Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/03/2001 RMay 3, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 3, 2001 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 8:35 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gary Wrage Joyceanna J. Rautio Russell Budd Dwight Richardson Michael Pedone NOT PRESENT: Kenneth L. Abernathy Russell A. Priddy Lora Jean Young ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Susan Murray, Planning Services Page I CLERK TO THE BOARD MAUREEN KENYON AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2001 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF- AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED l0 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR 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 THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APRIL 5, 2001 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. BCC REPORT: RECAPS March 13, 2001; March 27, 2001; and April 10, 2001 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Ao B° BD-2000-40, Miles L. Scofield, of Turrell & Associates, Inc., representing Full Schilling, Inc., requesting a 58- foot boat .dock extension to allow a boat dock facility with 3 slips protruding a total of 78 feet into the waterway for property located at I 1687 Keewaydin Island, further described as Lot 7, South Naples Shores, in Section 24, Township 51 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) BD-2001-AR-351, Ben Nelson, Jr., of Nelson Marine Construction, representing Mark Allen, requesting a 20- foot boat dock extension to allow for a 40-foot boat dock and 2 boat lifts tbr property located at 267 3fd Street West, further described as Lot 12, Block G, Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) Co Eo V-2000-39, Miles L. Scofield, of Marine Consulting, representing Adam W. Johnson, requesting a variance of 5 feet from the required 15-foot side setback for dock facilities on property having water frontage of 60 feet or greater located at !1 East Pelican Street, further described as Lot 39, Isles of Capri, Unit I, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) VA-2001-AR-374, Todd and Lisa Mastro requesting a 1.7-foot variance from the required 7.5-foot side yard setback to 5.8 feet for property located at 5036 28th Avenue S.W., further described as Lot 6, Block 245, Golden Gate Unit 7, in Section 28, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) PE-2001-AR-467, Cindy Penney of PMS Inc., of Naples, representing Krehling Industries, Inc., requesting parking exemption approval for off-site parking at the east end of Wiggins Pass Road, in Section 15, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 5/3/01 CCPC AGENDA/SM/im May 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Can we call to order the Collier County Planning Commission of Thursday, May 3rd, 2001. We'll start by calling the roll. Commissioner Priddy is absent. Commissioner Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Young is absent. Commissioner Abernathy is absent. Commissioner Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Present. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage is present. Commissioner Pedone. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that we will go -- any addenda to the agenda? Susan, any addenda to the agenda? MS. MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. We have, I believe, one set of minutes. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Pedone. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? Motion carried. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Point of order. We just approved the April 5th, 2001, meeting minutes, and I believe we have to also approve the March 15th, 2001, minutes that were mailed to us. Move for approval of the March 15th minutes. MS. STUDENT: That's correct. That's the one where there was no quorum, Page 2 May 3, 2001 COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Moved by Commissioner Rautio, second by Commissioner Pedone. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? Carried. Planning commission absences? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I will not be here for the June meetings. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: For when? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Two meetings in June. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: June? COMMISSIONER BUDD: And I will be absent the second June meeting. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Oh, boy. COMMISSIONER BUDD.' That will be June 21st. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Did you also want to poll for the LDC amendments now that after last night? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I had that down here on my report, but we can do that now. For those of you who are here today, we did not have a quorum last night for the LDC amendments. Marjorie made the announcement. We need -- we can still get it done in time, I believe, if we have a quorum in two weeks. MS. STUDENT: That's correct. It will give the staff a short time frame to get it to the board, but we can still keep on schedule if we do the 16th for the 1st. It's already been advertised and the 30th for the second meeting. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Please be advised. Under BB -- yeah, BCC report, I believe we have two of those. I, for one, sincerely appreciate these. Do you have any additional comments, Susan? Page 3 May 3, 2001 MS. MURRAY: Let me see. I'm looking at the agenda for April 24th. If you're interested, the Mirasol PUD was approved unanimously by the board with three stipulations, probably the most important of which was the master plan was changed slightly to move the northerly golf course, if you recall, down to the south of the property. And then two items, two variance -- I'm sorry, a variance and a parking -- an off-site parking petition or parking exemption were continued by the board. And you may not remember these because you heard them back in September of 2000, and they were relative to two lots in Naples Park. Those are going to be brought back before you because there has been a substantial change in the site plan. So they did not take action on either of those two items. That's it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I've already given my report. We're ready to go into the advertised public hearings. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, just one comment, I guess, in the way of my education. I didn't realize until I read the reports that you provide that those things that pass unanimously at this level are not have -- no -- not further reviewed at the BCC. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: They go on the consent agenda; is that correct? MS. MURRAY: That's correct, provided there's no public objection. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But the commissioners can still pull it off of the consent agenda. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Or if anyone files a -- etc., etc. MS. MURRAY: Exactly, at the hearing. If anybody files a -- an objection. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Can Mr. Richardson vote? Page 4 May 3, 2001 MS. STUDENT: And they also still have all the backup in their agenda packet, so it's not like they see it -- you know, they just pass it. They have backup in the agenda packet. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And I will make a comment. Prior to you coming on the board, we did have a discussion about planning commissioners voting in opposition one way or the other simply to get it off the consent agenda. That's the main reason why, if you are the dissenter or lone dissenter or in the minority that -- that the commission likes to know why. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All right? Because they were the ones that started the consent agenda in order to speed up their meetings. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It just was educational. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And, believe me, if you are the lone dissenter, your phones ring off the hook. I've had that happen on more than one occasion, but usually it's principle. I do believe Mr. Priddy has voted against something specifically to have full review again and not just go on the consent agenda. So you do get that choice. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. With that, let's go into advertised public hearings. The first one is BD 2000-40, Full Schillings, Incorporated. All those wishing to give testimony in this, please rise, raise your right hand, be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ross. MR. GOCHENAUER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenauer, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 58-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 78 feet into the waterway. Page 5 May 3, 2001 The property is located on Keewaydin Island and contains about 150 feet of waterfrontage. The project consists of the removal of an existing 60-foot dock and its replacement by a 4-foot wide walkway accessing a boat lift and one slip. Keewaydin docks typically require relatively long extensions, and the docks north and south of the subject property extend to 68 and 83 feet respectively. We've had no objections to this petition, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? Are you the petitioner? MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, Rocky Scofield representing the petitioner. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? Anyone else from the public wish to address this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD.' Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve petition BD 2000-40 with the attached stipulations. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Budd, second by Commissioner Rautio. All in favor sig -- any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? Carried. Next is -- Ed, I had to ask, for those of you that haven't found out already, we evidently are different numbers after the year 2001, and I'll let Ross address that. The next one is boat dock 2001-AR-351, Mark Allen. All those wishing to give testimony on this please rise, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) Page 6 May 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ross, would you explain the new -- is this a new numbering system? Is that what this is? MR. GOCHENAUER: Yes, sir, it is. We got a new computer processing system that is giving different serialization to each report for tracking purposes, so it's no -- no longer quite as simple as BD and then one up. There's really no way to -- to track these things beyond the fact that it starts out with a boat dock serial that follows that is common serialization with all petitions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What does the AR stand for? MR. GOCHENAUER: Application request. Once again, this is a computer thing, all intended to make it a little bit more complicated. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I thought you were going to say easier. MR. GOCHENAUER: That would be lying. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. GOCHENAUER: For the record, Ross Gochenauer, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 20-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 40 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 267 Third Street West in Little Hickory Shores and contains about 30 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the construction of a 4-foot wide walkway accessing 2 boat lifts. The subject property is a so-called boat dock lot for which a conditional use has been granted, allowing a dock as a principal structure, and also a variance has been granted which allows docks to be built at zero setback from the lot -- from the riparian lines. Three local property owners have questioned whether this facility would obstruct navigation in the waterway, but I've received no written objections. Page 7 May 3, 2001 Aerial photographs appear to support the petitioner's contention that navigation in the channel would not be affected. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the boat -- the proposed facility meets all criteria, and we therefore recommend approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Is there any way to re-explain why they're calling these things boat dock lots? MR. GOCHENAUER: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm not sure I understand that terminology and the implication. MR. GOCHENAUER: Okay. These lots are too small to support a single-family dwelling, but they're residentially zoned lots. Therefore, there's not really anything that they could be used except to support a boat dock. The code allows a boat dock as a principal structure on a lot with a conditional use. And a conditional use was approved for these lots. It's an unusual situation. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's what I thought, but I wasn't quite clear. Thank you. MR. GOCHENAUER: CHAIRMAN WRAGE: address the board, please. MR. NELSON: Yeah. For the record, Ben Nelson -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You need to come to the microphone, please. MR. NELSON: For the record, Ben Nelson, Jr., representing the applicant, Mark Allen. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anybody have any questions of petitioner? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I lust want to make sure we've You're welcome. No further questions of staff. Petitioner Page 8 May 3, 2001 got -- the conditional use was granted, and then there was a variance granted previous to this? I'm not sure I'm following the language. MR. GOCHENAUER: Okay. The conditional use was granted which allows docks as a principal use. Then some of the property owners went back and asked for a variance to be allowed to build their docks to the lot line. That was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. So they can literally fill the lot with docks. As much as they can get in there, they can use. The entire envelope is from riparian line to riparian line. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And the protrusion that he needs here is to get out into deeper water? MR. GOCHENAUER: The petition here is -- correct, that's to get deeper water. It's an unreinforced shoreline. There's no seawall. And typically they slope out gradually, so it's not unusual for owners of these lots to ask for extensions so that they can get enough water for boats and lifts. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MR. NELSON: Yeah. It would be the rule, not the exception; that's for sure. I mean, most all these -- I would say probably 90 percent of these docks are of similar design. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay? No further question of petitioner? Anyone from the public wish to address this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I move we approve BD.2001-AR- 351 with any stipulations. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Pedone, second by Commissioner Budd. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) Page 9 May 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Opposed? Motion carried. Next we have V-2000-39, Adam W. Johnson. All those wishing to give testimony on this please rise and raise your right hand, be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) MR. GOCHENAUER: For the record, Ross Gochenauer, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 5-foot variance from the required 15-foot east side yard setback for dock facilities with water frontage of 60 or more feet. The property is located at 11 Pelican Street on Isles of Capri and contains 60.13 feet of water frontage. The dock extension was approved for the property in 1990, and the variance would allow the addition of a boat lift with no additional extension required. Only the abutting property owners would be affected by this variance, and both property owners have provided letters of no objection to the project. Other property owners in the -- in the area with similar lots but having just under 60 feet of water frontage are allowed to use the 7.5-foot setback, and the petitioner is requesting a 10- foot setback. Although no actual hardship is involved, staff considers that the grantings of this variance would be generally consistent with the intent and purpose of the Land Development Code and would not be injurious to the community. We've had no objections to this project, and we therefore recommend approval. Questions? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Questions of staff? If not, we'll hear from the petitioner. I guess not. Anyone from the public wish to address this issue? If not, we'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll make a motion we approve Petition V 2000-39. Page 10 May 3, 2001 COMMISSIONER BUDD'- Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Pedone, second by Commissioner Budd. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? Motion carried. Next item is VA-2001-AR-374, Todd and Lisa Mastro. All those wishing to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand, be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners, Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Mr. And Mrs. Mastro is requesting a 1.7 after-the-fact variance from the required side yard setback of 7.5 to 5.8 for a children's playhouse. The property is located at 5036 28th Avenue Southwest in Golden Gate City. They -- Mr. And Mrs. Mastro, they built this playground, oh, playhouse for the kids. However, it's within the required side yard setback. We usually do not ask for children's playground to have setbacks for those that you buy from Toys R Us or whatever, but this is more substantial and has a foundation. It's more permanent than a plastic playhouse. And it requires a variance to comply with the required setback. They cannot push it closer to the building because then they would have a problem with fire code. This -- this is basically the playhouse here (indicating). And if they pushed it any closer to the house, comply with seven and a half required setback, they would have a problem with the fire code. That's why they are asking this variance. Staff reviewed this variance. Since this is a kind of Page 11 May 3, 2001 temporary structure, and as kids grow up, they may remove this structure, it's not going to be there forever, staff recommends that -- that the CCPC forward this to the BCA with a recommendation for approval. However, should -- with the condition that should they remove it, they cannot replace it with any other structure. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: How long has the structure been there? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It has been over a year now. Three years already. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Did they get a permit to construct it? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. They didn't know that they needed a permit to construct this. And I guess it started as a small project, and it grew. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Would you put the picture of the playhouse back up again, please. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Another picture of the same structure. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's pretty substantial. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's a substantial structure. I received a phone call from the neighbor, and he indicated that he has no problem with this structure, and he recommended that the board approve this variance. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: How many square feet is this little playhouse? Maybe the petitioner can answer some of these questions. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: report? Ten by--ten by fifteen, something like Let's -- are we finished with the staff COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: While he's coming up, was -- was this brought to your attention by a neighbor's complaint or by some -- what was the mechanism it came to our attention? Page 12 May 3, 2001 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe somebody complained. However, there are two code enforcement investigators, they are neighbors to this house. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Uh-huh. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It could have been one of them. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. My question is, this may have been acom -- it was a complaint. They did not have a permit in the first place. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It's a substantial structure. And they're now asking for an after-the-fact variance? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We're not even -- we assume that the playhouse can be there, period. It's not a code enforcement issue other than the setback? MR. BADAMTCHIAN'- We -- we went through the Code Enforcement Board. And, you know, it went through the proper channels. It's a structure, and it requires a setback. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And it requires a permit, does it not? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It requires a permit, yes. And they will apply for a permit when the variance is granted to get the inspections done. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So this has been existing for two years, and it's just now going to be inspected if we give a variance. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And if we don't give a variance, what happens ? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They have to remove it. There's no way of keeping this on the property. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions of staff? Page 13 May 3, 2001 MR. MASTRO.' Can I add something? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a minute. Any further questions of staff? Okay. With that, we'll hear from the petitioner. I need you to give your name for the court reporter. MR. MASTRO.' My name's Todd Mastro. I went down to apply for a permit, and I read through the permit. It said if you exceed $770 in expenditures, you are required to get a permit. The majority of this wood was donated by a friend of mine. This is the reason why it was built. It is merely on top of a structure that was already existing. When we purchased the house, there was a two-story play center there with a swing set made out of wood. It was falling apart. I kept on having to replace the -- the boards. We just happened to watch a program one afternoon where this guy travels all over the country building custom tree forts for kids, and this is what my kids wanted. I am the neighborhood hangout. This is what -- I feel it's important not only for my kids but for the neighborhood kids. We've done a couple of sleep-outs. Unfortunately, since this has become an issue, we have not allowed kids up into the tree fort. We have taken down the stairwell unless I am actually physically up there with them. So it's become a major burden because of -- it's there, but they can't use it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'd like to clarify. You said you went to get a permit, and the criteria that you based your decision on not to apply for a permit was a cost factor, $750 did you say? MR. MASTRO: That's what it states in the permit. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I guess maybe staff could answer this question. Since he's claiming it was donated lumber and it didn't cost him very much, he was under the limit, and that qualifies? Page 14 May 3, 2001 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That doesn't matter. It costs more than $750 to build this. You can build a house with donated material. That doesn't mean you don't need a permit for that house. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. That's what I was concerned about. That you could simply say it was all donated so it really didn't meet the threshold. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. They -- it cost more than 750 to build it, they need a permit for it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I appreciate the fact that you went and researched this, but did you ask someone at the permitting desk that you could -- MR. MASTRO: Well, I -- I did. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Excuse me. -- not meet the threshold by having donated material that you don't need a permit? MR. MASTRO: Well, I tell you, I went down there, and they weren't aware that play centers were included in -- because it wasn't a shed, it wasn't a -- a housing structure, it was merely a play center, that that falls into the same category. I have been down there numerous times, and it depends on who you talk to, you get different answers. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm sympathetic because when I first moved here I attempted to put a dog run for my dog, and I had to get a permit to build a patio for my dog that was detached from my house so that my Brittany Spaniel hunting dog could have a place to live in my backyard that was acceptable to me. So I'm understanding that you do need permits, but it just really surprises me something this substantial was not permitted and now we need a variance besides, and I don't want to sound like I'm mean to kids but -- MR. MASTRO: No. But I-- Page 15 May 3, 2001 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We've got regulations here. MR. MASTRO: I will go -- I will go through the proper steps at this point. I wasn't aware at the time. I am now that this was such a big issue. There are sheds around the county that don't meet setback requirements, and it merely takes a complaint of an anonymous person to start the ball rolling on this issue. This structure was up for well over a year before I was cited. The day I was cited was the day my daughter was born. She's almost two. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Memorable. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just --lust a clarification. You're tell -- they can build this with a proper permit and a proper setback. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: One of this size probably can't be built here because of the setback and the fire code. That's what you're telling me. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. They can build a similar one a foot and a half shorter so it wouldn't encroach to the setback and it's at least 10 feet away from the house. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have a question. Chahram, on the permit application, does it state that it has to be $750 of perceived value or -- I mean, is there any class -- distinction between what it's actually costing you and what it's actually worth? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe what it says is $750 value. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Value. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The value is value. You cannot say it's donated and doesn't have any value. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Well, I have to have a little sympathy also. I've been down to Horseshoe Drive trying to get information, and depending on who you spoke to, you got a different answer every time so -- who's to say? Page 16 May 3, 2001 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: While I'm sympathetic, I still have some real concerns that a structure this size could be built and not have a permit, A; and, B, that the perception of $750 value was the criteria that stopped you from going any further getting a permit. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions, further questions, of the petitioner? Well, I -- I personally have mixed emotions both ways. I sympathize with the petitioners. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I have one registered speaker. I'm sorry to interrupt you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Pardon? MS. MURRAY: I have one registered speaker. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Let me finish my comments, and we'll get to the public. MS. MURRAY: Sorry. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I, too, have been a prob -- had a problem with that -- with that valuation, my perceived value, and - - and what it's like when it's completed. Obviously, I realize that cannot be replaced for $700. He can probably build it himself for that -- and I went through that same argument with my house, so I won't go there. Well, for that -- for that matter, I'm going to support the variance simply because of the -- the small amount of space that it is, and I certainly don't want to be one that's against children, but I -- I do hope a lesson's been learned in Collier County. MR. MASTRO: I would like to add, though, that it was my family that built this structure. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And that's really immaterial here, you understand. It's the setback and the code that we're talking about here. MR. MASTRO: Well, I know. But it's more of the importance Page 17 May 3, 2001 of the children right now and the effort that was involved before by the neighborhood to put this structure together. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of the petitioner? Anyone from the public wish to address this issue? And you were sworn in; right, ma'am? MS. TELLY: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Would you give your name for the court reporter. MS. TELLY: My name is Sharon Telly, and I'm a neighbor of the Mastros. I would like to start out by saying I do not have an objection to the structure per se. My concerns are this: I believe that everyone is required to go through the proper permitting structure, and I hope that -- I want to be ensured that the permit will be obtained, that the inspections will be done. And I believe there was also considerable cost in litigation information with the Mastros throughout this process because Mr. Mastro felt he was exempt from the process, that the costs of that are borne by them. I, for one -- Mr. Mastro happened to have called on the shed that was on the property when we purchased our house 11 years ago. After having a conversation with my husband, knowing we had already ordered a Ted's shed and gone through the proper permitting structure to replace it, he still called and had ours torn down, which we were doing anyway. So I lust feel that it should be the same for everybody, and if the county bore costs because of this, that that should be paid by them. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Did you say the county might have borne costs? MS. TELLY: Yes, I did, because Mr. Mastro went through the process of saying that you were not required to get the permit. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I don't see that in this -- Page 18 May 3, 2001 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe what she's talking about is the code enforcement action and we have to take Mr. Mastro in front of the Code Enforcement Board, which he's -- he was fined, and he's been fined as we speak until this matter is resolved. Maybe Michelle can shed some light on it. COMMISSIONER BUDD: In other words, every event that's brought before the planning commission has staff time involved. Staff, not being a volunteer service, gets paid a salary. So everything that comes before us consumes a certain amount of county time, and we do not have the authority to assess punitive damages, so it's outside of our control on what we can do on this. While it's a legitimate request, it's not before us. Whatever decision we come to, we cannot take any action on that. MS. STUDENT: I need to add that we have a fee structure, and the fees charged for the different permits are supposed to reasonably reflect what it costs the county to process the application. MS. TELLY: I'm mainly talking about the fines that have been assessed. Have they been paid to the county? MR. BUDD: And someone else will take care of that. That's certainly the county's job. MS. TELLY: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But your statement then this morning is that you don't object to the structure, but you do want to make sure that it gets permitted properly. MS. TELLY: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And goes through the process. MS. TELLY: Goes through inspection and that it has to be maintained as any other structure as with proper insurance. I mean, it cannot be left to become dilapidated once the kids reach an age that they no longer are using it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's an interesting statement Page 19 May 3, 2001 you lust said, because in our staff recommendation there's a sentence that says this structure will probably be removed after the kids reach a certain age. MS. TELLY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And I thought that was fascinating language to put in a recommendation as a probably- maybe approach to something that is violating our code. I'm not sure how relevant that statement is to what we're talking about here. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The way staff figured that this structure has taken up a substantial area of the backyard or side yard in this case. They are -- they have a corner-lot house. And once kids, they grow up and they don't use it, it will just take space in the backyard, and they will have no use for it. So they -- they will eventually remove it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But in response to this lady's question, basically, if we grant a variance, they still have to get a permit. It still has to meet the code. It still has to meet inspections. It still has to be kept up the same as any other structure in the county. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. And I also might point out that when you are doing things in the after-the-fact mode, typically your permit fees and your application fees for this variance are doubled. So there is some recognition of an error made by the applicant in not coming through the proper channels first in that -- that way. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further -- MS. TELLY.' As long as I'm assured of that, that's my only concern. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You're on the record, ma'am. MS. TELLY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anyone else from the public wish to Page 20 May 3, 2001 address this? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question of Miss Arnold. Could you lust enlighten us on the code enforcement part of this, and did they agree that they should go forward and apply for a variance? Is that why we're here today? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. Yes, this came to the code enforcement department's attention after a complaint that the structure was being built, and it went through the Code Enforcement Board. They found there was a violation, no permits were obtained for the structure, and that it would be required to have a permit. As a part of the permitting process, the applicant found that there was an encroachment. Therefore, a variance would be required in order to obtain the permit. So he's moved the structure as far as he possibly could, and there still remains an encroachment into the setbacks, so, therefore, they're having to get this variance. And I'm assuming that's why they're before you, to request that variance for that encroachment. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think it sounds like you said they were in the process when it was complained or it was built ? MS. ARNOLD: No. It was already built. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Built. Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Excuse me. The complaint, however -- I want to make sure -- it came after the structure was built, and there's, like, more than a year later?. MS. ARNOLD: I'm not really sure what the time frame was, you know, from the actual completion of the structure to, you know, when the complaint was registered. But we don't really look at that when we get a complaint. We lust mainly verify whether or not a permit was obtained for -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can you share with us whether the complaint came from the code enforcement force Page 21 May 3, 2001 that you manage or from some outside party? MS. ARNOLD: It was from an outside party. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? No one else from the public? I'll close the public meeting. COMMISSIONER BUDD-' Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we forward Petition VA-2001-AR-374 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Budd, second by Commissioner Pedone. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'd like to say that having listened to all this, I would tend to vote for this. However, on principle I'm going to have to cast a dissenting vote. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Several responses.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Four to one. And the last item of the day is PE-2000-AR-467 (sic), Krehling Industries, Inc. All those wishing to give testimony, please rise, raise your right hand, be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Karen Bishop representing Krehling Industries requesting approval of a parking exemption for an off-site parking for the Krehling Industries on East Wiggins Pass Road. Krehling Industries, they have a concrete plant on East Wiggins Pass Road zoned industrial. They are required to have 193 parking spaces. Page 22 May 3, 2001 However, they have 129 spaces. They own a parcel of land 8.5 acres to the north of their property. However, the property is zoned agricultural. And in order to build a parking lot there, they need to get parking exemption approval from the board. They will build 90 parking spaces there to be used by employees. The staff reviewed this, and they have applied for a site development plan with this which is under review. Staff recommends approval subject to staff's stipulations. And staff hasn't received any negative comments from any neighboring property owners. Staff recommends approval of this petition. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, the site requires 193 spaces and only has 129. Does this rep -- does this represent an expansion of operations of Krehling Industries? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right now the parking calculation, the way it is, it might not have been the same when they built the plant. But right now the way it is, they are short. And I made a site visit, and it's visible. Cars are parked all over the place. They need the parking space. Parking -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. That -- I don't doubt your word. But wouldn't this re -- this is then a zoning violation then, code violation? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's not a zoning violation. It's kind of grandfathered-in situation. It was -- all the uses -- all the structures were approved at different times with different parking requirements. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Richardson, I can provide a little perspective on that. I worked at Krehling over 15 years ago, and there wasn't enough parking then, and there's not enough parking now. And they've been making concrete at the same place and pavers at the same place for quite some time. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's been there forever. Page 23 May 3, 2001 COMMISSIONER BUDD: That's right. Although people in new condominium projects don't realize that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I understand. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Because they don't like the noise, but it's been there for quite some time. And it's been short of parking for quite some time with no change in operations. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is it staff's view -- is it staff's view that the 193 spaces will be -- is up to code now relative to this operation? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically, they need 66 spaces, I believe. And they are proposing to build 90 -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- which staff doesn't have any problem with that. Our code may not provide adequate parking for this op -- operation. Since our requirement for industrial-type business is one parking space for 500 square-foot building, and they have a ma]or outdoor operation in -- in addition to the buildings that they have. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: One other question: I'm -- could you explain what's in this area? It doesn't indicate what's adjacent to this. Who owns that property, or what else is going in there? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Sure. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is this agricultural or what? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This area (indicating) is agricultural surrounding it. This is industrial (indicating). This is mobile home park (indicating). COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. I'm familiar with -- with what's there. But I'm lust not familiar with what's not there, meaning are there -- what can we expect this to be adjacent to in future development ? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: In future? It is zoned agricultural right Page 24 May 3, 2001 now. It's in the urban area. It can potentially be rezoned to residential. And some of those lots may qualify for commercial infill. But I don't believe it's in a industrial area on the future land use map, so it may not be zoned industrial. But some of these lots, since they are adjacent to industrial, may qualify to commercial infill. But the parcels through here (indicating) along that railroad, they're all zoned agricultural in this area (indicating), and they can only be rezoned to residential. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Does the railroad spur actually come down there, or is that just right-of-way? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I think it's just right-of-way. MS. BISHOP: No, sir. That's actually the railroad spur that actually -- Karen Bishop for the petitioner. That is actually a railroad spur there, and those parcels that are agricultural on either side are right now being assembled for an industrial park. They're being assembled now, and there's an application in process to be submitted, and it may -- they may include a comp. Plan change, but I know that our parcels are a part of that process also. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions of staff? I'm not sure you are, ma'am. Penny doesn't wear a Levis jacket, so would you give your name for the court reporter? MS. BISHOP: For the record, Karen Bishop. Some days I'm Cindy Penney. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO.' I do have one question, I guess. What prompted this petition to come now to solve the parking problem that Mr. Budd suffered with for 15 years when he worked at Krehling? MS. BISHOP: You would really have to know Hank to understand that. I mean, that's kind of difficult. It just got to the point where, you know, Hank got aggravated enough to where he needed to get this done. You know, he has so much going on. Page 25 May 3, 2001 Really he has -- he has about 13, 14 plants. And so you have a tendency to get caught up in a lot of other things. Even though that's his home base, he just got to where he couldn't take it anymore and had to have this parking space done, and his employees convinced him that we could do it and also there was the availability in the code to be able to do it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I presume Hank is Mr. Krehling? MS. BISHOP: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. I'm not familiar with the people. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Have you and staff resolved the buffer issue? MS. BISHOP: As far as I know. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are reviewing the site development plan. What they are showing, they are not showing any landscaping because they are saying it's adjacent to what -- where it is that FP&L easement. MS. BISHOP: Well, it's a canal also. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yeah. We -- we disagree. They have to provide landscape, and our code requires landscaping. So that's a minor issue. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Meaning it's resolvable? MS. BISHOP: Of course. Hank's motto -- what you -- Hank's motto is concrete the world. So, you know, we have to convince him that landscaping is an important thing, so he's not going to have a problem with the landscaping. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Krylon makes green paint you know too. MS. BISHOP: Oh. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But, anyway, is that your presentation? MS. BISHOP: That's -- I'm done. Page 26 May 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any question of the -- question of the petitioner?. Anyone from the public wish to address this issue? If not, I close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we forward Petition PE-2001-AR-467 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Budd, second by Commissioner Pedone. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. Any old business? Any new business? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I have a question for staff, if I may. Would this -- would this be an example of a meeting that would not happen if we had a hearing examiner-- examiner? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just so I can get an idea of what's in front of us, we had an agenda or if you had a series of things that came along that was like this and that was all the business of that -- for that two-week period or so, you would call us up and say we don't need you this week or this month or this year or whatever? MS. STUDENT: No. I think what's going to have to happen once it comes on line, you have to look at the regulations that apply to the planning commission. There are some -- I don't -- it's been a long time since I looked at them, but outside of the code - - and make some adjustments to that where the meetings are set forth and so forth. And because I think as we envision this, that the planning commission should probably have -- well, I don't Page 27 May 3, 2001 know what frequency, but, you know, meetings to discuss policy planning-type issues and growth management issues on where we're going and so on. And that's already provided for, some of that, in the special act. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And we would still do the LDC -- MS. STUDENT: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- amendments. MS. STUDENT: And the growth management plan amendments and the LDC amendments. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But there would be no PUDs, no zoning -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: No boat docks. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No variances? MS. STUDENT: No variances, no parking exemptions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Seeing no -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The requirement to meet 24 times a year which it says now would not -- would certainly go by the board? MS. STUDENT: That would have to be amended. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: We don't get a reduction in pay, do we? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No one from the public wish to make comments? No discussion of the addenda? If not, we are adjourned. And don't forget the next LDC meeting two weeks from last night. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And add the 30th of May, 5:05, to your calendars so that you're here for the what would now be the second one. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. The second one would be the 30th of May at 5:05 p.m. Page 28 May 3, 2001 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:20 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GARY WRAGE, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 29 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION May 7, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Turrell & Associates, Inc. 3584-B Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-40, Full Schilling, Inc. Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, May 3, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission Petition No. BD-2000-40. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2001-08 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Ross Gochenaur Planner II g/admin/B D-2000-40/RG/cw Enclosure C.' Full Schilling, Inc. c/o Jerry Robinson 109 La Peninsula Blvd. Naples, FL 34113 Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File heard and approved PH(b NE (941) 403-2400 FAX (9-~ ~ (]43-6968 www. co.collier, fl.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 01- o8 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-40 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 hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 58-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 78-foot boat dock facility in an A/ST 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 Turrell & Associates, Inc., representing Full Schilling, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 7, South Naples Shores, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 11, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 58-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 78-foot boat docking facility in the A/ST zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude 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-2000-40 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 3rd day of lqay ,2001. ATTEST: Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Interim Administrator COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjori~ M. Student ~ Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-40/RG/im COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION May 7, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Ben Nelson, Jr. Nelson Marine Construction 10530 Wilson St. Bonita Springs, FL 34135 REFERENCE: BD-2001-AR-351, Mark Allen Dear Mr. Nelson: On Thursday, May 3, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2001-AR-351. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 01-09 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Sincerel~ Ross Gochenaur Planner II RG/¢w Enclosure C: Mark Allen 26751 Old 41 Road Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.co!lier, fl.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 01- 09 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2001-AR-351 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 20-foot extension of a boat dock fi.om the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 40-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-4 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 Ben Nelson, Jr., of Nelson Marine Construction, representing Mark Allen, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 12, Block G, Little Hickory Shores, Unit 3 Replat, as described in Plat Book 6, Page 2, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 20-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 40-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to file following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude 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-2001-AR- 351 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. Donethis 3rd dayof May ,2001. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Community Development and Environmental Services Interim Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjori~ M. Student Assistant County Attorney -2-