Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/02/2000 RNovember 2, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 2, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Vice-Chairman: Gary Wrage Joyceanna J. Rautio Kenneth Abernathy Michael Pedone Russell A. Priddy Russell Budd Lora J. Young NOT PRESENT: Sam Saadeh ALSO PRESENT: Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page I AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2000 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO $ MINLFI'ES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTtED I0 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RESP~ PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITrEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITrED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TIttiRETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Ao BD-2000-20, Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing John D. and Olga M. Iandimarino, requesting a 41 foot extension for a boat dock and boat-lift facility protruding a total of 61 feet into the waterway for property located at 372 Oak Avenue, further descn~.d as Lot 9, Block I, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2, in Section 32; Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) BD-2000-24, Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Thomas Graebner, requesting a 25 foot extension from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a dock facility protruding 45 feet into the waterway, for property located at 229 Bayfront Drive, further described as Lot 17, Bayfront Gardens, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:. Ros~ C. vochenaur) 1 o 9. 10. PUD-99-13, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Inc., representing Relle~m; Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Plsnned Unit Development to be known as Balmoral PUD for a maximum of 296 residential dwelling units for property located on the east side of the future Livingston Road, north of Golden Gate Parkway (C.IL 886) and south of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896), in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of $9.16~ acres. (Coordinator: Don Murray) PUD-2000-14, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planni~ and Development, Inc., r~luesting a fezone from "A" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as San Sovino PUD for a multi-family development of 315 affordable-housing uaits and 263 standard residential units on proper~y lying on the west side of Collier Boulevard (C.I~ 951), approximately 4/5 of a mile south of lmmokalee Road in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 58.6~- acres. (Coordlnntor: Don Murray) PUD-97-18(I), Karen K. Bishop of PMS Inc. of Naples, representing Vanderbilt Partners 1~ Ltd., requesting a rezona from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development and "RM~-12 ST (3)" and "RMF-6 ST (3)" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as the Dunes PUD for the purpos~ of amending Ordinance No. 98-24 and having the effect of increasing the acreage from 88.55-~ to 188.$5~, increasing residential dwelling units from 531 to a maximum of 754, increasing gross density from 6 dwelling units per acre to 4 dwelling units per acre, showing a change in property ownership, increasing building height to 150 feet, adding restaurants, lounges and similar ilses as accessory uses, increasing open space from 53 acres to 166 acres, for property located on the northwest comer of Bluebill Avenue (C.R. 846) and Vanderbilt Drive (C.R. 901), in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 188.55~ acres. (Continued from 10/19) (Coordinator: Ron Nine) R-2000-06, I. Gary Buffer, P.E., of Buffer End, Inc., represen~ng Southern Development Co., Inc., requesting a fezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "C-4" for property located on the north side of U.S. 41, east of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2.02-~ acres. (Coordlnstor: Chahram Badamtchian) CU-2000-12, James Mccord, representing American Dream Builders, Inc., requesting a Conditional Use per Section 2.6.33.4.1.3 for a model home in the "E" Estates zoning district for property located at 4050 13~ Avenue S.W., further described as the east ~A of Tract 119, Golden Gate Estates Unit 26, in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Don Murray) DRI-99-03, Alan D. Reynolds, AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc., representing the Board of County Commissioners, requesting Development of Regional Impact approval for the "Collier County Government Center" for existing and new government office buildings located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of East Tan0aml Trail (U.S. 41) and Airport-Pulling Road (C.R. 31), in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 55d= acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC CO~ ITEM DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 11. AD.IOURN 11/02/00 CCPC AOENDA/RNfim 2 November 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let's call the meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, November 2nd, to order. And I'll start with the roll call. Commissioner Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Young? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Present. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage is present. Commissioner Saadeh is absent. Commissioner Padone? COMMISSIONER PADONE: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Budd? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Worked that out just right. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any addenda to the agenda today? MR. NINO: No, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. I have no minutes in my packet. Any planning commission absences? I need to remind those of you that were not here last night that our next LDC meeting is in 13 days, on the 15th, at 5:05. BCC report? MR. NINO: The only report I could make is, all of the items that were on the summary agenda stayed on the summary agenda, so that indicates concurrence. The items that were on the regular agenda, I believe, were all approved as well. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Under chairman's report, I have about five items I want to throw out here this morning. I have been asked -- and I'm going to pick on everybody. I've been asked that, to my fellow commissioners, from time to time, discussions have been held up here during the meeting. I will allow that between commissioners, but it needs to be through the microphone, please. One other thing that I've been asked, that should you vote in the minority, that either during the discussion, or even after the motion, if you would please give your reason. We owe that to our Page 2 November 2, 2000 county commissioners as well as to the petitioner and applicant. Not -- to keep picking on everybody, in light of last night's meeting, staff, please, direct all your comments and questions to the county, to the commissioners, and to the public. We will remain quiet while either the public or the petitioner or the commissioners are speaking. If you wish to hold a conversation, please go out in the hall. We're professionals here. We're here to take testimony. All testimony will be given through the microphone to the commission. Any questions you wish to ask of the petitioners, they need to be done in the hall privately or you ask us and we will ask the questions, and we will try to answer everybody's question. And finally, I have to be in a ]udge's chamber at 10:45. Regardless of the status, I will have to leave at 10:30 momentarily. And finally, to all my commissioners, I will not ask for disclosures. You've all been on this board long enough to know that anyone we bring up at petition, if you've got any disclosures, please jump right in. I know none of you are bashful. And with that, we will go to the first petition on the agenda, BD-2000-20. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'd like to make a disclosure, Mr. Chairman. I spoke with Mr. Scofield on this. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I also spoke with Mr. Scofield and Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I spoke to Mr. Scofield. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'd like to disclose that I spoke at length with Attorney Pires and I've spoken at length with Mr. Scofield. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I spoke with Mr. Pires and was unable to make connections with Mr. Scofield, so -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And I also talked to Mr. Scofield and I talked to Mr. Yovanovich. I would also like to make one small comment on behalf of the commissioners. I got a letter that I would like to clear up. One, we are not elected. We are appointed by your respective county commissioners. We are not paid. I just wanted to clear that -- I have a couple of letters that were rather derogatory towards me personally and I think towards the planning Page 3 November 2, 2000 commissioners and I want to point that out. And with that, I have a question, I guess, to Ron or the county attorney, why are we hearing this petition again? MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student. We're hearing this again, and I spoke with the county attorney, David Weigel, because of a problem with posting of the property. There's a provision in the code that states that for a dock facility extension, it requires public notice and hearing by the Collier County Planning Commission. And the county's interpretation of that has always been to include posting, as well as letters to the property owner, as well as a newspaper ad. And Mr. Weigel and I both feel that if we were to depart from that, that would be error, so that's why we're hearing it again, because it was not posted. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Staff concurs with that? MR. NINO: Certainly do. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, if I may? I know you don't want to hear this -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: A large path of latitude here, okay? MR. YOVANOVICH: My name is Rich Yovanovich and I represent the petitioner of boat dock petition 2000-20, and we're at the procedural point now of why we are here, and we do have some objections. Please tell me when it's appropriate for me to raise those objections, should it be now or should it be during the presentation of the petition? That's the question I have for the chair as to when you want me to make those comments. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And so noted. And I've had conversation with staff and I've had conversation with yourself. I guess I'm inclined, unless I hear something else from the rest of the commissioners, that we will proceed as if we were hearing this for the first time. You can raise your objection and it will be so noted when you give your presentation for the petitioner. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay? And with that, Ross? All those wishing to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand, be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Ross? MR. GOCHENAUR: Morning, commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services. First I would like to Page 4 November 2, 2000 apologize for the failure to post the hearing notice, which brings us back to this petition again, to you, commissioners, to the public and to the petitioner. The petition was originally heard on the 5th of October where an extension to 57 feet was approved by this commission. The petitioner originally requested an extension to create a dock protruding a total of 61 feet into the waterway. This request is today being reduced to 54 feet, three feet less than that approved by the commission on the 5th of October. The property's located at 372 Oak Avenue in Conner's Vanderbilt Beach, and the lot's currently unimproved. I'd like to go into this a little bit because there has been some confusion about the nature of a boat dock extension petition and what its approval allows. The approval of this petition would allow construction of a dock only in conjunction with a valid building permit. The dock is an accessory structure. The land development code says that a principal structure has to be constructed before an accessory structure or concurrently with an accessory structure. The only way the building department will issue permits for a dock would be either after the house is built and CO'd or concurrently with the building permit for the house. Should the dock be constructed before the house, a certificate of completion cannot be issued, the dock cannot legally be used until the certificate of occupancy for the house has been issued. So there isn't any circumstance under which a dock could be legally used on a piece of unimproved property. Does that pretty much clarify the -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you need a building permit for the dock? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They would issue that and let you build it, but then wouldn't issue a certificate of completion; is that where we are? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. When they issue the building -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: In the absence of a house, I'm talking -- MR. GOCHENAUR: In the absence of a house, the only way a dock could legally be constructed on a piece of residential Page 5 November 2, 2000 property is with an approved conditional use. There is no such use for this property, so the dock permit could not even be pulled unless the building permit for the house were pulled at the same time. Then, once that's done, even if the dock's completed first, it couldn't be legally used until they get the CO for the house. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Couldn't be legally initiated until you had a building permit for a house? MR. GOCHENAUR: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. GOCHENAUR: The site is unusual in that the seawall is set well back from the property line. This is not a normal feature on these canals of this waterway. This is the same drawing that I used at the last hearing. I'd like you to please remember that the measurements on here are approximate. They were taken from a building permit application for one of the other three docks that have a similar situation. And again, the measurements are not exact. It's not a survey. The proposed dock protrusion would be measured from the property line and the facility would extend 34 feet into the waterway. An extension for a 40-foot dock has been approved on -- on a residential lot in the general vicinity of this property. By today's code, if we measured the extension of the three docks on there, they would amount to 35 to 46 feet. Prior to 1994, the county allowed dock -- docks to be built and permitted as measured from the property line, which is currently in the water line. As you can see, all three of these previously constructed docks are 20 feet out from the property line. An extension to go to 21 -- I'm sorry, 20 feet from the property line. An extension to go to 21 feet was approved for the dock on lot ten. We've received numerous objections to this petition from local property owners. We have received no objections from the property owners immediately adjacent to the subject property. A petition with 73 signatures was also received from local property owners. I believe you have copies of all of the letters and also the petition. The objections that we received relate to navigational, environmental and aesthetic issues. The petitioner's agent, Mr. Scofield, will address the navigational issues. Environmental issues centered mainly on the impact to mariatees and relative Page 6 November 2, 2000 to water pollution. Water pollution is an issue addressed by the Department of Environmental Protection. It's outside the scope of this petition. The subject property is a single-family lot. Single-family lots, single family docks are not subject to the provisions of the Manatee Protection Plan. We've received some complaints that the dock will affect the view of surrounding neighboring adjacent property owners. Typically, the property owners most affected are those immediately on either side of the subject property. And again, we have received no objections to the project from either of these property owners. View is very subjective. Property owners are very sensitive to any potential impact on their property values, so it's a little bit hard to judge the exact nature of the complaints with regard to view. That notwithstanding, this project does meet all criteria as before, and also as before, staff recommends approval. Do we have any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. What would -- you have a number 54 there, which is what the petitioner's requesting? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What would that number be if you measured 20 feet from the property line, as these other two -- the one that's 46 and the one that's 38 have gone 20 feet beyond the property line. What would that magic number be for this piece? MR. GOCHENAUR: Is -- we're getting into math again, and you know I'm shaky there. Is this what the extension would be if the measurement were taken from the property line today? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, if it -- instead of -- yes. MR. GOCHENAUR: That would be a 34-foot dock, 20 from 54. The land development code allows a 20-foot dock to be built. That's measured from the most restrictive point with a building permit. Anything in excess of that 20 feet requires an extension. So if you were measuring the protrusion from the property line in the water, you'd have the 20 feet that you were given by the code, plus an additional 34 feet requested, for a total of 54. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ross -- Page 7 November 2, 2000 MR. GOCHENAUR: Is my math getting bogged down again? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I was going to ask the petitioners if they would take their conversation out in the hall. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry, Mr. Wrage. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Continue, please. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So it's the 20 feet that's permitted, plus another 34 feet? That looks -- MR. GOCHENAUR: I'm sorry. That would be measured from the current most restrictive point. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All I want to do is measure it from the property line. What is the property line plus 20? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: One of the problems looks to me like, that that is a slanting property line. MR. GOCHENAUR: It is a slanting property line, and what we would have to do would be take the measurement from the point of the dock that's furthest back onto the property. I think probably Mr. Scofield's drawings -- and I don't have a copy of the revised drawings -- would show you exactly where he's going to measure this from, how far that would be from the seawall to the property line. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Whose drawing is this? MR. GOCHENAUR: This drawing was submitted with a building permit application for one of the other docks that's shown here. I'm using this only to give a general iljustration of how the seawall is set back onto the property and not a linear seawall like you have on virtually every other manmade canal in the county. This is a very unusual situation. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So that 54 may not be to scale at all? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. As I tried to explain, these measurements are approximate. I'm using this only for iljustration purposes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And so the big dark line is the seawall, and in between the seawall and the dotted line, which is the property line -- MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- there are mangroves? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And that's the big issue that we have a -- Page 8 November 2, 2000 MR. GOCHENAUR: No, ma'am. No one has raised the issue of mangroves. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No. I mean, we have a distance -- a visual issue from the seawall to the property line. You have to get at least 20 feet before you start measuring. If that -- if the seawall was right at the property line, we would be talking about 34 feet; is that correct? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MR. GOCHENAUR: That's -- given that that approximate distance was about 20 feet. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: But then would -- if the -- if the dock started at the property line where the seawall would have been if the mangroves weren't in the way, let's say, then he would have been allowed a 20-foot dock, correct? MR. GOCHENAUR: Correct, and his extension would be whatever he wanted beyond that. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: And it would have been another 14 feet at that point? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So in a normal circumstance, they'd probably be in here asking for a 14-foot extension and we wouldn't even be excited about it because -- MR. GOCHENAUR: That would be my conclusion, yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I guess that was my conclusion too. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff at this time? If not, we can hear from the petitioner. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, for the record, Rich Yovanovich representing the petitioner. I have with me Rocky Scofield who also represents the petitioner. I guess this is the appropriate time for me to raise procedural objections and I do have one, and it's regarding the fact that we, frankly, should not be here at all today to rehear this -- this petition. The -- the reason we're here is that a member of the public who was at the hearing on October 5th raised an issue regarding the posting of the property claiming that the notice provisions were not followed; therefore, the hearing -- there may be some questions regarding the hearing. Page 9 November 2, 2000 I believe -- well, my interpretation of the law is, you're entitled to procedural due process and that process is what is established in the land development code. You also have the ability to waive notice objections, and one way you waive notice objections is by attending the hearing and participating in the hearing, and there were several members of the public who participated in that hearing, including the one person who raised the notice objection due to posting. So at least for those individuals who spoke at the hearing and who received mailed written notice -- because there's no question that that happened -- they received notice and they should not be allowed to get a second bite at the apple, and that's exactly what you have today. They have gotten additional time through a technicality in the land development code that -- or an interpretation of the land development code that may give them a second bite at the apple. They were not happy with the result the first time. I don't know when they hired Mr. Pires, but I'm assuming he will -- it's after the first hearing, and you can ask him that question, but they want -- they want another opportunity to raise these issues. So it is my position that if you look at the land development code and you look at the very specific provisions regarding boat dock extension procedures and advertisement requirements, your county attorney did read to you what the requirements are, and that is a public hearing with public notice, and that is exactly what happened. It was advertised in the paper, you had your discussions in the public, and that's all they are legally entitled to under the land development code. Now, if your staff wants to give additional notice, and it's their policy to give mailed notice and to post the property, that's additional notice. It's not a legal entitlement. Had it been a legal entitlement, you would see those requirements in the land development code just like you see those requirements in the specific provisions dealing with variances where it specifically says you will have mailed notice and posted notice. You would see that in the rezone provisions where it says you get mailed notice and you get posted notice. You would also see that in the conditional use provision which specifically references another code provision that says, we'll follow the notice provisions under a different section. Page 10 November 2, 2000 Is that language in the boat dock extension section? It is not. It is conspicuously absent. Therefore, the Board of County Commissioners did not require that there be written notice or posted notice. So we don't believe that we should be here today at all, so I'd note that for the record. All notice requirements were met. Now, if you do -- if you have decided to go forward, there is precedence for this where -- where notice objections have been raised in the past, and I was -- I was party to that objection. I raised a notice objection on a variance petition saying that my clients didn't get the required notice. What the Board of County Commissioners did at that time, they did not rehear this case. What they did was, they said, anybody who didn't receive the notice required by the statute, the ordinance, can come and speak to us. They didn't do a whole full-blown new hearing. They allowed members of the public who were claiming they didn't get the required notice to speak, voice their concerns and let -- then let the petitioner respond to the concerns raised by those people who were claiming they did not get proper notice. So if you're going to go forward today, which you -- you still have the opportunity to say you do not want to go forward today after hearing my argument, you should limit yourself to only people who can say to you, under oath, that had there been posted notice, I would have been here and I would have objected, because those are the only ones who are entitled to the benefit of the posting. So what I would -- I would ask you to limit today's hearing to those people who can tell you they would have been here if there was posted notice and don't open this up for another full-blown second bite at the apple. And I would like to enter into the record an amended notice of appeal filed by Mr. Pires, clearly proving the point that I made regarding who was, in fact, here, and Mr. -- Mr. Pires' amended notice of appeal -- in this case, he was representing Roy Schaetzel, B.J. Boyer, Susan Burkhard, Bruce Burkhard and Eleanor Strasser, and he says in his notice of appeal, they were all here, present at that hearing. So at least in my opinion, they waived any notice objections and should not be permitted to speak today, and if that is all Mr. Pires represents, he should not be allowed to provide any comments on their behalf. I'll give that Page 11 November 2, 2000 to Margi. In addition, several people provided their written objections before the last hearing. They must have had notice of the hearing. They had the time to write to you and tell you. Specifically, Bill and Perry Benson and Ron and Harriette Link were referred to in the comments in your last verbatim transcript of the proceedings, and anybody else who provided you letters before that time had notice and had an opportunity to participate in the hearing. They, too, waived any right to speak here today. I understand that there's an abundance of caution argument regarding having another hearing, and, you know, if the notice provisions have not been followed, which we -- which we contend they have been followed, there is an element of risk, and that element of risk is to my client. My client is the one who's got to defend your action that was taken by the Planning Commission. If the notice was improper, we got -- we did not get your approval; however, if it was proper, we already have your approval. My client is willing to take that risk. We are the ones who will have to defend your action, and we will do it. So if it's -- if it's a fear that you're trying to protect us, we're willing to take the risk on the notice because we think it has been met. Now, the LDC works two ways. There's protections for the public and there's protections for the petitioner. The LDC says what type of notice has to be provided to the public and what the petitioner must know -- what has to happen procedurally for the petitioner to get a valid approval. We believe that the petitioner is harmed by having to come here today and retry this whole case, spend money to go forward, and we'll see how it ultimately turns out, but we don't believe that the time and expense is justified under the very reading of the land development code, and we would request at this time that the Planning Commission not hold another hearing because that hearing has already occurred. You will be here for quite a while, I'm sure, if we do a trial -- a whole new hearing, or at a minimum, anybody who gets up here and says, I'd have been here for -- if there had been posted notice, let them speak, and we'll respond that their concerns and just have -- bring forward the record that you had at your last meeting and let anybody who says they didn't have proper notice because of the posting problem, let them speak, we'll address their concerns and have a limited hearing, and we Page 12 November 2, 2000 think that is fair and appropriate to all parties. So I'd like to know how you wish to proceed at this time before I get into more detail. MS. STUDENT: May I respond? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let me -- I want him to finish his objection and then we'll go forward. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, what I'm asking for is not unprecedented. That happened in another similar situation on a variance. It was a limited hearing. You brought forward all the testimony from the previous hearing so you didn't have to rehash it and then anybody who could show that they did not receive the notice or did not waive the notice was permitted to speak and it was very limited. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Marjorie, as -- I'm very uncomfortable where I'm sitting right now because I -- I hear his argument. I've also heard from the staff and I've heard from you. I guess-- MS. STUDENT: I think we should proceed. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I think that we've opened ourselves up either for litigation for what we've already done or what we're about to do, and I guess we're looking for some legal advice. MS. STUDENT: Okay. I'll be happy to give it. You're correct. I think no matter what we do, there's going to be litigation over this. So it's -- you know, the county's between a rock and a hard place. As I said, I spoke with Mr. Weigel and -- on this, and we feel that the new hearing is warranted because of the failure of the complete notice and the way that that has been interpreted by the county in the past. Courts give great weight to a local government's interpretation of its own regulations, and if that's how the county has interpreted it, which staff assures me it is, I think we're on good ground to go forward with the new hearing because this time all of the notice requirements were met as interpreted by the county and they were not in the last hearing. Secondly, case law tells us that if all the notice requirements, if there's one infirmity in notice requirements, the whole thing is void. And I recall from, I believe it was back in 1996, generally the variance situation that Mr. Yovanovich alludes to, and I think that was by agreement of everybody that that's how they would proceed. Page 13 November 2, 2000 I spoke with Mr. Weigel also as -- in this matter just limiting, you know, who could speak at this hearing to only people that came out for the first time here, and it was Mr. Weigel's opinion that -- and mine that everybody should be allowed to speak again. The reason for that is, again, the past -- it's like the past hearing never happened because of the notice infirmity, and the waiver that Mr. Yovanovich talks about -- and I haven't, you know, researched this recently -- but that would be a waiver to present to a Court because the people showed up, not necessarily a waiver of their right to speak at any subsequent hearing to cure the defect. So again, it's my opinion that this is like it never happened before and this is a brand new hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, if I might make a motion that we proceed with this hearing as if it were a brand new hearing. This commission bases its decisions and votes on facts and not popular opinion or how many people are in the room, so I -- I think unless there's something that's taken place with the property out there since we were here last, that the outcome is likely to be the same and that we, you know, move on with -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, before we go any further, I guess what was crossing my mind is, we have all heard this. I think we've all heard the objection. As chairman, I think I have a certain latitude that what I was gonna limit both the petitioner and the public to was to something new. The big issue I see here is they asked for 61 feet. Your motion, as I recall and we approved, was 57. We're now talking about 54. I do know there are a couple of items out there the petitioner has that he did not present before and there may be some things from the public, and I want the public allowed to speak, but I don't need to sit here and hear 57 people tell me they don't want it because they don't like it or for whatever reason, because I've already heard that. I read every one of those letters word for word. And although I want everybody their chance to speak, I'm not sure that I want to hear all of it all over again. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We don't have a second on the motion and if I second it, then we're in discussion on the motion; is that correct? I'm going to second Mr. Priddy's motion that we Page 14 November 2, 2000 proceed. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. It's been moved and seconded, and I understand the motion is -- is we're going to hear 100 percent of what everybody wants to say. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But you're not to allow 57 people to tell us if they don't like it because it's blocking their view? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I will address that when we get to the public and I will also address that to the petitioner. It's been moved and seconded that we go forward. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Nay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm ready to go on the merits. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- a warning to the petitioner and the public, please, we all remember. It hasn't been that long. Please address new issues. I'm particularly interested in why-- now we can talk about 54 feet rather than 61. And to the public, remember, I said I've read all your letters. When it comes time for the public, I don't have a problem with everybody standing up saying you're against it, so noted, name and address. If you've got something new, please, we'd be willing to listen to it, but I don't think you or the commissioners want to be here until three o'clock this afternoon. One final comment. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Marjorie, I have a question. Since there was an appeal of this petition, what happens to the appeal now that we're going to hear the whole item over? MS. STUDENT: Well, I think it's just held in abeyance, and then whatever the outcome of this meeting -- let's say the result is the same, I believe Mr. Pires would have to go and file another appeal based on the record of this proceeding. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's what I wanted to hear, whether or not there was any value to the appeal that was first filed -- or filed on the first one, so we can proceed. MR. YOVANOVICH: I have to ask for one more act of indulgence. Can we have Mr. Pires state for the record his position on whether or not the fact that you're going forward today moots out his appeal, because I don't want to have two Page 15 November 2, 2000 potential appeals out there? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I would ask Mr. Pires if he'd like to comment on that. MR. PIRES: Anthony Pires, Woodward, Pires and Lombardo representing some various property owners in the Vanderbilt Beach area. I filed the appeal because of the fact that we were advised last Thursday at 4:44 p.m. that there was a question about this being heard, and so I filed it out of an abundance of caution. I would have been remiss in my obligations to my clients if I had not done so. I've not withdrawn same. I'm not going to provide an opinion as to whether I think it's moot. I'm not going to make legal arguments on behalf of Mr. Yovanovich. It's there. Staff is holding it in abeyance and it is what it is. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: With that being said, today's hearing is the second hearing on the boat dock petition 2000-20. So that you don't have to -- there's no argument that we're not bringing forward what you heard at the last meeting, I'd like to enter into the record and make it part of today's hearing the verbatim transcript or the minutes taken by your court reporter into the record. Is there any objection, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: No, I think I may have -- I may have a cleaner copy, Rich. I don't know. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, this one only highlights where it starts. It doesn't -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I guess we're taking a break while counsel -- MR. PIRES: No problem. No objection. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- consultate. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Nothing's easy anymore. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So far we've been professional. Let's not break the mold. MR. YOVANOVICH: With that being said, specifically, since we are going forward basically with a new hearing, I'm not going to rehash the testimony of Mr. Scofield, but I do -- I do want to enter Mr. Scofield in as -- he's testified before you on many, many, many boat dock petitions. You're intimately familiar with his qualifications, and I would like to tender him as an expert for purposes of both the October 5th hearing and for purposes of Page16 November 2, 2000 today's hearing. Since Mr. Scofield is not an attorney, he did not do the -- he didn't qualify himself as an expert on October 5th, and I would ask that you go ahead and qualify him -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept Mr. Scofield as an expert witness. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Expert in what? MR. YOVANOVICH: In boat dock -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Boat construction? MR. YOVANOVICH: Permitting both the docks and actual construction. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's been moved and seconded. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes. MS. STUDENT: Excuse me. In procedures of this type, Mr. Pires has advised that he would like to voir dire -- or in lawyer talk, more or less cross-examine Mr. Scofield on his expertise, and in order to follow due process, I think we need to allow him the opportunity to do that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Before or after we make the motion? MS. STUDENT: It would be before. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. When I get to the discussion part. It's been moved by Chairman (sic) Priddy, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: There was no second. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Seconded by Commissioner Budd that Mr. Scofield be entered as an expert witness. Any discussion from the commissioners? If not -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just have a point of order under discussion, do we -- did you just say that we should not have this motion and listen to the questioning of the expert witness -- MS. STUDENT: The motion -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- before, so we could have Mr. Priddy withdraw this and move along here? MS. STUDENT: The motion should be held in abeyance until Mr. Pires is done so the commission has an opportunity to assess what testimony would be elicited from Mr. Scofield, and then you would make your motion. That's the way -- when you've had these -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' I'll withdraw my motion. Let's Page 17 November 2, 2000 hear -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry. I misunderstood that, because I thought we were going to talk about Mr. Scofield not being an expert. But anyway, I'm sorry. I think Mr. Pires -- MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, should I direct the questions to the chairman or to Mr. Scofield? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I will allow you to address the -- for sake of time, directly to Mr. Scofield. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Scofield, what type of expert are you being tendered as for this particular proceeding today? MR. SCOFIELD: As an expert in dock permitting and construction and dredging and whatever else you want to relate to marine construction. MR. PIRES: And what is your educational background? MR. SCOFIELD: My educational background is a bachelor of science in geology. MR. PIRES: And do you hold a naval architect's license? MR. SCOFIELD: No, I don't. That's for boat building. MR. PIRES: Do you hold any degrees in hydrology? MR. SCOFIELD: No, I don't. MR. PIRES: Do you hold any engineering certifications? MR. SCOFIELD: No, I don't. MR. PIRES: And when you say you are asking to be qualified as an expert in permitting, that's a broad area. What .- can you narrow the scope of that? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, for marine permitting, basically DEP, Corps of Engineers, county, related to marine work. MR. PIRES: Do you have a -- you don't have any educational background in physics? MR. SCOFIELD: Just through my geology, yes. MR. PIRES: Okay. Have you been qualified as an expert in navigation by any courts of the State of Florida? MR. SCOFIELD: No, I haven't. MR. PIRES: Have you been qualified as an expert in view by any courts of the State of Florida? MR. SCOFIELD: No. MR. PIRES: Have you been qualified by any courts in the standpoint of marine permitting? MR. SCOFIELD: I'm sorry, what? Page 18 November 2, 2000 MR. PIRES: Have you been qualified by the courts in the area of marine permitting? MR. SCOFIELD: Not by the courts. MR. PIRES: Do you hold any contractor's licenses? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, I do. MR. PIRES: And what type? MR. SCOFIELD: I hold a state general contractor's license, Class A certified general contractor's license, and I had a marine contractor's license in addition to that when I was in business doing marine construction. MR. PIRES: Do you have -- do you have a marine contractor's license today? MR. SCOFIELD: No, I do not. MR. PIRES: I have no further questions of Mr. Scofield. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept Mr. Scofield as an expert witness in boat dock permitting and construction. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Budd. Any further discussion? MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, before the vote, if I just may object for the record, since I don't believe a proper predicate has been made to establish Mr. Scofield's an expert in that area and object for the record. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yes, I'd like to ask Mr. Scofield one question. How many years have you been doing this? MR. SCOFIELD: I started in marine construction in 1975 full time. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Thank you. MR. ¥OVANOVICH: I've got one follow-up. Have you been qualified as an expert before this Planning Commission in the past? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, several times, quite a few times. MR. ¥OVANOVICH: Have you been qualified as an expert in front of other local government bodies as an expert? MR. SCOFIELD: The Board of Commissioners. MR. YOVANOVICH: How about the Marco Island Planning Advisory Board? Page 19 November 2, 2000 MR. SCOFIELD: The Marco --yes, absolutely. Yeah, I may add one thing. I mean -- well, that's -- we've probably heard enough, but I've -- I am recognized. My family's been in this town, my father was in the dredging business, dredged most of the waterfront communities. I've been in this business a long, long time. I became a consultant 11 years ago when I closed down my marine construction company. I do not hold a marine contractor's license now today because I don't need to. Once I qualified and took my state general contractor's Class A license, you do not need a marine contractor's license any more. You -- you can do marine construction under that. I am recognized all over this county and in Lee County as an expert. A member of Mr. Pires' law firm has hired me to do a boat dock extension and variance and submerged land lease on Marco Island for his private boat dock. So I think I'm recognized pretty much everywhere in this county as an expert. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Just for the record, once again -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: One last time. MR. PIRES: Once again, continuing objection to the record for him being qualified as an expert in any particular form or fashion. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. So noted. All in favor of this motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: MR. YOVANOVICH: where did Rocky go? Carries. With that, Mr. Chairman, basically-- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: He just left the building. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here he is. MR. SCOFIELD: I just had to get a drink of water. Sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: My -- my expert left. Without -- without rehashing the entire petition again, the -- you had asked a very specific question as to where we are today as to why -- and Rocky will get into the details, why are we now in front of you with a request -- or actually, we are willing to reduce the request from an originally 61-foot request to 54 feet because there -- there are many ways of measuring water depth. Some of them Page 20 November 2, 2000 are more precise than others. Subsequent to the hearing that we had last time with everybody saying to you, the water depth isn't what it is, we went and had a professional survey done where they -- and that's not typical in your boat dock petitions. Typically you go forward and you -- you use another method of measuring water depth. There's a margin of error there. We did determine that once you get 40 feet out, and Rocky will tell us this, once you get 40 feet out from the water -- there's -- he was off by six inches. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I was just going to say, shouldn't he be giving this testimony? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, he will be. He will be. Just give me one more second. But I want you to know that the reduction does not come without a compromise to the environment, and that compromise is, in order to move the dock in, you have to do more trimming of the mangroves, so our -- I'm trying to -- why our original request was for 61 feet was to avoid trimming mangroves to the greatest extent possible. So that -- from the perspective of trying to initially explain the difference, Mr. Scofield will go into the details. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. Rocky Scofield representing the petitioner, John and Olga landimarino. I just wanted to say first off, I too have read all the letters given by the concerned people in Vanderbilt Beach, and after reading all the letters, I'm more convinced than ever that there's a huge misunderstanding. They all relate to a dock protruding 60 feet into the waterway. This is simply not -- it's not what's proposed. As -- I'll get Ross' little sketch back here, but I'll also hand out some new drawings. We had -- Tony Trigo and Associates -- thank you. Tony Trigo and Associates was hired by the owner to do water depths. I specifically gave them instructions to go out far enough, because there is a sandbar in the lagoon and that's what most of these people are concerned about, and understandably so. There is a sandbar out there. I made a comment last time that we have -- we had about 100 feet from the end of our proposed dock out is -- and I will give you the water depths. They're posted on this -- the big poster on the board, but I'll put it on the overhead here for you. We reduced the dock because once you get about 40 feet Page 21 November 2, 2000 out, my measurements were almost, within a few inches, the same as the professional surveyor. There was a difference when you get out around 40 feet of a half a foot. This half a foot allowed us to move the boat in closer to the bank a little bit for the stern -- Tony, I've got handouts here if you want them. Okay. I will also enter into the record the registered surveys. I'll give you a registered one. There's -- when we get the survey, we're allowed to -- you know, it showed us I could move the boat in. The bow of the boat -- we were going to trim a few feet of the -- the mangroves overhang quite a -- quite a ways onto the lot, and I'll show you that right here. Is that readable? I can't see. It is? Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Can you sharpen that up a little bit? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We've got a handout here. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Oh, that will really make it sharp. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Speak for yourself. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Back it out, please. Back it out a little more. Okay. That's good. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a quick question, Rocky. You're talking about trimming mangroves? This is -- this has already been approved as part of this? I mean, you can do that? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. Mangrove trimming is permittable (sic), absolutely, especially from the DEP, when mangroves hang out over the water and if they interfere with the footprint of the dock, you can trim those mangroves back. The original application, we were going to trim a few feet of mangroves. We're going to trim about eight feet of mangroves back on the overhang right now. If you look at this drawing -- if you look at this drawing, you see this squiggly line here? That's -- that's the mangrove drip line. Drip line means -- that means where they overhang and the mangroves come out. This is the seawall back here. Now, this seawall is set back -- Ross showed you on his drawing. Now, this is a survey drawing right here. The property line is nineteen and a half feet out on -- on the east side. On the west side, the property line is 23 and a half feet out. That's how far back the seawall is set. Where the dock is going, this number right here is 21 feet, okay? Ross was off by a foot when Mr. Abernathy asked the question of how far out are you from the property line. We go out Page 22 November 2, 2000 21 feet from the seawall to the property line, then we go out another 33 feet to attain the 54 feet that's required. So if we were here under the old code, we would be here today in front of you asking for a 13 foot boat dock extension. That is it. Now, when we protrude out in the waterway, some of the letters I read said, you know, we don't object to 40 feet. Well, we're asking basically for 34 feet here today from the property line and we're -- you know, where the other line is, I showed you on the other drawing. So that's basically what we're asking for. The water depths -- and I'll hand that out to you. These are the water depths. It may be a little bit hard to read on there. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse me. Is there a way that we can see on these videos here or on these televisions? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I guess I would ask someone from staff if they could work on those two TV's?. MR. GOCHENAUR: I've been over there asking them to turn them on, and also the monitor on the podium's not on. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. They're working on it. MR. SCOFIELD: How did that get on there? Okay. This is a little bit larger version of what you have. On your handouts, the water depths shown -- the end of the proposed dock -- first of all, the dock -- the dock, the way it's proposed, there was concerns about, well, they're going to tie up a dock (sic) on the end of this boat (sic). You can't. This is a U-shaped dock facing out. It's a slip coming in, bow in. Where the bow of this boat comes in, it's going to be in about 2.3 feet of water, maybe a foot and a half on a -- on lower than normal tides. The end of the dock -- the end of the dock is out -- is out where it shows it, and that is around five feet of water. Now, for 80 feet out on the big map and the one in front of you, for 80 feet out, there is up to five feet, and at the end of the 80 feet is where the bottom starts to turn coming towards the sandbar. When you hit 100 feet out from the end of the proposed dock, you're coming up on the sandbar. There's three feet of water -- there's three to three -- between three and 3.7 feet of water at 100 feet out. That's where you're starting to get up on the sandbar, and if you've got a lower than normal tide, that's where you're gonna hit it, but for 80 feet out, there is plenty of Page 23 November 2, 2000 adequate water, which is a lot wider width than in a normal canal between docks and boats in Vanderbilt Beach. So the navigation is not a problem getting around this dock. One other thing right now that -- that I'll bring up and -- is concerns of dredging. I've been involved in a lot of dredging projects and I had extensive talks with DEP over this project. I sent them all -- this project is permitted by the DEP. I have the DEP permits in hand for the 60-foot dock. That's not what we're proposing today. The owner has agreed, at my insistence, that we bring this down to 54 feet, which we can do, and still moor his boat adequately. The dredging issue on this, I got a letter, and I can enter it into the record here today, from -- from Mark Miller, DEP, and the letter states the criteria given for dredging in these single family lots, and there's a whole big list of criteria. The bottom line on that is though, they look at the mangroves, they look at the bottom, they look at the whole picture and if you can offset that dredging by moving a dock out or getting into deeper water that does not obstruct navigation -- now, if we were sticking out in the channel and obstructing navigation, then we would have a point on which to go to the DEP and say, look, we can't obstruct the traffic, we need to dredge and come in. They are very reluctant to give dredging permits on single family lots where you're dredging in a single area, creating a hole. On larger projects, they do that, and there are larger projects in this lagoon that are going to require dredging and they permit that. They do not like them on single family lots. After all the information I sent, Mr. -- excuse me, I'm getting a little dry here, Mr. Miller said that, Rocky, it's unlikely -- we permitted this job, it's very unlikely we would issue a permit to dredge here based on the conditions of this lot. Now, I have pictures here that I'll enter into the record, and if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of the petitioner's representative? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, I would like to ask Rocky a couple. Is there a boat? Is there a boat, a particular boat owned by this owner who is going to build a house on this lot at this time? MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir. Page 24 November 2, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He doesn't own a boat? MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir. The dock we're proposing that's up on the screen right now -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. MR. SCOFIELD: -- that is a slip that allows for a 30-foot boat. Now -- and that is it. If this -- if this is granted, that means -- that's the cutoff. The end of his dock is the cutoff. Nothing can protrude out there. We do not have a dock where a lot of the other docks are that you can tie up outside of that and extend on out. We cannot do that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' But there is no current boat in existence? MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir. I would say most of the boat dock petitions and ones that I permit, the owners do not have a boat. I do this because they want to get the dock built first, then they can decide what kind of boat they can have to fit the dock. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They've got to build a house somewhere along the line. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, and I understand that. They can't build a dock until a house has started being built. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I have a great problem with permitting docks on vacant lots. That just -- somehow that's anticipating a problem that may never exist. The guy could come along and buy a pontoon boat. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, but Commissioner Abernathy, they can build a dock, but they cannot get a certificate of occupancy until they get a CO on the house, which means the house has got to be fit for occupancy. MR. SCOFIELD: They can't even -- you're not here issuing a permit today. That was your words just a minute ago. You're here -- this is a boat dock extension. Permits have to be pulled after the house has been permitted. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I understand that. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Rocky, are there any existing docks in that neighborhood that might have boats that stick out beyond where they should? That's hard to tell? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, I can, you know -- yes, I mean, of course there are. The whole thing here is, my client today, if you Page 25 November 2, 2000 go back to the -- oh, this one right here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Priddy, there's a picture here that may show an answer to your question. MR. SCOFIELD: To -- to answer it real quick, this gentleman, under the old rule, could come in here to the property line, which the neighbor was permitted to do, build a 20-foot dock and never be here today. He could go in, just pull a building permit, come out 20 feet. Now, if he wanted to put a boat in front of that dock, he couldn't do it legally unless he came here and got an extension. If he had a 20-foot dock out from the property line and wanted to put a lift out there, lifts are 13 feet. That's exactly what we're here asking for today. So the gentleman could have had a 20- foot dock sitting there and all of a sudden, if he'd have had a boat in front of that -- there's a lot of other cases, many in this area, where they have 20-foot docks around and boats are parked out in front and there's been -- but if the neighbor complains and they're not -- they don't have an extension, then they've got to come get one, and that's all we're asking here today is a 20-foot dock out from the property line and then 13 feet additional. If it was alongside, that's the same width for a boat dock -- for a lift and a dock -- excuse me, a boat lift and a boat. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But you're asking permission ahead of time as opposed to waiting on the neighbor to turn you in to get the -- the variance? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, with this dock configuration, we have to be here today. Yes, but the code has changed, so now we have to come all the way back from the seawall. We can't go from the property line. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Right. I understand. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Going back to Ross' rough diagram that shows -- MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Pull it up just a little. MR. SCOFIELD: Slide it up. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's a representation there that -- well, I can't tell what the difference is -- MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. I can explain this to you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can you quantify that? Page 26 November 2, 2000 MR. SCOFIELD: Sure. Okay. This -- this is not to scale. This was turned in a while ago. As a matter of fact, this dock here on the neighbor to the west, is not the dock configuration that exists there today. And -- and also, that scale is wrong. This dock is 46 feet out from the seawall. This gentleman's property is 25 feet back from the property line. His seawall is 25 feet back. We are -- in the middle of our property, we're 21 feet back, so if we were allowed to build a dock extending out 54 feet here, we would actually be 12 feet past this gentleman's dock today. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So the -- MR. SCOFIELD: And -- go ahead, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The objectionable protrusion, if there is one, insofar as sight lines are concerned, is the 12 feet that we're talking about? People already have an impediment to seeing on the basis of the neighboring docks. So you're talking 12 more feet, is that -- that's the sum of the -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: At 54? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. This -- you can see by the water depths we showed you, this is a very shallow area, and being notched in, this area is prone to filling, especially with mangroves in there, sediment is trapped and it's shallow. The gentleman to the east, I've spoken with -- at low tides, he can't get his boat on and off his lift a lot of the times and he's out, you know -- he's out 38 feet. Now, he can tie up in front of his dock until the tide comes up and then he gets his boat lift on, but, you know -- and I don't think there's any objection to that, and we're only -- if a boat's tied up in front of this dock here, we're only going to be out a few feet -- a couple of feet further than that, so -- I'm sorry. Anyway, that's -- the configuration of this dock, we're bringing the bow in. We're trimming the mangroves back about eight feet. We're bringing the deck (sic) in, the bow of the boat comes in to about two, 2.3 feet of water at normal low tide. The stern of the boat is out where we have adequate water depth, and we're not worried about the filling in for years to come because we still have about four and a half to five feet of water where the motors are, and this dock configuration that we're proposing is 26 feet away from the neighbors. It's centered in the lot and it will not cause any problems for access in and out Page 27 November 2, 2000 to the neighbors, and that's why we designed it this way. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any final questions of the petitioner? With that, does anyone from the public wish to address this issue? MR. NINO: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have the following registered speakers; Tony Pires, B.J. Savard-Boyer. Go ahead. I won't read them all off, Tony. Susan Burkhard. And I'll read the rest of them later. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, before Tony goes, I just want to make sure that staff is automatically qualified as experts, or do I have to qualify staff as an expert? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I believe they're already that. Is that the case? Yes. Mr. Pires, would you tell us, for the record, who you represent today? I assume you're not here personally. MR. PIRES: No, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Anthony Pires of the Law Firm Woodward, Pires and Lombardo representing a number of the property owners in the Vanderbilt Beach area, Mr. and Mrs. Boyer, Mr. and Mrs. Burkhard, Mr. Schaetzel, Mrs. Strasser, and there are a number of other individuals who are here that may be assisting in contributing to, you know, paying for my time to be here today that I've not had any communications with, but there also are a number of individuals that -- in the area that wish to speak on behalf of themselves and the community as a whole, and from that perspective, as Rich has indicated, we introduced a part of the transcript. And as I mentioned to you before, the reason why I filed the appeal is because the community had been told this case would be reheard, then they were told at the last minute, last Thursday, it was not going to be reheard and we filed the appeal, but it is being heard today. We thank you for that. To the extent that -- what I find interesting is that I think Mr. Yovanovich's objection becomes moot if he's now asking for a revised application and submitting new evidence, I think, to this board; therefore, he's waived any opportunity, any objection he has to going forward. As I understand it also, the materials that you received today were materials that I just received today and I don't know if the staff has yet even received this new material submitted by Mr. Scofield in the form of the depths that were certified by Mr. Page 28 November 2, 2000 Trigo as of October 28th, as well as this new sketch which is dated October 28th, I believe. So I just want to make that note for the record, that I don't know if your staff has even analyzed it yet. MS. STUDENT: Mr. -- Mr. Chair, could Mr. Pires allude -- he stated that -- he listed names of individuals that he represented and others, but I just want it clear for the record who -- you know, who he does represent for standing purposes, and if other people come up just on their own, that's fine, they have their own standing that way, but if Tony's speaking for some that don't and then -- MR. PIRES: Well, they will -- Marjorie, thank you for that, but my clients will also be here because they have additional fact- based testimony to provide. They are here to testify also. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, if I could, just before we move on so that I'm paying attention when it's important, Mr. Pires, do you represent any of the -- any of the immediate neighbors that their view is an issue? Because the people that live three streets away certainly can't -- you know, I can't imagine that their view is going to be obstructed, so I need to know the folks that you represent that truly their view is -- is an issue. MR. PIRES: Well, we have Mr. Schaetzel and the Strassers. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And where do they live in relation to this property? MR. PIRES: Mr. Schaetzel is lot seven. This is lot nine. I have a plat also that I'd like to make part of the record. It's a property appraiser's map. The one in red, lot nine, is the subject property. Lot seven is Mr. Schaetzel, and he's also here to testify as to fact-based testimony. If you recall last time, he's the one that said, I have a 27-foot long boat. My dock is out -- about 37 feet out or 40 feet out, I have plenty of water, if you recall that testimony. COMM MR. PI may. COMM MR. PI 26. COMM ISSIONER RAUTIO: Tony, what lot is Strasser? RES: I can get that information in just a moment, if I ISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. RES: Lot 26. She's across the street, I believe. Lot ISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. Page 29 November 2, 2000 MR. PIRES: They have standing by virtue of the requirements and provisions of the land development code with regards to notice issues in this particular case. The other yellow here, that's the -- another project that you all had the pleasure of reviewing earlier this year. With regards to this particular petition, we don't believe that any of the criteria have been achieved, and in fact, this petition is premature. I think Mr. Abernathy asked a good question, what boat is involved. And I think it's important because when you go through the criteria in the land development code, section 2.6.21.3.2 states as one the criteria, whether or not the water depth where the proposed dock facility is to be located is sufficient to allow for safe mooring of the vessel, thereby necessitating the extension request. And my query is, there is no vessel involved. How do we -- how can you even begin to determine whether or not the water depth where the dock facility is located is sufficient to allow safe mooring of a hypothetical vessel, thereby necessitating the extension request? So we don't believe that analysis is even possible without knowing what type of make, model, draft of vessel is involved. Additionally, section 2.6.21.3.5 outlines another criteria, whether or not there are special conditions related to the subject property or waterway which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the subject dock. Again, an analysis of that criteria, we do not believe, is possible without knowing what type of make, model of vessel is involved. Furthermore, we think the application has some other issues with regards to its inaccuracies or deficiencies. Paragraph two of the application asks the question consistent with the criteria I just articulated. Question -- and in fact, this is the application and petition in this matter. Is there sufficient water depth to allow for safe mooring of the vessel without the use of a dock facility extension request, and Mr. Scofield's answer was no. This area is very shallow. Not just shallow, very shallow, coupled with a mangrove shoreline, which dictates a need for an extension. Yet we see by virtue of the -- and you'll hear additional testimony, I think, to corroborate and substantiate it, that depth of about three feet of water is achieved at about 35 feet out. Page 30 November 2, 2000 In fact, at 40 feet out, you're at four feet. Forty feet out from the seawall line. I'm not talking 40 feet out from the property line. Forty feet out from the seawall line. When you get to the 54-foot dimension from the seawall, and this is this particular sketch -- or sounding. I think it was all handed to you. That particular material -- gremlins. That particular document shows that a water depth of 5.6 feet approximately or five and a half feet is achieved at the 54-foot depth. So I mean, we're -- there's four feet of water at less than 40 feet out from the seawall, which would -- which, in this case, would show plenty of depth to moor any vessel. In fact, the proposed 54-foot length -- I'm not sure what's wrong with this particular -- this is the national -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think we're having technical difficulties here. MR. PIRES: There we go. This dimension is approximately -- is 54 feet, and that's 5.6 feet right there of water depth. This is four feet of water depth and it's achieved at that point. So the question is, what type of vessel thereby necessitates this dock extension request. We've heard the answer, there is no vessel involved. So I think it's premature and it's speculative, and also the answer to the question provided in the application as to very shallow, I think is incorrect. The question was, is there sufficient water depth to allow for safe mooring of the vessel without use of a dock facility extension request, and the answer was no. I think the answer is yes. Additionally, the application indicates that the width of the waterway is 900 feet. I think in reality what you heard from Mr. Scofield, based upon the soundings, that the water depth starts to become more shallow when you're 100 feet out. I think he indicated that when you're 100 feet out, the water depth drops down to 3.3 feet. Therefore, you have a channel that runs off of this lot that's 100 feet from the seawall. That's the distance that should be utilized as opposed to 900 feet, and that, again, is, I think, inappropriate as to the 900-foot width. It implies a larger waterway than what we have here. Therefore, the 100-foot wide waterway, we have more of an issue with regards to navigation. The sketch that was utilized by Mr. Gochenaur and furthermore was used at the last hearing which shows the relative location of other docks in the area shows that a line has Page 31 November 2, 2000 been pretty much established that's 20 feet out from the property line, and at 20 feet out from the property line, in this particular case, more than adequate depth is achieved, and those dock facilities are all right. In fact, you'll hear Mr. Schaetzel testify. He testified last time. He's here again today. He said, my dock goes out from that original seawall line 20 feet, and that's all 20 feet from the property line. I have a 27-foot boat docked in there on a lift. My water lines are exactly the same as he shows in the drawing. I have had that -- my dock in there for ten years. I have no problem with the water line or the water level; therefore, there is no need to go out beyond 20 feet from the property line. Again, this is the blowup sketch. Now it's 54 feet today versus 61 or 57. This is the property line. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Upside down. MR. PIRES: Thank you. This is the property line. This dock goes out 20 feet, which is on lot ten. This dock on lot eight goes to 50 feet. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Could you slide it up a little? MR. PIRES: The dock on lot ten goes out 20 feet from the lot line. MR. SCOFIELD: Twenty-one. MR. PIRES: Twenty-one feet, excuse me. The dock on lot eight goes out approximately 20 feet from the lot line. The dock on lot seven goes out approximately 20 feet from the lot line. This request is for 34 feet from the lot line without any indication or showing of any need to do so. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You said -- the gentleman you were quoting about his 20-foot dock, does he have the same configuration? MR. PIRES: That's Mr. Schaetzel? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Schaetzel. MR. PIRES: And he is at lot eight. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: What type of dock configuration does he have, same type of thing? MR. PIRES: I think his is a bit different configuration where his vessel is parallel to the shore, the hoist is. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And if you add the width of his Page 32 November 2, 2000 boat to his dock, how far out are you, because that's really the question? MR. PIRES: He's not on the outside, he's on the inside. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: He's on the inside? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. And in this particular case, you have a walkway that I think is interesting from the standpoint of what the applicant's requesting here that he -- as he had testified to today, you can trim the mangroves back eight feet. So he trims those back eight feet, move that dock facility an additional eight feet. There is also this interesting aspect of the configuration, I'll call like a modified V, where that can be pushed in closer and gain an additional five or six or so feet, thereby eliminating the need to go out to the 54 feet. Twenty feet out from the property line, from our perspective, would be appropriate, which would be a boat dock extension request of about 42 feet total, as I understand it from talking to -- from hearing Rocky's testimony because the seawall sort of goes off at an angle, but 54 feet is excessive especially when you don't have a boat, the water depths are sufficient and you have, therefore, no showing of need or necessity. Based on -- you will hear additional fact-based testimony, and what we request that the Planning Commission do today is not grant the request for 54 feet. We request to come out 20 feet from the property line consistent with what exists out there today, which achieves -- is able to achieve water depths of about five feet in depth, based upon his own soundings. More than adequate to safely moor a vessel of 30 feet, hypothetical vessel. If it was a pontoon boat, it could be much closer, and once again, that's another issue with regards to this, but we were just provided this information today. You'll hear testimony from the neighbors again with regards to the issue of navigation, that you are now establishing a new line for no reason. There's nothing showing any necessity for this dock to go out 54 feet from the seawall. You have a line that's pretty much been established 20 feet out from the property line. That is what is appropriate in this particular instance, and we ask for your favorable consideration of that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Pires, I've got some questions for you. I hate to be a pain in the neck, but the -- it just seems Page 33 November 2, 2000 logical to me, are you a marine consultant? MR. PIRES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BUDD: MR. PIRES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BUDD: MR. PIRES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BUDD: MR. PIRES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BUDD: MR. PIRES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BU DD.' Are you a marine surveyor?. A naval architect? A general contractor? A marine contractor?. But yet we have an expert witness who says that this will fit, but having none of the criteria, none of the qualifications, you're saying he's wrong. I'm inclined to not believe you. MR. PIRES: That's my argument and you'll hear fact-based testimony from the neighbors that indicate that they have vessels that are in that area that fit, that the docks fit within that basically 20-foot line coming from the property line. And once again, the fundamental problem we believe with this application is that they're asking you to speculate that there is a need for particular water depths to be achieved without having a boat dock. There's plenty of water going out a distance of 20 feet from the property line. That's based upon the soundings of Mr. Trigo's firm. That's not my testimony. That's the testimony from that particular document. And you'll hear the neighbors talk about how they get their boat up in that area. They can bring their boat in to where those mangroves are at low tide and still have plenty of water under their boat. And so that's what you're going to hear. Once again, I'm not an expert. I don't believe he's an expert. An expert in permitting and construction, but he's not an expert in those other areas. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Mr. Pires, I have a question also. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: You're saying that the neighbors would be satisfied with the dock only going out 20 feet. Would it be the same configuration of the dock or would you -- would they want that dock changed? MR. PIRES: I believe that the configuration could work if you move the dock in, based upon the depths and the soundings. Page 34 November 2, 2000 COMMISSIONER PEDONE.' Well, if it only goes 40 feet from the existing seawall, you've got a four foot eight inch, if I read this right, correct, depth? But if a boat is, let's say, 30 feet long or if a boat is ten feet long and we go to the 30-foot marker, then we're at only 2.2 feet, so if you have a 30-foot boat, you're going to be sticking out 20 feet from the back of this dock. MR. PIRES: If they move -- if they configure this and they can push this in so as to be within that particular line, if they push it in -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: But there's not enough depth once you get past that 40-foot mark. When you get to the 30 foot out from the dock -- from the seawall, then you've only got two feet, two inches. Now, I've had boats and I know that they don't -- a 26-foot boat may have a two and a half foot draft or a three- foot draft, but a 30-foot boat may have a four-foot draft. You don't know, depending on the manufacturer of the boat you buy. MR. PIRES: Absolutely, and that's one of the reasons why this petition is premature. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I would rather -- truthfully, if I was building one, I'd want it to be something that if I want to buy that particular boat, I can, because I have the room to put it in there. MR. PIRES: But also I think you'll hear and I think you'll recognize that the draft is generally measured from the stern, not from the bow, and the bow, the depths are achieved -- and this is at low tide, are achieved -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE.' I've always measured my draft from midship where a keel would be. MR. PIRES: At this particular point, if you move into the -- a three foot depth is achieved at about the 30-foot contour, just past that 30 feet. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: More as a comment than a question. Quite a few of these letters, and I don't know where these folks live, there's a couple of quotes in here about we all have trouble at low tide, and I certainly don't know what that means, whether it's occasionally or every time they come in to -- like I said~ I make that as a comment on the attitudes for some of these letters. It sounds like they would like to have a longer dock. MR. PIRES: I can't -- once again, I can't speak -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm making that as a comment. Page 35 November 2, 2000 MR. PIRES: I understand. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: And one other question. I don't know if you can answer it. Is that sandbar marked in any way or is it just -- you have to have local knowledge? MR. PIRES: I think local knowledge, but once again, the neighbors can testify as to that. Thank you. MR. NINO: B.J. Savard-Boyer. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Further questions of Mr. Pires? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just have one question. Would you try to clarify for me why you think it's necessary that a person who has purchased a vacant lot, is attempting to get a building permit and a dock extension permit, why we would -- or you, I guess, would require him to purchase his boat before he comes in and gets a dock extension or a permit to actually do this? Somehow this seems like you've got the cart before the horse. Why do you really feel, Mr. Pires, that we, as a group here, should have to require someone to own the boat before they actually build the dock? Because I think any reasonable person would buy a boat that fits what is able to go in that set of waters. MR. PIRES: In the land development code, in the area dealing with dock facilities, states in section 2.6.21.3.2, the following is one of the criteria, whether or not the water depth where the proposed dock facility is to be located is sufficient to allow for safe mooring of the vessel, thereby necessitating the extension request. There's no way to know what the water depths -- if they're sufficient for safe mooring of a vessel unless you know what type of vessel is involved. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Could you not know which range of vessel? Now, the vessel doesn't say that the land development code requires them to purchase it, but the vessel would be within a range and you would not purchase -- you would not purchase a boat that did not fit within the range that you could safely moor at that particular dock at that water depth. MR. PIRES: Once again, I think the criteria is such that you need to show what vessel, to show what is the necessity, and if they were to give a make, model and type, that we are buying this and this is what we are going to put there, perhaps that would help. But again, this is just pure speculation, and interestingly enough, the application indicated a 30-foot long Page 36 November 2, 2000 vessel. During the course of the hearing last time, and it's in the transcript in response to questions by Mr. Abernathy, Mr. Scofield changed that to a 26-foot long vessel, and today he's going back to 30 feet, so I'm not sure. We're having changes as to dock length and changes as to vessel and that gets back to why it's important to know what the boat is that's involved to be able to know how much water it draws, where can it be safely moored. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And from my viewpoint, I guess I would say that that puts back to my concept of a range of a boat that could fit in that area. MR. PIRES: Yeah, and once again, he hasn't testified -- he doesn't even know what the depths are for the types -- and he hasn't identified a range of boats either, other than 30 foot. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: My -- my take when I read that is, the boat is subjective and it's the boat that I want to buy to put there. It's not the boat that I own. It's the boat that I want to buy to put there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Is my interpretation. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: My personal feelings, the boat at this point is irrelevant, but any further questions of Mr. Pires? If not, as Ron calls your name, if you would come to the podium over here on the right. I do thank you. You've been very professional and quiet. Now is your opportunity to speak. When you come up, because it's been a long morning, I'm going to ask you if you've been sworn in and then to give and spell your name for the reporter. MR. PIRES: If I may, Mr. Chairman, just briefly for the record, before they come up, if I can introduce for the record the fact that there are no building permits for this property. I think that was indicated before, but just -- I have a letter from staff, Johnnie Gebhardt, customer service supervisor, that the only permit for this property is a seawall permit from 1996. And furthermore, if I could introduce into the record a copy of a printout from the property appraiser's office indicating names and addresses of various property owners in the area. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Ron? MR. NINO: Yes, Susan (sic) Savard-Boyer, Susan Burkhard. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Good morning. My name is B.J. Page 37 November 2, 2000 Savard-Boyer, S-A-V-A-R-D, hyphen, B-O-Y-E-R. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Have you been sworn in, ma'am? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Yes, I have been sworn in. Tony asked me just to go over what I said last time, and basically what I said last time was that I heard about this dock proposal from an out-of-town neighbor and I printed up petitions and my neighbor and I -- my other neighbor and I went around and distributed it to the neighbors, specifically on Oak Avenue, because they would be the ones most impacted. One other thing I would like to say, at the last meeting, the reference to the neighbor immediately to the east of the proposed dock, the Links, Mr. Pires is not aware of who have -- who has contributed to us hiring him, and the Links have contributed. So I would say that since they are right next door, they certainly are helping us for this. Also, I'd like to say that I have, indeed, talked to Mark Miller at the DEP. He specifically told me that he does not -- or did not oppose dredging. He discourages it, but he did not oppose it. I have a couple pictures, and I'm only going to take a minute. This particular picture is taken from Mr. Link's dock, to the east of Mr. Link's dock and it shows where Mr. Link's dock goes out. It shows also mangroves that have been trimmed down a little bit. The mangroves in the distance are the ones on the proposed dock. So if the ones in the -- in the background can be trimmed down as Mr. Link's have been trimmed down, I don't see that there's any property (sic) with environmental concern. I don't think they have to be high to be purposeful. The other photo that I have is taken from the very end of the canal and it pretty much shows how all of the docks go out a specific distance. The one -- the boat that you see all the way -- way back here is tied outside of the dock, but it's not always there. I mean, it comes and goes, so I don't know how you can take that as a, you know, a point of reference. The dock that is on the west side of the proposed dock, you can see -- well, it's a very dark picture, but there are mangroves here. Their walkway goes out. Their dock extends out 20 feet from the property line or 40 feet or 41 feet from the seawall. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Which one is that again? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: This is the property to the west. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: To the west? Page 38 November 2, 2000 MS. SAVARD-BOYER: On the west side. The other one, Links', is the property immediately on the east side. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Do we know what size boat that is? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: I don't know. COMMISSIONER PEDONE.' Looks like about an 18 footer. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: If we're looking west from Mr. Schaetzel's dock, and he is the third property -- the -- next to Link's, you can see where all of the docks go out the same from the seawall. I don't feel that it's necessary for them to go out another 13 feet, 14 feet. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. NINO: Ma'am, you have to leave those photographs here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Next speaker? MS. BURKHARD: Hi. My name is Susan Burkhard and I live at 283 Oak Avenue. Also, I own a boat and -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Have you been sworn in, ma'am? MS. BURKHARD: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. BURKHARD: I want to be -- I want to show you some pictures of the boat that we used coming up into the mangroves of the property where the proposed dock would be. But before I do that, I'd like to make part of the record all of the photos and the documents and the letters from the October 5th, 2000, hearing so that you don't have -- we don't have to repeat and we can try not to repeat. We -- my brother and I went out and measured the depth of the water at low tide using a tide chart telling us when the low tide would be, and so we were out at about seven o'clock or 6:45 at night on the 26th, Thursday, and we were taking pictures and measuring the water. And how we measured the water is, we have a pole that's probably about six feet tall and it's got markings on it, like three feet, three and a half feet, four, four and a half, whatever. So it's a constant piece of measuring equipment. We came into the mangroves. I have -- my husband and I have a 23 and a half foot deep-V Maxum boat which draws a draft of about three feet, three feet when you have the outdrive down. I checked with the people at Wiggins Pass Marina and I put the Page 39 November 2, 2000 question to the dockmaster there, if you have between a 26 and 30-foot boat, what would the normal draft be, and he indicated that it would be approximately two and a half to three foot draft. A boat that may be docked at that boat -- at that lot -- I want you to keep in mind that, first of all, that lot is for sale, so who knows who is going to be actually living there. It is for sale. We don't know who will eventually use that dock, but the person who has the petition for the dock owns this vessel, and on the information for this vessel, it indicates that it has a 12 inch draft, very shallow draft because it's a catamaran, and it happened -- this particular boat happened to belong to Mr. Link who has the boat dock adjacent to the dock in question. He had no problem getting the boat in and out, and I would like to comment on low tide and how do we get our boats in and out and all that sort of thing. As I said, we have a 23 and a half foot deep-V Maxum boat. In very low tide at my dock, I have to be careful to get the boat out not at the lowest tide because of the way the lift is -- is constructed. We had a dock that was already built so we put a lift on the side of it. That means that we back our boat into that lift and we come within about a foot of the seawall with the outdrive, and we're able to manage this. This is in -- you know, this is part of the deal with this area. We all knew when we bought that this is not a deep area -- water area. It's not like Royal Harbor. There are restrictions that are made that you cannot -- you should not be trying to get through Wiggins Pass if you have a draft of more than three feet. In fact, they really discourage, you know, right at three feet. And -- and the pass is shifting. They dredge it periodically. We run aground, but it's sandy. We deal with it. But to put a boat in there, in through that Wiggins Pass to get back into the area where this dock is, you cannot reasonably have a boat, I don't care what length it is, with a draft more than three feet and make it work. So I want to show you a picture of us with this 23 and a half foot deep-V hull pulled up right into the mangroves where the proposed walkway would come from the seawall out and attach to the rest of the dock. As you can see, I'm standing there measuring the water. We have the outdrive down. That means I've got three and a half foot draft -- or three feet, one inch draft Page 40 November 2, 2000 and I'm running the motor and we're not touching bottom. I put the pole down at another time when we went over there. This didn't happen to be the lowest tide, and I found that there was actually five feet of water from the surface to the bottom of the lagoon. As you can see here, I'm holding that instrument that we used for measurement. I'm five something feet tall and my hand is exactly where the water depth is. Therefore, I'm saying that at that time of the day, there was five plus feet of water available. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ma'am? Ma'am? Can I just clear something? Are you disputing what we got today? MS. BURKHARD: I'm saying that -- that this gentleman, if-- if he puts a dock out, he has adequate water if he stays just 20 -- 20 feet from the platted line. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But you're not disputing the survey that they gave us today in terms of water depth? MS. BURKHARD: I couldn't see it because it wasn't on the monitor near me, so I'm at a disadvantage to what today's info was, CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. So you're not agreeing or disagreeing with what we were -- MS. BURKHARD: No, I'm just making a fact. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. You're presenting facts and showing us very clearly with your poles and all. Are you an expert at -- on surveying? MS. BURKHARD: No. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MS. BURKHARD: But I -- I feel that that measurement device that I have is quite adequate. And in fact, if you'd like to see it, I have it in the car. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right. I'm familiar with that type of thing. How many times did you actually take a depth, one, two, three-- MS. BURKHARD: Three times. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Three times in a -- MS. BURKHARD: At different times of the day. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Across a period of-- I mean, you can stick a pole down and find yourself at five feet and then, you know, six inches over, you could find yourself at four, depending Page 41 November 2, 2000 on what the bottom is. MS. BURKHARD: Well, I can tell you what we did find, and the last time that we were out there -- like I say, we got the tide chart, so we knew when the lowest tide was and we measured at the lowest tide and found that bringing in this boat into the mangroves where this dock would come out from the seawall, they would have three and a half feet below the -- the outdrive. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MS. BURKHARD: As far as how far out we are from the seawall to the mangroves, we're probably about ten feet, so we're nestled in there with our nose just approximately ten feet from the seawall, and we're not disturbing the mangroves because there is a natural break there and that's where they had planned on putting the proposed dock, at that natural breakpoint. We further -- other than, you know, measuring the depth there, what we did was, we took a ski rope, a tow rope. We measured it 61 feet. I stood on the seawall and my brother was in our boat and he drove the boat out 61 feet from the seawall so that people would get an idea of what it would look like with a dock and a boat lift at the end of the dock out that far, and we took a picture of that and you'll see it here. The tow rope -- the tow rope is here. It's a little hard to see, but if you were up close, you could see the plastic parts on the tow rope. But anyway, 61 feet, I'm standing on the seawall and my brother's got the boat out 61 feet from the seawall. So as you look at the back of the boat, that's what -- what everybody up and down this canal and everybody who uses this whole area is gonna see. That proposed dock, if it went out 61 feet, would be out into this area, well beyond anybody else. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Could you show us where 54 feet would be on that? MS. BURKHARD: I could only make a guess that it would probably be back about here. I didn't measure 54 because we've been working off of 61, but if -- you know, if I had had the opportunity, I would have measured 54 also. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But you had the opportunity to measure 57, which was what was approved since you were -- when you were here last. MS. BURKHARD: Well, it started -- no, well, I was under the understanding that this hearing was going -- I mean, the last Page 42 November 2, 2000 hearing was just kind of wiped out of the picture and that we were going back to ground zero with saying that the application was for a 61-foot dock, not a 57, so that's why I was working on 61 feet. When we were even with Mr. Link's dock at low tide, it measured four and a half feet. And once again, plenty of water for people to navigate, and I think the main thing here is that these -- we don't own -- I don't own that waterway. None of us own that waterway. Everybody in the State of Florida or wherever, who has a boat has every right to use that waterway, and I don't think it's fair to have one person obstruct the waterway for no reason at all when he could get his boat in in that 20-foot range. Bring him out to his property line, you know, assuming that -- bring the seawall out and come out 20 feet, stay out as far as the rest of the people and everything will be just wonderful. I mean, we'll live with it. If we don't -- if we let it come out farther and people are out driving around at night, like last night, there was a boat that passed my dock, no lights on it and people are used to a particular line and a particular channel, they're liable to be hitting this dock with a boat at the end of it because they are not expecting that there's going to be a jog in the waterway, a log caused by a long dock coming out. That's -- that's really a concern, and you can light that thing or do whatever to try to mitigate it, but the fact of the matter is, it is an obstruction. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Ma'am -- and I appreciate your giving good testimony, but I must ask you to sum it up, please. MS. BURKHARD: Sum it up is, give him what everybody else has. That is, if the guy on one side's coming out 20 feet from the property line and he can manage, the guy on the other side of him's coming out 20 feet from the property line, he can manage, then why can't the guy in the middle? I don't see that the water depth is any different. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. NINO: Terence Brown, Vincent Deluca, Roy Schaetzel. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You can use either podium unless you've got displays. You can certainly use the one on the right. MR. BROWN: Commissioners, my name's Terry Brown, B-R-O-W-N. I've been sworn in and I'm the brother of Susan Burkhard. I -- I'm here on vacation and was hauled out to take Page 43 November 2, 2000 some depth readings. I'm not an expert, just put the stick in the water. And I think you can see -- again, I'm the one standing at the back of that boat at 61 feet out. And there isn't that great of variance between one feet or two foot or on. It's usually ten foot, then you'll see a depth change of six inches or what have you, Again, I'm just a witness as to the depth and I think you've heard everything. It's pretty clear to me as a visitor and -- and listening to what you've heard as well, so I'm not going to take any more time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. DELUCA: Hello. My name is Vincent Deluca, D-E-L-U-C-A. I've been sworn in. I live at 467 Oak Avenue. I think I could answer Susan's question, okay, as to why the petitioner wants the additional footage where on both sides it's 20 feet, because the petitioner would like the commissioners to help them sell the property. That is the bottom line. It's a vacant piece of property. They would have a unique selling proposition. Listen, we've got a dock that extends 12 feet beyond -- it's that simple. You will become, if you approve this, part of a sales presentation. As a salesman, I can see this very clearly. Now, I have a three-foot ruler. I measured, just yesterday, my dock, my neighbor's dock, just to get a feel of what 30 feet is. My neighbor's dock is ten feet out. Triple that amount. And there seems to be an erosion, a degradation of what's going on in Naples and it bothers me. I've been here since 1966. We built our house in 1979 and an expert witness, as we all know, can present facts either way, pro or con, depending upon who pays him and what his motivation is. So I urge you, don't become part of a sales presentation for a vacant lot. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker? No more speakers? MR. NINO: Zeffert after that -- after Schaetzel, and Ed Maguire. MR. SCHAETZEL: I'm Roy Schaetzel. I own a dock facility two lots east of the petitioner's property. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry. Were you sworn in, sir? MR. SCHAETZEL: I was sworn in. Page 44 November 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. SCHAETZEL: And I had testified last time. My dock facility is 33.3 feet in length. It extends 20 feet into the water -- waterway beyond my rear property line. I have used the facility for some ten years and I dock a vessel 20 foot -- feet in length on a lift there. I question -- I -- I realize I gave testimony before, but I'm trying to give you something new here. I question whether the petitioner meets all the requirements of the code. I've read the sections of the land development code involved in this petition for extension. A reasonable interpretation of the language of these sections gives rise to a clear intent on the part of the framers of the language to protect the navigable waters in Collier County and to limit any impact or extension -- any impact upon or extension into such waterways to the absolute minimum that is necessary to meet the safe mooring and vessel maintenance needs of any property owner. In pursuit of means which will preserve this intent, I believe that this commission is entitled to and should inquire into the type of vessel which is intended to be moored and the types of dock facility construction which are feasible. In particular, the commission cannot be limited to considering only the dock facility type proposed by the respective petitioning property owner. If I am correct concerning the purpose spelled out in the land development code, then I believe it is the plain duty of the Planning Commission to seek out that dock facility type which impacts the navigable waterway to the absolute minimum, and yet meets the mooring and maintenance needs of the petitioner. Mr. Scofield has presented the commission with one proposed dock facility. Should not the commission ask Mr. Scofield whether or not the petitioner's needs, as defined by the code, can be satisfied by a dock facility construction different from the one he has proposed, and in particular, by the type of dock facility construction used by the property owners on each side of the petitioner's land? I submit to this commission that under the latter dock construction, very little, if any, extension into the waterway will be necessary to meet not only the petitioner's mooring and maintenance needs, but also the governing purposes of the land Page 45 November 2, 2000 development code and the reasonable desires of other property owners in the area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. SCHAETZEL: And I am on lot seven. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Very good. Thank you. MR. SCHAETZEL: I bring my boat in bow first and my construction is just like the one he proposes, but I -- I really believe the commission has an obligation to put an absolute minimum impact on the waterway and you have an obligation to seek the type of construction that allows that, if it's feasible. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, if I could make this part of the record also, this document, which I think was part of the last hearing also. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker?. MR. MAGUIRE: Good morning. I'm Ed Maguire and I live at 480 Oak Avenue, which location is almost at the end of the canal. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And are you -- have you been sworn in? MR. MAGUIRE: And I have been sworn in. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. MAGUIRE: The end of the canal, as you can well imagine, is an area of probably the shallowest water available on the -- on the canal. And I would like to address, I guess, the need first, inasmuch that I've been in that location since 1975. I've run a number of different boats out of that -- out of my dock and started with a 20 foot, and most recently I was running a 26-foot John Oldfield modified V out there, inboard, not IO, and my dock is five foot off my seawall, and I was able to dock that -- that boat in and out. Now, at extreme low tide, I couldn't. I'd have to judge my timing coming in and out; however, I was able to manage with it, and the need, I would question at that rate. I was able to come in and out without hesitation most of the time when I wanted to. The other thing is, going in and out of that canal, typically I knew I had to pretty much hug the line along the seawall on the north end of the canal, or at least the dock lineage in order to avoid hitting that sandbar down as you enter the lagoon area, and this boat drew about two and a half, maybe 32 inches of Page 46 November 2, 2000 water, and if I didn't hug that side, I was in trouble. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question for Mr. Maguire, because I think he may know the answer to this. We were shown a picture earlier of a fairly large boat that was docked on the outside of a dock that I think is fairly close to your end of the canal and the lady said that that boat wasn't always there. MR. MAGUIRE: Right. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Are you familiar with that boat? MR. MAGUIRE: Yes, I am. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: How -- about how wide of a beam would that boat have? MR. MAGUIRE: I believe that has about a 15-foot beam. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. So they have a 20-foot dock? MR. MAGUIRE: I don't know what their dock is. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Is it about -- if the boat weren't there -- MR. MAGUIRE: I would say it is probably in that range, yeah. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. So if the boat weren't there, their dock is pretty much in line with everyone else's? MR. MAGUIRE: Yes. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Then you add 13 to 15 feet onto that, they're out 34 feet, which would put it exactly in line with what we're looking at here? MR. MAGUIRE: That may well be. I tried to call that gentleman to see if he was gonna come to this meeting and he's not there now. He's in Japan, so -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I guess my question is -- and I don't know if anybody here can answer it -- is that a legal docking? MR. MAGUIRE: I can't tell you that. I don't know. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ross, can you answer that? MR. GOCHENAUR: Excuse me, sir. No, it's not. The land development code says that a docking facility comprises the vessel and docking combination, so if you have a permitted 20- foot dock, you cannot legally moor any vessel outward of that 20 feet. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Without a variance, and we don't know whether he has a variance for that dock or not. MR. GOCHENAUR: We have no record of an extension for Page 47 November 2, 2000 that dock. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sure that gentleman will be glad we had this hearing. Any other speakers, Ron? Thank you. MR. NINO: No, I have no other -- Zeffert was on the list, but he didn't get up. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Gentlemen, you're approaching the nth hour for me. I will allow the petitioner to respond. MR. YOVANOVICH: Rocky's going to do the response. I just want to make sure that everything's part of the record, including the DEP letter that Rocky referred to. I want to make that part of the record. MS. STUDENT: Yeah, and I just want to confirm that all the photos, documents and materials from October 5th are going to be made part of the record because they've been discussed by the -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, if I may also -- the materials for our appeal, the whole package, we can make part of the record. Mr. Yovanovich's copy was merely excerpts from it. Rich, do you have any problem with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't care. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Mr. Scofield? MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Just real -- in wrapping up here, I mean, we've heard a lot of things. I've got notes. I mean, there's been a lot of things that have been -- MR. NINO: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Rocky, excuse me. Mr. Zeffert is in the audience. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry, did we miss a member of the public? MR. ZEFFERT: Well, I don't know how public I am. I live at 416 Oak Avenue. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And your name, sir? MR. ZEFFERT.' Martin L. Zeffert. I've been sworn in. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Could you spell your last name, please? MR. ZEFFERT: Z-E-F-F-E-R-T. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. ZEFFERT: I -- it's confession time. I am not an attorney. I lived in the lower dormitory at Iowa when I went to school after the war, and my roommates who were all law students told Page 48 November 2, 2000 me at the time that if you couldn't argue the merits of a case, you argue the technicalities. It seems they were quite more intelligent about this than I am. I own the property -- we bought in 1975, so I've paid taxes to Collier County for 25 years. I do not -- I did not originally live here. I lived in Pennsylvania most of my life. I was a senior vice-president, chief actuary of a large mutual insurance company. I've lived here full time and am a legal resident of Florida since 1989. I'm going to talk common sense, not law, plain English, although I can speak Spanish pretty well. Number one, there isn't a blasted need on any of those docks to exceed 20 feet. In terms of the -- you made reference to the gentleman who's in Japan. That's my next door neighbor, McCluggage. He's got a -- I think it must be 40 foot -- we ludicrously refer to it as the Queen Mary, but Rich was a quartermaster in the Navy and is pretty good with a boat. He gets in and out without ramming my dock or anybody else's, although there are times when they cannot come home when they want to come home. They have to stay outside. As far as distances, property lines and all that, I don't know much about that. I read the papers that came with my house a week or so ago and I don't read, that is, using plain English, that there's a divine right of anybody to extend this property line beyond the seawall without official permission. There's no legal right to say that you can build all the way out. Those idiots across -- the Regatta there wanted to put an island in the middle of the lagoon. Now, I rarely -- I have a 26-foot Regal cabin cruiser, which I keep at Wiggins Pass. During a hurricane, I wouldn't be very -- hurricane season, I wouldn't like to see my boat moored at my little dock. And the -- you cannot assume that you can protect yourself by simply building way out. I'm no expert on water. I don't pretend to be. I've owned two boats since 1979, and half a century ago, I was a coxswain in an engineer boat and shore regiment on landing craft off New Guinea in the Philippines, so I know something about water. The technicalities, no, I plead nolo contendere on that, but the facts are that the only decent spot, the few times I've taken my boat into my dock, is near the shoreline. You've got sandbars Page 49 November 2, 2000 -- it looks pretty, but it's not much good for a boat. I draw about three feet with the current one. And I'm saying to permit anybody to stick a 54 or 61-foot hunk of junk out there to protrude out from his shoreline or his -- I measure everything from the seawall because I don't know about the rest, but I do recognize a seawall when I see it. It's just idiocy. I do not -- the neighbors were calling for everybody to come, and what's it going to be one year, five years, ten years from now? Well, I'm 75. I take it a day at a time like I did in combat 50 odd years ago. But the facts are, we don't need trash like this and exceptions like this, and the only plausible story I heard was from a Mr. Deluca, who I don't know, who said it's just a matter of making the property a good dream for a real estate broker. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Mr. Scofield? MR. SCOFIELD: I will take one minute. I've been hammered in previous hearings before by Mr. Pires by going out and using a pole to take water depths, saying that that's not an accurate way to do that, although his clients today have entered that into and it seems quite acceptable. I'm not accepting my measurements. That's why we hired a professional surveyor. The depths are what they are. People say you go out 20 feet, fine, we can go out 20 feet from the property line. There's four feet of water. That's great. If we have a boat that draws three and a half feet of water, we've got to tie it in front of that dock. That means we have to go out further than 20 feet. And we're not asking for, you know -- we're not asking for that much. We're asking for a 13 foot extension from the -- from the old code and 34 feet out from the -- excuse me, 33 feet out from the property line, and that's all I've got to say. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Ross, do you have something more to add to this? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, not unless there are any questions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Final chance for questions. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Ross, after hearing all this, is it still your expert view as staff, it's -- is your recommendation still the same? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, it is. In my opinion, this project Page 50 November 2, 2000 meets all code criteria. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, I close the public hearing and ask for a motion. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move, based on the testimony and evidence that we have heard here today and staff recommendation, I'm going to move that we approve BD-2000-20 with a length of 54 feet or a -- what amounts to the 20 plus 13. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Budd. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'm going to vote no, so I'm either going to discuss it now or after the vote. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'll allow you to do it now. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. It seems to me that what we have here is a speculative dock based on a possible speculative house. We're talking here about boat dock extensions. Seems to me that -- that inherent in that is the underlying assumption that the allowable dock is insufficient; therefore, you need an extension of the allowable dock. Well, here we don't have a boat, we don't have a house and there isn't any evidence that anybody has asked for a permit to build a house. So my logic tells me that -- or my concept of logic tells me that once somebody prepares to build a house and prepares to buy a boat and can come in here under oath and say that their boat simply will not fit on a dock, perhaps configured shore parallel rather than perpendicular-- I mean, there's nothing that says one has to have a tuning fork shaped dock. Once a person can come in here and say all of that, here's my boat, here's my house, it won't work, then we're talking about a boat dock extension, the normal 20-foot boat dock having failed to fill the bill. At that point, it seems to me, we have something that's ripe for decision. I just don't see us getting into the business -- I wouldn't put it quite as crassly as the one gentleman did, but I just think the whole thing is premature, so I'm going to vote no. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I also will vote no, noting that there were 73 objections of neighbors registered with this group, and I can only agree with them that the -- they have not shown an overwhelming need for this protrusion into the public Page 51 November 2, 2000 waterway. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And before we take the vote, I do thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I know this is an emotional issue. You conducted yourselves professionally and I apologize for any short that I've been with any speakers, but I think you can understand my position. One final comment. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: May I comment? I'm going to support the motion because I feel that all the criteria has been met, and I am very sympathetic to the neighbors. I've been in -- I've boated with a 36-foot Searay in that area with a -- almost a three and a half foot draft, got stuck a few times in water in Turkey Bay, been in and out of that pass a number of times and been in the lagoon an awful lot and used to sit out there on my boat and picnic, so I'm very familiar with this and I'm sympathetic to what you're all saying; however, I believe it's my responsibility as a commissioner to pay attention to what staff says and realize that this does meet all the criteria, so I'm going to have to vote yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, I'm going to call for the vote individually so there's no doubt. Commissioner Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Young? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Nay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage, aye. Commissioner Budd? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And Commissioner Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. I would suggest that -- just a two-minute recess. I will be leaving. I will be back, okay? With that, I'm going to turn the meeting over to our -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: You need to notify them of the 14 day -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Before you all leave, I want to read this so there's no doubt, you all heard it before, but as to any boat Page 52 November 2, 2000 dock extension petition upon which Collier County -- Collier County Planning Commission takes action, an aggrieved petitioner or adversely affected property owner may appeal such final action to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Community Development/Environmental Services Administrator within 14 days of the action by the Planning Commission. In the event that that petition has been approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall be advised that he or she proceeds with construction at his or her risk during this period. Thank you. And with that, we'll take a five minute recess. (Recess taken.) (Commissioner Wrage leaves the panel). COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. We'd like to reconvene this meeting of the planning commission. Our next item is BD-2000-24, another boat dock extension. Mr. Gochenaur. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Are we ready? All those who wish to present testimony today, please stand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). MR. GOCHENAUR: The petitioner is requesting a 25 foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 45 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 229 Bayfront Drive in Lely Barefoot Beach, and contains about 130 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the construction of a U-shape dock with one boat lift and one personal watercraft lift. Five similar extensions of up to 37 feet have been approved for docks in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. No objections to this project have been received. The proposed facility meets all criteria, and staff recommends approval. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No objections. MR. GOCHENAUR: None. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Scofield. MR. SCOFIELD: I have nothing to say, unless you'd like to Page 53 November 2, 2000 ask questions. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Does anyone have any questions of staff or the petitioner? Okay. I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Madam Chairman, I move that we approve BD-2000-24. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Priddy, seconded by Mr. Budd. Any discussion? Call for the question, all in favor? All opposed, same sign? (No response). COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: MR. MILES: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: The motion carries. You're welcome. Moving right along, the next item is PUD-99-13, Mr. Fernandez and the Balmoral PUD. All those wishing to testify -- provide testimony today, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Good morning. MR. MURRAY: Good morning. For the record, I'm Don Murray, principal planner with the planning services. This PUD is located -- proposed PUD is located approximately 3,008 feet south of Pine Ridge Road. It lies between the future Livingston Road right-of-way and the future Whippoorwill Lane. The PUD is also -- has also been here before. The Balmoral PUD originally was this portion here. It's combined the Alexandria PUD into one PUD to provide a better PUD with better access and cross-access through the development. If approved, it will provide 296 dwelling units on approximately 47.9 acres at a density of five dwelling units per acre on five residential development tracts and will provide approximately 9.1 acres of preservation area, including -- okay, including 25 percent retention of native vegetation and 60 percent open space, including three lakes and will also provide some recreation amenities and will also have gated access at Page 54 November 2, 2000 Whippoorwill Lane and just within the development off of the future Livingston Road. Staff has reviewed this for consistency with the growth management plan. We've also looked at the surrounding development, which it is compatible with the surrounding development. The Arlington Lakes PUD which was recently approved by the Board of County Commissioners is located just to the north of this PUD. You can probably see it better here. This is Arlington Lakes. Also, we had approved the Whippoorwill Lakes and Whippoorwill Woods and Whippoorwill Pines PUDs just across Whippoorwill Lane not too long ago. Based on this and the findings of staff's report, we believe that the petitioner has responded to all staff's requests, and the staff is in agreement with all the conditions as specified therein and also within the staff's report, including those with staff's recommendation and staff report, including a recent change under number one, zero lot line. We specified zero or five feet, and that should be zero or six feet. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of this PUD. MR. NINO: Did you advise the board that the EAC heard this petition, and recommended -- MR. MURRAY: Yes, the EAC heard this petition. It's been some time back, but they found that it was consistent as well. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Don, where is the east/west leg of Whippoorwill on this portrayal? MR. MURRAY: That is proposed for just on the south side of the -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The south boundary? MR. MURRAY: -- the PUD. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Abernathy, that-- that route is not defined as of yet, but generally, it will join Whippoorwill Lane to Livingston Lane. Quite frankly, we are hopeful that when the parcel to the south called Livingston Village is developed, that that developer may take the opportunity to meander it through that property as opposed to it having a linear pattern along the existing Kensington drainage canal. So, if it -- but if they don't do that, it will be along the Kensington drainage canal. Page 55 November 2, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Any other questions of staff? Petitioner, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning. Michael Fernandez of Planning Development. I'm happy to be here this morning to talk about the project. We are in agreement with staff's stipulations. We are in agreement with the recent change in regard to the Whippoorwill Lane East extension. I'm pleased to let you know that we are working with the County, both the landowner that I'm representing here and Mr. Lewis (phonetic), in putting together a right-of-way that will kind of meander a road, and a little bit of interest is that we are looking at actually getting rid of the Kensington canal as it exists, that we would pipe it with no obstruction, that we are engineering that, we are working that out with the agency so there will be no impediment so it looks good, and it will do meandering. So, it will accomplish that. We are hoping that we'll accomplish that by the end of the year in the form of a developer's contribution agreement that we are processing right now with the county attorney's office. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is it going to meander on your property or on his property? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, it's going to go kind of like this, back and forth, so you'll have some on both. So, you'll be losing -- there will be some right-of-way given probably by both of these contributing -- you know, they're going to hopefully be equally, and these developers or actually the developer on the south will be giving funds to our client here today, who will then build a road, and then they will both receive impact fee credits for their contribution as far as cost of the road. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If you've got a gated community, I assume this Whippoorwill east/west will not have any access points into your community? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. Right now, we are showing that the -- not on the east/west, but we're showing access on the east and also to Livingston Road, so it will connect to this road. They'll connect to Livingston -- or Whippoorwill on the east side. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But it won't give people access to your development? MR. FERNANDEZ: Except from the east side. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And that sort of destroys the Page 56 November 2, 2000 gated community, doesn't it? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: MR. FERNANDEZ: No. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: public road. No, no. The meandering road will be a MR. FERNANDEZ: COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: your development? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: No. MR. FERNANDEZ: Not directly. Yeah, the meandering road is public. So, it won't grant access to There will be no direct access. As the road continues and goes north, once you turn the corner, you'll be able to access it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Come in your gate? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do we have any registered speakers, Mr. Nino? You're a registered speaker? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm a registered speaker. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Please speak. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I represent the developer of Whippoorwill -- I always get this wrong -- Whippoorwill Lakes. MR. NINO: Whippoorwill Woods. MR. YOVANOVICH: Whippoorwill Woods and also Arlington Lakes that just came through. We don't have a problem with the project. What we do have a problem with is some of the provisions within the PUD that we believe are necessary to implement the global solution we all agree to for resolving the Whippoorwill Lane issues, which were a master plan utility facility, a master plan roadway with Whippoorwill Lane, as well as master planning for the drainage. In reviewing the proposed PUD language under the transportation section of the PUD, and I don't have the words right now, but I think that needs to be incorporated between now and the Board of County Commissioners, it is an obligation of the developer to dedicate at no cost to the County the north/south right-of-way, and to do so within 30 days of request of Collier County for the north/south right-of-way. That has been what most of the other developers have already agreed to in that area Page 57 November 2, 2000 for the north/south. So, we need a time line for them to dedicate the necessary right-of-way so there's no issue of when it will be done. In addition, we believe that in order to resolve the water management issues in that area, there's a flow way that starts, you know, to the north of the property that works its way down, may cut across part of the Balmoral PUD, but ultimately comes into the Whippoorwill Woods preserve area and spills into the Kensington canal. Now, the Kensington canal is a private easement, of which the owner of Balmoral is one of the parties to that easement. We would like the PUD to read that the Balmoral owner will not oppose the use of the Kensington canal as an outfall for that flow way. Right now there are no specific rights for Arlington Lakes to utilize the Kensington canal to spill into it. We just think that we need to clarify that they will cooperate in that effort of using that, because quite candidly, Whippoorwill Woods has agreed to accept the flow from Arlington Lakes through its preserve area, and that will spill into the Kensington canal. So, we need to make sure that the Kensington canal can be utilized to solve the water management issues and the parties will cooperate in making sure that happens, and I'd like to see that in the PUD so it's a development obligation, and as well, on the utilities, one of the requirements was that we have master plan utilities up and down Whippoorwill Lane. We need an obligation that they have -- that the developer of this property has an obligation to cost share in constructing those utilities. If one of the developers builds them ahead of time, they need to reimburse that developer, because that was a request to the County that it be a master planned -- although it's not in the County's master plan, they wanted a master plan type of facility, you know, one large pipe to accommodate everybody in that area, So, it is unfair to make the developer who builds it flip the entire cost. So, we are requesting that all developers in that area cost share the construction of those utility facilities. Again, we don't oppose the project once you incorporate those conceptual changes, and I would hope that you would direct the petitioner to work with staff and us to come up with appropriate language to address those areas. Page 58 November 2, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, you're saying you do not have the language right now, just the concepts? MR. YOVANOVICH: I just have the concepts. MR. NINO: Let me address that, Commissioner. We've done about five PUDs in this area now, and all of them contain the exact same language relative to a set of stipulations that we developed over a year ago, and, quite frankly, I'm very surprised not to find them in this PUD. Those stipulations need to be in this PUD. I think you'll recall, they all spoke to recognizing a participation in cost sharing with respect to sewer, water lines, drainage, transportation issues and, indeed, to dedicate the required right-of-way for Whippoorwill Lane. Those stipulations -- although I regret I don't have them with me. I didn't know they were absent from this PUD. We can make them available at your next meeting. Quite frankly, in their absence, and, quite frankly, Michael Fernandez knew about those conditions, I'm inclined to suggest that you continue this petition. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I do -- I have that question. We've gone through this several times. I'm not sure how the petitioner missed putting them in. How would staff miss them? What's your comment on that, Mr. Murray? MR. MURRAY: At the time that this was submitted, we did have stipulations. Now, as these were resubmitted over and over, they were incorporated in different areas of the PUD document. We had submitted this to other staff for review. It was acceptable. Legal staff looked at it. It was acceptable. I'm not real sure how much the differences make, but I'll accept that as -- you know, as a mistake on my part for not going further with it, and, you know, if you want to insert additional language, we can do that. MS. STUDENT: Madam Chair, if I may. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes. MS. STUDENT: Heidi Ashton of our office had reviewed -- it was one of the other petitions, and, quite frankly, I can't remember which Whippoorwill one, but there were some modifications, at least on the transportation, that were worked out with Mr. Nino and Mr. Kant and other staff that Ms. Ashton -- because her area of expertise at that time was dealing with Page 59 November 2, 2000 impact fees and such, and developer contribution agreements, she reviews those -- had requested, and I compared the language to language that was in the approved PUD that Ms. Ashton reviewed, and I believe it was the same, because I wanted to make sure there was no problem with any of the other attorney staff in our office, it would give them a problem later, but we can certainly revisit that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But the language isn't in the PUD we're looking at right now? MS. STUDENT: The PUD I reviewed had the identical language to a PUD that was approved last March, and if something has been -- it's possible there's been some other changes, but I want an opportunity to straighten this out with staff, perhaps Ms. Ashton if necessary and so on, but that's what, in my review, I did, because Mr. Murray mentioned it having gone through legal staff. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, you're not suggesting we continue this, as Mr. Nino is? You just want to direct -- MS. STUDENT: I have no problem with that. I have no problem with continuing it. I was kind of alluding to that so we could straighten out the language. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'll read to you, it's in the PUD. If the developer, developer having frontage or access to Whippoorwill Lane, east/west extension, constructs the north/south segment of the Whippoorwill Lane or its east/west, in parenthesis, road developer, the road developer's costs such that exceeds the amount of the road developer's project impact fees based upon the rate schedule and the County's adopted impact fee ordinance schedule, road developer shall be rebated amounts in excess of the developer's road -- project's road impact fees upon receipt by Collier County Development of road impact fees collected from the road impact fees district one pursuant to terms of the developer contribution agreement. We are working right now with a contribution agreement to actually build the road. We'll actually be building this segment of the road of Whippoorwill Lane. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Which page are you on? MR. FERNANDEZ: Page 26 of 28. In regard to the drainage -- in regard to the drainage, it says Page 60 November 2, 2000 area wide drainage facilities -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Which page? MR. FERNANDEZ: Twenty-eight of twenty-eight. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. And go slowly because we have a court reporter who's typing rapidly. MR. FERNANDEZ: Area wide drainage facilities in and ponderance (sic -- and appurtenances, including land requirement, shall be under the control of Collier County. Should it become necessary to acquire land or construct facilities that are in excess of the drainage requirements of any particular development, then the cost -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Slow down. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- the cost for those added requirements will be proportionately shared by the developer on a per unit basis with all benefiting projects. Said cost and prorata share shall be determined by and payable to Collier County prior to the issuance of any building permits to the developer. Said cost with area wide benefits incurred by this development shall be rebated pursuant to the terms of the developer contribution agreement or other appropriate mechanism. MR. NINO: Let me -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes, let me add that Marjorie was correct, we did -- we did develop with Heidi Ashton very specific language, and I don't believe that language is reflected in this document, and there's some other cost sharing issues that are not, as well, addressed, for example, sewer and water. MR. FERNANDEZ: Sewer and water is not addressed with the same language. It was never incorporated into this PUD, and we're having -- we've got the water and sewer access from Livingston Road. We have water and sewer available to us, and that is our intent, to utilize those facilities. MR. NINO: We still -- we were still asking all developers, in the event that a line through your property has to be greater than is otherwise required to serve your property, that there be some consideration for you getting compensated for oversizing any utilities that exceed the requirements of your development. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. MR. NINO: So, it cuts both ways. There's an advantage to you as well. Page 61 November 2, 2000 Relative to the issue on Whippoorwill Lane, that dedication of Whippoorwill Lane was never construed to include credits toward impact fees. I mean, that's -- the cost of construction would be -- would qualify for impact fees, but never the dedication of land. So, that stipulation is not worded as we had structured with Heidi, and we need to take another look at those stipulations. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do we have a sense up here? Do you want to continue? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. Well, I think we can make it easy with the right answer. Are you comfortable with, say, we approve this with the adoption of that language? MR. FERNANDEZ: We haven't seen what -- you haven't seen what language that they are talking about. We have the language that staff gave us in here for the area wide drainage and also for the roadway. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Let me ask it again. Are you willing for an approval to accept the Heidi Ashton language or do you want to come back in two weeks? Hadn't seen it? MR. FERNANDEZ: Hadn't seen it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it seems to me like -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I move that we continue this to the meeting of the 15th. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Priddy and a second by Mr. Budd to continue this petition to the 15th. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't think we ought to set a date. It may take longer than that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Would you want to amend your motion? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Do you need longer than two weeks or do you want to be back in two weeks? MR. NINO: Two weeks would be fine if they -- if they -- if they object to including those stipulations, then the staff report will simply -- which they have the right to do, then staff report will come to you noting those objections, and you'll make the final recommendation. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. I'll leave my motion the same. Page 62 November 2, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We have a motion and a second on the floor. Any discussion? Call the question, all in favor? Opposed, like sign? (No response}. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Motion carries. It's continued. The next item is PUD-2000-14, Mr. Hoover with Hoover Planning for a PUD on the San Sovino PUD. All those wishing to present testimony today on this item, please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). MR. MURRAY: Once again, Don Murray for the record. This PUD is a request to rezone approximately 58.6 acres located approximately four and a half miles -- excuse me, four-fifths of a mile south of Immokalee Road on County Road 951. If approved, the project will provide a total of 478 mixed use residential dwelling units, of which 128 will be affordable housing apartments. The remaining 350 units will be typical multi-family development. This project will also provide two residential tracts with lakes and recreational amenities -- with lakes, recreational amenities, a 14.7 acre preservation area that will also provide up to 25 percent native -- or retention of native vegetation and 67 percent open space throughout the development. It's in an area which permits higher density dwelling units. It's within the residential density band of an activity center. The base density that's permitted is four units per acre, and the residential density band allows up to three units per acre. This development also proposes an affordable housing density bonus agreement. Under that agreement, per county requirements, they would qualify for 2.19 dwelling units per acre. This, combined with the up to seven units per acre that would normally be permitted, would be less than what would be the maximum permitted. The petitioner is requesting 8.16 units per acre. This is reasonable and acceptable to county staff. Staff has also reviewed the PUD for consistency with the growth management plan and finds that it meets the policies and Page 63 November 2, 2000 objectives of the growth management plan. It is also compatible with the surrounding and future development which contains truck repair and truck storage to the south, some single-family homes and undeveloped agricultural lands, planned unit developed to the north-northwest and also undeveloped agricultural, and a little further, about a thousand feet north, is a school. Based on these findings and other findings of staff's report, staff is recommending approval of the PUD document master plan and the PUD document. Are there any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What is the relationship between Brittany Bay Apartments PUD and San Sovino PUD? Are there two developments under -- MR. MURRAY: No, sir. Our addressing department had a problem with the name. It appears that Sovino was used already, so they've changed the name to Brittany Bay. It is the same development. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, there's no problem with all the documentation we have and the agenda saying it's San Sovino? There's no technicality there? MR. MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Murray, is this area largely a rural area? MR. MURRAY: It is rural. It is changing. Like I mentioned before, there are some developments taking place around it, being in an activity center residential density band would allow increased densities. There is access here. Indigo Lakes is in the back. These are PUDs. This area will develop probably in the near future. The Crystal Lake RV Resort is across the road to the northeast, and we have some other development further south and further north. MR. NINO: It's rapidly being urbanized. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Thank you, because I was told two weeks ago by our long range planning staff that that was largely a rural area, but thank you for clarifying that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have another question. This is entitled an apartments PUD. Is it altogether apartments? MR. MURRAY: That's probably -- it's a mixed use development that would allow apartments, multi-family and Page 64 November 2, 2000 single-family that's proposed, and the developer -- excuse me, the petitioner could address that better. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Any other questions of staff? Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not feeling the need to add any additional comments. We agree with staff's recommendation. Unless you have any specific comments or questions that either Bill Hoover or any of the other team needs to answer -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah, I have a question. Are we talking here about one of these two or three level affordable housing projects that have something like maybe 27 apartments per building? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. We are -- you will -- it's going to look like a market rate complex. You will not be able to tell the difference between the market rate apartments and the affordable apartments. MR. NINO: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Have you completed your agreement with the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: What was the question? MR. NINO: The question (sic) is, there is an affordable housing density bonus agreement that's negotiated between the applicant and Greg Mihalic's office, and that will go forward with this petition as a companion item to the Board of County Commissioners, because it has to be approved by them. MR. YOVANOVICH: And for the record, I didn't mean to cut Ron off, yes, we did negotiate the agreement with Mr. Mihalic, and he has signed off on it. So, it will go to the Board of County Commissioners at the same time as the PUD. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. Any other questions? Do we have any registered speakers? Anyone from the public wish to address this? Hearing no one from the public, close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: I make a motion that we recommend approval of PUD-2000-14 to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. Page 65 November 2, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd and a second by Mr. Abernathy. All those in favor? All those opposed, same sign? (No response). COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Motion carries. Next item is PUD-97-18(1), the Dunes. All those wishing to give testimony today, please stand and raise your right hand and swear before the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). MR. NINO: The Dunes PUD is an existing -- this rezoning constitutes an existing PUD in part called the Dunes. The original -- the Dunes as approved is a project that allows 531 dwelling units, so we need to appreciate that those 531 dwelling units are not on the table for debate. They are vested units. The amendment would have the effect of adding 100 acres to the existing 88.5 acre Dunes PUD, consolidating within the structure of that PUD, and your staff report indicates that that would have allowed an additional 169 units for a total of 704. I'm pleased to advise you that since you received your report, the developer, at our encouragement that we didn't think 704 was really physically possible for the site, if they'll re-evaluate that, and they did re-evaluate it and have agreed to reduce that figure to 640 dwelling units. That, of course, has the effect of reducing the density by about a half a unit per acre. The-- I think you-all pretty well know--you-all know where the Dunes project is. There's no point in belaboring adjacent land relationships. Well, I think I should perhaps cover some of that territory. To the -- of course, you know to the east of the Dunes is the cemetery. The cemetery takes up about one-half of the -- well, one-third of the west boundary. Then you have Northshore Lakes villas, and you have the Vanderbilt villas. The Vanderbilt villas is a single-family product in here with multi-family out at the Vanderbilt Drive frontage. The Northshore Lakes villas is a single-family product development. The remaining land to the north and across the street from the expanded Dunes project is the Collier tract 21, which in its entirety is a golf course without any housing component, and then to the north of that you have some agricultural zoned land, basically all the preserve area and undoubtedly an area where Page 66 November 2, 2000 there will not be any development. Of course, to the south of the Dunes, you have the existing Dunes. You have the Vanderbilt Beach community, which is a single-family community. However, given the fact that this portion of the PUD is vested, that relationship is now established, it cannot be further compounded in staff's opinion by the addition to the north, and to the west we have multi-family zoning at 16 units per acre, residential towers generally in the neighborhood of eight to twelve stories. The -- when we evaluate this PUD in terms of traffic impact and traffic consistency, we can only deal with the added area, since the current area is vested. It's obvious that 109 additional dwelling units will not exceed, at least our analysis was that it would not exceed the threshold whereby there would be a concurrency issue relative to -- consistency issue relative to traffic impacts. The other major issue here is consistency with the conservation and coastal management element. In excess of 77 percent of the land in this petition is preserved. As a matter of fact, of the 188.5, that equates with -- 145.31 acres of the 188.856 acres is retained as native open space. It's essentially an environment that includes mangroves, mixed hardwoods and wetland. Seventy-seven percent of the site will be retained. Obviously, that far exceeds the 25 percent native vegetation requirement that our regulations demand, so we have a -- obviously, have a condition here where the coastal -- coastal .... conservation and coastal management element is more than satisfied. This petition has been to the EAC, and the EAC has recommended approval of it. We appreciate that the EAC is the body most charged with evaluating the environmental -- potential environmental degradation of any site, and they have found that this petition meets their expectations. The -- the issue of -- the issue of the -- there is an issue that I'd like to discuss with you, and that includes a claim by a Kay Stammers (phonetic) that all of the land that is included in this petition is really not owned by the petitioner, and, therefore, they shouldn't receive the benefits of density considerations, and I want to hand out her letter to you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: While you're handing it out, when Page 67 November 2, 2000 this petition was to come before us previously, I had communications with a Mary Ellen Rand (phonetic), both on the telephone and provided me written information. Unfortunately, I put it in the wrong file, so I don't have that with me today, but I remember the bulk of it, and I think that she may have sent some of that material to other commissioners. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yeah, I received the same letter and filed it just as well as you did. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I know where it is. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I don't remember getting one, but if I did, it got filed too but probably in another file. MR. NINO: Relative to that question, Collier County has always determined density on the basis of the land that the petitioner claims they have title to. They submitted an affidavit to the County as part of their application that they own the land. We do not do a title search, nor is there any requirement in the land development code that we do a title search. They have sworn under oath basically that they own the land. In any event, the petitioner was made aware of that situation, and they had their attorneys research that issue, and, unfortunately, I received this fax this morning and didn't have time to distribute copies of it, but it basically assures you that they do indeed have title to the land, and that being the case, we have no choice but to acknowledge that they're entitled to density over the entirety of the area, but let me go one step further. However, that question has become rather academic. Given the fact that they lowered the density on the 100 acres to 106 units, all they need is 34 acres of uplands of the hundred acres to qualify under our density rating system if it did, in fact, only apply to the upland portion of the site. So, the issue is kind of academic at this point in time. The major issue here is the desire on the part of this developer to build four buildings in the area to a height of 15 stories versus the 12 stories that are vested on the 531 units in part. Appreciate there is a -- the PUD master plan has three tracts. There is an R-1 tract, an R-2 tract, and an R-3 tract. The R-2 tract is now approved for 12 story structures. The R-3 tract is now approved for two story multi-family -- two story multi-family product. That's this entire area here. The R-1 area, Page 68 November 2, 2000 which is partly within the old boundary but mostly within the new -- the added land would purport to allow 15 story structures, a maximum of 150 feet, and I believe that -- I believe there are four structures in that, am I correct, four structures? So, the issue is the appropriateness of that height. The staff report suggests to you that with the setbacks that we've recommended, a minimum setback of 125 feet from Vanderbilt Drive, the nearest an apartment tower would be from any residential product of a single-family nature would be in excess of 600 feet. I don't think one could argue that 15 story structures on tract R-1 will have any impact on properties to the south of Bluebill Avenue. They're in excess of a quarter of a mile away, even though your packet included letters of objection to the height issue, and, in particular, from Mary Ellen Rand, who sent you a letter in objection who lives in excess of 1,300, a quarter of a mile from the high-rise structures. Relative to the question of high-rise structures, you'll note in the staff report, as professional planners we maintain that there is nothing inherently good or bad in buildings being high. It's obviously a subjective area. However, in terms -- in terms of the literature in planning and in urban design, you will not find any expert -- any academia supporting the proposition that high is bad. So, that -- from a land use point of view, you know, that -- planning point of view, that's not an issue that you can really debate, and it's purely a subjective issue that some people have a problem with looking at buildings that are higher than two or three stories. We certainly as staff cannot suggest to you that that would create a negative urban design statement, and we can support high-rise structures given that their development standards are appropriate. So, the development standards are the thing we need to zero in on this PUD, and the development standards relative to spacing between buildings -- and incidentally, your PUD document needs some revision. It doesn't reflect the latest resolutions that we made with the developer -- where is that -- but your PUD document, if you take the right-hand column under high-rise multi-family, we need to add -- you'll note that the front yard from Vanderbilt is 125 feet. You'll note that the space between buildings, which is something that we're very sensitive Page 69 November 2, 2000 to, is 115 in your document. It should be 125 feet, and we need to add 15 stories to the 150. In the opinion of staff, we think those development standards are more than adequate to provide what space between buildings and setbacks is all about, and that is that if you take a 45 degree angle, the sun can penetrate the ground. It's called a sky exposure plane. That is only one -- the circulation of light and air and ability for the sunshine to penetrate the ground between buildings are the hallmarks for which side yards and space between buildings is all about. There's also the statement, particularly when you're on the waterfront, that we try to maintain a view corridor, and space between buildings establishes that view corridor. That distance of 125 feet between buildings, I suggest to you, is even more pronounced perceptually when you skew buildings from one to the other. In other words, if buildings are perfectly parallel to one another, the space between buildings is more pronounced than if you did that to the building. You'll note in their design that that is the design technique they will use. So perceptually, that space between the buildings will be even greater than 125 feet. These standards are not too dissimilar to the standards that have evolved in Pelican Bay. Pelican Bay had half the sum of the height, but it also had a provision for reducing that under architectural unification plans, and in most cases in Pelican Bay, there was a 10 to 15 percent reduction in that dimensional requirement that would have resulted if you applied half the sum of the heights. So, if you drive through Pelican Bay, what you visually see in the skyline is the kind of separation relationship you would get with 125 feet between buildings. Staff was very concerned about Vanderbilt Drive and the image that Vanderbilt Drive is going to make in this area, and to some extent I got personally involved in it because I live on Vanderbilt Drive, in the north end of Vanderbilt Drive, and we -- we were trying to encourage the development of Vanderbilt Drive as a signature highway in Collier County. What we need to do to achieve that; we need an adequate cross-section that accounts for the width -- that accounts for the widening of the road and an adequate cross-section that it would allow us to beautify, to Page 70 November 2, 2000 beautify that landscape, that corridor and to achieve hopefully the kind of design statement that Pelican Bay Boulevard makes as you drive through it. I'd like to advise you that this developer is entirely in concert with that effort, and in this PUD document they have agreed to provide 35 feet of additional right-of-way, 15 feet -- of which 15 feet would be by way of an easement to the County and an additional 25 feet will be landscaping, and they have agreed in the PUD, and it's so worded in the PUD, that they will landscape -- assume the landscaping responsibility for their 25 feet and the 15 feet that will be part of the County's right-of-way. We're attempting to get a 130 foot right-of-way through there, and we currently have a hundred foot right-of-way. The 15 feet will be provided on both sides to establish a 130 foot cross-section through this -- through -- contiguous to the Dunes project. They have also -- I believe they'll tell you, they have also agreed to landscape the 15 feet next to the cemetery to achieve this -- I hope they are going to agree -- I'm spending all their money. I hope they're going to agree to that. We can stand here and tell you that this project is consistent with all of the elements of the growth management plan and has a set of development standards that is going to give that portion of town a good urban design statement. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Nino, you had said that they provided the affidavit and their attorney did the work to determine the ownership. What law firm was that? MR. NINO: Grant, Fridkin, Pearson -- it's Dick Grant of Grant, Fridkin, Pearson, Athan & Crown. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. So, the claim of the ownership of the land, is that like claiming the beach if you own the beach as we discussed last night? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It's not the same issue or is it? MR. NINO: It's basically the same issue. In other words, you can have -- you can own submerged land. All kinds of people own submerged land. This applicant owns submerged lands at the Regatta project, for example, and there's all kinds of these. Marina Towers just around --just up the road has submerged Page 71 November 2, 2000 land that they own. Pelican Isle owns submerged land, all of which were included in the density calculation for those projects. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, it's not -- MR. NINO: Not the first time. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- not the first time. Thank you. MR. NINO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Nino, you're suggesting to us that this project, by adding the 100 acres, we really have a better project for the community than what we would have if we were not having this 100 acres? I mean, that's kind of the -- MR. NINO: I neglected to mention, the land that is being added is zoned RMF-12 with a maximum density of three units per acre. This land can be developed right now without being included -- consolidated into the PUD at three units per acre multiple family. The only difference is that under the RMF-12, the maximum height of buildings is 15 feet. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But by adding the two projects, we really have better control and a better product than what we would with two separate -- MR. NINO: Questionably, this application brings us the -- we'll have a conservation easement over the majority of that green space that you see when you drive up Vanderbilt Drive that otherwise, outside of this project, could be destroyed under some mitigation arrangement for a low-rise product. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Any other questions of staff? The petitioner, Karen. MS. BISHOP: For the record, Karen Bishop, agent for the developer. I'm not going to add to what Ron said because he's very thorough in what our position is. If there are any questions, I have the owners here and myself to answer them, as well as, I know you have comments from the -- there may be some comments from the gallery, and we'd like to address those, an opportunity to address those, but just in all, we feel like we have done an awesome job here, and we are looking forward to completing this and putting that land under conservation for the future. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Any questions? Do we have any registered speakers? Page 72 November 2, 2000 MR. NINO: Yes, Dick Lydon, John Chandler -- Oh, Dick Lydon, I'm sorry. Just Dick Lydon. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Were you sworn in, Mr. Lydon? MR. LYDON: I was. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I thought so. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Ron, while he's on the way to the podium, what are the changes to the PUD that we don't have that -- MR. NINO'. Fifteen stories, 125 feet, and I've got some more to bring to your attention. Apparently -- apparently the draft you had failed to acknowledge some statements that were in the EAC report. Barbara Burgeson pointed out that you need to change footnote one on Page 3-3. You need to change that to rear yard for principal and accessory structures on lots which abut a lake -- I'm sorry, rear yard setbacks, take out non-jurisdictional open space or native vegetation preservation areas and then add to that sentence, rear yard setbacks which abut a protected preserve area shall be in accordance with CC LDC Section 32.8.4.7.3. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Got that one. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Karen indicates she can go along with that. MR. NINO: No, which is the section that establishes the required distance -- MS. BISHOP: I'm sorry, I missed that. I don't know how I missed it, so we'll put that in. MR. NINO: She doesn't have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, when we make the motion then, we can simply say with the revisions provided related to building stories and spacing setback requirements, and that would take care of it? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Lydon. MR. LYDON: I'm Dick Lydon representing the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association. There's been a lot of water over, under and around the dam on this particular project, and I'm, frankly, very delighted that the staff and the developer and we, who have an interest as homeowners, have had an opportunity to beat it to death, if you will, and a lot of good things have come out of that, and I think Page 73 November 2, 2000 Ron Nino is particularly to be congratulated on the work he has done on it. We've had a little problem over in Vanderbilt. These folks built a thing down to the south end called the Regatta that created all kinds of hullabaloo (phonetic), and it was just so different in our area that anything that they have done or even proposed to do since then is bad. This one, we think, is coming together. We have some problems with it, yes. The first problem that we have is one of traffic. There is nothing on the five year plan, to the best of our knowledge, that's going to alleviate that at all. We have a problem. It is even worse now with 41 being worked on, but it is a serious problem of traffic, and it's something that we need to have the county transportation people work on very hard. Vanderbilt Drive is a two lane road all the way to Bonita Beach Road. We have opportunities up there that we think will help this situation, but at the moment, there is a very definite traffic consideration. The signature road idea as mentioned by Mr. Nino, we highly support. A signature road, in our opinion, is something like Vanderbilt Beach Road, which we fought long and hard to keep from being a four lane super highway, and it has turned out to be a very efficient road. The second thing that we take exception to, and we have fought this long and hard, we haven't gotten any concessions nor have we given any in this particular instance. In the original PUD, they came to us, and after considerable amount of discussion, agreed that the buildings that they were proposing there would be no higher than those existing in Vanderbilt beach, that is 12 stories. That exists at Baker-Carroll Point. Their request for 15, we did not find and do not find to this point acceptable. With the reduction of units down to 640, we think that may be another opportunity for them to do their redesigning to the degree of getting back down to the 12 stories. In that connection also, there is nothing in this PUD that limits the number of buildings to be built. If I look up here, I see that it would appear to be seven. That is the -- that is the number that we have understood would be built. However, I would kind of like to see that as a part of the PUD, that the number of buildings, of the high-rise buildings will be seven. Page 74 November 2, 2000 The next thing that concerns us, it concerned us at the original PUD when they had planned to do a walkway outside the mangroves, and that was ultimately voted down by the Board of County Commissioners with the understanding that they could come back. In this PUD, we have on Page 3-1, Item 3.4, boathouses and docks. This area that they are building in Turkey Bay is classified as outstanding Florida waters. There is no provision in this PUD as to where these boathouses and docks may take place. We would like -- there's no indication of how many. There isn't a question -- it is not a question, you understand, of where or how many or anything of the kind. We would like to see this taken from the PUD and ask that they be returned, that the developer return to this commission and to the Board of County Commissioners for a secondary approval, if you will, of any boathouses or docks. That was taken out of the original PUD. We think we're being responsive in requesting that that be left out. Let them come back and request their boathouses, their docks and show us where they are going to be so we would have an opportunity to see what the impact would be. The last thing that I have on the agenda is the public preserve, the preserve. The first question is, is it public? In the PUD, it indicates it is for the use of the residents of the Dunes. We'd like to know whether or not that can be, will be made a public, some public access for hiking and wandering and chasing turtles and all the rest of it. The next thing is, it does not indicate in here that this is a preserve in perpetuity. We believe that there should be an opportunity -- that they might have the opportunity to come back and say, whoop, we're going to take another 30 acres out of that preserve and build three or four more high-rises. We'd like to see that situation entered into the PUD. The other thing that concerns us -- and preserves are bad news. The County doesn't want to be responsible for preserves. The State doesn't want to be responsible for a preserve. The people that own the preserve just to the north of this are trying very hard to get rid of it, so there comes a problem of who is going to be responsible for the maintenance. The documents will tell you that the owners of the units in the Dunes will be responsible. Now, there's a question in my mind as to whether Page 75 November 2, 2000 those people who have already signed sales contracts are aware of that particular financial responsibility, which could be rather great with a whole bunch of water and mangroves and turtles and whatever. Is it possible or is it worth considering that a bond be placed as a part of this for the assurance that that preserve will be maintained? Again, in summation, let me tell you that we think we've come a long way on behalf of all of us in the neighborhood to make this an acceptable -- if we've got to have something, this is looking like it might be more acceptable. With those things that I have itemized, we think we could live with it very well. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Dick, I'd hate to see your laundry list of a project that you didn't like. Have you negotiated and broached all of these subjects with the developer? MR. LYDON: I think we have, Ken. There's been a great deal -- you mentioned earlier, several of you, the memo from Mary Ellen Rand, and it had a lot to do with setbacks and that sort of thing, and, frankly, we're pleased with most of the things that have happened in that particular area, and, you know, I don't think that -- the one thing that we haven't agreed on -- we all agree that there is a traffic problem and will be a traffic problem, and we all have to work toward getting that straightened out and cleaned out, but that is not the purvey of this commission. That is the purvey of the fellows that are building roads and trying to do things in that respect. The only real hang-up we have is the 15 stories, which is different than the original agreement where we were going to keep it the same height as the things over on Delnor-Wiggins Pass across the water. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's the one that causes me the least trouble somehow. MR. LYDON: I was afraid that would be the case. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to make sure. So, you do recognize that the traffic problems are not something that this developer can resolve, and you're working in a mutually agreeable approach to work with everybody about the problems of traffic? Page 76 November 2, 2000 MR. LYDON: Yes, and I appreciate the overtures that the developer has made in that connection with the 15 feet over by the cemetery, which is in sad need of some landscaping and the rest of it. We do need their cooperation and the cooperation of our County Commissioners to get some work done up there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And I was just also curious about, you want the boat docks and boathouses aspect removed from this PUD. Could you elaborate on that just a little bit? You want that to come back individually? MR. LYDON: Right. That's all we are asking for; the same thing that was in the original PUD where they were going to build a boardwalk outside the mangroves, and the County Commission eliminated that from the PUD and indicated that they could come back for such an approval at a further time. I'm asking the same thing on the boathouses and docks. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I guess petitioner will probably want to respond to your -- the use of the residents versus public or both of the preserve. I think that should be answered, and the maintenance issue. It is a long list. Thank you. MR. LYDON: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Nino, did you have any comment about pulling the boat docks and -- MR. NINO: Yeah, I'd like to -- how we handle the -- preserving in perpetuity the preserve areas. When this plat -- when the plan is platted over the -- over the -- all the preserve area, there will be a conservation easement, and that easement will go in perpetuity. As a matter of fact, we cite the Florida Statute that we model it after, and that provides for that remaining as open space in perpetuity. Relative to the issue of boat docks, yes, Mr. Lydon and I talked about that at some length. I guess the position of staff is that every property owner in Collier County who owns waterfront is entitled under the land development code to build a dock within the framework of the dock regulations, and we do have multiple family projects that have docking facilities, and it seems to me that it's inherently unfair to say to one developer, you need to get a conditional use, when everybody else in Collier County who has waterfront property is entitled to build docks in accordance with our docking provision. That seem inherently unfair. Page 77 November 2, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And then the issue is they're not asking for anything unusual -- MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- for the docks? They would meet all the criteria, regulations that apply? MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MS. BISHOP: For the record, Karen Bishop again. I want to address the maintenance issue, the public going through the preserves specifically. As part of our permitting process through the State, we have to -- one, we have to provide financial surety that I, in fact, can afford to clean up my wetlands and maintain my wetlands. That's one of the things -- that's a part of your permit that you must do at that time. We have already agreed to put the rest of what you see as preserve areas in preserve for perpetuity and -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Whatever. MS. BISHOP: -- I'm not spelling it either, okay. And, in fact, our homeowners' documents also had to be -- were subject to review at the district and the Corps to make sure that we had provisions in there so that any person who bought does know that it is our responsibility. There are -- as most condominiums, you have reserves set aside for things like paint, painting your porches or redoing the roads and maintaining your preserves. So, that is something that is already taken care of. That's something that we will be doing as part of our permitting process. Now, as far as public access to these, they are called public lands, but unfortunately, the public has a tendency to make these lands not very nice after a while. The district does not want the public in certain areas of this project. I'm going to suggest to you that the only permits that I would be able to get right now that I discussed with them and that they are going to agree to is for me to have a boardwalk from my residential to the water -- through -- across these, and that's it, and they're only going to allow me one, and that would be it. They do not want to see public going through preserve lands. They want them to be maintained. They want people to stay out of them so that they are habitat and so that they have a chance to get back to where they need to be and stay in pristine levels. Page 78 November 2, 2000 So, I would suggest that I don't believe that I'll have an opportunity to make these public assessable, and not to mention the stuff on the north, I can tell you is about chest deep in goo, and perhaps that would not be a normal hiking route that some people might want to take. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Commissioner Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And Ms. Bishop, I don't think you said it very loud, but you said you would agree to seven buildings? MS. BISHOP: Seven building, we'll agree to seven buildings, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Which, really, I think suits Mr. Abernathy and myself better because I'd rather have the 15 story and have fewer of them than -- MS. BISHOP: Well, and I want to just clarify one thing about the 15 stories. The part that is R -- I want to say it's R -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: One, isn't it? MS. BISHOP: No, no, this piece here, the low rise. Originally that was permitted for four stories, and because of this corridor that we've been discussing and the look and, of course, I have to say because of the issues of Regatta also, which we did not zone, we bought it already zoned, that look was something that the neighborhood did not like, which was all of these buildings, high buildings right along the roadway. So, what we are doing essentially is taking two stories off of the corner and moving those two stories back in the back part of the project, which would be the R -- from 12 -- you know, the 25 foot that I'm taking off the front, I'm moving it to the back on those 12 stories, so now I'm at 115 -- I mean, 150. So, what I'm doing is just taking that height and moving it somewhere else so that the look at that intersection isn't this corridor of buildings that the neighborhood really doesn't want to see. So, that was our reaction to how can we make that look better there. Now, dropping the density certainly means less buildings of sorts, and we've done that. We have adjusted our plan based on those numbers, but the 15 stories we feel is necessary because of what we're trying to achieve overall for the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The new buildings there, the northern portion -- I'm trying to do some arithmetic while everybody is talking -- are they going to have one or two Page 79 November 2, 2000 apartments per floor; is that the way those are -- MS. BISHOP: No, sir, I don't think so. Dick Corace is the owner here. He can give you a little more -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- talking a hundred more units spread over four buildings? MR. CORACE: My name is Dick Corace. I'm chairman of Signature Communities. And, Ken, to answer your question specifically, each one of those building pads that you see, there are four of those, those comprise 87 units in each building for a total of whatever that number comes out to. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It'd be 350, something like that. MR. CORACE: Three forty-eight, I think, is the number. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. CORACE: Okay? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Uh-huh. MS. BISHOP: I also wanted to add another thing about the corridor along Vanderbilt. We've also agreed to build that sidewalk that goes there. So that when we finish our landscaping, we're going to put in the pedestrian path along our frontage so it is completed and done. So that when they go to do Vanderbilt Road construction, they're not going to have to rip up the pedestrian access to build that later. That will be within our property and along that easement of that landscaping that we are going to put in up front. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Any other questions, comments? Do we have any comments from the public? If not, I'll close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Madam Chairman, I move that we recommend for approval PUD-97-18(1}, the Dunes for approval with the changes on Page 3-3, if I remember correctly, that staff pointed out for corrections. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We have a motion and a -- by Mr. Priddy and a second by Mr. Pedone. Any further discussion? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, same sign? (No response}. Page 80 November 2, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. Excellent job. (Commissioner Wrage rejoins the panel). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. With that, just a comment, I've been to the woodshed and back. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Courts can be so much fun. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm surprised you've done so well without me, but anyway, next, we have R-2000-06. All those who wish to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand, be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Mr. Gary Butler representing Mr. Mario Curiale is requesting to rezone a two acre parcel of land located on the north side of U.S. 41, approximately half a mile east of County Road 951, also known as Collier Boulevard, from agricultural to C-4 commercial. If we could go to the visualizer, I could show you -- this is the property in question, surrounded by the Falling Waters Beach Resort development to the north. To the west, it's surrounded by C-5 zoning also owned by the same -- by the applicant. To the east, it is adjacent to a recreational tract belonging to the Falling Waters. To the south, across U.S. 41 and the canal, there are agriculturally zoned properties. The C-5 zoning, which is to the west of this devel -- this property was rezoned, I believe, two or three years ago, and that C-5 zoning is within the activity center. The C-4 is not. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Excuse me, Chahram, isn't part of that C-5 not within the activity center? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, this -- the entire C-5 is within the activity center. We adjusted the activity center lines to include the entire thing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Sure. Growth management plan under the office and infracommercial subdistricts states that low intensity office commercial or infracommercial development on small parcels within the urban mixed use district located along arterial and Page 81 November 2, 2000 collector roadways where residential is allowed by the density rating system may not be compatible or appropriate. That's what our growth management plan allows, basically change it to low intensity retail and office. The growth management plan does not define low intensity, what low intensity office and commercial is. Staff was of the opinion that C-1 and C-2 zoning are low intensity. However, the Board of County Commissioners approved the property with a C-3 zoning. Therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission forward this to the Board of County Commissioners with their recommendation for a zoning change from agricultural to C-3 and not to C-4 as requested by the applicant. We have five zoning districts. Basically, C-1 is the lowest intensity, and the C-5 is the highest. What they are asking is a C-4 which is the second highest intensity use commercial district we have, and in the opinion of the staff, doesn't comply with the requirements for low intensity office and commercial, and staff also recommends that you forward this to the Board of County Commissioners for recommendation of approval for C-3 subject to staff's stipulations. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. NINO: Would you -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: -- would you go over the conditions, because they are very important conditions that deal with the issue of compatibility? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We have three stipulations. One is we want a masonry wall six foot in height along the property line adjacent to the Falling Waters Beach Resort development, and we want a 60 foot setback with no storage allowed along the same development, along the property line of the same development, and we also limit the height to 28 feet. C-4 allows 100 feet, and C-5, I believe, 50, and we are recommending no higher than 28 feet, and we are also requesting that the walls of the buildings facing the development be sound -- be insulated since they are proposing to have a hardware store, and they may have some saws to cut boards, some business that would generate some noise, we are trying to basically insulate the building to inhibit noise emission from the building. Those are our four stipulations. Page 82 November 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Question, Chahram or Ron, remembering we had conversations before, does that C-5 have the full C-57 It seems to me like there was some limitations. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It was a C-5 at the time when we rezoned it. It was outside of the activity center, and we said C-5 with the uses of C-1 unless this property is included within the activity center, but since then, the growth management plan was amended to include the C-5. However, we have basically the same stipulations for that C-5, limiting the height and provide the larger setbacks and a masonry wall and insulating buildings. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I seem to remember too that we had quite a bit of discussion over some outside storage or it was going to be some rentals. Is this the same property we were -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe it's the same property, yes. It's the same property owner basically. MR. NINO.' Yes. This was -- you may recall when this first came to you, there were architectural renderings proposed, and this is basically a builders' supply center, and I hate to use the word of the other company, but something like the other big -- the big company that corresponds to that. I think Mr. Curiale hopes that he could give them some competition, but that was the underlying premise, and we were very concerned about the relationship to Falling Waters South Beach Resort, and we did go to some pains to make sure they wouldn't be looking at stockpiles of material and experience noise from that activity. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: What -- what I was referring to, and it may not even be this project, but we had a lot of discussion over someone in that area that was wanting to do some car sales or car rentals or U-Haul rentals that was wanting to access off of a side street, but I may have that -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: That was further up on the Trail in the Manor. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay, different project, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Because I remember the issue, and the way we're looking at it again, we're still trying to step down, and we keep -- we keep pushing it up, I guess is my concern. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's why staff is recommending C-3 as opposed to C-4. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any other questions of staff? Page 83 November 2, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' You recommend C-3, but you concede that you're going to lose, I take it, because your conditions are for C-4, aren't they? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I have two ordinances prepared. One says C-3. One says C-4. So, I am ready for either case. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: C-3 would have no conditions. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Same conditions. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Same conditions? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? If not, we hear from the petitioner. MR. CURlALE: Hi. My name is Mario Curiale. I reside on Marco Island. The first time I had been here was about five years ago. This project seems to age me more so than the project itself. It so happened that I did get an approval in about, I would say, 1997 for the first part. I don't recall that most of you were here. I see new faces in here. At that time, I came over here and testified to rezone a piece of land which was from ag. to C-5 because we were having problems. My operation was on Marco Island. During that time, I was -- my operation was supposed to try to have a store built before 951 was going to be -- started working on it. Well, 951, the first section was done, four-laned. The second section was done complete, and my building still not gone anywhere. Through formality, through some kind of a deficiency, somewhat what we call also bureaucracy, somewhat with the County, which had nothing to do with -- we got the DCA involved in this, so we could have really done anything. Now, we reach the point that it's time for me to try to do something with this land. During the time, five years went by, we had several meetings with DOT. DOT expressed it's extremely concerned or cares about how we're going to get in and out of 41. We had -- if you -- again, you guys are very well aware that the road has got two lanes about a thousand feet south and then branches out to four lanes toward the intersection, and the DOT, what happened, they came up with the idea we could go in within the site, but Page 84 November 2, 2000 the only way, we can make a right- hand turn to go up north, and we cannot make a left-hand turn to go south. So, if we had any kind of delivery truck that wanted to go back south on 41 -- I hope I'm calling south or north, because it's the same way -- they had no way for them to turn around at the intersection, so the encouragement was to try to move as much as we can down south, but during -- all these negotiations went by, years went by, and now Scotty's got bought out by Home Depot, and my original plan was to build a store like Home Depot is building now, in order to try to make some headway with them. Unfortunately, they moved faster than I did. So, they went ahead and bought Scotty's out. They kind of put me out of business. So, the only way for me to compete somewhat with them is called downscale the project. Instead of building a 120,000 square feet building, which originally I was planning to build, I downscaled the main building to 30,000 -- 27,000 square feet footprint of the building, and then what we did is try to obtain additional property, which was a landlocked piece of property. It was two acres of land in between a wood field estates and my property, which was also ag., but since with the recommendation of DOT, by shifting the building south, would give us a chance to get an entrance on the two-lane 41, that way we can go right out, right in and left out, and we took their recommendation. That is the reason why I went ahead and tried to purchase, and I did buy the other land to incorporate into the project. I have a rendering which I want to show you guys, maybe clear a lot of the air up, and excuse me a second while I get it. MR. NINO: Let me say that Mario's problem was the result of the problems we had with the EAR based amendments that were challenged by the DCA. He got caught up in that whole mess, and that's why five years later he's still waiting to build. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But my -- before you go any further, to clear up for me, if -- he could still come in on the C-3 property and drive up to the C-5, right? Do you understand what I'm saying? His exit -- his egress and ingress is what you're trying to do, whether it's C-3 or C-4, you'll still be able to do the same, right? MR. CURlALE: What we did, we acquired the additional land, which right now is agriculture, okay. What we did is we're going to put the main store in the C-5, have the entrance almost to the Page 85 November 2, 2000 center of the development and utilize the other three buildings, which, in turn, make a uniform project all the way in the front. Instead of having a piecemeal building, if somebody else puts something else in there it will not look aesthetically appealing the way this one looks, and I don't want to try to make a major investment, then I have somebody is going to build a buffer building next to me because he's only got two acres left of building. You know, two acres of land, there's only so much you can build. Actually, by code we have, you can build a building up to 27,000 square feet in a two acre land. I propose in those three small buildings about 14,000 square feet of building, and it makes the whole center, it makes the whole front appealing, the way we know what the project is going to look like down the road. Instead of having my building a C-5 and then worry about some other person next door do something else which does not go along with my kind of operation. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Chahram, where is our argument with him with C-3 and C-57 If he builds this, are you happy? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We have to go by what the land development code says. It says low intensity commercial and office, and C-4 is the second most intense use -- land use designation we have, and I don't believe it complies with the low intensity use. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is what he's building on there, is it a C-4 use or is it a C-37 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: He's building a C-4 use. That's why he needs C-4. He cannot do what he wants to do on C-3. MR. CURlALE: Well, I can reply to that. What we tried to do is we tried to utilize the C-4 categorization in order for us to have a blending business together. In a C -- 3 specifies strictly that you cannot have anything, like on the outside in case you are loading a truck or unloading a truck, we're not allowed to do that. I would like to see I can get a C-4 with a stipulation in C-3 that, let's say, for example, down the road something happened to me and I want to remove the site, then it goes back down to C-3, and it could be used for a C-3 use, but as it stands right now, C-4 would eliminate any kind of a deficiency that I may encounter, that way I may be able to go back to the County and Page 86 November 2, 2000 maybe some complaint arises, but if I can show you also another rendering that shows you exactly what we plan on doing -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: One of the problems we're having here, we're talking -- this is not a site development plan we're approving, and if we approve C-4, our comfort level -- you know, what you're committing to build is not within what we're going to approve. Do you understand why our comfort level is not too high? MR. CURlALE: Well, the comfort level, I understand where you guys have a question here, but also, if you can figure out what I'm trying to figure out here, what I'm trying to propose here, it's not something shabby that I'm -- actually jeopardize -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm not saying that. I'm simply saying that you're asking for C-4, and you may put that up there, but that's not what you can build, and you may change that once you leave here. MR. CURlALE: No. If I testify in this room in here, whatever you see on the board, that's what I build. I've been building for 30 years, and I have a track record -- I have a track record that you can check me all around to whatever I build. I stand behind what I do. I'm not here to tell you I eat a doughnut, and tomorrow I have a jelly doughnut, no. We stick with the same doughnut. We are not going to change that, but what I'm saying -- what I -- in order to compromise with the neighbors, what I went ahead and I told the engineer to do is give to us as much buffer as we possibly can to the people next door. So what we did, we make it a water management area which abuts right to the property, which there's going to be a clubhouse nearby. There's an entrance right on 41 that's called an emergency entrance the Falling Waters is supposed to have there, okay. So, if I give them all the water management area clear, there's enough buffer for them, that would not really make that much detriment to it, and we went along with the fact that when I testified here five years ago, that the County and also staff imposed the fact I should put a privacy wall along the whole property of Falling Waters, which already stands, we are going to do that, okay, and we are going to do also on the same side which abuts one of the activity centers -- activity is going to be for Falling Waters, I imagine tennis courts and a clubhouse. Page 87 November 2, 2000 So, what I want, I want a neighbor that can live with me and I can live with them. I don't want a harsh feeling with a neighbor at the time that I begin the project, because it's not worth it to me to get into that. Five years went by right now. A lot of things have changed. My project has scaled down so drastically, I've got to try to make sure that whatever I do right now, I'm comfortable enough to make sure that this project works. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm not picking on you personally, but you and I may be gone someday, and it's a C-4, which means someone else can come in and do C-4. MR. CURlALE: This is why I said we're going to go for C-4 with a stipulation that it can be downgraded to C-3, God forbid I get hit by a car on the highway. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Chahram, why wouldn't we go the other way and do C-3 with a conditional use for exactly what he's proposing? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm not positive C-3 with a conditional use would allow hardware stores. MR. CURlALE: Can I read you some -- MR. NINO: Let me -- let me -- let me make a comment. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let staff answer that, please. MR. NINO: The business of-- Ms. Student, I'm going to need you to comment on this. The business of the intensity, determining differences in intensity, while our long-range people have told us that that's a measurement of zoning districts, I suggest that it may be a measurement of individual uses, and it may be possible for you, depending on what Marjorie says, it may be possible for you to zone it C-4 with limiting the C-4 uses to what Mr. Curiale on the record has said he wants to build there, and in so doing, deem those uses to be of a similar intensity to the C-3 district uses and forward that to the board and let the board make the final decision. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: They will anyway. MS. STUDENT: That would be zoned to C-4 with the stipulation as to certain uses. Yeah, we've done that before. MR. NINO: Because he's got on the record as -- MS. STUDENT: We even had a situation with a project, it was a PUD where the developer committed to a development plan that he attached to -- maybe it wasn't a PUD. It might have Page 88 November 2, 2000 been a rezone, but anyway, that he attached to it. So, I think that -- and we've done that before. So I think that you can do that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And another question before you go on, do I recall the property to the southeast, is that egress and ingress for Falling Waters? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Emergency. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Is that an emergency entrance and exit only? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's a recreational tract. They will have a clubhouse and tennis courts. MR. CURlALE: That's 200 feet down from there. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, I'm just trying to orient myself. MR. CURlALE: Can I -- can I reply to that? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. MR. CURlALE: What we have here, this is a -- I have here a commercial intermediate district C-3 zoning, okay. If I look here on Page 5, it says general commercial district C-4, the purpose of intent. The purpose of intent of general commercial district, a C-4, is to concentrate commercial development at the intersection or arterial roads and the county major road network where traffic impact can really be accommodated to avoid a strip or a disorganized pattern of a commercial development. That's really what I'd like to make sure to prevent. I don't like for -- what do you call -- for distort the commercial development. What I want to do, I want to make a uniform item. That's what it says right over here, make it uniformity. The whole area matches equally for the whole thing with the condition what I stipulated to, and I will stick by, which I already have a condition on a previous C-5 that I have, I would like to go along with that if you guys feel the same way I do. MR. NINO: So, if you're inclined to do that, because of the comprehensive plan record, it's necessary for you to find that you deem this to be of similar intensity as the C-3. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I can say that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Continue. MR. CURlALE: Okay. Well, I really -- I don't really have that much more for me to continue. At this time, I will bring the engineer in here to specify any kind of traffic we may have or if you any comments from the audience, I'm here to answer any Page 89 November 2, 2000 question anybody will come up and raise. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions from the commissioners? Any questions for the engineer? MR. BUTLER: I do have one comment. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. BUTLER: Gary Butler of Butler Engineering representing the petitioner. I am here to answer any engineering questions you have. There was one stipulation that there's a little bit of confusion about, and if you read it, it's not the way we want it written. It was a similar stipulation to the original C-5, and that talks about a 60 foot setback from the Woodfield Lakes PUD. No buildings and no building storage materials, we don't have a problem with that at all on our rear line. In fact, we are exceeding that significantly. Due to the width of the site, I have a problem applying that to the -- what would be the southeast side of the site. MR. NINO: Let me say, we don't expect it to apply to that line. MR. BUTLER: Okay. The way it reads, it could be read both ways. MR. NINO: We'll take care of that. MR. BUTLER: We'll hold 25 feet, and the other thing is we're not having any outdoor storage. That's another consideration that ties in with that comment. Other than that, if there's any engineering questions -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Very valid point. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If not, anyone from the public wish to speak? MR. NINO: Yes, you have registered speakers; John Chandler, Nancy Puccia, Bill Abdole (phonetic). MR. CHANDLER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We came here very earlier this morning. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Falling Waters Association, Condo Association. I represent phase three. I have some questions -- THE COURT REPORTER: I need your name, sir. MR. CHANDLER: John Chandler, C-H-A-N-D-L-E-R, and I'm Page 90 November 2, 2000 not in the movies either. Okay. Now, if I heard this gentleman correctly, he said the C-4, if he got C-4, he would build to two, three -- three specifications or vice versa? Was that -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, he will build C-4 specifications, but he can only have the uses that he's proposing; no other C-4 uses. MR. CHANDLER: No other C-4 uses, okay. Also, he proposed a -- I would like to talk to the engineer on this one. Engineer, you proposed a wall -- MR. NINO: You need to get the mike. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You need to use the microphone and propose the questions to us, please. MS. STUDENT: Questions need to go to the chair. MR. CHANDLER: You proposed a wall here -- you proposed a wall. Now, how far in from the property line is that wall going to be, and how high is the wall? I heard a couple comments that the wall was going to be six foot, and then I heard it was going to be eight foot, and then I heard it was six again. I would like to know -- maybe the engineer can address that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: When you get done with your comments, we'll ask that question. MR. CHANDLER: Okay, fine. All right. Also, there's a right-of-way coming down here, power lines. We have a pool area going right in here. We have tennis courts here, the boccie balls over here, but that's -- according to this layout, that would be right on our property line, and what I would like to know is exactly how far in this buffer would be and if they were going to landscape on the far side of the property -- or, actually, if he brought the wall in, it would be his side, and on the 25 feet, now would that represent from the property line, then they would start the building? That would be one of my questions. Let's see. Let me look in my notes here. Just bear with me -- oh, the height -- the height of the building, now he would have to adhere to no higher than 20 feet; is that correct? Did I understand -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right. MR. CHANDLER: Now, the 60 foot setback that the planners recommend, we really thought that was very, very good, and it was acceptable. That was one of the areas that we had concern Page 91 November 2, 2000 with. As you can see, that's going to be a recreation facility, and we certainly -- we would certainly like it to be as nice as we could possibly get it, and I would have to say that earlier we had spoke to the developer and his engineer. At this point in time, I think it's a little bit late, but we're still going to go along with it, he agreed to come meet, have a meeting with the residents of the community. We should have done that a while back, but that's good as well. We are looking forward to that on Monday. Now, another question of mine was the three buildings. You kept alluding to three buildings. Is it just one building but with three entrances or is it -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: On this parcel, yes, just one building with three businesses, I guess. They are showing three storefronts. MR. CHANDLER: And you're going to have a common entrance off 41 for those that have to go left or right from either one of those locations; is that -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. This parcel by itself is not going to have any entrance to U.S. 41. MR. CHANDLER: I would like to go on record that I -- I would accept the planner's -- I think they've done an excellent job. I would accept their proposal that they change it to C-3 and the restrictions that they propose on that land. That would be about it I have at this point in time. I would like to thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. CHANDLER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Next speaker. MR. NINO: Puccia. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We will allow the petitioner to answer those five questions. MR. CHANDLER: You know, could I -- before I run away from here, I have just one more item. The wall that they propose, what kind of wall would that be, and what would that be made of? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We will ask that question. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are asking for masonry walls; no wooden fence or no chain link fence, masonry wall, which I assume it would be concrete. Page 92 November 2, 2000 MR. CHANDLER: Well, I have a sketch here. Your engineer was kind enough to give it to me. It shows that -- it's like a composition type -- maybe you can address that. MR. CURlALE: I can address that. MR. CHANDLER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You bet. MR. CURlALE: There were a couple of things that need to be clarified somehow. We just got this rendering last night, and I flew in yesterday morning. So, when I picked it up, there was a little flaw in here, which I would like to make sure we can correct that. Alongside this property line here, this is kind of -- we're going to allow them the ten feet space. We are going to bring the wall in ten feet like as it shows here, it shows right on the property line. With the concern of a lot of people here, they were very concerned to build a clubhouse, we already made the arrangement to move the wall in ten feet, same as the rear, and instead of having the planting on the inside, we're going to put the planting on the outside. Also, that maybe we stagger the trees in the plan to increase the buffer area so that it would not affect anything. The wall -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Mr. Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Didn't we just say earlier you wasn't going to put a wall on that side, or did I misunder -- MR. NINO: He has offered to do it, so why not. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: You're offering to put a wall down there? MR. CURlALE: Yeah, we had the meeting in the hallway, and everybody seemed concerned about they would rather have the wall, so we are going to do the wall, and they said, well -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And you're going to maintain the vegetation on the ten feet outside the wall? MR. CURlALE: Well, that's a key question. I asked them, I says, if you give me a key to the clubhouse, I'll be glad to take care of it. They're only interested in the plans. They're not interested in anything else, and that was the question, is how are we going to get these to take care of this. It's the same problem we have on the outside for the easement, our electrical line goes there, which they have a 30 feet easement, and it's going to be a Page 93 November 2, 2000 tough way to take care of the property in there somehow. Maybe we'll make a pass-through door with a gate so you can get to the back somehow, but I don't know if they allow us to go in the clubhouse. Maybe they think we intrude or something, I don't know. If they have good lunch, we attend them. As far as the wall goes, we have here a pre-cast wall, which I testified about this about five years ago, and this guy's prices keep going up and up and up, because right now, we are talking about the price of -- we got a standard pre-cast brick wall. It's made out of concrete. It's called -- it's a sound proofing barrier itself. They made a section of about, eight foot section long. It's got pilings every eight feet. It's got a cap rail, and it looks beautiful when it's finished. If you haven't seen a wall like this -- I don't know if anybody lives on Marco Island, from here, there's a Walgreen's store that they just put the same wall that I'm going to put in there. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And its height, the height of the wall? MR. CURlALE: The height of the wall is six feet from the inside, and actually is going to be eight feet on the outside, because what happened, we're going to raise the elevation of the ground for the parking area, so it was going to make it like a little slope of embankment. Since we leave ten feet on the outside property line, so we can make a little slope and raise the walls up. So, actually, from the outside of Woodlakes Estates (sic), they will have a wall for eight feet high, and on my side is going to be only six feet high. So, it gives an additional privacy of the matter. If any of you guys on the board would like to get a copy of this wall, I could pass it on. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And the only other thing that I have, I think the other question was about the property line to the building. What is the distance from the property line to the back of the -- MR. CURlALE: I believe at this time we have about 15, but we -- as the engineer testified, he said he was going to try to move the property line to 25. So we'll move the building toward the left of the property line. So, from this point on -- at this time, we have 15 feet from here to here, and after the rehearsal meeting that we had in the hallway, we kind of decided to move the building over another ten feet, so we're going to have about Page 94 November 2, 2000 25 feet in between the property line. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I think that was the questions. We'll hear some more testimony from the public, and we'll give you an opportunity to recap that. Next speaker. MS. PUCCIA: Hi. My name is Nancy Puccia. I represent Falling Waters. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Can you spell that, please? MS. PUCCIA: P-U-C-C-I-A. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. PUCCIA: I represent Falling Waters Beach Resort Recreation, Inc. Our concerns on this is that -- at present we have 334 residents that are currently using our facilities, and we have 96 more residents in the future, and the additional amenities that are going to be going in there is a pool, tennis courts, boccie ball and shuffleboard courts, and what our concern is, that these people won't have to look at the back of a warehouse, that they won't have to see traffic coming into the parking lot, and that it is maintained properly so that it's not an eyesore for them while they are trying to enjoy the amenities that are going to be there. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But won't your landscaping that you're going to put in to protect the neighbor to the west take care of that? MS. PUCCIA: It will take care of some of it, but it shouldn't be our sole responsibility to take care of 100 percent of that. That's all I wanted to say. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. PUCCIA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any other speakers from the public? MR. NINO: Bill Abdole. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No, I don't see Bill. That's it? Any final comments from staff or the petitioner? MR. CURlALE-' I would like you people on the board to make a consideration to what my presentation has been made, to all this process that has been taking place. It has taken me a long time to get to this point, and I just hope that I will have your blessing to move forward. The staff has been very helpful to me through all of this Page 95 November 2, 2000 time, and with all the problem that we had, with all the waiting time and then -- the patience reached kind of the end of a rubber band, but I hope we can move forward, and we can forget about the past. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I commend you for your perseverance, and I remember your accent. I was on the board at that time. MR. CURlALE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend for approval R-2000-06 for approval with C-4 zoning, finding that that is a similar intensity to C-3, and that it be specific to what has been agreed upon by the developer here today. In other words, it's just not all C-4, but C-4 limited to the agreed upon stipulations and site plan and renderings that have been given to us today. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Can staff live with that? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, but I would like to know what uses. We are agreeing to uses that they are proposing, but what are those uses? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Those uses are a building supply and three storefront office -- MR. CURlALE: Can I reply to that? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Sure. MR. CURlALE: The uses is the same as a related uses. The main traffic flow we're going to have in the main building. The other one, we're going to have strictly like a plumbing supply, an electrical supply, and also a marble shop or a carpet store, something that blends in within the project itself. We are not going to reroute or go to an auto parts store or put some whatever. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically building contractor -- MR. CURlALE: In the same family of a building supply entity, that's what we are trying to keep, keep the uniformity and all that of the building and also the use. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Motion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Priddy. Second by Commissioner Abernathy. Any further discussion? Page 96 November 2, 2000 All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response}. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried. Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Better luck in the next five years. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah, see you in five years. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that -- with that, we go to CU-2000-12, and Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: Good afternoon again. This is Don Murray, for the record. Do you want to swear -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All those folks who wish to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn}. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. MURRAY: As I said, Don Murray, and this petition is a request for a conditional use to continue operation of a model home center located on 13th Avenue Southwest and Collier Boulevard as shown on the location map. The land development code requires that a temporary use, after it expires after three years from issuance, that a conditional use be applied for and obtained to continue operation of a model home. That's what brings this petition here. The subject property, an existing model home, has access from 13th Street -- or 13th Avenue Southwest, and the petitioner is just requesting a continue -- to be able to continue the model home center. He's not making any additions or expansions. As you can see from this picture, the parking is in the rear portion of the property. It is landscaped. It's nice. It's also surrounded by undeveloped property to the -- excuse me, to the south and to the west. There's another model home center located across County Road 951 to the east and also to the north of the property. Staff feels and believes that there will be little or no impacts caused to any surrounding property. Therefore, we believe and have deemed that this conditional use is compatible and also consistent with the land development code, and we are recommending approval. Page 97 November 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Don, any complaints? They've kept their grass mowed, taken the flags in when they're supposed to and all those good things? MR. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think the picture is pretty appropriate. You can't miss the notice on that particular property. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Caution the petitioner, but you are allowed to say something if you like. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't need to. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, anybody from the public wish to speak on this issue? Seeing none, I close the public hearing. Motion? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward CU-2000-12 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with the recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Rautio. No further discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. In absence of my secretary, pass them down to me, please. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And this does not look like Alan Reynolds to me. he? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It doesn't look like Alan Reynolds. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: A little older than Alan, isn't CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, we will go to DRI-99-03. All of those wishing to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: For the record -- Page 98 November 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I want to say something in front of your boss. I commend you. The group we had last night, I understand you spent a lot of hours down there. I bet you handled yourself very well, and I'm sure the County appreciates it. MR. BELLOWS: I think you ought to come down for a meeting. I invite everyone. MR. NINO: Some of those meetings, as I understand, they're really interesting. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We won't go into that here. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of planning services staff. The petitioner, Dr. Woodruff is -- of Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Incorporated, representing Collier County Board of County Commissioners. They are requesting development of regional impact approval for existing and new government office buildings. As you can -- I don't really need to go into too much detail on the location since we're speaking from the location. It's iljustrated on the location map there. I'd like to point out that the existing and build out square footage listed in the staff report is based on the original DRI application information. That DRI information submitted as part of this DRI review had some incorrect square footages on there. The actual square footages are actually lower. The master plan attached to your staff report and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council recommendations submitted as part of your packet has the correct information, and I'll go over that now. The building, the government complex is basically proposed for three phases. The first phase is 2002; phase two, 2007; phase three, 2012. The existing square footage is 537,572 square feet. Phase one is 804,936 square feet. Phase two is 915,99 square feet, and phase three will have 969,493 square feet. As you can see on the master plan, basically, the existing government center boundaries will remain the same. The new square footage is basically replacing older buildings and building some newer buildings within the existing government center boundaries. This has been reviewed by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council on October 19th. The packet submitted in your Page 99 November 2, 2000 backup contains their recommendations for approval of this petition, and staff is recommending that those be incorporated into the DRI resolution. The traffic impact study basically indicates that there will be some deficiencies that will be mitigated by certain improvements listed in those recommendations by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. The staff's analysis of the project will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding community, and is, therefore, recommending approval of this project based on the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council recommendations. I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have one for Marjorie. Marjorie, you've instructed us in the past if we have a financial interest in a project, we can't vote on it. Can we act on this? MS. STUDENT: What interest; as taxpayers? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes, as taxpayers. MS. STUDENT: I don't think it goes that far. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I recall Mr. Reynolds being taller. MR. KEESEY: Well, I hope I don't look like George Varnadoe, because I'm not -- Richard Woodruff is sub-sitting for Mr. Reynolds. I'm Larry Keesey, for the record, with Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, and we are pleased and privileged to represent the County in this project. With me, of course, is the representative of Wilson, Miller, Mr. Woodruff, Dr. Woodruff, and sitting in the back purviewing the scene is Mr. Camp, the facilities management director of the county, and also we have with us Ron Talone (phonetic) who did the traffic study, and I think the summary given -- I think this is all pretty straightforward. This is the expansion of the County's governmental facilities here by a total expansion of about, up to 996,799 square feet. Two of the figures I do want to correct, they are on the back of the -- I think the last thing in your folder is a copy of the actual master plan, which is also on the board here. That is duplicated, and it does have the correct figures. Mr. Bellows mentioned that there had been some revisions since the original plan was Page 100 November 2, 2000 submitted, and the figures on here are correct, and I think he may have misstated once the square footage for the total phases, and I'll repeat those, which are, again, on the exhibit that's part of your package. Phase one, the total building area is 832,242 square feet. Phase two, the total is 942,705 square feet, and then phase three, the total project build out in the year 2012 is 996,799, and that's all I have. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of the petitioner? If not, if someone from the public wishes to comment on this? MR. FINK: My name is Kenneth, F-I-N-K. I'm a landowner, condo owner just east of the canal, and the building with the parking lot that's going to be in 2012 is going to block our way. That's fine. I have no problem with that. I'm really not objecting to the project at all, but what concerned me was the runoff from the County and Mr. Woodward (sic}, I cornered him in here, and he took me out, and he explained -- my biggest concern was the water runoff from the County. The water, if you understand, the County is above these nice condos over there, okay, and he did explain that the water is going to run into the holding pond and then gradually be run off. When it rains, that canal goes very high because we get all the water from all the way back to St. Matthew's house and all along. So, he did cover the biggest problem that I had. The other problem that I have is that the County tore out or got rid of a lot of the shrubbery that blocked the health department and all of the cars along the way, okay. We bought our property when there were no buildings, there was nothing but field, and the County did do a nice job in blocking this landscape, okay, and you can hardly hear the cars, but then they thinned up the shrubbery and whatever to block it, and my concern was that you want to do something to block this from the residential area, Mr. Woodward (sic} said he would talk to the people and get that taken care of. So, I do compliment Mr. Woodward (sic} for being very cooperative. We're not objecting -- or let's put it this way, I'm not objecting to the building being -- the parking structure being just east of it. So, you did address my one big problem, water, because it does get up pretty close to our apartments or condo. Page 101 November 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm assuming you're on the ground floor? MR. FINK: Well, we're on the second floor, but I've seen the gals -- the widows that are on the first floor, you know, they are pretty scared with it coming up right to their -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And we'll ask the question about the landscaping. MR. FINK: Pardon? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We will ask the question -- I will ask the question about the landscaping. MR. FINK.' Greatly appreciated. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Ray, would you like to address the landscaping? MR. BELLOWS: At the time of site development plan for that parking garage structure, we will be requiring the landscape buffer as per code. Any existing landscaping that was maybe damaged for maintenance of any canal, that has to be replaced by code, and we'll have that checked into. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. FINK: I just have one other thing. If they could do something right now, it would be greatly appreciated, because it's very thin. They did knock out a lot of the tree trimming or bush trimming, and it's not like it used to be when you first -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Unfortunately, it's not within my power to be able to do that, okay, but they will when they get done. MR. FINK: If somebody could do it, please. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Marjorie. MS. STUDENT: I just need to make a statement for the record, and I've discussed this with Mr. Woodruff. Landscaping and buffering are not things that you look at in a DRI, because these are regional impacts, but I understand that at the SDP process, which is a staff administrative process, those issues will be dealt with, and just wanted to clear that up for the record. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I was merely answering the public's question. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: My guess is, the county government being a good neighbor, they'll take care of that before we have another meeting. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yeah. Anyone else from the public? Any comments, staff, petitioner? Page 102 November 2, 2000 If not, I close the public meeting. Motion? COMMISSIONER PEDONE.' Yeah, I make a motion we approve Petition DOA-98-3. MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me, it's DRI-99-3. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: This says DOA on my sheet, too, but I agree. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Okay, DRI-98-3. MR. BELLOWS: 99-3. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: 99-3, you guys really goofed up. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second it, whatever it is. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Actually, I think that's a recommendation for approval, and I will accept -- a motion made by Commissioner Pedone, seconded by Commissioner Budd. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. No more new business, no public comment? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Ron, do we keep these, or are you going to have Mr. Fernandez give us another set? MR. NINO: No, we'll give you another set. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Marjorie. MS. STUDENT: There's no old business on here, but I'm supposed to read into the record, and I'm going to do it real quick, there were two conflict forms from the last meeting. One was Sam Saadeh. I need to just put this in the record and then give it to the court reporter. He left before he conflicted out, but because he put it on the record and then left anyway, I still need to state that he made his disclosure that due to a business relationship with a petitioner on another project, he conflicted out, and also, at that last meeting, Chairman Gary Wrage conflicted out because his employer had a banking interest in PUD CP-2000-03, and I'm going to give these to the court reporter. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: One other item of old business. I would appreciate if we change, now that 4,000 people aren't here from the public, from vice chairwoman to vice chairman or Page 103 November 2, 2000 vice chair. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, we are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:50 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GARY WRAGE, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Terri L. Lewis and Dawn Breehne Page104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION February 22, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-20, John D. & Olga M. Iandimarino Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, November 2, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-20. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-29 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Ross Gochenaur Planner II G:/admin/BD-2000-20/RG/cw Enclosure c: John D. & Olga M. Iandimarino c/o Sal Iandimarino 231 Tradewinds Avenue Naples, FL 34108 Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) Land Dept. Property Appra!ser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File }~HONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier. fi.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 29 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-20 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public heating after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 34-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 54-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-3 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing John D. and Olga M. Iandimarino, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 9, Block I, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 17, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 34-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 54-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-3 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-20 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this 2nd day of Iqovember ., 2000. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DUNN-UCK, In Executix~e Secretary Interim Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marj&tie M. Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-20/RG/im -2- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION November 14, 2000 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-24, Thomas Graebner Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, November 2, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-24. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-30 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me. Ross Gochenaur Planner II G:/admin/BD-2000-24/cw/RG Enclosure c~ Thomas Graebner 5810 Glenhaven Drive Greendale, WI 53129 Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier. fl.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 30 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-24 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zon'mg and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 25-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 45-foot boat dock facility in a PUD zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Thomas Graebner, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 17, Bayfront Gardens, as described in Plat Book 14, Pages 114-117, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 25-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 45-foot boat docking facility in the PUD zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installext at the outermost end on both sides. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. o Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. The dock shall be field-adjusted to minimize removal of mangroves at the shoreline. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-24 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this 2rid day of lqovember ,2000. ATTEST: x lNCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP ecutive Secretary COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjori/riM. Student ' Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-24/RG/im -2-