilings are dry, and I'm talking about 20 feet of-- from the high tide mark. So the third, third, third wouldn't work for me because somehow my canal got a little bit skinny there. Twenty feet -- if 20 feet is a navigable waterway in some instances, it looks like we've got apples and oranges when we go to a percentage and it becomes less than our -- less than 20 feet. We need to maintain a 20- foot passageway, but the streets are only 20 feet. Cars are able to maneuver down a street, and they're going a lot faster than a boat at idle speed. And, again, we very seldom pass anybody through there. I think maybe once I've passed Steve Jones coming through that canal. But I guess -- you know, I would really like to be able to go 20 feet and maintain a 20-foot waterway. And I guess that's all I've got to say unless you've got comments or questions. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coyle, I think, has a Page 69 December 19, 2001 question for you, sir. He's right here. MR. WISLER: Okay. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What would happen if the person across your canal did the same thing and came out 20 feet? It wouldn't give you the 20 feet of navigable water in the -- in the channel. MR. WISLER: Well, I'm to the side of my lot where the -- the lift is. So, you know, if you consider each other a little bit and you'd go to the other side of the lot, you could maneuver through. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the problem we have, I think, is that it's difficult for us to draw up a code that would require that someone in a specific lot build their -- their dock in a certain place. I think it -- it might be appropriate to deal with that situation as a -- as a variance. For example, if-- if you have built your dock there already and it exists, no dock is on the other side, then that person must come in for a variance if they are going to build out 20 feet and, thus, reduce the navigable waterway to about 18, in your case. So I -- I would guess we could handle it that way. I would hate to proceed in a fashion that would require you to tear your dock down. MR. WISLER: I sure appreciate that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand your problem. Maybe we could handle it a different way. MR. WISLER: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. WlSLER: I waive the rest of my time. MR. DUNNUCK: Peggy Jones followed by Marcie Wisler. MS. JONES: Good evening. I'm Peggy Jones. I live at 2441 Clipper Way. And I agree with what we're trying to get done here, and I will ask if any of you want to go for a boat ride, I'll relinquish my seat, and we'll take you down the canal. We do have rules: No shoes, no metal chairs, bring your own cooler. And we'll supply the Page 70 December 19, 2001 ride. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Marcie Wisler followed by Edward Follmer. MS. WISLER: I'm Marcie Wisler at 2393 Clipper Way. I basically agree with everything that's been said so far. I do think that 20 feet in the canal is safe, much safer than our street. When they have garage sales, you're lucky you can get up and down the street. And lawn services are parked there. You have to go around them. You have to wait for other cars. So ! think as far as the canal goes, 20 feet is more than sufficient. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, ma'am. MR. DUNNUCK: Edward Follmer followed by Wilbert LeMasters. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And if the next person could be on the on-deck circle, if you'd come right up behind this gentleman, why, we'd appreciate it. MR. FOLLMER: I'm Ed Follmer, 2313 Clipper Way. Naturally, I am in agreement with everything that's been said so far. I would like to bring up one point that's maybe not been stressed. Using 50 percent in the middle -- when you're talking about a hundred-foot-wide canal, that's 50 feet, and the 25 percent remaining on each side is 25 feet. That represents a significant amount when you're talking about a boat and a dock. When you're on a 60-foot canal, your 25 percent only represents 15 feet. On the Clipper Way side, everybody's property lines are up at the top of the bank. For instance, my property line is about 4 feet from the mean high water line. So if you add 4 feet to my 5-foot- wide dock -- that's 9 feet -- and then you put an 8-foot-wide boat, you're already over what you can use. So you can see that the -- that that percentage is not workable. There's absolutely no way to do that. I'm -- my dock -- the back Page 71 December 19, 2001 legs of my dock are at the high water mark. At low -- at mean low water, the front of my dock is exposed. I've got all kinds of pictures to show it. So there's no way I'd be able to bring my dock in any farther than what it is. And dredging wouldn't help because the whole canal would have to be dredged on the Clipper Way side. So I think that alone should allow us a little bit of relief. I'm -- you know, even if we don't have a full 20 feet, not everybody needs exactly 20, but some people do. Even on the north side -- it's not only a Clipper Way side issue. There are a few people on the Longboat Drive side that can't make it either. So I would -- I would ask that you would consider that and, you know, try to loosen this up enough to make it work. Like everybody else has said, the 20 feet in the middle is adequate, and that's what we're living with now. Has anybody heard of an accident or an actual problem on the canal? No. I've lived there for seven years. Nothing has ever been a problem. I guess that's it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure I understand. Are you measuring your dock from your property line or from mean high water line? MR. FOLLMER: Well, if I measure my -- my dock width -- my dock -- I do have a boat lift, but I'm talking about if I didn't have that boat lift which I didn't, you know, three years ago. But if I measure -- according to the code right now, I have to go from my property line pin, which is 4 feet up on the bank. I have to go down 4 feet to get to the mean high water mark. Okay. And that mean high water mark is right where my dock starts. My dock is 5 feet wide. So with an 8 -- you know, 4 feet and 5 feet for the dock and then put an 8-foot boat up alongside of it, I'm -- I've already exceeded that 15 feet. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was my understanding we were measuring from the mean high water line. MR. FOLLMER: Okay. Well, if that -- if that change is true, Page 72 December 19, 2001 then, okay, we can measure from the mean high water mark. Okay. That's fine. I -- I would be out -- okay. I'd have a 5-foot-wide dock. If my boat is up alongside that dock at low tide, it lays in the mud, as does virtually everybody else's on Clipper Way and some on Longboat. So we either need to go out a little bit farther or do something because it just doesn't work. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But measuring it from mean high water will solve your problem. MR. FOLLMER: Measuring from mean high water will help solve the problem, but we need a little bit extra on the percentage to make it work. Thank you very much. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. MR. DUNNUCK: Two more speakers, B. J. Savard-Boyer and Dick Lydon. MR. LeMASTERS: Good evening, Councilmembers. My name is W. C. LeMasters. These other guys has been having more fun than me, because they said they've been passing boats. I've been in Clipper Way -- I'm the old man of Clipper Way. I've been in there for 21 years. I have never passed a boat. Maybe I'm not going out boating enough. But I do have a picture. Can it be shown, or can I just pass it through? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Either way, sir. MR. LeMASTERS: In that picture it shows you my dock, my outside pilings. My outside pilings is in the mud already. And on the bottom of that picture, you will see the mud out from my dock. So if I -- I don't know why -- I guess if I pulled my dock back in further, it wouldn't help anything for waterway purposes anyhow because they would have to go out to miss that mud. So my dock, my boat is probably inside that -- inside that silt that's even going out through there. To get me out -- for the 20-foot waterway to come down through Page 73 December 19, 2001 there -- I'm about 22 feet or so between me and the -- and my neighbor across from me. It seems like a very navigable waterway. So if we could leave a 20-foot waterway down through there -- like I said, I'm the old man in the neighborhood, and I don't know of anybody had any problems in that neighborhood. It's a nice neighborhood and nice people. Thank you for listening to me. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. DUNNUCK: B. J. Savard-Boyer. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Good evening. My name is B. J. Savard-Boyer. I live at 479 Palm Court in the Vanderbilt Beach area, so this is a whole different area than you've been listening to. And before I say any more, I really, really believe that you need separate overlay studies for different areas because what their problem is is not our problem. And if you come up with -- like Ross -- they've done a lot of work on changing these codes, and the 50 percent seems fine in our area; 30, 30, 30 would be a disaster. So, you know, we've been fighting -- not fighting -- not happy with dock extensions for over a year now. And the staff-- if you look at the Section 2.6.21.1, it says down here -- it goes docks and the like are primarily intended to adequately secure moored vessels and provide safe access by users. But if you follow on down there -- and I commend Ross for putting this in there -- it says and the use and view of the waterway by surrounding property owners. We've wanted "surrounding" in there for a long time rather than the word "abutting." Now, if you go -- if you go back to Section 2.6.21.3.2.4, whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of abutting waterfront property owners. One thing says surrounding; the other says abutting. It's just a word change that, perhaps, would prevent problems in the future. Page 74 December 19, 2001 Also, in that first paragraph there, it says the planning services director may approve an administrative variance allowing measurement of the protrusion from the existing mean high water line. Planning services director, would that be the whole planning committee or Ross or is this -- are we talking about a hearing examiner? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It's -- at present it's -- Tom Cook is our planning director. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Okay. Going down further, 2.6.21.1.2, nonresidential dock facilities shall be subject to all the provisions of this section. Would it -- could nonresidential -- that's commercial. And are we talking commercial for condominiums? Especially in the Vanderbilt area, are we talking commercial? Because if we're talking commercial in the Vanderbilt area, they could have a lot more docks than if it was a residential. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ross, correct me if I'm wrong, a condo is a residence; a duplex is -- MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, that's correct. It's not a commercial use. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me? MR. GOCHENAUR: Condominium is not a commercial use; it's a residential use. It would be subject to the provisions of this section. The extension petition would go before the Collier County Planning Commission. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: When the Regatta wanted to put their docks in, they had a commercial, and we fought to get it changed to residential. That way they only have room for 60 docks or 56 docks. If they had a -- this is what ! was told. If they had a commercial, they could have more docks. Now, this goes back a couple of years, so maybe it's changed since then. MR. GOCHENAUR: The Regatta is within a residential Page 75 December 19, 2001 planned unit development. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is. It's a -- MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Yes. It's a condo. The Regatta condominiums. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: But they had a commercial -- they applied for a commercial facility. MR. GOCHENAUR: For a commercial marina? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: I don't know if it said marina or not, Ross. I just know that they applied for commercial, and I know they could have had more docks, and I know that we worked on getting it to residential. MR. OLLIFF: But that was a separate hearing regarding the land use issue and whether it was going to be a commercial use on that property or not. And that's a separate hearing that she attended and the public would always be notified of to attend. And that really is sort of a separate issue from the dock issue. It's a land use issue; in that particular case, commercial zoning change on the particular property. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: That's clear, I guess. Also, 2.6.213.1.3, in here you have the petitioner shall present a chart or drawing to scale showing -- I also have Dick Lydon's five minutes. He gave them to me. Is that okay? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great. How much did you pay for that? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: CHAIRMAN CARTER: B. J. Please proceed. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: I'm just real nice to him. We've interrupted you several times, Okay. Well, I just want to say in this particular sentence, it says the petitioner shall present a chart or drawing to scale showing the proximity of the facility to any adjacent Page 76 December 19, 2001 marked navigable channel. Ours are not marked in there. We don't -- we don't have marked channels. So does that mean that -- I mean, what does that mean? That's my question. MR. GOCHENAUR: The only way that we could clearly define a channel was to identify it as a marked navigable channel, rather than a deep spot in a body of water. Vanderbilt Lagoon has no navigable channel. It's a man-altered waterway that was altered to become a boat basin. The depths across Vanderbilt Lagoon are basically the same. There is no navigable channel in Vanderbilt Lagoon. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Well, I know that, you know, there's a deep part of it, and in the middle it's very shallow. So, you know, I -- I'm not a boat person. You know, I should have a boat person up here. I'm just somebody that comes in here and says that I don't think things are right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I can help out, please, it sounds like you have a lot of questions about the ordinance. And if-- if you could get together with Ross later on and maybe bring some suggestions back of what we need to do to change it, that would probably be helpful to -- to me. Can we do that? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: I certainly will try. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question for you. The canal that you live on, how wide is it? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: It's a hundred feet, and our -- our code right now, we're -- we have 25-foot docks. And, yes, we do have high and low tides, and sometimes the -- it has filled in up close to the docks, and sometimes we're on mud also. But we don't want docks protruding out. I mean, that's what we've been fighting -- working on for over a year now, I've been here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I could just, you know, kind Page 77 December 19, 2001 of correct -- or kind of bring you into what we're doing here, Commissioner Coyle had a great idea. Anything under 65 feet, you know, a third of it. So that would hopefully catch everybody in the Vanderbilt Beach area if-- if all your canals are over 65 feet. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Yes, they are. They are over 65 feet. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And what I would request along with those questions is you give us the question, please get it to us as soon as possible so that staff can respond to those questions. And then if there's not -- if they're not clear, try to get around -- the point with the commissioners is at the second hearing, have had you-all debate back and forth. Now, if there's an unresolved issue, ultimately we have to try to figure that out. But I found that if you-all just talk about it enough beforehand, by the time it gets to us, we're in a pretty good position to make -- make a decision. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: I understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and taking the time to be here. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: But I really do believe that different plans or codes need to be for different areas. No two areas are alike. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's where the board is heading. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And for a nonboat person, you did very well. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Thanks. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Olliff, do you think it would be a good idea for Ross to give this lady his card so they can get together? MR. OLLIFF: As soon as this item's over, I'll just make sure that Ross gives her telephone numbers and information where they can get together. Page 78 December 19, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Other questions of Ross in this? What do we -- what direction do you need from us now, Ross? MR. GOCHENAUR: May I make a comment? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir. MR. GOCHENAUR: May I make an extensive comment? CHAIRMAN CARTER: You can make an extensive comment. I don't see why not, sir. That's what we'd like you to do. MR. GOCHENAUR: By way of background for the smaller canals, a year and a half ago if your canal was 75 feet wide or less, you could have a 5-foot dock with no possibility of extension. The county lived with that since 1991. We liberalized that to give people 25 feet. We're liberalizing it again. We have a situation that's peculiar to a neighborhood of 52 property owners. There are 29 code enforcement violations. I won't belabor that point, but I have had concern from at least three citizens that their individual actions would have resulted in code enforcement violations that they would have been responsible for; whereas collectively, a neighborhood could appeal and have this resolved by the county or the board. I'm not quite sure that's how we want to go with the Land Development Code amendment. I heard different suggestions as to how we could modify the code to account for existing docks on that canal. I listened to Mr. Dunnuck recommend a variance, and I strongly support his suggestion. It is peculiar to that canal. I can't say whether staff would recommend it or whether you would approve it. But if the property owners on that canal drafted a variance request that was based on dimensions, whether the dimensions were a separation of 20 feet or a limit of protrusion into the waterway or a percentage of the waterway width, that would be for you to consider whether you wanted to approve it for their canal and that neighborhood. I don't think that the $2,000 fee is excessive in view of the situation. I don't Page 79 December 19, 2001 think it's unreasonable. It's going to require a lot of staff work. My recommendation would be that you suggest -- that you accept Mr. Dunnuck's recommendation for a variance. A fallback would be the possibility of addressing all canals within Collier County 60 feet or less in width. Personally I wouldn't recommend this because I feel the 50 percent is a safety issue. It's been accepted by all of the codes that I could find that address waterway width, whether small canals, large canals, or dead end. I didn't base this on guesswork. I based it on what I could find that other communities had found acceptable and were able to live with. We, of course, will work with your recommendation. But as far as that issue, I strongly recommend that you consider a variance resolution to this rather than a Land Development Code amendment. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well stated. Thank you. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Ross, you had said that there were two other canals. You -- you mentioned that this was a peculiar incident for this one. But before when you gave the presentation and somebody asked you a question, you said there were two others. Gulf Shores was one, and I can't remember the other. Do they have the same problems that this group is dealing with? MR. GOCHENAUR: Not to my knowledge. They're -- they're similar in that they have smaller canals, 60 or -- 60 feet or less in width. The peculiar situation here is mainly that we're trying to adjust the code to adapt to existing docks. And in addressing that issue, I'll also touch on this as far as legal nonconforming docks. It's been the development services policy to accept, as legally nonconforming, docks whose existence could be proved prior to 1990 when we started keeping accurate records on dock permits. So if a property owner has an old dock and he can show on the property appraiser's Page 80 December 19, 2001 card where the dock was there, that protrusion and those dimensions, we would grandfather that in. I don't know if this affects any of the property owners on that waterway, but it is a possibility, and we don't discount that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, ifI could, you know, what we are doing is changing the code. And if-- if we're going to change the code in a way that causes substantial inconvenience to the public, I think we should make it easier for them to deal with. It seems to me that if somebody is going to come in with a variance, they are going to go through an awful lot of trouble to establish their protrusion into the canal, have a survey, pay some money. Some of these people are probably in violation, but some of them probably built their docks without getting a permit. And it's going to be very difficult to sort all of that out. And I -- I think it would be a relatively simple thing. If these people brought variances to us, is there anybody on the board who would refuse to grant a variance, a group variance from these people? I don't think so. You know, you're depriving them of the ability to even have a boat if we don't grant the variance. So why would we even put them through that kind of trouble? It seems to me that we've got to be a little flexible. And I understand you can't tailor Land Development Codes for particular situations. But we're going to be approving a Land Development Code change, and with that change it seems to me that we can grandfather in the situation as it is right now and proceed with it and that way save our employees a lot of trouble with respect to going out and inspecting these things and the public a lot of trouble having to substantiate the fact that they've got a dock there and have had a dock there for some time. It just seems to be an exercise in bureaucracy that I think is self-defeating. Page 81 December 19, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: My concern -- I don't disagree with any of that. But my concern is twofold. One, if-- if we need to do these changes and it's for the good of the community, I'm all for it. However, every time we do one of these things, there's certain past issues, because the present is the past, and we've got to wrestle with that. Now, I'm like you, Commissioner Coyle. I want to find a way to take this group -- and if there are any others out there that I can get my arms around -- and say let's deal with it all at once and not penalize those people. I'm for that. I want to accomplish that. I want efficiency. But I don't want tonight what I do and the next code meeting what I do to cause a future problem. And that -- we -- we need to get through that. So I'm not against what you're trying to do, Ross, but I -- I'm really concerned that we don't get a Pandora's box going in here and we get all these little things running in here and everybody says, me me, me me, me me. And I'm saying wait a minute. There's got to be some block issues to deal with, and there's probably some exceptions out there somewhere. But what about 80 percent of the boat docks or 75 percent of the boat docks? Are we going to be okay? That's where I need help. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I ran across a similar situation. District 5 doesn't have that many boat docks, but we are blessed -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I didn't see any in Immokalee today, Jim, unless I missed something. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Everglades City. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we are blessed with some along -- I do have a small, little section that goes -- follows 951 by Manatee, and there is some back in there. And at one point they had a problem, and I grandfathered -- got them grandfathered in by going to the tax assessor's office and getting the maps going back -- the photos taken years ago. And I could prove that those docks were Page 82 December 19, 2001 there. So that solved the problem. I, for one, agree with you, Commissioner Carter, in the fact that if we start issuing blank -- blanket variances before we get to hear everything piecemeal, by the situation, in other words try to change this Land Development Code to fit everybody's needs, we're not going to fit no one's needs. But I am also agreeable that we have to try to be user-friendly for the rest of the group out there, and I'd be more than willing to, you know, very -- very seriously consider a waiver of the variance fee for future consideration when they come back here from Coconut Grove or whatever the -- Coconut River -- and looking at it at that point in time and coming up with a variance, a blanket variance that would cover that whole area and possibly looking at other variances. We can consider them one on one. But let's come up with a standard rule that will apply across the board, especially for new items coming on board, so that we can meet the need. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can we get there by the next meeting within this framework? MR. DUNNUCK: We will do the best we can. I think I understand where the board's wanting to go, and I think we can help work with you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you're reading it better than I am, then. MR. DUNNUCK: Of course, I want to note on the record that I will be public services administrator by the next meeting. CHAIRMAN CARTER: George Smith's going to really love yOU. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you'd indulge me for just a minute, I've got a question for Mark Morton, who lives in Palm Page 83 December 19, 2001 Beach, Coconut Beach, or whatever it is. CHAIRMAN CARTER: He lives in Coconut Town. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In your experience from in that area, do you know if the property appraiser has those boat docks on record? MR. MORTON: No. No, I don't know that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aerial photos, he doesn't have them going back for that area? MR. MORTON: No. But I know we can get a really -- a more recent one than -- the one I showed, actually, was, like, five years old -- that can -- it's much more accurate, can really show what's there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We were going on -- what Ross was saying is, you know, if the tax collector has caught it, it's kind of a like a grandfathering thing. And that's what -- what I was trying to ask you, and I didn't know if you had any input on that at all. MR. MORTON: No. No, I don't. But one thing I did want to mention is that the other canals we're talking about are sea-walled canals. I mean, the anomaly here is this is -- this is less than 60 foot wide, and it's natural slopes or riprap slopes, and that's what's creating the issue. These other 50s and 60s around the county, I believe, are mostly all sea walls. So, you know, that's why the thing was set up for a 5-foot dock off the -- because 5 foot off a sea wall, that's a dock. You walk out onto it. It's 5 feet. This is a different -- you know, this is -- actually, I like this type of a canal mainly because we have mangroves on it and, you know, vegetation growing and ferns and grass on some of them. And some have riprap, and we have a lot of wading birds and stuff. You know, it's a very naturalistic, tranquil type canal, and it's just not going to meet the sea-walled criteria. So I really think -- back to what Commissioner Coyle said, I really think if you put in this criteria, it's not going to catch a whole bunch of people. It's going to fix this one Page 84 December 19, 2001 situation. And anybody else that's got a natural sloped side that's less than 60, it makes sense for them too. So I hope that you-all will consider it the Land Development Code way. I would like some direction -- if we could just work closely with Mr. Dunnuck or Susan Murray, whoever it is, to go through the language that we've proposed and some ideas and see if we can come back to something. I'm afraid we're going to run into a land -- you know, the total 50 percent thing. We're just not going to go anywhere on that issue, from what I can tell. So we'd have to have someone say, okay, we'll humor you on the 20 foot, but let's see how we could make some language that would work for that scenario. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we, in the -- in the past, have asked our community development staff to work on it with the people on certain issues like that, and I think that's a great way to see if we could come to a compromise. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you. Ross, thank you for a great job. MR. DUNNUCK: I think you need to switch reporters right now. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah. We need to take five while we switch magic fingers. (A break was held.) (Proceedings recommenced without Commissioner Henning present.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We are live again. Good evening. We are going to the Immokalee Initiative. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. We are on page 13 of your packet. I just wanted to give the board some information prior to going into the proposed changes. This is related to the Immokalee Initiative that the board authorized and accepted a policy back in June of this year. Page 85 December 19, 2001 One of the issues that you're going to hear tonight is property owners that have indicated that they've been in existence for some time. I've done some research as far back as 1972 and found that the code required submittals of some sort and approval of the subdivision plan or some sort of plan with the development of mobile home parks. They also require that those subdivision plans be recorded. As I indicated, there are many people that are going to indicate to you tonight that they've been -- their parks existed back in the '50s and '60s, but I want to provide you some historical information and submit that the parks existence back in the '50s and '60s are not the same parks that exist today. For example, this aerial photograph shows a park that exists today, and this photograph was back in 1975. As you can see, it's very unimproved. This is the same park pictured in that prior photograph, and this is an aerial photograph for 1981. Again, that's the same park that has additional improvements, and this photograph is 1996. So what's happened out in the area is the parks have been added to and added to, and no additional approval or authorization has been provided by the county. The board, I would say about two years ago, implemented this Immokalee Initiative. They saw -- you-all saw a need to address a problem that was occurring over the years and intensifying over the years, and we've come up with policies, and the regulations are what are being presented to you today. I just wanted to make one other point, that the Immokalee Initiative is twofold. One of the primary goals is to remove the substandard housing units that are in the area. The other is to bring or recognize some of these developments that have occurred over the years and bring them into conformance as close as we can to the code. We're trying to legitimize some of these improvements that are coming in. (Commissioner Henning entered the room.) Page 86 December 19, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: The minimum criteria that are presented to you today -- I just want to -- oops, excuse me -- I wanted to identify that Section 2.2.29 is calling these parks nonconforming, and the intent is to after submittal of a site development plan or site improvement plan, that is, go back and correct the zoning maps to recognize the approvals that are going to be taking place as part of this effort. The Planning Commission heard this item, and they did make some modifications or recommended modifications, and I want to walk you through those at this point. On page 15 I just want to point out a typo. It says 2.2.19, and it should be 2.2.29. That is what -- that section identifies all the requirements for submittal of a site improvement plan. It requires a survey and certain information to be identified and the lots that each unit is going to be located. There is also another typo that I wanted to point out. On page 16, paragraph 5, it indicates -- and this is making reference to removal of substandard units that are identified as part of the inspection process. The second sentence says, "Those mobile home units that cannot be rehabilitated shall be removed and reflected on the site improvement plan, SIP, within a time frame established by the planning services director but in no event more than 12 months of the approval of the site improvement plan" rather than less than. On page 17 of your plan, the Planning Commission under the landscaping requirements wanted us to make some modifications to provide credit for existing vegetation that's on the property. So these requirements referring to the ten-foot buffer on the perimeter of the property and the spacing criteria and identifying the types of vegetation that would be acceptable, we want to reflect any of those vegetations or recognize any of those vegetations on the site improvement plan so that we're not adding to what already exists. There are fire protection standards. On page 18 of your handout under the dimensional standards, the Planning Commission Page 87 December 19, 2001 recommended two changes in that standard. On paragraph D they recommended a reduction in the square footage -- the minimum floor area square footage for mobile home units from 480 square feet to 320. Then in the minimum lot width they recommended a reduction for double-wide units from 50 feet to 45 feet. I wanted to bring up one other change that I think staff would recommend, and that is rather than have two different standards for mobile home park zoning and VR zoning, we would recommend having one standard with respect to the setback requirements or -- yeah, the setback requirements. For example, rather than having a 1 O-foot requirement for a mobile home and then another for the front yard and a 20-foot for VR, we would recommend eliminating that whole VR standard and have everyone meet the minimum standard of ten foot for front yard, five foot for side yard, and rear yard eight feet. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we eliminate paragraph 5-B; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more time on that. Now, what you would like to do is eliminate the standard that has them spaced out farther apart? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And move everything to, like, a mobile park. And this was suggested by the park owners or by staff?. MS. ARNOLD: This is something that I'm recommending in my review of the regulations. Right now some of the subdivisions -- the village residential zoning district requires it to be more of a subdivision, a platted development. We're finding that most of the developments that are out there are not platted. They are just one parcel, and there's multiple units on that one parcel. So it's functioning more like your mobile home parks rather than the VR requirements of the individual platted lots. So my recommendation is Page 88 December 19, 2001 just to treat them all -- recognize the existing condition and treat them all the same way. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course, if they didn't want to change to village residential, they could still keep the spacing so that -- MS. ARNOLD: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- it exceeds anything that's already -- MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. These would be minimum criteria. So if they wanted to have greater setbacks, they could have that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's the lessening of the rules one more time other than the setback? MS. ARNOLD: Some of the other recommendations from the Planning Commission was to change the minimum floor area for a mobile home from 480 square feet to 320. There was also another change that's reflected, actually, in your handout. The Planning Commission recommended minimum setbacks from a public road frontage. At one point it did say 25 feet. They recommended 20 feet, and it's reflected in your handout as 20 feet. The final paragraph of the standards is the implementation time frame. Paragraph 5 that I mentioned to you referred to the removal of substandard units. This is referring to the implementation of bringing the park into compliance with approved site improvement plans. What has been presented to the Planning Commission is a 12-month period from the approval time of the site improvement plan. The Planning Commission recommended a phased schedule. They recommended -- and I'm going to read it to you -- that you did -- you were provided a handout earlier that indicates the recommendation of the Planning Commission. It's highlighted in green, I believe, on the top. It says, "Immokalee Non-conforming Mobile Home Parks." Page 89 December 19, 2001 Your handout should read page 19, Section 2.2.29.5.6, rather than the 2.2.9.4.5. The recommendation from the Planning Commission was a 12- month phasing for mobile home parks with 10 or fewer units, a 24- month period for mobile home parks with 11 to 50 units, a 30-month period for 51 to 100 unit mobile home parks; finally, a 36-month phasing schedule for parks with units over 100 mobile homes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did staff agree with that? MS. ARNOLD: Staff-- I don't have a problem with that, phasing in that development, because it's going to be costly for some of these park owners to bring in some of the other improvements that may be required of them. That's all I have. I believe one of the speakers tonight is Vince Cautero, and he did hand me a letter that he's asking that staff present to the board. If you-all have any questions -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions by the board. If there's not any questions by the board, we'll move to speakers. MR. DUNNUCK: The first speaker is Vince Cautero followed by Robert Davenport. CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you're the next speaker, please be on deck. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. For the record, my name is Vince Cautero with the firm of Wilkison & Associates. For the record, our professional address is 3506 Exchange Avenue in Naples. I'm here tonight representing several property owners, and I just wanted to talk to you briefly about some of the issues that I highlighted in the letter. I won't go over all of them. I do appreciate the opportunity to have talked to staff prior to this meeting and also on several other occasions about the proposal. Again, for the record, we represent the Peach Trailer Park, Shirley Brown, Margaret Cruz, Robert Davenport, and Page 90 December 19, 2001 Betty Carter. I appreciate Mrs. Arnold's remarks, and I wanted to pick up on some of those. Some of my comments will be geared more towards interpretation of the proposed language in front of you tonight and a couple of requests. We appreciate the Planning Commission's due diligence and support their recommendations to you with a couple of minor changes. We do appreciate those recommendations and believe they've gone a long way towards strengthening the document that you are considering this evening. Mrs. Arnold talked about identification of the substandard units prior to the approval of the site improvement plan. My understanding of that or the way that process will unfold is that when an applicant submits a site improvement plan in accordance with the terms that you're considering tonight, if you should approve substantially in the form they're in tonight, that some type of survey of these units would be done prior to the second phase or the code enforcement phases, if you would, and that units that are uninhabitable, dilapidated, completely substandard, whatever the term we want to use for those is, would be identified by the staff and that the property owner would be responsible for replacing that unit within 12 months after the site improvement plan is approved. We wanted some clarification -- I think Mrs. Arnold said that, and I just wanted to get some clarification on the record that it would be those units that are identified in that process, but it would be more of a windshield or site-inspection type survey, and they would be identified on the site improvement plan. We just wanted to state that for the record, and I have stated that in the letter. Do you want to do that now, or do you want me to keep going? It's up to you. MS. ARNOLD: It's the pleasure of the board. We intend on doing more of a windshield survey for those units that appear suspect whether or not they're substandard, and then we would require a more detailed inventory and utilize our building department to perform that Page 91 December 19, 2001 inventory or inspection. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you. One other issue, too, that is somewhat related to that is I've been made aware that some property owners have applied for building permits to replace mobile homes. Whether they have met that standard or not, substandard is irrelevant for the next point. I've been getting mixed results on what they have been told. Rather than get into some of those details, we are requesting that if a park owner or a property owner of an individual lot or someone who rents a lot but owns the home -- and you'll hear from some of the property owners some of the different variations that exist in these parks. If someone applies for a building permit prior to having their site improvement plan approved, we're requesting that they be able to get that and meet the standards that would be adopted. Some property owners are choosing to do that for a variety of reasons, even if the unit doesn't meet the threshold of being a substandard unit. It's an issue that, I believe, was discussed at some of the community meetings, and I've discussed it with some of my clients, and we just throw it out there for your consideration. It is an item that I have talked to the staff about, and we would like to have the opportunity to talk with staff or perhaps your legal staff prior to the next public hearing. Additionally, we're acutely aware of some issues that may arise in these parks where you have people that rent spaces but own the unit, and in some parks people rent both. We are aware that in those cases where a code enforcement action would have to take place both parties would be brought into the code enforcement case. We're aware of that. But what we would like to discuss with you and have you consider is the fact that sometimes the actual owner of the unit that doesn't own the space may be brought into it at a later part in the Page 92 December 19, 2001 process after the SIP is approved. Say, for example, a park owner comes in and they own all of the lots, but they don't own the units; they would be involved definitely in Phase I, which is the site improvement plan process, and they would also be brought into the situation if the code enforcement action had to take place on the units later. We're wondering if some type of incentive, financial incentive, that's been offered to the property owner of the land could be extended to the owner of the unit when that phase comes in, and that's an item we may want to discuss at some point with the housing department because they have been amenable, and they have worked well with us in the first phase, the site improvement plan. It's just an additional item that we want to bring to your attention. I had a couple more items, but I know my time is up. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Please -- MR. CAUTERO: Can I keep going? I'll be brief. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you very much. Mrs. Arnold talked about the notice of violation again -- she didn't say that. I stand corrected. She talked about the inspection of the units prior to the site improvement plan being approved, the windshield survey. This may be purely a legal item. I don't know. It may be an item that may be handled administratively. But we're concerned about notices of violation that have been given to property owners of units now for substandard units or some units that are being labeled as substandard where there may be some debate. I would like the opportunity, at least for my clients, to explore that a little bit more with Mrs. Arnold so that we might be able to go over those in more detail while the site improvement plan is being approved. I have a client where some units have been "red tagged" -- that's the slang term that is used -- where they have been labeled as Page 93 December 19, 2001 substandard. We would like to have the opportunity to discuss that in more detail with officials from the building department while the site improvement plan process is underway. We think it would be counterproductive to go in and have to replace all of those units in a time frame before the site improvement plan is actually approved and place those units on the property. A few more points real quickly. We appreciate the Planning Commission's recommendation and Michelle's comments on the landscaping. We would just state for the record, though, that we believe that that section is somewhat onerous in some of the property owners' minds, and we would submit to you that the existing landscaping in these parks, if it exists, would meet the minimum threshold. I know that the staff has looked at this very carefully, and they have concerns and they've submitted some documentation to the Planning Commission, but we would ask that that be taken into consideration as well. The section dealing with the fire apparatus we're not sure, and I'm not convinced that the language that is in the document right now which states, "where a public water line is available, a hydrant will be required to serve the park," and then later on in the paragraph, "should water line pressure be inadequate, arrangements shall be made to seek approval of the Immokalee Fire Department to confirm that supplemental fire apparatus is adequate" -- I think that language could be strengthened a little bit. With your indulgence we would ask that we have the opportunity to continue to work with your staff and the fire department, specifically Mr. Rogers, the fire marshal of the Immokalee Fire Department to try to clear up that language a little bit. Our concern is that the property owners only pay their fair share for the apparatus and the fire hydrant installations or upgrades that may be needed to serve the park. We're interested in that because we Page 94 December 19, 2001 don't necessarily believe that it would be the park owners' responsibility to upgrade lines to serve a larger area of the Immokalee community than perhaps the park. I think some tweaking of the language would be warranted in that case. Finally, we do appreciate very much the Planning Commission's time frame that they recommended to you. After looking at the criteria a little bit more and looking at some of the financial costs, my clients have authorized me to recommend that those time frames that Michelle read to you just a few moments ago be bumped up six months. We had a little bit of tweaking and stopped it at the part where it's 51 units, I think, to 100 she said. We would ask that 51 plus be the last category. Specifically, through the record we're asking that the full implementation time frame be changed to 10 or less, 18 months; 11 to 25, 30 months; 26 to 50, 42 months; and 51 plus, 54. But we do appreciate the amount of time that the Planning Commission did take and your consideration as well, and I thank you for letting me go over my time, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have questions from first Commissioner Coletta and then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, a number of questions if you don't mind. MR. CAUTERO: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've been involved in this for one heck of a long time. I think I've seen and understood quite a bit of it. Going back to the fire department, what you're saying is if these fire hydrants go in and they're going to service an area that encompasses the park but also encompasses areas outside of the park, that a fair share be paid by the residents in the area or be passed on to the sewer and water customers of Immokalee? Is that what you're suggesting? Page 95 December 19, 2001 MR. CAUTERO: Something along those lines. Other projects that I'm working on in Immokalee have -- it's become apparent to us in representing other clients that there are lines that are undersized throughout the urban portion of Immokalee, and we're concerned that the property owners, if they have to make these improvements, which we believe they will once this is adopted, aren't making improvements for a larger area and other people aren't paying for that. That's what we're concerned about. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the people would be -- I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. We're talking about either the property owners of the trailer park paying for their fair share and then the residents of Immokalee would pay for the balance if it was covering their area too? MR. CAUTERO: Something along those lines, yes. I'm just concerned that the property owners of these parks are paying for the upgrade that would serve their park and not a larger part of the Immokalee community which would be handled through other means, either through special taxing districts, ad valorem taxes, whatever the case may be. I'm just concerned that my clients would pay for their fair share of the upgrade. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand where you are. Of course, then, too, they're working very close with the fire department. I know I met a number of times out there with Leo out there -- Leo Rogers about this very same issue. There's some possibilities, too, that they may be able to sign off on some items; is that correct? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. All we're asking for is the opportunity to look at that a little more closely. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that something that county staff would have a problem with in that particular direction? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I jump in on your Page 96 December 19, 2001 discussion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. Being an ex-fire commissioner, I'm sure you've got some good ideas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about if there's a fire hydrant outside the mobile home park? Are you willing to contribute to the cost of that fire hydrant? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. I think that's understood in some cases. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The existing ones. MR. CAUTERO: In some cases that's already come up that we have to do that. I don't think that would be an issue. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If it was totally contained within the park and the park would be the only one to service from it, then that's another issue. MR. CAUTERO: It's going to serve a larger area from what I've been told by fire officials, and that's not what I'm -- I'm not trying to insinuate that it's going to them. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No problem. MR. CAUTERO: I'm trying to handle it like an impact fee. You pay your fair sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I'm sure this is going to be something for Immokalee sewer and water to be able to work out. MR. CAUTERO: The Immokalee water and sewer will be involved, and the fire department will be heavily involved. We just want the opportunity between now and the January hearing to talk more with the fire department officials. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you understand how it works in the urban area as far as a commercial establishment or even a subdivision? If you don't have a fire hydrant within so many feet of a commercial building, you are to put it in. The people around it are to benefit from it also, but you bear that cost, you alone. And what you're asking for is for everybody to bear that cost. Page 97 December 19, 2001 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's on new construction; is that correct, Mr. Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the fire hydrant right down from my building was a big concern. It just fell within the parameters. If it wasn't, if it was only a few feet off, I have would have to put a fire hydrant in, and the whole community would benefit surrounding it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I'm saying is, this wasn't something that -- this was the result of a change of rules or new construction? COMMISSIONER HENNING: COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. It was new construction. Well, in this case we don't have new construction. We have an existing situation that's been there for a long time, and they've been paying impact fees and taxes for many years, and now they've got a situation that's come up. So, I mean, there's some particulars in here that aren't the same as what you experienced in Golden Gate. I would like to hear from staff on this. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I may ~-Jim Mudd, deputy county manager, for the record. The situation where you're going to run into an issue in the particular case that Mr. Cautero brings up is the fact that you've got an existing line. Say it's been there for awhile and it's undersized; all of a sudden there's a new requirement for a fire hydrant for a trailer park that needs to be put in. In order to bring it up to code, that line to be brought up to code, they have to upscale it additionally above and beyond what already exists. What he's, basically, saying is, "Hey, I'm going to pay for my upscale." Let's say it's a two-inch pipe, which is really small. Hopefully there's not a lot of those out there, but I'll bet you there are. To bring the fire hydrant in, he would only have to bring it up to a four-inch pipe. But in order to bring the customers up to speed and up to zone, it needs to be a six-inch pipe. Page 98 December 19, 2001 What he's basically saying is we'll pay the price for up to the four inch, but up to the six inch then it's going to be the customers that are already on the system, that already paid the impact fees in order to be part of that utility, and that could be a little bit sticky with the residents and the other users in that particular process. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So they already paid their impact fees. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did anyone else have anything to contribute on that? Boy, I would like to address, if I could, the units, the number of units that we're talking about and how they would be coming offline. First, we're not talking about the substandard units that are unlivable, are we? MR. CAUTERO: For -- I'm sorry, sir. I don't understand your question. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, the units we're taking off are not the red tagged units that have the holes in the floors or the bad roofs. These are units that just don't quite meet standards? Could somebody give me a better definition on this? MR. CAUTERO: Well, the issue that I mentioned a few moments ago -- we understand that the language that's in the proposed document that Mrs. Arnold talked about, the units that are identified early in the process that are substandard or unlivable, the staff is recommending that 12 months after the SIP is approved that those units be removed and replaced. We're asking for something a little bit different in my remarks. I was talking about units that wouldn't meet that threshhold if someone wanted to move it off now and apply for building permits to do so before their site improvement plan is approved. We know -- I know that some property owners have attempted to do that. What we're asking for is some type of radification for that. I know that in my conversation with Michelle Page 99 December 19, 2001 she will have to look into that a little bit more. MS. ARNOLD: The concern -- Vince and I did talk about that issue, and what he's trying to ask for is the removal of units prior to the whole review of the park. The part that I have some concern about is we don't really know prior to the submittal of the site improvement plan what the park's going to ultimately look like, you know, how many units it's going to have. So how can we then approve a building permit to replace a unit that may not be there -- or may not be allowed to be replaced. So that's my concern. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good point. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, how do you counter that? MR. CAUTERO: We would like to continue to talk to her about it and just explore and see if there is a way to resolve that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can understand talking about getting your final plan approval with trailers that are livable and asking for an extension of time. That's one thing I have no problem with. But if the trailers are red tagged and considered substandard or unsafe and don't meet the basic code as far as health, safety, and welfare goes, that's an entirely different issue. MR. CAUTERO: That's right, and that's not what I'm talking about. I apologize if I wasn't clear. I'm talking about units that would not meet that threshold. That's what I was talking about. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we go back through what you've got? The Planning Commission, which I thought was being very generous at the time -- I watched it on television, and I watched the replay, too, because I was quite amazed at how well they handled it. MR. CAUTERO: I take it you couldn't sleep that night. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The time that went into it and the presentations that were made on all sides were really beautiful. The 0 to 10, 12 months is what was recommended, and you want to Page 100 December 19, 2001 go to what? MR. CAUTERO: Eighteen. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: looking to go to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: to the board. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: go through it with him. MR. CAUTERO: Thirty. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: MR. CAUTERO: No, no, 42. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: MR. CAUTERO: It's 51. The 11 to 50, 24. You're Commissioner, it's in his letter Yeah, I know. I just wanted to Then 54 for the 26 to 50? So 42, and 54 for the 100 plus. MS. ARNOLD: Now, he's changed the number of units. CHAIRMAN CARTER: He changed the numbers. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, he changed the unit numbers too. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. So where we were asking for or what the Planning Commission recommended for the 50 units and above, they were recommending 30 months. Mr. Cautero's proposal is 54 months. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think somewhere between the Planning Commission's proposal and what they're coming forward with might be a more workable number. These numbers seem like quite far off in the stratosphere as far as anything that's realistic. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I just add in support of what you're saying, I was -- I made an appointment with Dora, and we went out and took a look at all of these trailers. I just wanted to see for myself what they looked like. I don't think people should have to live in that kind of stuff for 18 months or 54 months. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, they're not all like that, Page 101 December 19, 2001 Donna. There's various degrees. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I know. She took me around to the different parks. She pointed out the ones that are red tagged. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Some of them are just plain terrible. But those have been red tagged. The people, just as soon as they leave them, are not going to be able to go back in again. How many units have we already hauled off to the landfill? MS. ARNOLD: I'll get that number for you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got 600 altogether we plan to do. MS. ARNOLD: Eighty -- let's see. MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman, while Michelle is looking it up, I did want to make one remark, if I may, with your indulgence regarding that. The scale that the Planning Commission talked about and that we're discussing right now deals with the full implementation of the site improvement plan. It deals with the infrastructure more importantly. It didn't necessarily just deal with the units, because earlier in the document, as Michelle has indicated, the units -- they're recommending to you that the units that are substandard that are inventoried early in the process be removed 12 months after the SIP is approved. In reality that's going to be about two years because it could take that long to get an SIP approval. Hopefully, it wouldn't, but by the time the process is engaged someone has -- I believe the document calls for 12 months to even apply in those cases. MS. ARNOLD: No. The document doesn't -- you can apply tomorrow. MR. CAUTERO: Right. MS. ARNOLD: You can apply last week. So upon the application of your site improvement plan it may take three months to approve. Once we have an approval, we want the substandard units Page 102 December 19, 2001 to be removed within 12 months of that approval. You don't have to wait for that approval to remove those substandard units. We can go out to the parks and identify those units for you tomorrow, and you can remove them 12 months from our identification of those units. You don't have to wait for the approval. This is allowing some time, but the property owner has the ability to remove them prior to that. MR. CAUTERO: We understand that, and we appreciate that very much, but I just wanted to distinguish that this time frame deals with the full implementation which is the last paragraph of this document that you're discussing tonight. It's the infrastructure. It's the upgrades to the water lines, drainage improvements, landscaping if you approve it and so forth. Those numbers are quite substantial. That's the reason for the recommendation to you tonight in that regard. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're suggesting we deny the whole recommendation or modify it? MR. CAUTERO: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Your recommendation was to do what now? MR. CAUTERO: The recommendation was in the letter that I sent you on the time frame dealing with the full implementation which is a little bit different from what Michelle is talking about which is just the substandard units, the 12-month issue after the SIP is approved. I realize from your comments, Commissioner, that you have some difficulty with what I have proposed, but what I'm trying to say is that this is for the full implementation. This is for sidewalk upgrades, road upgrades, water and sewer line upgrades, drainage upgrades, fire hydrants, and so forth. We're talking about money that is in the six-figure category for some of these parks. That's why the recommendation is before you to expand the time frame. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You've got two issues here, I think, Page 103 December 19, 2001 Commissioner. The units -- get rid of the junk and get the right units on there and look at the rest of the infrastructure in that park. MR. CAUTERO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CARTER: My concern is, if I give you four years plus I'm not going to get the units in, I'm not going to get it done until the 1 lth hour, and I don't like that candidly. So if there is some way this can be worked out where we stay with the unit schedule to be done within three years and the infrastructure to be completed in a longer period, Commissioner, I could probably support that, but I've sat here for three years and listened to it, and I think it's time to make something happen. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, tie it in with a time frame here rather than having it where it's got a time certain and at the very end it has to be done. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's where I'm coming from. If it's a problem, I don't want to be unfair to park owners, but on the other hand we've got some nasty situations here that are long overdue to be corrected. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Cautero, you're suggesting here or you're concerned that code enforcement actions might be taken before the site improvement plan is approved. Does that suggest that you would expect that we suspend all code enforcement until the site improvement plan is approved? MR. CAUTERO: No, not all code enforcement activity. However, I think what Michelle said on the record tonight is acceptable, and I commend her for that, and that is the units that are substandard 12 months after the SIP is approved. We just wanted some confirmation of that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Essentially that could mean almost any code enforcement action that dealt with the safety and welfare of the occupant would still be applied, even though the site Page 104 December 19, 2001 improvement plan had not been approved. Is that essentially your understanding? MR. CAUTERO: That's my understanding. I believe they have the authority to do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we could continue to remove the substandard units whether you had submitted the site improvement plan or not, and we would continue to do that as vigorously as we thought -- MR. CAUTERO: I'm not sure that statement is correct. My understanding is that if the site improvement -- once the site improvement plan is submitted to the county, that's the trigger for the inventory to begin, unless the county is going to start inventorying all of them all at once. I don't know what the plan is. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not my understanding. MS. ARNOLD: No, no. We have inventoried parks prior to the site improvement plan process, and we can do that as soon as possible. We don't have to wait until the site improvement plan is submitted before we do the inventory of the parks or the units. My recommendation would be that we do that, that we identify units that are substandard. Vince had mentioned previously about some of the units that are red tagged. I have every intention of looking at those units or re-evaluating those units to make sure that the property owners know exactly what's wrong, whether or not it's something that is unrepairable or something that needs to be maintained and could be repaired. So, you know, the concern that he raised previously, I think, may be a valid one about not really knowing whether some of those units that have been tagged are really something that should be removed, and I intend on re-evaluating those units. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I would presume there's an appeal process if there is a major disagreement concerning that sort Page 105 December 19, 2001 of thing, is there not? MR. CAUTERO: The appeal, if there is one, would be to the building official. The only person that can make that decision in your county is the building official -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. CAUTERO: -- who signed off on it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, let me summarize this. We have some inventory. We're going to continue to make inventory. We're going to continue to take code enforcement action while the site improvement plans are being submitted and even thereafter, I would presume; right? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the other question I have is -- and this is important with respect to your recommendation concerning incentives to the property owners. For those people who do not own the structures on the land but own the land and are leasing or renting the land, do they have leases which require the maintenance of minimum standards for those structures? MR. CAUTERO: I believe they do, but you would have to address that to some of the property owners that are going to speak tonight. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's an important factor if we get to the point of looking at incentives. I would very much hate to see the county get involved in providing incentives for someone to do something that they failed to do because of bad business practices. MR. CAUTERO: I understand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I need to point out you've got eight more public speakers on this particular item. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. I think we need to move Page 106 December 19, 2001 on. We need to go to the next speaker. MR. DUNNUCK: Robert Davenport followed by David Carter. MS. ARNOLD: While they're walking up, Commissioner Coletta, you asked how many units were removed, and there were 78 units removed. MR. DAVENPORT: For the record, my name is Robert Davenport, and I represent Davenport Mobile Home Park. We have 143 or 144 mobile home lots, and we do all mobile home lot rentals. I own only two mobile homes. I own one that the manager lives in and own one that my secretary lives in while she's building a house. I need to give you just a brief description of the types of mobile home parks I have. I have one that's 103 units, which is a PUD. It was developed with a 4,000 square foot minimum. I have one mobile home park and a mobile home zoned years ago that's developed on a 4,000 square-foot-lot size. I have one 11-unit park in a VR zoning that I have a full-blown site improvement plan and a conceptual site plan for 6 lots, a full-blown site improvement plan for 5 units and a conceptual site plan that was approved for 6 units. Coming down to the 13 lots that are in the VR zoning, we surveyed that out by metes and bounds in '86 or '87. At the time -- this is where I'm really having a problem with staff and not the staff that's here today. The staff that's here today is not our problem. In 1986-'87 the staff in Immokalee allowed us to separate this out in metes and bounds and 6,000 square feet. We did it, and we felt that we were correct. I feel like, personally, I did what the rules required at the time. Even though the rules go back years ago -- young, dumb or whatever, I have 13 lots in a VR district that I surveyed out in metes and bounds. In the middle of all of that, we have individual water meters. We have individual light meters. We have sewer connections for each one. We have addresses for each one issued Page 107 December 19, 2001 back in 1986 and 1987. So I feel like I've met the criteria on that. On November 13th code enforcement was called, and not by me or not by code enforcement, but it was a person involved with the tenant at 4700 Miraham Drive. The unit was deemed uninhabitable. I need to replace it by the inspector, and there's a copy of the report there. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You've got one minute, sir, to wrap up, please. MR. DAVENPORT: I don't own any of the mobile homes in my parks. All of them are owned by individuals. They need the time to replace their mobile homes. Also, the language about replacement of mobile homes, in my case where it's individual lots, to the best of my knowledge, I've got them divided in individual lots. Whether they're legal or illegal, I did it according to the time in '86-'87. The other issue is the eviction process. The county served me with the notice to correct this, and I don't own the unit. The original inspection was addressed to Miss Gonzalez, and they turned the name around -- Spanish people normally have two or three names, and they often turn it around. But I feel like code enforcement should go straight to the owner of the mobile home rather than come straight to me and file a case. I realize the bottom line is the mobile home park is responsible, but my only alternative is to go through the eviction process and have the code enforcement testify at the eviction process. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before you go -- here's a question, Michelle. Why is it that the person that owns the trailer isn't getting cited for this while the property owner is? MS. ARNOLD: We should be citing both. We should be citing the property owner, you know, the real property owner as well as the unit owner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could somebody correct -- the Page 108 December 19, 2001 real property owner plus the unit owner? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. VIDORI: That letter did go out to that property owner. We are sending -- THE COURT REPORTER: Your name? MS. VIDORI: Oh, I'm sorry. For the record, my name is Dora Vidori, and I run the housing initiative project in Immokalee. We are sending out the notices of violation. We did issue the notices of violations to the property owners. We're issuing the notice of violation to the actual owner of the unit and to the property owner both. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, who is the responsible party? Are they both equally responsible? MS. VIDORI: The unit owner who has the ability to correct the problem is responsible for repairing the unit, but the property owner also shares in the responsibility because that unit that's in violation is situated on their property. So if the unit owner fails to correct, the property owner has some responsibility to try to encourage that unit owner to correct the problem. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other question I've got while we're still right up here is rules that were made in the '80s, they don't apply any longer because the code changes, or how is it that this came to be? MS. ARNOLD: Well, as I indicated in my first comments, as far back as '72 1 found that the requirement -- those requirements similar to what we have -- they're a little bit more extensive right now, but way back in '72 you had to submit a subdivision plan, and it had to be recorded in the official public records. Most of that doesn't exist. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coyle. Page 109 December 19, 2001 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Davenport, I have a question about the lease. Can you tell me what your lease provides with respect to maintaining the mobile homes up to standard? (Commissioner Coletta left the room.) MR. DAVENPORT: It's required for it to be in a well- maintained condition. This unit was noticed by the park prior to the inspection. There is going to be legal litigation, not between myself and staff, but between the person that bought the mobile home and the person that sold it to them. Children & Family Services are going to be involved in this. I think they are in the process of getting an attorney. I don't want to be the sticky part. I don't own the unit. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: With respect to property owners -- unit owners that need assistance, because that was mentioned earlier, if there's any way that the county can help with, you know, the property owners to either repair or remove and replace, we will. Currently the housing and urban improvement department does have assistance to the property owners for the site improvement plan process, but some of the funding that the housing department currently has and distributes restricts those funds from being used for mobile homes. So we're kind of at a drawback there. There's probably other funding out there that I'm willing to explore to see how we can assist these property owners. (Commissioner Coletta entered the room.) MR. DAVENPORT: Mr. Chairman, could I make one comment? CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you would quickly, sir. I've got seven other speakers that want the same time as you do. MR. DAVENPORT: Yes. Collier County staff has made a legal notice -- a complete, legal, technical notice on this issue. I only found this issue out by watching community television at the Page 110 December 19, 2001 Planning Commission, and I realize that I was probably not as well versed as I should be, but I heard the county commission talking about your meetings all over town and people not getting informed. An issue the size of this should have been, in my opinion, more than a legal, technical advertisement. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. DUNNUCK: David Carter followed by Para Brown. MR. CARTER: Yes. I'm David Carter. I'm representing my mother, Betty Carter. She's got Carter's Trailer Park. She's got two of them; one at 1601 Carson Road and one at 3507 Carson Road. I'll carry on more or less where Mr. Davenport left off and what the other gentleman explained. Our park is mixed. We own some of the mobile homes in the park, and then some of the lots we rent. A lot of these people in one of my parks is mostly elderly people. They live on a fixed income. They cannot afford to replace their units. And as far as what she was talking about, there is no government help to help them. There's no way they can get loans to replace these mobile homes. I feel in the inspection of what code enforcement is doing they have red tagged two mobile homes in my park precisely because they were empty. That is the only reason, because I did not have a tenant in them. It is not like the doors are falling off these homes. It ain't like the windows were falling out or you could go by and see the inside of somebody's bathroom. One of the homes is better than the one I live in myself, but it was merely red tagged because it was empty. My sister moved out of this home and moved to Lehigh, so the home has been sitting there because my mother refused to rent it out because me and my wife was going to move into it. But this is a process that we're going through. They are citing mobile homes out here just because they're empty. I understand there is a lot of junk Page 111 December 19, 2001 mobile homes in Immokalee, and it does need to be cleaned up and all of this. I applaud them on their plans to try to do this. But it's unreasonable in a lot of ways. Like, my mother owns these parks, and she's 66 years old. They're asking her to put in $200,000 per park. She would never even live to see her money come back to her, period, in this. Okay. If you're looking at, like, hedges and trees and stuff-- for one, electric lines were put in 20 years ago. There's no way in a lot of these places that you can put in trees or what they're asking for 50- foot centers on the interior and then 30 foot on the outer limits of the park because they're going to be growing in all over the power lines. We have a problem with drainage out there. Both of my parks face county roads. I have drainage on both sides of it. The county's drainage runs 300 foot one way and dead ends and runs approximately 600 feet the other way and dead ends. There is no drainage. My park at 1601 Carson Road, they're wanting us to re-lay this out. We've got to have drainage and all of that in here. There's not even a ditch within 100 feet of that property where I could run my drainage to. You know, you're asking for us to spend money in redoing all of this, but where is the county going to meet us at? And once we spend this money what guarantees do we have three years from now that you-all don't change the laws again, and it comes back on us again? Two years ago ! was hit by code enforcement on one park. They're saying I did not have the legal setbacks. I proved to them that the mobile homes were never moved. They accused me of moving homes out then. I took aerial photos and proved this two years ago. They sent me a letter stating that park was fine. I never got it. And now here we are again. I would like to know, if we're going to spend this kind of money, what guarantee do we have next Page 112 December 19, 2001 year that you-all don't change something else and we've got to spend another $100,0007 That's my main concern with this. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear your concerns. All I can tell you is I don't think they made anybody spend $100,000 three years ago, and I doubt if they'll make them spend $100,000 three years from now once everything comes up to par. This isn't something we do just to cost people money. MR. CARTER: Well, the average -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm kind of at a loss, though, on the one thing you mentioned about the trailer that was condemned just because it was empty. I don't suppose you know about that one particularly. I would like to see the report on that myself. MR. CARTER: Well, I'll give it to you. It's about a 5-page report. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd love to see it. MR. CARTER: I would be more than happy to bring it to your office. My thing is I think if they're going to inspect our mobile homes, I think that we should be able to have a licensed contractor be there when the inspector makes his report, because the way that one was written up -- it had one bad door on the interior of the mobile home. The way the inspector wrote it up, he put on the report that doors need to be fixed, not a door, but doors. That's the way a lot of these are written up. I should have brought that with me, but if you were to sit behind this desk and not go out and look at this mobile home, you would think it's a pile of junk. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've looked at hundreds of them. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner, I think we can debate this all night with these people, but let's -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you. I don't mean to belabor it, but I do want to entertain these questions when they ask Page 113 December 19, 2001 them. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we'll get the report, and then I think it will all be clarified on it, but we need to go to the next speaker. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I apologize for dragging this out, but I really do want to get the answers. MR. CARTER: Thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: Pam Brown followed by Benny Starling. MS. BROWN: For the record, my name is Pam Brown. I represent Chaney's Mobile Home Park. My grandparents started the park 51 years ago. All of the people that live at our park own their units. The reason I was brought up before code enforcement was because one of our mobile homes was moved out, and there was another person who moved a mobile home in, and they said, no, we can't have another mobile home moved in because you're changing things, so we have to have a site improvement plan. Okay. So I went ahead and hired Wilkison & Associates and got a survey going. I said, "Okay. You want to inspect the trailers, let's inspect the trailers." I didn't realize the ramifications of what was going to happen there. You-all will find before you a couple of my mobile homes here, which the people own, that they're saying are too small and they're going to have to move the mobile homes. Where are the people going to live is my question. There is a Florida statute on this. You'll see it attached. It's 723.085. My copy is kind of bad. But it says that you cannot displace people without having another place for them to move to. Also, my issue tonight is the square footage, and you will find attached is the Land Development Code 1991 from the county. It says that you would go by Florida statutes and HUD. I've attached the Florida statutes, and I've attached HUD's, which is 320 square Page 114 December 19, 2001 foot. I'm going to address a little of the infrastructure that Mr. Cautero was talking about. I was on the water board for 12 years in Immokalee. Leo and I have been talking lately, and when we first got the water sewer system in, we went through the USDA or Farmers' Home, and at the time they would only approve us for funding of two-inch lines. So a lot of our lines over there are only two inches because they weren't looking for the future. They were looking for what was going to be right for that moment. So it's going to be -- it's not just a mobile home park issue. It's going to be an issue for all of Immokalee. Does anybody have any questions? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions by the board. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not other than the fact that -- we already mentioned the fact that the sewer and water company has to work with you, and the fire department has got to sign off, and I know code enforcement would be willing to work with you when they have the satisfaction on it. I've been through your park. It's a very nice-looking park. MS. BROWN: Well, like I said, it's been there for 51 years. I know it's not zoned that way. I don't even know why it was never zoned that way. We were there before zoning ever took place in the '70s like Miss Arnold was saying. But we've always had it laid out. The people that put our water and sewer lines in were working with the water/sewer district that put the water/sewer lines in all over Immokalee. So we've been trying to be to code, and yet there's so many things you're going to have to do, and it's going to cost thousands of dollars. Thank you for listening to us. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question by Commissioner Coyle. MS. BROWN: Oh, sorry. Page 115 December 19, 2001 COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. This is directed to staff. MS. BROWN: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much, Miss Brown. The copy of the Florida Statute sheet she provides us seems to be very clear and limiting in our authority to do what we're thinking about doing. I'm suggesting that you take a look at it and have the legal staff look at it so we're not in violation in any way. Okay? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. The recommendation was to change the square footage back to 320. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Three twenty? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say it one more time. MS. ARNOLD: The minimum square footage that was one of the changes that was recommended earlier was changing it from 480 to 320. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But this statute doesn't say anything about 320 square feet. It says local government can't take any action which would result in the removal or relocation of homeowners unless there's a place for them to go to. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I'll have to look at that. I have not seen -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to bring it to your attention. MS. ARNOLD: -- what it's making reference to. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All it says is unless there are other suitable locations for the relocation of that mobile home unit itself. So as long as there's a park available for that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: We just need to make sure that we meet the requirements. Page 116 December 19,2001 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think how I read it is saying we cannot take any action on rezoned property and, therefore, removing units, and this is not a rezone. MS. ARNOLD: I would think that the statute would apply to legally approved or zoned parks or units. I don't know. I haven't had an opportunity to look at it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: It's all the nonlawyers in the room that have responded. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't have legal staff here tonight, do we? Oh, we do. There he is. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think he went to sleep. Next speaker, please. MR. STARLING: I'm Benny Starling, and I'm the executive director of the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce. I've sort of changed what I wanted to say to you-all tonight a little bit in view of some of the other comments that have been made. I will not repeat those. But what concerns the Chamber of Commerce the most is the displacement of people. I know several situations, one in particular, where this lady is on oxygen 24 hours a day, has small children, and her mobile home, I'm sure, would fall into one of these categories. She will have to move out. She does not have funding. I did hear Michelle say there are funds, but I'm not so sure that the property owners nor the mobile home owners are aware that they can get funding. A lot of these people that Michelle is talking about in Immokalee are very poor tenants. I agree with you, Commissioner, when you hated to see these people live in these type of places for another 18 months. A lot of people don't mind living in these places 18 months. That's the sad part. We, from the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, want things to Page 117 December 19, 2001 be better for all of our people in Immokalee, and we certainly applaud our county for working in this direction. Immokalee has taken a drastic change over the last five years, and I think you're going to see even a bigger change in the next five years. But coming with that and the pains that we're going through for a small working agriculture community -- we need time. I have listened for a number of months about compared to the size of the parks and so on and so forth. I think, Commissioner Carter, you said something about if we do this in phases, if there is some way that it could be worked in a five-year phase where the first year -- this would have to be done by the end of the first phase. The second year would have to -- certain other items would have to be taken care of during that time. That's over a five-year period. It's going to be a great expense to a lot of people. This didn't happen overnight. I mean, this has been going on for -- I've been in Immokalee for 50 years so, you know, it's been going on a long time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they've been collecting rents all that time. MR. STARLING: You're exactly correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And not making improvements. I'm sorry. MR. STARLING: You're exactly correct. But then on the other hand, you also have people that are not educated that own some of these mobile homes that are going to need to be evicted or displaced out of these trailers and stuff. You're dealing with uneducated people in a lot of these situations, so I think you have to look at both sides of the fence. I understand exactly what you're talking about as far as the rental fees and stuff like that, and there are some that fall into that category. I'm not going to say that we don't know that. But I think the majority of the people that are park owners do want to do the very Page 118 December 19, 2001 best, and they want the very best for the people in Immokalee. I just -- on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, I just urge each of you-all to work with us and help us to help our people in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think Vince, when he was up here a little while ago, mentioned the fact that he'd like to work with our housing director and the SHIP program and HUD funds. MR. STARLING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you what. That's one of the things I'd like to see a real effort made on. This is my biggest concern about what's taking place there, and that's the displacement of that one individual or that family. MR. STARLING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have to make every effort to -- we have to make every effort to come up with something for suitable housing for them or get them in the direction where they can get it. MR. STARLING: I was there the day Mr. Davenport delivered the news to his tenant that owned this particular trailer. The lady does not speak any English. She had several children. She just broke down and cried because she didn't know where she was going to get the funding for it. You know, we're talking three or four or five thousand dollars to fix her place up. She has no idea what to do. So this is the kind of situation we're in. Certainly there are some situations that people can afford to do and they have not, but there are a lot of people in our community that are like this particular lady and this other lady that's on oxygen 24 hours a day that I really don't know what's going to happen to these people. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could I make a suggestion? Could we direct staff to have someone from our housing authority or from -- what's the name of it -- the people that handle the SHIP fund Page 119 December 19, 2001 and the HUD money to work directly with the citizens of Immokalee to try to identify the ones that are going to be in danger of losing their residence and see what can be done to offset this? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. We'll be working with housing. We'll work with other agencies as well to try to come up with assistance for all of these. MR. STARLING: We're in critical need of housing in Immokalee, and it will be another year or so before the Jubilation project, you know, will have some housing units completed. Then, of course, the Arrowhead Reserve, that will be several years. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibly what we can do is target these people to have preferential treatment for getting into these projects. MR. STARLING: Right. And as far as the actual landowners or the park owners, they're going to have to come up with a tremendous amount of monies. Again, the five-year phase thing, I think, would be, you know, really in the best interest for all of the people, the landowners plus the mobile home owners. CHAIRMAN CARTER: sir. Okay. I appreciate your comments, MR. STARLING: I appreciate your time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: If we can go to the next speaker, please. MR. DUNNUCK: Tad Tuttle followed by Carrie Williams. MR. TUTTLE: Good evening. My name is Tad Tuttle for the record. I live at 133 Broad Avenue South here in Naples. I came this evening to speak on behalf of Burt Gorman. He's the project manager on the Arrowhead Reserve project. He was involved in a car accident this evening, but apparently the x-rays were negative, and he's been released from the hospital, so he came back down here Page 120 December 19, 2001 to speak with you this evening. I would like to give my time to Mr. Gorman, if that's okay with the commission. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Fine. Thank you, sir. MR. GORMAN: Good evening. Burt Gorman for the record. I apologize for the dress, but I had a car totalled on me on 951. As you-all know, Arrowhead Reserve isn't intending to put mobile homes up, so we don't have any vested interest in this one way or another. But Tad, my brother-in-law, and I have a very big interest in better housing in Immokalee. This is what we spent four years doing in order to get the Arrowhead Reserve project to get going. So, as I said, I don't have any vested interest in this, but I would like to add my voice as a voice of cooperation meaning -- Commissioner Fiala said something that was quoted in the newspapers a few weeks ago that is my philosophy as well as her philosophy, and that is if people can cooperate and work together, we all get a lot further along than if we want to come after each other and argue and fight. Now, I was called by the mobile home owners a few weeks ago, and I spoke to Mrs. Arnold whom I've known since I moved to Naples, and I felt that there was some miscommunication and a lack of understanding on the size there and that communication would help. So I asked if Mrs. Arnold would come to Immokalee and meet with the owners of the mobile home parks and if we would have a dialogue. We did that five days ago or six days ago. There was substantial movement there, first of all, to eliminate some of the concerns that just were based on nothing and also to explain their position. I'll also get to the point as quickly as possible. One concern that I have, a big concern, is that I don't want to see anybody homeless if we can avoid it. There are certain mobile home park owners that say, "IfI have to spend a ton of money, I'll just close the park." If you close a park with 100 mobile homes, you've got people sleeping in Page 121 December 19, 2001 the grass. We can't have that. Those homes are filled with people who -- with children. They go to school there, you know, so that's a concern. There's been a lot of movement. I was laying in the hospital watching this over there today, and I see there's been movement already. I will point out to everyone here, the commissioners, etc., that the people -- the mobile home park owners that show up here and at the meeting that we had out in Immokalee last week, they're the ones that want to do something. They're looking for answers. They want to cooperate. The ones that don't show up, I guarantee you without knowing they're the worst offenders. I'm just pointing out the concerns that the mobile home park owners have. They're not just saying, "Oh, leave me alone. I don't want to change." These are not all the mobile home park owners. These are the ones that care. They're in Immokalee. They have a lot of businesses in Immokalee, not just one or another -- not just mobile home parks. Therefore, I just want to suggest again that cooperation is the best way to go. There's been a lot of movement on that already, and we don't want to just drive the mobile home park owners out of business. You would have 4,000 people sleeping under the stars, and we don't need that. Now, if anybody has any questions about my time out at Arrowhead, i would be glad to answer that. Other than that thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARTER: No questions, sir. Thank you very much. I hope you're well. It looks like you're on your feet, so take care. MR. TUTTLE: Thank you, Dr. Carter. I appreciate it. MR. DUNNUCK: Duane Wheeler followed by Jay Whidden. MS. WILLIAMS: Did you say Carrie Williams? CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have Carrie Williams next. MS. WILLIAMS: For the record, my name is Carrie Williams, Page 122 December 19, 2001 and I'm from Immokalee. First of all, I would like to say that I agree with your desire to get rid of the substandard housing. I think everyone here has also stated that fact. We do want to get rid of substandard housing. But I also think you need to be aware that there are different circumstances, and I'm sure you'll hear about a lot of those different circumstances tonight. You've heard some of them already. One of the objections that I have to this initiative is the time frame in which the county is initiating this action. As we all know, there is not adequate housing available in Immokalee for low income or moderate income. We do know that the Collier County Housing Authority is trying to come online with some migrant labor camps for males. Also, they're coming online with some single-family units, I believe, but it's not going to be for, what, two years, I think. Then Arrowhead is maybe, possibly, one or two years. So what you're having is -- the county is starting this initiative before there is adequate housing in place to house the people that might be displaced when some trailer park owners decide that this is not worth the money to, you know, implement the infrastructure. I know Pam stated the Florida statute as 723.083. I would like to read the entire statute because I don't know that your copy was very clear. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we have the entire statute, ma'am. You won't have to read it to us. MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. But it does state that official action that results in removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in mobile home parks have to have suitable facilities to go to before you start relocating them or before you start initiating an action that would force them out of their homes. So I just believe you're a little too aggressive at this point before you have substantial housing available. I agree with Benny and the time frame issue as far as Page 123 December 19, 2001 maybe a five-year plan and that we work together with staff to develop that. I would also like to state that since this initiative does deal with Immokalee that maybe you should have a meeting in Immokalee so you can hear the concerns of not only mobile home park owners, but also the people who own their own mobile homes and just rent spaces, and this is going to affect them too. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, ma'am. Questions from the board. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast one. What do we do with those mobile home parks? What does the school board do with those mobile home parks when they move out of them? Portables is what they call them or mobile homes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: They take them to the next school where they're short space. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Portable classrooms. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, mobile classrooms. MR. OLLIFF: I can't tell you as general rule what they do. I know that we picked up a couple of them, and we put them to use in some of our parks and recreation -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought especially for somebody like this family. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got one going up to Copeland, and believe me there's nothing cheap about it. You're talking about -- when you get through with transporting it, setting it up, and modifying it for what you need to do, you're looking at $30,000 plus. MR. DUNNUCK: Duane Wheeler followed by Jay Whidden. MR. WHEELER: For the record, my name is Duane Wheeler. I'm from Immokalee. My concern was the trailer size, so if you vote for that, that's great, but the time line is another thing. If it could be a Page 124 December 19, 2001 little bit longer I think it would be beneficial for everybody that has camps. Because there's some people that have maybe three or four that have trailer parks -- I mean, that has these in the backyard or in a lot that will have a hard time getting the money. They're making their living off of these things. Like these retired farmworkers, they might have a trailer behind their house, two or three trailers, and that would be a hardship for them because that's the only income they usually have. Farmworkers -- if you know anything about farmworkers, back in the '50s and '60s they didn't pay any social security. Now they're making -- now they get SSI checks. They don't get social security checks. They might get $350 to $600 a month or maybe not even $600 each. That's the income that they have. If they don't have these little trailers in the backyard, they don't have no income coming in. They're going to have to be on food stamps or some other kind of government assistance. Another thing is the seniors. That's one thing I want to bring up. There's a lot of seniors that own their own trailers. They're people that are retired and only pay lot rent. They own a trailer in some of these trailer parks, and they're on this fixed income, like I told you, because they were farmworkers. They might not have enough money to keep fixing their trailer up, but they have -- they can pay the lot rent, and most likely they might be off of food stamps. They're buying groceries with the money they have. They don't have any extra for much of anything when they're living in these trailer parks. They're only paying rent on their trailer spaces. If you do that, where are they going? There is no place. If you come and tell them that they're going to have to get rid of their trailer in 12 months, what are they going to do? They can't go borrow money, because they're 60 or 70 years old. Most of them are 70 or 80 years old. There's no way that they're going to be able to get a loan Page 125 December 19, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: MR. WHEELER: Okay. Connection? from the bank to buy a $30,000 trailer to put on that spot. That's one concern that I think you-all need to think about when you start coming into these trailers parks and start red tagging them, because there's going to be a lot of these families that are -- I mean, not families, but one or two people, a man and wife or just a man that has these trailers. That might not be up to the standards that we want to live in, but that's the only thing they've got. There was a letter sent to Michelle Arnold from the Senior Connection. Did you get the letter? Wrap up, sir. You have one minute. Did you get the letter from Senior MS. ARNOLD: When was that sent? MR. WHEELER: The 7th, December 7th. I want to give a copy of it to everybody. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've got one. I know. MR. WHEELER: Did you-all get one? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did. MR. WHEELER: Okay. I didn't know if they did. But this is something that's going to affect -- Senior Connection is serving a lot of these people meals, and they know -- they've been -- they go to interview these people. They know that they're in substandard housing, but there's no way that they can help, and there's no way that the government -- I mean, that these people are able to do their own financing of a new trailer. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN CARTER: None from the board. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. DUNNUCK: MR. WHIDDEN: Whidden. Your final speaker is Jay Whidden. Thank you. For the record, my name is Jay I would like to address, first of all, in the SIP process it Page 126 December 19, 2001 says, "all mobile homes will be identified." I represent Taro Park. We don't own any of the mobile homes. They're all owned by the individuals. It's their home. If they refuse to let any inspector in, will this stop our SIP from being approved? That's one question. Another question that I wanted to bring up on the SIP is the survey. The survey is put in there -- you also want every plant and tree put on the survey. That's going to drive up the cost of the survey. A plant is an organic, living entity. It gets struck by lightning. Last year we had 15 trees in the trailer park. I talked to a guy who is very knowledgeable on trees today, and he said that due to stress beetles get into it. I had to remove 15 trees from the park. What that's going to cause is down the line, say, 10 or 15 years from now when an inspector comes out with the SIP on a mobile home that gets replaced, he's going to look at it and say, "I see on the map you're supposed to have four or five pine trees here. They're not here. Where are they?" I'm going to have to tell him, "The trees have been struck by lightning, or they've been killed by beetles so I had to remove them." Because the insurance that we carry on the park says that any tree that's dead we have to remove, because if it falls on someone's property or house or hits someone we're liable. The insurance company doesn't cover it, so I have to remove it. I was talking to Vince, and he said that that's fine even if the SIP says to put the trees in there. You just put an addendum to the SIP that says that in the event the trees get damaged or destroyed or whatever they'll be replaced by oaks or whatever it is that they recommend. That's already going to drive up the cost of the survey by having to put the trees in, because I'm going to put in the addendum, so it's going to be a redundant thing. Also, in the cases of Immokalee where the people -- we who are born here are very fortunate. The people that came over here came over to better themselves. They came over to get their kids an Page 127 December 19, 2001 education and get better health care. Nobody here, none of these people from Immokalee, are defending substandard housing, none of them. We are the ones that care. We're the ones that met with staff, and that's all we're asking. In this process here, at least let us go back with staff and work out some finite details with this SIP. I also brought up to Mr. Coletta when I met with him last week in the case of-- like, we have one row in the trailer park where the mobile homes are set in, and they all got their permits 15 or 20 years ago. They happen to be sitting, say, three or four feet from the property line. They're supposed to be 10 feet now. Well, if you go through and cite this and say, "Okay. All 15 of these mobile homes have to be pulled up 10 feet," we don't own the mobile homes. Who should bear that cost? Should I? I mean, we don't own it. We didn't pull the permit. Should the man who's working out in the field -- good Lord, he's only making $150 or $200 a week. He can't afford to pay $2,000 to move his mobile home forward ten feet. Should the county pay for it? Because they're the ones that issued the permit, and then they told him, "You can live here happily now." I would suggest that the county -- and it's within your power, you that sit there, to waive his inspection and his permit fee when he has to move it forward 10 feet. He shouldn't have to repay for another inspection or the permit. Any questions? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions by the board. I don't think so, sir. Thank you very much. Next speaker. MR. DUNNUCK: That was your last speaker. MS. ARNOLD: I just have two items that I failed to mention that the Planning Commission had recommended. One was relating to the drainage facilities. Their comments were to require the location of the drainage facilities only when there is adequate Page 128 December 19, 2001 drainage available. The other one was, there was a comment regarding limiting the requirement to paved streets for projects that are owned wholly by that property owner. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll tell you, I believe -- tell me if you agree with me -- that what staff has gotten together is incorporating the suggestions from the Planning Commission and possibly expanding the time line but to do it in such a way that it shows some sort of results over a period of time rather than everything being done on the 1 lth hour. That would be a concern just to draw it out for five years and find that nothing was done over five years. That would be a suggestion that I would make along with the owner-occupied trailers, which is a big concern for all of us, I'm sure, that we identify and interpret the Florida statute that covers this to see exactly where it is and come up with something to deal with these hardship cases in some way that will be fair and equitable; identify SHIP funds and HUD funds and get staff to work with these people individually. So ID the owners that have the problem so that we can see what the size of the problem is going to be and possibly hold community meetings in two languages. These people must be in all sorts of distress right now. Just getting the news one from another, you know how these things feed in a small community. Water and sewer, that's something that's going to have to mostly be worked out with the Immokalee Sewer and Water Board and the Immokalee Fire Department along with our code enforcement. That's where I am at this point in time with it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could just add to that, I think Commissioner Carter's suggestion that we phase this is an excellent idea. Focusing on the things that affect health, safety, and welfare Page 129 December 19, 2001 initially and then maybe expending the time or extending the time to deal with things like landscaping, because landscaping is going to be very expensive and time consuming. So I think Chairman Carter's idea that we phase this is an excellent approach, and I would be willing to support that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta, do you feel comfortable with that idea to incorporate all of your ideas into a -- I used five-year plan, maybe it's four, but whatever it is so that you focus on the health, safety, and welfare up front. At the same time, we don't want to displace people. I hear that loud and clear. We have to work through some of the other sticky issues. I think everybody that came in front of us tonight said, "Let's get rid of the violators who are doing the blatant stuff out there that are giving us all a bad name and work with the people who want to make it work. That's a tough challenge for you with all the work you've done, Michelle, but maybe we can by the next meeting kind of pull it together. MS. ARNOLD: Is there a maximum time frame that you-all are looking at? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I suggested five years because I saw 54 months -- that's 60 months; if you go four years it's 48 months, so four to five years. I think that gives you some flexibility. Don't hang it on one or the other, but whatever is workable. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And, of course, the normal community meetings while you're bringing this together so that we can keep all the trailer park owners and citizens of Immokalee apprised of the ongoing situation. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. We'll do that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. Page 130 December 19, 2001 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Olliff, I think staff is to be commended for their work on this project. They've done a good job. CHAIRMAN CARTER: (Applause.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: They sure have. All right. Thank you all for being here tonight. You were ladies and gentlemen. You presented it well, and we really appreciate that. Commissioner Coletta, I know you've worked very hard on this, and I second what Commissioner Coyle said. Staff, you've done an awesome job. We've been frustrated for so long, and you're finally bringing it to where we can take action. Okay. We have -- ***** MR. DUNNUCK: Your next item is the annual beach events permit. You have what I would consider one speaker because, I believe, the one has signed up and registered is actually the presenter of this item because it's their fee that they pay, and that's Matt Grabinski of the Ritz-Carlton. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I think we're just going to stand up for about two minutes if you don't mind. Bear with us. I know it's 9:30, but everybody's getting tired. (A break was held from 9:30 p.m. To 9:35 p.m.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. We're back together and on page 58. We're dealing with -- MS. MURRAY: Actually, it's page 57. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's all right. How many speakers do we have? MR. DUNNUCK: Outside of the presenter you have one speaker. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Matt, why don't you go ahead and present the situation. For our listening audience, in June we gave direction to the Ritz-Carlton to draw up the language to bring back to us on this issue. That was a 4-0 vote by the Board of County Page 131 December 19, 2001 Commissioners, which I have highlighted from those meetings, as we go along if anybody needs any reference to that. So keep that in mind as we go through this situation that we asked for that to take place, and I believe that's -- Mr. Matt Grabinski, legal counsel for the Ritz-Carlton -- under direction of the Board of County Commissioners, and they're now coming back and presenting what they feel the wording should be. MR. GRABINSKI: Yes, thank you. For the record, Matt Grabinski with the law firm of Garlick, Stetler & Peeples. We represent the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and Host Marriott, the parent company of the Ritz-Carlton. As Commissioner Carter so adequately summed up, this amendment that is before you tonight is the result of direction that I received from the Board of County Commissioners at the June 20th meeting. The June 20th meeting was the culmination of over a year's worth of negotiations concerning beach events at hotel beachfront properties. And at that final meeting one of the very heated and heavily debated issues concerned the revocability of an annual beach- events permit. I'll try to avoid getting into all of the debate and the various issues surrounding that, but at the end on June 20th a motion was made by then Commissioner Mac'Kie that allowed the beach events -- the Land Development Code and beach-events permit section to be revised to add specific language that the permit could not be suspended or revoked on the condition that the Land Development Code section pertaining to the beach-events permit be revised and turned into a notice procedure. Then Mr. John Dunnuck -- bless his heart -- suggested that that burden be placed on the hotels. So after the motion was carried 4-0 to pass the amendments with various provisions that we had requested, including the provision that the beach-events permit could not be revoked, they asked me to get back Page 132 December 19, 2001 on the record and commit to undertaking this task, which I have done SO. With that in mind, I'll entertain any questions you may have; otherwise, I'd just like to reserve some time to respond to any comments made by the public or staff. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Matt, if I may, if staff doesn't recommend it and the Planning Commission doesn't recommend it and Environmental Advisory Committee doesn't recommend it, why is this a good idea? Is that a loaded question? MR. GRABINSKI: Yes, it's a loaded question. Well, first of all, I hope that you haven't asked me to waste my time and my clients' time and my clients' money. This amendment was drafted at the request of the Board of County Commissioners. On June 20th after the vote we had a beach-events permit that couldn't be revoked. It was clear that certain members of the community, particularly the environmental community and environmental staff, did not like that, and they are now using this LDC cycle to revisit all of those issues. What we're doing is taking a permit that can't be revoked and turning it into a notice procedure. All of the ramifications of that were discussed last year, and a decision was made and voted upon. There really should be no heated issue or debate regarding this despite the newspaper article saying that the environmental community is shell-shocked by this new amendment. Well, if they're shell-shocked, they weren't paying attention for the past year, because on June 20th this amendment -- the fact that this amendment would be brought forward was made abundantly clear when you gave express direction for me to do so. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Matt, I've got a question for you. The last section, 2.6.34.6 on the second page or on 61 says, "Notwithstanding any provision of the code to the contrary, an owner Page 133 December 19, 2001 has the right to conduct beach events and shall not be suspended or revoked." Do you see that? MR. GRABINSKI: That last phrase at the very end, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Number 3. MR. GRABINSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What you're saying is you can barbecue sea turtles, and we can't do anything about it -- MR. GRABINSKI: Well -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- except for fines. So is that what kind of language we want to protect the sea turtles? MR. GRABINSKI: Again, Commissioner Henning, the idea of enforcement and what was hanging over the hotels' heads was discussed during the last cycle. The current state and federal laws were brought to everyone's attention. If a hotel wants to go out and intentionally harm a sea turtle, it's going to have a possible $100,000 fine and the federal government coming down on it. There are already very strict laws and harsh penalties in place at the state and federal level. We don't need another level at the county level. However, a lot of the rules in here and regulations are designed to avoid any possible harm to sea turtles. And if some of those are ever violated -- which I will point out during last year's sea turtle season subsequent to June 20th there were no violations. The Ritz-Carlton received no code violation citations for the remainder of sea turtle nesting season, zero. One of the arguments that many of those that opposed our amendment tried to assert was that the increased fine structure would not be a significant deterrent. Well, Ed Starros, the general manager of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel stood before you last June and gave you his word that the hotels had been, were, and would continue to operate in an environmentally sensitive and responsible manner, and I think the record speaks for itself. Page 134 December 19, 2001 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Carter. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. The problem I have with this whole thing -- first of all, I wasn't here June 20th. I was in Taipai. So I wasn't here to discuss it. The problem I have with this thing is -- I realize that Matt is representing the Ritz, but we're talking about every hotel on the beach. We're talking about those who don't give a hoot about turtles, those who have no idea that there are turtles because they're just visiting here, those that have employees that have just started and maybe aren't very well trained, and I think we have to take all of this into consideration. I understand your need to take care of your employer, but we have a lot of other people that really don't care that much. So I think we have to be pretty strict about enforcement. Those are my feelings. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well -- MR. GRABINSKI: I appreciate your concern, but I would like to point out that, yes, I do represent the Ritz. The Ritz has sort of held the flag and taken charge on this along with the Registry. But when you look at the size of the Ritz-Carlton and what it is capable of doing out on the beach and the capacity that it has as a world-class resort and convention center, no other hotel comes close to the level of service and the ability to accommodate its guests as the Ritz- Carlton Hotel. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nobody's arguing with their ability to take care of their guests. We're talking about sea turtles here. MR. GRABINSKI: Yes, we are. But we're also talking about a very, very, very valuable property right that Collier County still appears to want to tamper with. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think so at all. I think that all you have to do is make sure that your people are very careful about the sea turtles as they were before. They had everything Page 135 December 19, 2001 behind the line. I mean, they had people that were carrying those things out. I saw the carts. We went out and took a look at everything. I don't see anything wrong with continuing that practice of preserving that area. I do not see why we would be lifting anything, because we're also lifting any restrictions for every other hotel and condominium, by the way, along that beachfront. MR. GRABINSKI: Commissioner Fiala, all of the protective restrictions -- none of them are being lifted. They are all currently in the Land Development Code -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. GRABINSKI: -- and are enforceable through very strong monetary fines. I don't think there are any other provisions in the code that go up to $5,000 for a fine. And the LDC is designed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of everyone, individuals, people, human lives, human safety. Granted, the turtles as an endangered species are very important and very valuable. You know, we have code provisions that say if a chair gets left out on the beach that's $5,000. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you don't leave them on there; right? MR. GRABINSKI: No, usually they don't. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think the fine system is in place. What we're fighting over is a term, whether it's a permit or a notice. What I'm sensing is that if we follow all the rules under a notification, there's a fining process. That works, and what it takes away and gets you out of difficulties with in tampering with an organization's right to beachfront property is revoking their right to use it. I think that's the main issue that I'm hearing here, not only from your hotel but the others, and how far do you carry that with the number of clubs, condos, and people along that beach? And if you want to look at the citings over the last period that Page 136 December 19, 2001 went on, let me tell you that there are a number of people who would be in the warning or fining process. I want to work this out so that the notification or whatever term it is that we get away from -- I don't care what we call it as long as we don't get into this thing that says we're going to revoke somebody's right to use their beachfront property, because there's other strict ordinances and laws by state and federal government that's not going to allow this abuse. You would be in bigger trouble with them than you would with Collier County, in my judgment, when I'm sorting through this. MR. GRABINSKI: And I appreciate that, and if I could just address Commissioner Fiala's -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: So I don't know how we're going to get through this, but I do know what this board did in June by a 4-0 vote giving you direction -- leaving you, the legal counsel, to come up with the phraseology that gets away from the word "permitting" by the greenest member of this commission, Commissioner Mac'Kie, who -- if you read it verbatim, it says we've got to get away from the word "permitting" and "revocation" of that permit to get to some other phraseology so that, A, we can protect the turtles, and so that we can fine people who don't do the right things. But we can't take away a resort who plans their people coming here, the convention business, of which Commissioner Fiala you were a part of-- they plan five and six years out. What's going to happen if you get into a situation where you say, "Well, okay, they had $10,000 in fines and now we're going to revoke their permit." Well, "Excuse me. I come here, but I can't use the beach because this hotel has got a problem?" I mean, I want to stay out of that area but find the right way to work through this where both the turtles are protected and the property rights or ownership is protected. Now, I'm not only talking about the Ritz and the Registry. I'm going to take you right down Page 137 December 19, 2001 some of this list. I see Sea Watch. I see Pelican Bay North on here. I think my own community has probably been in more violations than the Ritz-Carlton. So what are you going to do? Tell the people in these communities in front of these condominiums, "I'm sorry. You can't use your beach anymore because I'm going to take away your permit." MR. GRABINSKI: Well, that's an issue that I would just like to bring up and sort of address, Commissioner Fiala, your concerns as you stated about how this isn't just about the Ritz. The Ritz may be trying really hard now, and it's going to try into the future, but there are other hotels and other property owners. Well, there are houses on the beach, and there are condominiums on the beach. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. MR. GRABINSKI: But there's nothing in the code that's going to go allow you to go up to Mr. Smith who has a house on the beach and has parties every weekend during sea turtle season and say to him, "We're sorry, Mr. Smith, you and your family can't go out on the beach anymore." There's nothing in the code that would allow you to do that to a condominium association. And right now as the code stands the beach-events permit can't be revoked regardless. That's already -- we've already gone and taken that step. Thank God. This is a clean-up matter. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what? So many times people are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. I'm sorry. I'm just coming right out with it. It's too late at night. I say these things. And why is it so important? What's the difference between notice and permit? I mean, why are we pushing this thing? Like Commissioner Carter says, what difference does it make one way or the other? Why are you pushing so hard for it? So it makes my antenna go up thinking, what are we doing here? Page 138 December 19, 2001 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's called a red flag. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I've got this red flag on the field. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I understand that, but what was associated with permitting was a fining process through revocation of the permit that you couldn't use the beach. That's where it was tied in. That was a concern of the commissioners there that night -~ Henning, Carter, Coletta, and Mac'Kie -- that we didn't get ourselves into that situation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: As I remember it, it was that we were trying to get to -- since we cannot revoke a permit, how can we -- if there are continuous violations, how can we stop that activity so it doesn't keep on continuing. That's how I remember it. Can we go to public speakers? MR. DUNNUCK: You have one public speaker. That's Nicole Ryan. MS. RYAN: Good evening. For the record, Nicole Ryan here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The Conservancy opposes the proposed beach-events permit language change drafted by the Ritz. We support county staff in their objections to the language. We also support the recommendation of denial to this language change that was unanimously voted on by the Environmental Advisory Council and the Collier County Planning Commission. We disagree that we should be moving farther and farther away from a permit and going towards a notice. Now, in general, a permit does imply the ability to revoke or suspend or in some way penalize severely the violators. A notice does not do this. We understand that currently in the beach-events permit language the word "permit" is used, but there can be no revocation of that permit. This was done for the past sea turtle nesting season to see how things went. It's time to look at the results Page 139 December 19, 2001 and see what happened. I sent you a copy of the beach violations from the past sea turtle season in a December 1 lth letter. There are something like 77 violations. Some occurred prior to the June LDC amendment cycle adoption and some occurred after. Some violations were worse than others, although it really only takes one chair being left on the beach to entangle a sea turtle. So it could just be one chair that would put a hotel, condo, or homeowner in big trouble with the state and federal governments for harming or killing a listed species. We feel that because of all these violations and because the word "permit" does imply at some point there could be some teeth to it, changing it to a notice is stepping in the wrong direction. Now, we can't talk here tonight about reinstating a revocation to the permit, but we believe -- the Conservancy believes that changing it to a notice is just going in completely the wrong direction. Along those lines another concern is that within the LDC beach- events permit language now, there's only one area that says a permit cannot be revoked. However, if in the future the county wanted to reinstate revocation for the permit, would it be more difficult because the word "permit" was no longer used and the word "notice" was sprinkled through the code? Would it be harder -- I'm sure it would be -- to also get it changed back to "permit" and to reinstate "revocation" possibilities. So, to conclude, due to the number of beach violations, some occurring within one week of the past LDC amendment cycle adoption, the Conservancy believes that at a minimum the word "permit" should be kept and not changed to notice, and we would like to see at some point in the future the county looking at perhaps revisiting this issue of permit revocation. It comes down to the bottom line of, if hotels, condos, whomever, have no intention of repeatedly violating the code, then the fact that revocation is used as Page 140 December 19, 2001 an enforcement tool should not matter. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you could tell I was -- I'm sitting tall in my chair. You know, with the DSAC, the EAC, and the CCPC all recommending denial and the Conservancy sticking by this, I just have to go for it. I know we're not voting on anything tonight, but I've had this sneaky feeling anyway. I couldn't understand why we were pushing so hard for "notice" rather than "permit." I want to keep "permit" in place, and that's where I'm going with this. CHAIRMAN CARTER: The reason "notice" is in there is because we gave direction by the Board of County Commissioners for somebody to write it on that basis. If this board wants it changed and reverse directions, there's a public record that says you gave direction -- this board gave direction. And what is probably troublesome is what about our own legal counsel. What about our own staff?. Where did we interact along the line? And how did it get to the point where we take it through a process and then go back -- frankly, I think the Board of County Commissioners look pretty stupid right now. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think so, Commissioner Carter. I think the situation has changed from what it was then, and I think we're still acting in good faith. CHAIRMAN CARTER: In what way has it changed? You've got the same hotels. You've got the same resorts. You've got the same beachfront properties. What's changed? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe we didn't realize what the ramifications would be to notice versus permit at the time. I wasn't here so I -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think the intention was to try to give them some reasonable guarantee that they're not going to have Page 141 December 19, 2001 a permit pulled on them during the course of their season, they've got a reasonable guarantee regardless of what they do that they're still going to be able to follow the season through. I think that's what we were trying to do at that point in time. I don't like the language of what I see here. I still think that we can meet the objectives that we originally started out to do. Do we look foolish? Possibly we do. But situations have changed. There's a lot of things you have to weigh when you make these decisions. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I guarantee you that you have to weigh a lot of things. My point is going to be, find the language, find a way to work this through so that you don't end up in litigation. That's what I'm looking for. I'm not going to vote for anything that takes me into litigation. If that's how you want to word it, I don't care how we word it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why would we go into litigation? I don't understand. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You just ask the Marriott Corporation. You just ask the Ritz or the Registry. You just ask them why they would go to litigation. They'll tell you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Matt, if you were guaranteed a year at a time, wouldn't that reasonably satisfy your needs? MR. GRABINSKI: No, it wouldn't. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know how we can meet your needs then. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got a question for legal staff. MR. GRABINSKI: I wish I could find -- I think in the June 6th meeting Ed Starros -- we met with you individually. Ed Starros stood up as well as Ron Albright from the Registry and tried to explain to you how the convention business works. These hotels don't book one Page 142 December 19, 2001 year in advance. They book three years, four years, five years in advance. And when they book the business, they book it because they're on the beach. A perfect example -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not in the summertime. MR. GRABINSKI: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not in the summertime. I mean, in the summertime -- I worked for the hotels. I worked in the tourism industry for 20 years. Okay? Turtle season -- turtle nesting season is about the same time people don't want to get into the mosquitoes and into the encephalitis. They like to have indoor parties, and they like to have palm trees inside and all of this. They're not really nuts about the beach, especially at night when the mosquitoes are out nipping at their heels. MR. GRABINSKI: Commissioner Fiala, I apologize that Ed Starros is not here. He was out of town on business this week. But he will be here at the next meeting. And when he is he will tell you about a convention that the Ritz-Carlton hosted last summer shortly after sea turtle season started. It was the largest convention the hotel had ever hosted, over 600 guests at once. They hosted a beach-events party on the beach with no violations. They did it responsibly. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. Then you don't have a problem. MR. GRABINSKI: They got the business because when the company that booked them called them up, it was between the Ritz- Carlton in Naples, Florida, that had a beach or the other top resort in the country that was in the mountains, and they decided they wanted a beach and they wanted the best, and so they called my client. That's why the hotel gets the business it gets. I will add, I told all of you that I would not bring this up in a public meeting, but you're the ones that mentioned litigation. You want to know why this is such a big deal. Because I think people just Page 143 December 19, 2001 think, "Well, the hotel just wants to be able to use ATVs to take out towels and to run its beach operations." It needs to be able to have the unfettered right to guarantee people three years or five years in advance that it will host a beach function for them. If you're GE coming into town and you're going to spend 3 or 4 or 5 million dollars of your corporate money on a convention, you're not going to do it unless the Ritz-Carlton signs on the dotted line," We guarantee you two dinners and a cocktail party on the beach," because that's why people come to Florida. The Ritz-Carlton had its ability to host beach functions and the impact it has on its business appraised and what the loss of the use of its beach would mean to the value of the hotel. It was approximately $100 million. That's the kind of issue we're talking about. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So, Matt, what you're looking for is a guarantee regardless of what happens that you'll be able to have beach parties? MR. GRABINSKI: Yes. Right now the code says there's a beach-events permit and it can't be revoked. If you want to know why we want the notice so badly now -- when I came into this process, first of all, I didn't think that I was going to meet this much opposition and that it was going to be a big problem. You voted 4-0 six months ago and asked me to do this, and I did exactly what you asked me to do. But now it's clear: Those that have opposed this all along, those that opposed the language saying that the beach-events permit could not be revoked last June don't want to see this turn into a notice procedure, because if it stays a permit it's a lot easier six months from now, a year from now, three years from now to come back in and sneak in a code provision and change that penalty section and say, "Oh, we can revoke it now." And I don't want to sound threatening, but I promise you if that Page 144 December 19, 2001 ever happens you will be served within a month with a $100 million claim. That's what the issue is. So let's -- it's out in the open now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for legal staff. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. Commissioner Henning has a question for legal staff. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's our understanding that we cannot revoke any permits. Is that true in this case? MR. WEIGEL: You're saying -- your question is that you cannot revoke a permit without having a potential legal liability. If the county has an issue of permits, it may have the ability to revoke that permit. But the question that Mr. Grabinski on behalf of his client raises is that they have property rights on their private -- on their private area of the beach which extends down to the public area of the beach which they would contest cannot be taken away, the ability to use that beach based upon sea turtle violations. We, the county, can put in place a permit, and putting in place a permit specifically with the language or potential to revoke that permit will be as specific as we make it. If the permit is there and has any meaning, you will have to tell us what that meaning will be. But if the permit is the equivalent of a notice and is to have no further teeth or impact to it, I guess you need to make that very clear on the record too. Mr. Grabinski is saying that if the permit is in there, the very nature of the permit language, there's potential for the ordinance to be amended in the future to then say you can revoke the permit which, in effect, and probably specifically would mean that they could not use their beach. Now, I can't tell you right now if we would prevail or not prevail against a $100 million claim. But I will say that -- and I haven't spoken to the assistants in my office this evening, obviously, but I will say that he raises issues which certainly bear far more than a quick answer tonight to say that we don't have a potential for Page 145 December 19, 2001 liability. MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. I can tell you that on page 60 of your handout at 2.6.34.6, which is the last provision on the page, "penalties," the text that indicates that the county cannot revoke or suspend the annual beach permit -- event permit was essentially struck there and inserted at the end of the provision on the next page, the legal effect of which is to not change the regulation at all. It just merely took the provision that precluded revocation or suspension and relocated it. I just want to put that on the record so that it was precise where it was. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me make sure I understand this argument. Miss Ryan is saying that the Conservancy would support it if we kept it as a permit. Mr. Grabinski is saying, if you keep it as a permit, it means that you might some day in the future change your procedures and revoke it. Do I have this right? Can't we always change our procedures at some point in time? MR. WEIGEL: The answer is, yes, you can. MR. WHITE: I think the only difference, Commissioner, is that it would be essentially -- I don't know if you would call it a two-step process, but there would be two pieces that you would have to come back with: One to create the permit and two to create the revocation text. It would seem that there may be some middle ground. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Here's my recommended solution to the problem, and I understand Mr. Grabinski's issue. They own the property that goes down to the middle of the beach as far as I know. It is their property. They have title to it. We don't go around telling anybody else on the beach that they can't use their property if they do something wrong. And I think just because they're a large corporation they shouldn't be treated any differently. But I have a real problem waiving our right to do anything. And, furthermore, it's not a waiver of rights. Right now we're issuing a permit that can't be Page 146 December 19, 2001 revoked. We're being asked to accept a notice that can't be revoked. I would suggest to solve this problem that we just proceed with a permit that cannot be revoked, and that gives the hotel the assurance that we're not going to easily do this, that is, change it to a notice or something else. And if some future commission attempts to revoke the permit, then the issue of a lawsuit can be raised at that point in time. Does that make sense? MR. WEIGEL: Well, that does. Back to what I was alluding to, the revocation of a permit is one thing. However, that is based upon the issuance of the permit in the first place, so will the permit always be issued? Because if you don't issue the permit, ostensibly you may achieve the same thing as the revocation of a permit. You have to have a permit to get on the beach. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we issued -- the permit has already been issued, has it not? MR. WEIGEL: My understanding is yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the ordinance says it cannot be revoked. MR. WHITE: The permits are annual, and they're issued in January. They're essentially nothing more than a checklist of information being provided. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. Okay. So, in other words, Mr. Grabinski's problem would be we might not issue a permit next year; is that right? MR. GRABINSKI: Yeah, that's also a possibility. If Collier County decided not to do that, again, that would immediately invite a lawsuit. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is there some way to take the combination of this where a permit is issued -- I hate to use the words "in perpetuity" because I'll certainly read about that. What I'm saying is, issue a permit, and you just can't -- you don't have to come back Page 147 December 19, 2001 every year, but you have to follow the criteria every year. You have to go through the checklist system. You've got to do everything that's in there, and you can continue to have that permit as long as you do that. But it's not something where you're subject to, "Will they not issue it again next year?" We have it until it's proven otherwise that we have been a bad permit holder and a board for whatever the period says or let's revoke it. Is that feasible to work through that, Commissioner Coyle, from your business experience? Am I -- I think it sounds logical. COMMISSIONER COYLE: To me it seems like we have a choice. We can waive all rights to exercise our authority now, or we can provide the permit to the hotel that is irrevocable and then deal with the lawsuit if we ever try to take it away from you. MR. GRABINSKI: Commissioner Coyle, you're not waiving all of your authority now because all of the permit conditions and the rules, procedures, that are in the permit to protect sea turtles, to govern the conduction of beach events are in the Land Development Code with the fines in place. Enforcement and violations should not be -- it seems to be becoming such a big concern when you sit up there and think, "Oh, we're not going to have this permit that can't be revoked anyway." The Ritz-Carlton has been operating for over 15 years. We've never harmed a sea turtle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're not just talking about the Ritz-Carlton. We're talking about every hotel on the beach, every Mom and Pop's fly-by-night hotel who just happens to get their permit. We're talking about -- you know, we're making a decision not just for the Ritz. We're making a decision for all of Collier County. MR. GRABINSKI: Well, can we ask code enforcement? I mean, there are about four or five hotels on the county beach. How Page 148 December 19, 2001 many received any code violations for beach events this past year? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's don't go there. Let's wrap this up. You brought up a very good point. If we're going to be fair to the hotels, we need to be -- if we're going to enforce the hotels, we need to enforce everybody. So why don't we get there and make it fair. I'm not in favor of this language, and let's work on another season and be fair to everybody and enforce all the beaches. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think I'm getting a feeling here that we're real uncomfortable with the language from either side of it, and we're looking for a way to set that permitting process into motion that can't be pulled on an annual basis but is there until you prove that you're not a good citizen following certain procedures, checklists, and the enforcement that goes on every year and build a history. We've got maybe five or six hotels in that situation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where does that leave the hotel if we do that under the existing regulations? MR. GRABINSKI: It leaves us where we are right now. We have a permit that's issued that can't be revoked. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That can't? MR. GRABINSKI: If you're not going to approve the language that you asked me to draft, then that's fine, but all I did is I made a fundamental change. If you want -- what you're trying to discuss now, I'm not sure what direction you're heading in now as far as a checklist or some other type of permit or modification, but I don't think that anything further could be done in this cycle anyways. And I'm really -- after three LDC cycles -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I've got a suggestion that might meet your needs and ours too. You're looking for something that will carry you through for a reasonable period of time and be able to allow the Ritz-Carlton to be assured that they're going to reach a certain objective. We're looking for something that does Page 149 December 19, 2001 not box future commissions into making a decision way down the road. You've been responsible -- no, wait, let me finish. What I'm proposing is very simple. It's that we come up with something in the way of a contract that would run for five years. It will be renewable at three years for another period of time. So, in other words, at three years it would come up and we'd still have two years left so that we can keep this thing going on a regular basis, give them a reasonable guarantee, but if something goes terribly wrong down the road five years from now, we have that power to be able to act on it. They would have two years' warning that there's a serious problem, the fact that it would be a five-year contract renewable at three. It's just a suggestion. Take it for what it's worth. MR. GRABINSKI: Commissioner Coletta, if it becomes a problem in two years or three years, you can always -- right now the code says the permit can't be revoked. So if it became a problem, somebody's going to come to you in a year or two or in six months or six years and say, "We need to put a provision in here so we can revoke it." Someone could just as easily come back to you in the same cycle and say, "We need to turn this from a notice procedure back into a permit procedure with the ability to revoke." It can be done in the same amount of time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Call it a contract, a contract to run for a span of time. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning, just time out. Okay. We're not going to resolve it tonight, ladies and gentlemen. I know that. Do we have a framework by the next meeting that we can come up with anything that is workable? Big question mark. The next part of my statement is, if we don't where can we go until the next cycle so that if we go there -- as this commissioner is asking -- with a very close, working agreement with all of the Page 150 December 19, 2001 principal parties -- the Conservancy, staff, hotel -- where we work on this on a regular basis, and we don't get this eleventh-hour thing where we're all sitting here going, you know, screaming inside -- at least I am -- at what in the hell are we doing here? MR. DUNNUCK: I think I better answer your first question on behalf of my wife who's probably sitting at home saying, "Where is he?" The answer is, yes, there's probably a workable solution. So what I'll do in the next couple of weeks is get with Matt and see if there's something we can do to come to a common goal as far as what our objective is versus what is yours. One of the comments I do want to make, though, is I think -- speaking on behalf of staff, one of the reasons why we have, you know, recommended denial of this language is that we don't want to handcuff you, the board, on future projects if something were to happen. And we think the permit is a way that allows you some ability and flexibility in the future if something does happen. That's why we stayed with that recommendation, but we can always go back and look at alternatives and see. As far as your second suggestion about getting back to a workable solution, you know, we've kind of been there and done that. We did that last spring. We're kind of back to square one. I think Matt kind of agrees with that and probably Nicole would agree with that as well. We're kind of getting to different philosophical points right here, and the board's finally going to have to make a decision. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. So I guess as you've heard maybe by two weeks from now you can hammer out something that will come back and is workable. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure I want to ask this question. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You might as well. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where does it leave the hotel now Page 151 December 19, 2001 if we don't proceed with this? COMMISSIONER HENNING: They currently hold an annual permit that can't be revoked. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And when -- MR. GRABINSKI: It currently cannot be revoked. The least we'll accept is just -- if you're going to deny this because you don't like it becoming a notice procedure, the language is going to currently say that it's an annual beach-events permit, and it can't be revoked, period, and that's it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, Matt, don't tell me what you're going to accept. Okay? I'm not in the mood for an argument right now. You can file your lawsuit if you want to, but I'm going to make a decision up here that I think is in the best interest of the community, and I think the rest of the commissioners will too. So if you don't like what we're proposing then file your lawsuit, but don't tell me what you will or will not accept. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think you need to go back and think about it, Matt. MR. GRABINSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Excuse me, Commissioner Henning, I think I'm getting a little testy. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do we work on next? MR. DUNNUCK: Let's keep moving. We have, I think, one more speaker. He was here. It's Bob Mast regarding the well issue, and I don't know if he's still here or not. I just saw him as recently as five minutes ago. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He might have just walked down to the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Elevator. MR. DUNNUCK: Maybe we should just keep it going, Susan, with some more -- Page 152 December 19, 2001 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, there he is. MR. DUNNUCK: Okay. If we could do the presentation on that, I think that's our last speaker here this evening. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We can do that. MR. DUNNUCK: And then we can go through the rest of it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: I'm not entirely clear which specific issue he wishes to speak about. MR. DUNNUCK: I believe it's 3.6.5.6.10. I think it's on page 101. MS. MURRAY: Page 101. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Stan Chrzanowski with development services, engineering review. This item was written because of our two well inspectors having a little bit of problems when we had the heavy rains three or four months ago. In Golden Gate Estates we noticed that there were areas where the waters were approaching some of the well heads, and a lot of people out there keep animals, dogs, horses, whatever. There was an instance where people had manure from horses piled up close to a property line that had a neighbor's well head on the other side. You know, the estates is one of those areas -- a lot of the county is fairly well developed, but the estates is -- we figure maybe it's on the whole 20 percent developed. A lot of it in close is more developed than that. We see this as a potential hazard. Well head protection protects the homeowner, protects the aquifer, and that's why we want it. We figure that to put in the amount of fill that's going to be required is going to be about 20 cubic yards if you're coming up two feet and about 60 cubic yards, which is a fair amount, if you're coming up about three feet. I don't know that too many will come up that high. That's what the item is all about if anybody has any Page 153 December 19, 2001 questions. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Has there been examples of people's wells being polluted? I mean -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, not yet. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We had a major event, and they tested a number of wells? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We had one well where -- I don't think Bob had anybody tested. He was concerned that the runoff from the manure was going to get close to a well, but he had the well -- he had the manure removed before he thought it was a hazard. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me go back to what I do know. The Larry Parks property, are you familiar with that? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm familiar with Mr. Parks. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There was quite a bit of human waste on the property, and when we had the major rain event, it flooded off into the neighbor's property, and it was very much a concern seeing all this stuff with suspension in the water. I know it's not a pleasant subject this close to Christmas but -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's called solids. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm trying to handle this as best I can. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But there was concern with the neighbors out there, and Public Health got very much involved, and they tested five or six wells, and they came up with negative reports on every one of them, and these were all underwater. So I don't know. If we haven't got a problem -- do we have to fix it if we haven't got a proven problem? And what would the cost be to the homeowner? It's going to be coming in at a point in time where we're raising impact fees at tremendous amounts. I'm curious as to that, too, this preventative measure. Page 154 December 19, 2001 I remember one time we were looking at the anti-siphon devices to keep water from going back into the lines, and it was going to cost $250. We got all bent out of shape, and we never did it, and I don't think anybody ever died from it. But what was the cost on this deal? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We figured the cost was going to be about $150 to maybe $300 or $400 at the most if there's a lot of fill required. I don't think too many of them -- you'll notice that we had the minimum of the two 18 inches above the road or the finished slab, because if you're 18 inches -- a lot of houses are artificially raised because of the septic tanks and drain fields. Another thing Bob noticed is that some of the people leave their well heads up. The pipe that protrudes out of the ground is up to the point where the water can come to it. If it's properly sealed, the water can't get down in there. But if they cut the well head down for any reason, for aesthetics or whatever, you could overflow the well. It's strictly a safety matter. The fact that we haven't had any is good. We don't want to have any. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What do they do in Lee County and some of the surrounding areas? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we would be on the forefront of this? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we go to public speakers? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Public speakers? MR. DUNNUCK: Bob Mast. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you for waiting and being patient, Bob. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's been a long time without a cigarette, hasn't it? MR. MAST: Yes. Thanks for, you know, ushering me up here Page 155 December 19, 2001 real quickly. My name is Bob Mast. I represent Golden Gate Well Drilling, and I live in Golden Gate. On this -- currently we have -- our state code is the same code that they have, the elevation of the well head. What it doesn't have is it does not have a slab, a four-inch slab. It does not have the ground work or the slab on top. Currently the county or the inspectors are looking at -- they do not come out and shoot your well head to see what area they're cutting around. We're typically cutting them off at 22 inches to 24 inches because we've got areas out off of DeSoto in the eastern area where you're looking at 4 and 5 feet of well head. And if you start putting your four-to-one slope on a four to five foot well head, that's where the cost is coming in, plus the fact that we're doing a two-inch grout. We haven't gotten any contamination since we got the new well ordinance -- the well ordinance. The four-inch well ordinance, I think, was put in in '85 or '86 or something like that. Prior to that all of our two-inch wells in Collier County with cut-offs were underground, and there's many of them out there under buildings, under driveways, and we have no idea where they're at, and that is a great concern. But since we've got the new four-inch well code, all wells have extended, like, 24 inches or above the ground surface level. So I think it's a little extreme to go out there and build this thing up to four -- possibly -- it could be the possibility of four and five feet into the air and then do a four-to-one pitch on it with your slab on top. It possibly could be -- if his concern is that somebody's going in to cut the pipe down, we could possibly do it in maybe a little different manner. Do it with a double casing, possibly, a steel casing for the top eight feet and extend that to a level where the homeowner would have to go get cutting torches. Plus, take the grout away, the double grout on it, which probably wouldn't be as aesthetically undesirable as having this huge pyramid in the backyard. Page 156 December 19,2001 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: To come up four or five feet -- well, to come up five feet, the original ground would have to be three and a half feet below the road, and I can't think of a Golden Gate Road that's raised this high above the ground. Like I said, it's the lower of the two, the slab or the 18 inches. I've got a feeling we're talking about two feet, which is $100 or $150 worth of concrete in most cases. It is the lower of the two, the slab or the 18 inches. MR. MAST: I understand. Originally -- the code right now is to the slab, and if you go out, 99 percent of the well heads today that you see do not come up to the slab. And we're leaving them -- 24 inches above ground is where we're cutting them off. I don't think you'll find any that come up to the slab, which would probably be the lower of the two. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The slab is generally raised higher than 18 inches above the crown of the road because the slab is based on the drain field. The drain field is based on the wet seat of the water table, and then you've got the pipe coming from the drain field to the house and then the thickness of the house slab. By the time you get up there, you might be four or five feet high. Our code says the minimum of-- the floor slab has to be the higher of 18 inches above the road or whatever it takes to get to the drainage field. But in this case we're going with the minimum because we only need the well head protection to be 18 inches above the crown of the road because the house is artificially raised in a lot of cases. MR. MAST: All I would ask is if we could get together possibly between now and your next meeting and put something together and maybe get one or two more well drillers involved in it and see what we can work out on that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before anybody spends a penny on anything, will they please talk to public health and see what Page 157 December 19,2001 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'd be glad to. MR. MAST: We haven't had any complaints on that. Now, we do have some that Bob and some of the inspectors have looked at where these well were cut off underground. These were old two-inch wells, and they were leaking. So that is a serious problem. Possibly look at something, you know, in the future and what we can do to get these two-inch wells back above ground so we don't have that contamination. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't see any reason why me and Bob Stringer couldn't meet with Mr. Mast the week after next or before the next time we're here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sounds like a great idea. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sounds like a great idea to me to keep the manure out of the water. MR. MAST: Thank for very much. I appreciate it. Thanks for rushing me up here this evening. (Laughter.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Do we have any other speakers on any other items? MR. DUNNUCK: That concludes your speakers for this evening. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's 10:30. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ms. Murray, take us home. MS. MURRAY: I have some options for you. I can either do it page by page, or we can call each individual staff member up here and they can go through their respective pages. Otherwise, I'll be jumping around on topics. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Why don't you just expedite it unless somebody needs or has a burning desire to speak. Page 158 December 19, 2001 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like for you to jump around. MS. MURRAY: Jump around? I don't think I can right now, but thanks. Okay. I'm going to try to expedite this as much as I can. Pages 1 and 2 and 6, those are Sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.2.20.3.7. I don't think you'll have a great interest in those because they're really -- page 6 is a readoption of something you had previously adopted, and it's just in here for procedural -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did we just go over this page? MS. MURRAY: Yes. That's what -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that what you're doing? MS. MURRAY: Yes, Commissioner. That's what I'm working from. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: I've even got a different suggestion for you, Mr. Chairman. You've had this package to look at and read it thoroughly. If you have any questions about any of the remaining codes that are there or if there are some changes to the package that they have that you need to point out for the record, we need to do that. MR. DUNNUCK: I was just going to mention one change item, and that's we had added some information at the back of the package. Susan, why don't you run them through that because we didn't go through the regular cycle with the Development Services Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. These were items we wanted to discus with you in the workshop but didn't get the opportunity. But we thought they were important enough to throw in there, get a little bit of review from you, and get some direction to proceed. MS. MURRAY: Okay. The first one would be on page 122 of your handout, and that is a revision of the purpose and intent of the C-1 through C-5 zoning districts. That has not been before the Planning Commission but has been advertised and will be heard by Page 159 December 19, 2001 them on the 3rd of January. And then this will be your first hearing, and you'll hear this again on the 9th. Do you have any comments about the language that was in there? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's a great idea to revisit it and kind of clean it up and make it flow good instead of it turning out to be a murder mystery and going down the line. I also -- if the board would consider "any other like uses" in some of the commercial districts and some of the language. We are getting -- I think the staff is kind of hesitant or gun shy from saying, "Yes. This is okay, but we're concerned about what the board says." If we can possibly make that a conditional use until the time that the county, you know, through a consultant cleans up this whole commercial use area -- are you with me? Some of the examples are any other convenient commercial which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses including buildings, retail, etc. That's in C-1. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Page 127. MS. MURRAY: Right. Thanks. You're jumping a little bit ahead. We propose that to be through the official interpretation process. We debated the issue back and forth and, Commissioners, if your direction is to take it through a conditional use, you know, I'll be more than happy to change the language. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought, like, on 122 what you did was clear up a lot of things. I notice there were just a couple of typo errors. I kept a copy of those so I could -- so we didn't have to change them with a scribner's note or anything. MS. MURRAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought you really cleared it up so that we wouldn't have a problem next time we're trying to decode it -- the next time we have, like, a blind factory or something coming in front of us. Page 160 December 19, 2001 MS. MURRAY: This is a precursor, also, to our wholesale look at all the uses in the district that we'll be bringing forward to you hopefully in the next cycle as well as our conversion from the SIC codes to the NAICS. We needed to clean this language up and clarify it first before we then went in and took a look at the uses so we're consistent with what our purpose in other districts are. MR. DUNNUCK: I only wanted to point out one thing. I actually brought the book for you to see. This is our SIC book. If you zoom in on the date at the bottom, it says 1987. This is the book we've been using for our Land Development Code. We think it's time to update it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. Do we have a library that might have a fresh new copy? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any other questions of Ms. Murray? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You mean on any of these items? Just two fairly quick ones. MR. OLLIFF: Before we leave that one, I think we do need to get a decision out of the board as to that clause on commercial districts that says "and any other comparable use." What we have proposed to the board is that an official interpretation from the planning director will be required before any comparable use can be approved at the development services level. The other option is what Commissioner Henning has indicated might be considered by the board which would be to require that all of those come through the conditional-use process and make the Board of County Commissioners decide on each and every one of those. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, that might be a good idea because then it saves us the problems we had the last time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we can save the rest of our staff. Page 161 December 19, 2001 MR. DUNNUCK: You know, from a flexibility standpoint, it gives the board the ability to negotiate a little bit as they come forward because it allows you that ability to add provisions as part of that conditional use to insure that you're protecting the community. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I like the idea, but I also want staff to be real tough on that and give us your creative thinking on that in any way. I don't want you to hold back and just pass it up here and say, "Look, let the board make the decision." I want you to, you know, give us something to think about. MS. MURRAY: The conditional use requires an analysis consistent with the code and recommendations and conditions of approval as well, so we'll bring those back. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Fine. MS. MURRAY: There's a fee for conditional use. There's a fee for an official interpretation as well. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Other points by commissioners on any other topics? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question concerning, actually, two items. One is page 94, road access for PUDs. Maybe I just don't understand the process, but a person comes in with a PUD and we approve the PUD, but after we approve the PUD they don't have any authority to gain access to any road. That's problematic as far as I can determine, and if somebody can explain that to me I would appreciate it. MR. OLLIFF: What has been happening is that a property owner comes in for rezoning. The rezoning to a PUD is simply a decision on the board's part as to whether or not the land use being proposed makes sense where they're proposing to put it. Most of those comes with nice, pretty maps that they'll put up on the board that shows nice green landscaping and buildings and those kind of things. Well, they have been taking that as once the PUD is Page 162 December 19, 2001 approved, the points of access onto the major arterial they showed you on that map are their guaranteed points of access with that arterial road. We have not gotten any information from them in terms of specific traffic counts, the magnitude of the cars that are going to be in and out of some of those uses and specific locations even of some of the commercial that's going to be in the actual development, and we can't make an analysis of where the appropriate point of access, where the median cuts should be, until they get down to where they're actually providing that engineering level of information. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that. I'm only troubled by the phrase that says it does not authorize or vest access to a major road system. I can understand if you were to tell me that the locations of the access would be determined at a later date. MR. OLLIFF: I'll give you a great example. If we as a policy are trying to make developments interconnect and make two or three commercial PUDs next to each other come out onto a single access point, I don't want to provide three adjacent commercial PUDs. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I got it. Okay. I understand it. Okay. One more, Mr. Chairman, and then I think I'm finished. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Go for it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Item No. 86, the dual water system, DSAC recommended denial until such time as the county has a master plan in place for a reuse water system. Tell me why we're going ahead with it without having a master plan for that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, that was the board's direction to do that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Direction to do that so that when we have enough reuse water the system is already in place. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jim Mudd is working hard on Page 163 December 19, 2001 that. MR. MUDD: Sir -- Jim Mudd for the record. We're trying to -- we're in the process of doing a joint study for the southwest coming up with a system, a regional system, to have not only reclaimed water, but to use water that we take offthe wet season and store and bring back up again. We've got our first draft, which I've asked Joe Cheatham to get to you so that you've got an idea of what that looks like. What the commission wanted to do is to make sure that we weren't putting new develop -- the code reads it's "encouraged" to have a dual irrigation system. Some of the things we're running into now is we have people on our list. If they don't have the system already in place, it's a huge capital outlay after you've already got your infrastructure, your buildings on there, your landscaping, and then you've got to go dig everything back up again. So the commission thought it would be appropriate to mandate it so any new development would already have that in, and it would be easy for them to hook into the system as it came online. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm finished, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got one, and please bear with me because this might come up -- if we can't do it here, we'll do it at regular meeting, and I don't know if there's sufficient enough advertising on the Land Development Code to make this change, but it was Abe Skinner who informed me or actually requested the board to -- during the rezoned property, whether it be residential to commercial or ag to a PUD, have them apply through the tax collector's -- the appraisor's office for that change, too, and catch the assessed value at that time. I don't know if that's a Land Development Code change or a policy through an ordinance. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't know. I'm going to defer that Page 164 December 19, 2001 to Mr. Olliff because we met with Abe on that some time ago. You have to refresh my mind. It's a good point, Commissioner Henning, and I just need to know kind of where we are. MR. OLLIFF: We, actually, post that meeting have included it in all of your rezonings and in particular your PUDs specific language where the developer is committing and agreeing not to request an agricultural exemption once the rezoning is approved. You'll also have the opportunity as each of these old PUDs come back through to incorporate that same kind of language in there through your PUD review process. So I think for all of the new developments in the last, probably, nine months that you've seen, they've included specific language that says that. And if they go down and they request an agricultural exemption after they've gotten that rezoning approved, they know good and well they shouldn't be down there with it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning's proposal was for all rezoning, not just from ag to PUD. Did you address all rezonings? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, maybe Marjorie can answer this better. I'm playing a little bit of an attorney here, but I think the statute covers the property appraiser in this regard specifically. I mean, I think it's pretty cut and dry -- we provide the zoning maps -- that he has that ability to enforce those zoning maps. MS. STUDENT: I had talked to Mr. Skinner about this just very recently. He would like to see some language in the PUD document, but I think that it wouldn't necessarily be all rezonings because all rezonings aren't necessarily from ag to PUD or ag to something else. It would only be in those rezonings that are from ag to something, whether it be PUD or something else, because that's where you get the ag exemption for having the ag zoning. I don't see a problem with a straight rezone, putting a condition in the rezoning ordinance Page 165 December 19, 2001 that way as a straight rezone, or in the PUD document. I don't think we necessarily have to have a LDC amendment that says that we would do that. This has not been to the Planning Commission. I think as a matter of policy we can just do it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's an ordinance policy? MS. STUDENT: It would be a condition in a straight rezone from ag to whatever district, and if it's ag from PUD we can put it in a PUD document, and it would be as a matter of policy. I don't think we necessarily have to have an ordinance provision for that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good work, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- MR. OLLIFF: We will just take that as direction from you and insure that in all rezonings from ag to any other zoning district that it includes either a stipulation or a condition if it's straight zoning or within the PUD that the language is also specifically included in the PUD document that will require them or prohibit them from continuing to request an ag exemption on that property. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to still leave it on the next agenda. I think it's also good to try to -- at this late hour we're getting public input. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank God. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We'll just keep it there. MR. OLLIFF: What we'll do is we'll bring you a copy of the actual language that we've already drafted and are putting in there. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Any other comments, Commissioners? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good night, Paul. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Merry Christmas. MS. MURRAY: Sorry. I have three things that I'm going to Page 166 December 19, 2001 have to put on the record from other staff members, hopefully briefly. Patrick White's got two on page 9 and page 84. MR. WHITE: Patrick White, assistant county attorney. Commissioners, on page 9 at the bottom Section 2.6.38.1 we're proposing to make a very small word change. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What page is that? MR. WHITE: Page 9, and the same wording will appear on page 84. I'll give you the citation to that section as well. It's 3.2.8.3.1. In each of them, there's text that follows the words pertaining to the parenthetical Resolution 01-247. It says "as may be amended," and we're going to change that to read, "as may be superseded or replaced by ordinance" in each of those two sections. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. That's sounds fine. It sounds like a little legal wordsmithing to me. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Stan Chrzanowski from development services again. Hopefully, it's the last item. Land Development Code Section 2.22 -- I'm sorry. LDC Section 2.2.3.3 there was a scribner's error. CHAIRMAN CARTER: MR. CHRZANOWSKI: What page? I don't know. They gave me a separate sheet without a page number on it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 2.2.3.3.16? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, just 2.2.3.3. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. It's a new handout. It was the single sheet that was sent to us. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. Got it. Thank you. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: This came out up at a prior meeting Page 167 December 19, 2001 about excavations in Golden Gate Estates. When they added it as a conditional use in the planning section -- this is not in the excavation section, which is okay. Instead of saying a maximum of 20 acres, they said 20 acres, which meant that you had to build a very large lake out in the estates, and we don't want that. So that's what this is about. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you added "maximum" to that? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, "shall not exceed 20 acres." COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good job. CHAIRMAN CARTER: (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year. We stand adjourned. God Bless America. MS. STUDENT: I just need to say the next meeting is, I think, three weeks from tonight on the 9th at 5:05 p.m. In chambers. They make us announce that. MR. OLLIFF: That's January 9th, 2002. Page 168 December 19, 2001 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:45 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZON1NG APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JAMES 1~. CARTER, Ph.D, CHAIRMAN ~;.~'~G'H~'.~. BROCK, CLERK -~-.: .. minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected //ff,,~,z- , as / TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY MARGARET A. SMITH, RPR AND BARBARA DRESCHER Page 169