Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/17/2001 RMay 17, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 17, 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 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Goverrnment Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ACTING CHAIRMAN: Gary Wrage MEMBERS PRESENT: Russell A. Priddy Kenneth L. Abernathy Joyceanna J. Rautio Lora Jean Young Michael Pedone Dwight Richardson MEMBERS ABSENT: Russell Budd ALSO PRESENT: David Wiegel, County Attorney Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Susan Murray, Planning Services Page I CLERK TO THE BOARD MAUREEN KENYON 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 17, 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 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 l0 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. ROLL CALL BY CLERK ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES BCCREPORT CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BD-2000-41, Miles L. Scofieid of Tt~rrell & Associates, Inc., representing Melissa R. Spicer requesting a 52-foot boat dock extension to allow for a boat dock facility with 3 slips protruding a total of 72 feet into the waterway tbr property on Keewaydin Island described as Parcel 32, in Section ~4, Township 51 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) 0 B. BD-2000-42, Jerry Neal, representing Paul C. Minning, Sr., requesting a 19-foot boat dock extension to allow for a boat dock protruding a total of 39 feet into the waterway for property located at 146 Windward Cay, further described as Port of the Islands (The Cays) Phase II, Lot 41 in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier Cotmty, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) 3. Co VA-2001-AR-528, John S. McGarvey of Westlinks Associates, LLP, requesting an after-the-fact variance of 4 feet from the required 24-foot left side yard setback to 20 feet for property located at 4437 Brynwood Drive, further described as Lot 12, Quail West Unit One, in Section 8, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) D. PUDZ-2001-AR-348, Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, and D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., representing Goodlyn, LLC, requesting a rezone from "VR", "RSF-4" and "C-4" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Goodland Gateway PUD for a maximum of 47 residential dwelling units and 15,000 sq. ft. of mixed commercial uses, for property located on the south side of Goodland Drive (C.R. 892), west of Sunset Drive, in Sections 18 and 19, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.55e acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) E. PUDA-2001-AR-531, Kevin Higginson of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Transeastern Properties, Inc., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Bretonne Park PUD having the effect of amending the PUD document by reducing the minimum rear yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet within Tract J for lots abutting a lake or golf course tract, for property located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of County Barn Road, Davis Boulevard (S.R. 84) and Embassy Woods Boulevard, in Section 5, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 333.5+ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) F. RZ-2001-AR_45 !, Walter H. Rascher, Jr. and Lisa J. Rascher, representing Esther and Francis Rascher, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "RSF-3" for a private residence for property located at 6150 Polly Avenue, in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.55± acres. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) G. CU-2001-AR-478, Herb Ressing, representing VoiceStream Wireless requesting Conditional Use of the ~'C-I" zoning district Ibr a communications tower for essential services per Section 2.6.35.6.3 Ibr property located at 4741 Golden Gate Parkway, further described as Lot I.I, Block 115, Golden Gate Unit 4, in Section 21, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS: LDC Meetings, May 16, 2001 & May 30, 2001, at 5:05 P.M. DSAC Land Use Subcommittee Meeting, May 17, 2001, at 3:00 P.M. Discuss CCPC Summer Schedule 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM i i. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 5/I 7101 CCPC AGENDA/SM/ira 2 May 17, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let's call to order the Collier County Planning Commission, May 17, 2001. Let's start by calling the roll. Commissioner Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Budd is absent. Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage is present. Commissioner Young? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And Commissioner Richardson? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any addenda to the agenda? MS. MURRAY: I suppose you would like to discuss the county attorney workshop that's been floating around. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio would like to discuss that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. It's come to our attention that it does not include an item on our agenda today to have the county attorney informational workshop; therefore, the only opportunity was to provide it at the beginning of the meeting. And in deference to all the public hearings that have been advertised, I believe it's going to be the consensus of the board to postpone this, so we need to have an idea of when in June it would be good. Two options are the 7th of June or the 21st. I personally would prefer the 21st of June. What's the pleasure of the board? Page 2 May 17, 2001 COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER can be picked up later. PRIDDY: The 21st. ABERNATHY: 21st. YOUNG: 21st. PEDONE: 21st. RICHARDSON: I'll be absent the 21st, but I COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So we will have a county attorney informational workshop scheduled and placed on the agenda for the 21st of June, and it would be the -- it would probably be Item No. 12 after "discussion of addenda," and we'll call it simply "county attorney informational workshop." Thank you, Mr. Wiegel. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You've done that very well. Any other addenda to the agenda? MS. MURRAY: I just need to discuss the July meeting and a September meeting, and I can do that under absences if you want, or I can do that now if you'd like. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Typically, the first week in July you-all typically take a break, and I was wondering if you wanted to do that again this year or what kind of summer schedule you wanted to arrange. July 5th is your first meeting in July. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So moved that we take off. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Is this the first week or the whole month? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' The whole month. COMMISSIONER PEDONE.' Yeah. Because I'm not going to be here for the 19th, the third meeting. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Page 3 May 17, 2001 MS. MURRAY: July 5th, no meeting. Also, I received a message from Mary Jo Brock of the county manager's office that the board has scheduled workshops on September 6th. And we've been attempting to search around to find another meeting place because that's a day that you're scheduled to regularly meet, and we've been unsuccessful to find a decent room. September 7th is an option, which would be the next day, and this room would be available. The reason we need to discuss it now is because obviously the room gets booked up in advance. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You have no indication whether it would be a heavy agenda that we could even not meet at all? MS. MURRAY: At this point I don't have any indication of such. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What day of the week is the 7th? MS. MURRAY: The 7th would be a Friday. The 5th is -- the Wednesday before is occupied already by the EAC. So Friday is the only choice for that week if you want it in this room. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Susan, do you know when the -- when our terms -- the terms of the outgoing people expire? Is that through August or is that through September? MS. MURRAY: I don't know. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I believe it's through September. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yeah. Is that the last day -- the last meeting in September? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The last meeting in September. That's too bad. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We have elections in September. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So, really, our options are really -- MS. MURRAY: At this point it would be either meet on the 7th, don't meet, or I could still attempt to find another place to Page 4 May 17, 2001 meet and try to keep the agenda light. Perhaps we can have it in one of our conference rooms, but you would be, you know, pretty crowded. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Have you met your annual requirement for having a meeting in Immokalee? MS. MURRAY: I doubt it. I don't think we have at this point. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I sense staff's reluctance to jump on top of your offer. MS. MURRAY: Well, I just wanted to save it for a real Immokalee case. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we go with the 7th, and as she works through the agenda if it turns out that things can be moved around, we perhaps could cancel that meeting, but let's tentatively schedule it for the 7th. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I support the 7th of September, Friday. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any other dissention or -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's fine with me. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Thanks. That's all I had. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. We have one set of minutes that was mailed to you under a separate cover for April 19th, 2001. Any motions? Additions? Corrections? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll move approval. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Abernathy. Seconded by Commissioner Rautio to approve. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If not, all in favor signify by saying "aye." (Unanimous response.) Page 5 May 17, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried. There's no other minutes. Planning Commission absences, Commissioner Richardson tells me he'll be out of town for the meetings on June 7th and 21st and will not be available for the LDC meeting on May 30th. Any other absences? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I will be here on the 7th of June until about 11 or 11:30. I've scheduled a flight to California in the afternoon. So if we don't have too heavy of an agenda, I'll be here on the 7th, but I have to leave by 11 or 11.'30 at the latest. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. We got no BCC report in the packet as I recall. MS. MURRAY: I just have a brief summary. The agenda was very light; two items you unanimously recommended for approval were passed, those being the Veterans' Park Center PUD and the Veterans' Park Medical PUD, which I believe were just PUD amendments. Both of those passed. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Under chairman's report, I have something, but I'm going to move that to the last item on the agenda. With that we'll move into the advertised public hearings, the first one being BD-2000-41. All those wishing to give testimony on this, please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ross. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 52-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 72 feet into the Page 6 May 17, 2001 waterway which is 470 feet wide. The property is located on Keewaydin Island and contains about 100 feet of water frontage. The project consists of a four-foot-wide walkway accessing a five-foot-wide terminal platform with one boat lift and one boat slip. Keewaydin docks typically require relatively long extensions, and the proposed facility is similar to existing docks in the immediate area with regard to protrusion and configuration. We've received no objections to this project, and staff therefore recommends approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. Ross, is there some reason that the resolution in this case doesn't include the requirement to remove exotics from the property? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. Keewaydin docks don't require that a home be on the property prior to the construction of the dock. So, for instance, in order to remove the exotics, the dock would have to be placed on the property. It's the typical requirement that the exotics be removed before -- or at the same time as the construction of the home rather than the the dock. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And the people that issue the building permit know that? MR. GOCHENAUR: The building permit for the -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: For the house. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. They would typically require that the exotics be -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Most places when there's a dock you-all have already required it as a part of the dock. But you don't -- in the normal case, the dock comes after the house; is that it? MR. GOCHENAUR: That's correct. Normally when we stipulate on dock extensions that exotics be removed -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. Page 7 May 17, 2001 MR. GOCHENAUR: -- it addresses circumstances where you've got an existing home that's been there for, say, 20 years prior to the requirement to remove exotics -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I see. MR. GOCHENAUR: -- and this is our way of cleaning up the property once we approve the dock extension. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Anybody who builds a house on Key Island and doesn't build a dock, they're required to remove exotics? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: By the building department? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ross, what is the depth of the water, then, at the end of the dock? I'm just reflecting on the meeting we had last night. What is trying to be achieved by the extension of the dock? So you can get a boat in there and get it out, but what's the depth of the water that's required for that? MR. GOCHENAUR: According to the petitioner's drawing, at the end of the outermost piling, the water depth -- let's see -- appears to be about seven or eight feet. It's not specifically addressed as far as where it is in the outermost piling. It goes from 3.5 to 4 from the innermost piling to the outermost. You may want to address that question to the petitioner's agent. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But typically when you review an extension, the reason for the extension is to get to deep enough water for the boat. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So I would suspect that we have some sort of criteria then that would say you would agree with that proposal or you don't based on how deep the water is Page 8 May 17, 2001 at the end of that dock. In other words, if three and a half feet can take care of it and that handles all the boats, then you would only go out as far as three and a half feet would take you. If you have to have seven feet, you're going to have to go out further. If you've got to have ten feet, you may have to go to Houston. I don't know. MR. GOCHENAUR: I'm not sure I quite understand. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, perhaps we can ask the applicant that question. MR. SCOFIELD: I'd be glad to. THE COURT REPORTER: Your name, sir. MR. SCOFIELD: Rocky Scofield -- I was getting there -- representing the applicant. At the end of the dock, the plans that you see show three and a half to four feet of water. All the docks -- Key Island is located in the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve, and we're highly regulated by the DEP and Corps of Engineers on these docks. The dock cannot extend any further out into the waterway than minus four feet mean-low water, that is to the end of the dock. So for most of these docks it's very shallow near the shoreline coming out, and the end of the dock has to terminate at minus four feet mean-low water. They won't let you go out any further than that. Now, you can put out mooring piles, but the end of the dock cannot go any further than minus four feet. The other question Mr. Abernathy had, I believe, on exotic removals -- the docks alone, if it's just a dock to the shoreline, does not require all that a house does. Or if you're permitting a dock -- which I've done several of, and we've got another one coming up -- where you have a long walkway through the mangroves to the upland, then you have to get an ST, a special treatment permit, through the environment department at the county. And under that permit and condition you do have to Page 9 May 17, 2001 do exotic removal for your dock because you're impacting mangroves, so they throw more stipulations on you. But just for a regular dock going to the beach, you don't unless you're doing a house. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a follow-up question. On the code changes we were looking at last night, does it specify this minus four that he's referring to from the DEP regulations? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. That's an independent regulation imposed only by the DEP. Our requirements are a little bit more liberal, but when it comes to natural water bodies and aquatic preserves, the DEP requirements dominate. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So that wouldn't apply to the bays that we've been talking about with other dock extensions? MR. GOCHENAUR: Not to manmade waterways. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The only manmade waterways are canals. I mean, I don't understand. MR. GOCHENAUR: Canals are typically manmade waterways. There are man-altered waterbodies like Vanderbilt Lagoon where it's kind of halfway between natural and manmade. I think the requirements there are a little bit different. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It just seems it would be helpful if the regulations were -- could be precise in terms of depth, and that would make your job easier, and it seems to me it would make application of the regulations easier. MR. GOCHENAUR: It could be. We're currently looking at the possibility of amending the code to address unbridged barrier islands in aquatic preserves so that if a petitioner meets the DEP requirements for a dock, which are more stringent than ours, Page10 May 17, 2001 then he would not need to go through this extension procedure. This is mainly to address Keewaydin Island docks. But docks in other situations don't really have exactly the same problems that people on Keewaydin do. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions of staff or the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Is there anyone from the public who wishes to address this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Seeing none I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'd like to make a motion that we approve Petition No. BD-2000-41. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Pedone and seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. All in favor -- any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All in favor of that signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Next on the agenda is BD-2000-42, Port of the Islands. All those wishing to give testimony on this please raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ross. Page 11 May 17, 2001 MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur of planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 19-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 39 feet into a waterway which is 200 feet wide. The property is located at 146 Winward Cay in Port of the Islands and contains about 100 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the construction of a horseshoe-shaped dock and boat lift. Five similar extensions ranging from 33 to 45 feet have been approved for docks in the immediate area. We've received one letter of objection from the owner of adjacent Lot 40 to the east, Dr. Clayton Vandiver. Unfortunately Dr. Vandiver had to return home to Tennessee and couldn't be at the hearing. But Dr. Vandiver is, and I quote, "Firmly convinced that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to protect existing residents from the intrusive expensive and grandiose features of new structures." He feels that his westerly view of the canal will be virtually occluded by allowing such an extensive intrusion into the canal. The petitioner's drawing shows the relationship between the proposed dock and the dock on Dr. Vandiver's property here (indicating) on Lot 40. The photographs that are included in your staff report show the site. That's (indicating) Dr. Vandiver's dock and the view from the applicant's property. That's (indicating) the view from the applicant's property towards the west end of the canal. As you can see, there's a pretty intensive riprap revetment there that goes up to about five feet above mean-low water, and in addition there is mangrove growth along the side of the canal. The pictures were taken from the top of the riprap revetment. I find it difficult to believe that this is going to have a serious impact on the view from Dr. Vandiver's house. In my opinion, the Page 12 May 17, 2001 impact to the view would be negligible, and the dock does meet all other criteria. So regardless of the objection, we still recommend approval of this petition. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question, Ross. You said - - or, excuse me -- the gentleman said that the view of his canal will be occluded. Are you saying from the house or from the dock? MR. GOCHENAUR: Well, he wasn't clear on that point. He also didn't contact me, so I didn't get a chance to talk to him and show him the drawings, which is what we usually try to do. I sort of have to assume it's going to be the view from the house. If it's the view from the dock, I'm not quite sure why he would think that was a significant problem. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Because to me it would seem from the pictures you're showing us, anyway, that from the house it probably wouldn't have much interference with his view at all. MR. GOCHENAUR: I didn't go to his house and look out over the property, but everything sits so high above the water that to me it would be very difficult to see much of anything at all from ground level. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We're not letting him construct anything that's unusual. MS. GOCHENAUR: Ma'am? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We're not constructing a dock that's unusual in height or has -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No, not at all. This is very typical of other docks in the area. This is the first time we've had this sort of complaint. I'm not quite sure what exactly the problem is. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Did you inquire of the petitioner why he's placed his dock off center toward or favoring Lot 40? In other words, it's not in the center of his lot at all. Page 13 May 17, 2001 MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you know why that is? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. I didn't ask him that. You might do that. I believe he's here today. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: On the other lots, and perhaps you've said it already, are there other boat docks on adjacent or abutting lots, or are they vacant now? MR. GOCHENAUR: The boat dock extensions in the area are indicated here (indicating) on the map. You can see the little 'BDs.' That's not in our packet; COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: right? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. This is from the zoning map. The petitioner's property is located here (indicating). It's highlighted in yellow. The small "BDs" indicate other docks on other canals. There are no other dock extensions on this particular canal, although from the petitioner's drawing and what I saw on the site, it appears that the complainant's dock is probably out further than 20 feet. It looks like it's about 27 or 28 feet from the property line. Now, I'm not exactly sure how that took place. I know that there was a permit pulled for the dock, but there was no extension granted. So it may be a question of how the contractor measured the protrusion and how that was accepted by the building department. At any rate, all of those other 'BDs' indicate similar docks, and again they range from 33 to 45 feet. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ross, which one is complainant's lot again? MR. GOCHENAUR: That would be Lot 40 here (indicating) to the east. Page 14 May 17, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's not shown with a "BD," though? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. There's no extension for that dock. I just noted when I was out there and also according to the petitioner's statement in the application that that's about a 27- or 28-foot dock as measured from the property line. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the "BD" means docks with extensions-- MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, approved extensions. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- or there are other docks? There are other docks then? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, there are other docks. The BDs only indicate approved extensions by this commission. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions? If not, can we hear from the petitioner? MR. NEAL: Jerry Neal, representing the owner. A couple of questions that you had -- one of the reasons for the position of the proposed facility being on the left is that's where the -- as you can see in some of the pictures that Ross had taken, that's where the mangroves are open so we can get our boardwalk through without cutting the mangroves out. On the other side it's heavily mangroved. It also leads into why we're out -- it's that we're putting the facility on the outside of the mangroves so we don't impact them. Also, because we're needing to meet the new state rule where they're trying to make all facilities be at least four feet of water, and this starts right at four feet. So that's the reason that we have right now the facility at 39 feet, the mangroves, and meeting the state requirement of four feet of water. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO.' How long has the state requirement of four feet of water been in effect? MR. NEAL: It's been in effect for a little while. The -- Page 15 May 17, 2001 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Are we talking months? Weeks? MR. NEAL: No. It's been in effect for probably since '95, but it hasn't been enforced. It's just now getting to the point of enforcement. The other thing is that the county was at minus three feet instead of minus four. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MR. NEAL: So it depends if you're in state waters or manmade, if you apply the four-foot rule or the three-foot rule. As you probably would gather, the Corps of Engineers even have different rules, so it depends on what water body as to which rule you apply. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I have a question to ask you. Are you planning a boat lift with this dock? MR. NEAL: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is that typical of the boat docks in the area? They have the lifts? MR. NEAL: Yes, it is. Also, it's encouraged by the state because by having a boat lift you don't have to have bottom paint, which is a source of pollutants, and so now they're encouraging everyone to put lifts in. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You say "encouraging." Does that mean it's not a requirement? They don't want to put a requirement on there that you have to have a boat lift to build a dock; right? MR. NEAL: There is no "thou shall." It is an encouragement, yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anything further? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah. Is that waterway manmade, man assisted, or is it natural? I remember the Facaunion -- that's the waterway, isn't it? MR. NEAL: The natural waterway actually split about Page 16 May 17, 2001 halfway down to the gulf, and it went on to the east. This portion was dug out by man. But because it's in the wetlands, the mangrove area -- Port of the Isles is considered man-altered waterway. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY-' I have a question of Ross. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Do you agree with this revelation of Florida law that Mr. Neal has given us this morning, the three foot, four feet, and all of that? Has that been your understanding? MR. GOCHENAUR: I don't think it's quite a revelation. It pretty much recounts what Mr. Scofield explained; that what they want, I believe, is no more than four feet mean-low water as the maximum; is that correct? MR. NEAL: Well, in this particular instance, we are not in the aquatic preserve, Rookery Bay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He was talking about the aquatic -- peculiar to the aquatic preserve. Now he's saying it's everywhere. MR. NEAL: Well, the depth that they want you to go out to is minus four. When you're in an aquatic preserve, you cannot extend any part of the decking past the minus four. You can only have a terminal platform of 160 square feet. This is not in an aquatic preserve, so therefore it is in the encouragement of four feet, whereas as in the aquatic preserve it is "thou shall not." This is the difference. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: This area is being intensively developed; right? Has anyone looked at the overall picture as to what will occur if every single one of these empty lots is Page 17 May 17, 2001 developed and has a similar boat dock? MR. NEAL: I think that has probably been considered when the county and the Corps of Engineers and the DEP consider that they're looking at docks not extending any further out than 20 to 25 percent of the waterway width leaving adequate navigational room in between. So, yes, that is one of the criteria and, yes, it has been addressed both in your Land Development Code and within the other agencies. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Sensing no further questions, does anyone from the public wish to address this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If not, I'll close the public meeting. Somebody jump right out there. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I move that we approve Petitioner No. BD-2000-42. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I second it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Pedone and seconded by Commissioner Young. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. That brings us up to VA-2000-AR-528, Quail West, Unit No. 1. All those wishing to give testimony on this, please rise and raise your right hand and 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. This is a variance for a single-family residence in Quail West. This house Page 18 May 17, 2001 is under construction. In this PUD there's a quarter-size setback. It's 20 percent of the lot width. Most lots are 200 foot wide, but in the case of this particular lot it's 240. So when they designed the house, they made the mistake of assuming that all setbacks are 20, and they wanted a 20-foot side setback. As you can see, this (indicating) is the house under construction. The setback is required for this (indicating) portion of the house, which is basically a small portion of the closet and bathroom and car. That would be the extent of the variance needed. I haven't received any letters of objection from neighboring property owners. Even though there's no land- related hardship, since the amount of variance is minimal -- and it wasn't unintentional since on the other side we have a 54-foot setback. So if they hadn't made the mistake, there was room to move the house and comply with the required setbacks. Staff recommends that CCPC forward this to the BZA with the recommendation for approval. The house is already at the tide- mean (sic) level. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. Real quickly, there's a statement in our packet on the -- when we're talking about the analysis, No. 2 on page 2, you make the statement that -- to answer Question No. 2, "No, the applicant built the encroaching structure. The surveyor might have caused the encroachment; however, the builder is ultimately responsible for the construction of the structure in compliance with Collier County rules and regulations." You're saying the builder had to recheck the surveyor's stakes, and it's not a surveyor-- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The builder is the one who applies for a permit. The builder is the one who gets the CO. So our problem is not with the surveyor. If there's a problem with the surveyor, Page 19 May 17, 2001 it's between the surveyor and the builder. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are dealing with the builder, not the surveyor. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You're dealing only with the builder because he has the building permit? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Can you tell me who the surveyor is or was? I mean, if they have to answer it, that's okay but -- you can't answer it? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't know the surveyor's name. MR. McGARVEY: The survey was -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a moment. Any further questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, I have a question of staff. This is an unfortunate situation, of course, but I think the problem can be recitified. But if I look at this diagram correctly -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- if this house were built the way it was supposed to be built according to the PUD, this house would be moved over four feet; is that correct? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Now, that seems to me, if you don't change anything that's on the drawing, that that would then create a variance requirement on the back right-hand corner because it's going to stick into the setback on the back side. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. But it would be real easy to rectify that if there's a normal setback of 24, not 20, or to redesign the house. They just assumed from the beginning that the setback was 20 feet, and that's how they designed the house. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the house as it's designed now is too big for the lot. Page 20 May 17, 2001 MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' As it's designed either it would encroach the side yard or a small portion of it, yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So this house was not conceived properly for this lot then? MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' When they designed the house, they didn't take into account that the setback was 24 feet or 10 percent of the lot. They just assumed like any other lot in there that it's a 20-foot side setback. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Chahram, when he got the building permit, then the assumption carries forward and somebody then looks at a spot survey. Is that how you caught this? MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And they were already this far along before someone looked at the spot survey? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are supposed to give us a spot survey within 10 days. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO.' Ten days of what? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Ten days from the beginning of construction. When they start the construction, within 10 days we have to get it spot surveyed, but that's not usually what happens. The surveyor is either busy or the crew is there, and they just keep on building until we get the spot survey. The variances -- most of the time when we get the 10-day spot survey they have already built the exterior walls. That's not the special case here. It's not any different than any other variance to any other building that we get the spot survey. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. Then maybe I missed it. The builder's name is not identified here either. Because before on some of these variances we've been very specific. We wanted to know who the subcontractor was that made the mistake. We wanted information on whether this was the first time, last time, Page 21 May 17, 2001 twelfth time. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. Westlinks Associates, they are building this. It's, like, a spec home. They are not building it for a homeowner. They are building it as a spec home. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So Westlinks Associates is the general contractor or residential contractor building it? I mean, I'm asking you this. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe they are. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You believe they are. Okay. We'll ask the applicant that. But, Chahram, I think if you're following my line of reasoning here, you know I'm not a great fan of variances. Okay? You understand that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So I want to make sure I have all the facts in front of me. We generally ask who made the mistake. We ask if this builder or surveyor has done this on more than one occasion just to give us an idea of -- to put it all in perspective. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Sure. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? Comments? Let me hear from the petitioner, please. MR. McGARVEY: John McGarvey. I am the owner of the property, and I am the builder. I made the mistake with regard to when we had our architect draw the plans. All the other lots at Quail West are 20 feet. Our intention was from the beginning to comply with all your laws and ordinances. We thought we were under compliance with the 20 feet. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Excuse me just a second. Is his microphone on? We're having trouble hearing you -- MR. McGARVEY: Hello. Page 22 May 17, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- or I am. MR. McGARVEY: Can you hear me? MS. MURRAY: It's on. Just if you could lean a little closer and talk a little louder. MR. McGARVEY: Surely. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. MR. McGARVEY: Okay. I am John McGarvey, and I'm -- I own Westlinks, and I am the builder of McGarvey Construction. When we designed this home, we planned on complying with all your setback requirements. It was not an issue where we could have shifted the house to the rear. We had a variance -- that's a golf course easement back in there. It's not a setback line. It's a golf course easement. We could have pushed the house back if it was the case. Our intention from the beginning was to comply with your ordinance of being 20 feet. We were not under the impression at that time, and neither was our staff, that the 24 foot was a requirement. We did get a spot survey at the foundation of footing, and it was 20 feet. Everybody passed by it at that time. It happened when we were doing the tie beams when we caught the 24-foot situation requirement, not 20, and that's where we were at the time of our variance. We came in and asked the question from that point. That's why we're asking for the -- if you look at the property, it's only the protrusion on that left side that goes into that 24-foot easement. That's four feet on that side. The house was already constructed at that time. This is our first time that we've ever -- we try to comply. We do not look for variances. It was just a physical mistake that was made. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: facts? MR. McGARVEY: So your defense is ignorance of Ignorance of facts, yes. Because we built Page 23 May 17, 2001 other houses out at Quail West, and they're all 20 feet, and that's why we never caught it in our wildest dreams. We had plenty of room. We could have shifted it to the right because you can see where the other neighbor on the other side -- if you look to the property that is out there now, the property owner to the right, I didn't want to impede his view looking by the house. That's why we shifted the house far to the left instead of putting a lot in the center. We were trying to help his view. His view of the golf course was that left corner, and that's why we, in turn, shifted the house far to the left. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What is the setback on the right? What did you leave on the other side? MR. McGARVEY: Fifty-three feet. It was not an issue of the size of the house on the lot. It was just a matter of we put it in the wrong location. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So you're saying as perhaps a residential contractor that you're -- MR. McGARVEY: Yes. I'm a residential contractor. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: As a residential contractor, a surveyor missed this and an architect also missed this? MR. McGARVEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: They did not know the requirements in this particular subdivision? MR. McGARVEY: Correct. We built maybe four houses out there already, and all of them are 20 feet from the sideyard setback, the normal 20 feet. This one happens to be a wider lot of 24 feet because it's 240 feet wide. That's where the problem occurred. It's our mistake, ma'am. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions from the petitioner -- for the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If not, anyone from the public wish to Page 24 May 17, 2001 address this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Seeing none I'll close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I make a motion that we forward this petition, VA-2001-AR-528, to whichever it is -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: BZA. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- BZA recommending approval. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Abernathy and seconded by Commissioner Pedone. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just discussion. I'm inclined to approve this as well, but I think this should point out to staff that we've got some process or procedudral problems if these spot surveys are coming at a point in time when this thing is so far along that we're stuck with this kind of a problem. It seems, just from a layman's standpoint, that we ought to have -- there should be some inspections earlier on that would have caught this sort of thing. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It used to be a 21-day spot survey, and we changed it to 10 days, but sometimes within 10 days they start building. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I was going to say that I don't see that as the county's problem. The builder builds at his risk at that point, you know. I understand why they go forward, but it's at their risk. MS. MURRAY: Right. It's up to the builder to bring the survey in in proper time. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to say that I'm concerned that we have several levels of professional licenses here that would miss something like that. I'm sure that it's going Page 25 May 17, 2001 to cost an awful lot of money to change this, and it's a very small encroachment, and I may be inclined to go ahead and vote to approve this, but I certainly would like to caution you and any other professional out there listening to double-check your facts. I have been a licensed contractor in this state for a long time as a subcontractor, and we had to check -- when we made mistakes, we had to rip things out of the ground and fix them. Sometimes the plans were at fault, but, hey, we were the contractor and we did it. I just have great difficulty approving an after-the-fact variance when this should have been able to be caught relatively easily, and there are a number of professional licenses -- that's the end of my lecture for the day. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Amen. Sensing no further discussion, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye with hesitation. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. Next is PUDZ-2001-AR-348, Goodland Gateway PUD. All those wishing to give testimony on this please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a disclosure. I've had conversations with Mr. Arnold on this project. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I also would like to disclose that I spoke with both Mr. Arnold and Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I also would like to disclose that I spoke with Mr. Arnold. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a disclosure that I spoke on the telephone on the 15th of May with Mr. Yovanovich. Page 26 May 17, 2001 MR. ABERNATHY: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich in person. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And I spoke to two gentlemen that said they were Mr. Arnold and Mr. Yovanovich on the phone. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I was in North Carolina, and I didn't take my phone with me, so I didn't have to talk to either one of them. Okay. With that, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, my name is Ray Bellows. I'm a principal planner with the current planning staff. Petitioner is requesting a rezone of the subject site from village residential -- residential single-family of four units per acre and C- 4 to a planned unit development to be known as the Goodland Gateway PUD. As you can see on the location map, the subject site is located on the south side of Goodland Drive. It abuts a 100-foot wide canal to the east, and there's the Goodland Marina to the west. There's also -- within the limits of the Goodland area -- VR and RSF-4 zoning currently developed. The petitioner is requesting 47 residential dwelling units on the 6.55 acre site. It meets -- the PUD documents meet county code requirements for open space and buffering. Access to the road is consistent with county access management. As you can see on the future land use map -- let me zoom in here (indicating). The subject site is located in an urban residential fringe, the cross-hatched area with an arrow pointing to Goodland. This district allows for the mix of residential and commercial uses. The density is limited to four units per acre, however, the VR zoning on the site is vested at a density of 14.52 units per acre. The total amount of dwelling units permitted on the site is 48 dwelling units. The petitioner is requesting 47, so it is consistent with the county future land use element. Page 27 May 17, 2001 The transportation review indicates that the project as proposed would generate approximately 960 trips per day. If you look at the existing zoning, there's C-4 and VR and RSF-4. If you calculate those trips, the difference between what's being proposed here versus what currently could be generated is insignificant. So the petitioner is consistent with the traffic circulation element. There are no environmental or wetlands on the site, so no environmental impact statement was required, and this petition did not go to the Environmental Advisory Board. I do have a copy of the master plan. I'll make it fit here. As you can see on the master plan, it's a very long and narrow site. It's very difficult to build on. The extent of the existing VR zoning is about to this (indicating) point. The rest is RSF-4 down to the south, and the C-4 is up here (indicating) in this commercial little handle. Here's (indicating) the 100-foot wide canal. On this (indicating) side are the existing single-family homes in Goodland. Down here (indicating) is the marina. Due to the narrow size of the site, petitioner is contemplating a mix of dwelling units that are condominium units that have four, six, or eight possibly and wants that freedom to be able to mix and move those units around that long narrow site, and they'll meander the access in off of Goodland down paralleling Siena Court, which serves as access to the marina. Staff has received a letter from the Goodland Civic Association. The petitioner has met with them several times, I believe. Part of the approval of this PUD requires, from staff's standpoint, architectural guidelines and standards that the building would have to meet to keep an old Florida style, and the petitioner has agreed to do that and showed those plans to the residents. I believe the residents are generally in support of the architectural detailing. Page 28 May 17, 2001 The letter I received from the Goodland Civic Association basically is supporting the PUD rezone, however they have some concerns. They weren't very supportive of eight units. They would rather see four. If there are four or six, they would be limited to the VR portion of the site. As you know, currently the VR zoning would allow for eight or more units per building, so staff is not in agreement with that request that it be limited to less than eight or four units per building given the fact that it's a very narrow site, and you will be happy to intermix different-size buildings to really make it a workable unit in there. Do you have a question? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: One question. Is there anything unusual about the site that the people in Goodland would feel that they should have the building in the VR part of it? I mean, is there something really unusual that that would be logical to put in that section? MR. BELLOWS: I walked the site. I don't see anything really unusual other than it's a long, narrow site. Maybe they were thinking they would be blocking some views. But there's a large mangrove area there. To the west there's an existing marina that's not the prettiest of marinas that I've seen. Petitioner is even requesting a wall to help buffer that site from their project. And that's one of the concerns also that they raised here, that they don't really particularly want a wall along this side here (indicating) to buffer the project from the marina. They would rather see some kind of native vegetation. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm sorry. You're saying that the people of Goodland -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the people of Goodland. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- or those that have reviewed this would prefer to have vegetation versus a wall? Page 29 May 17, 2001 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Even though it's fairly -- it would be blocked from their view anyway from the 100-foot wide canal and the existing mangroves that are along this edge of the project. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Bellows, I'm sorry. I wasn't watching when you were pointing. Which portion is the VR portion of the long site? MR. BELLOWS: This might show it a little bit better. The VR travels right from the edge of that right there (indicating). So this (indicating) is the VR and this (indicating) is the RSF-4. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ray, what's allowed to be in both areas? One story over parking? Is that -- MR. BELLOWS: No. The Goodland residents filed a petition to have a Goodland zoning overlay. The zoning overlay was approved last December with two stories over parking, two habitable floors. That's what the petitioner agreed to. This property owner agreed to support the Goodland zoning overlay to limit the building heights to two stories over parking in support of the residents working with them in developing this PUD. So far they seem to have done that pretty well. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If not we'll hear from the petitioner. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes. I think I just want to point out to you I believe Mr. Yovanovich is going to comment on some of this with reference to the sewer and water ordinance that you've got in our packet and what the reference is to the Golden - - excuse me -- Goodland corporation that has sewer rights in the area. Because if you haven't heard already, I would think that we would want to update the Collier County ordinance referring to sewers from 88-76 to something much more current for the next time we do this. I believe Mr. Yovanovich has that information, Page 30 May 17, 2001 because I pointed out to him that I believe there's a much more current replacement ordinance that covers all the details that would be identified on page 3, utilities and water management. So to caution staff of this -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Is that a question or a comment? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's a request, please. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Can we hear from the petitioner? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. For the record, Rich Yovanovich representing the petitioner. I have with me Wayne Arnold as well as Dave Corbin, who's the architect on the project, and I have one of the property owners with me as well if you have any specific questions. Ray did a very good job and detailed explanation of what this PUD is. I just want to give the commission a very brief history of how we got here. Back in December representatives of the Goodland Civic Association requested the Planning Commission as well as the Board of County Commissioners amend the Land Development Code to change the current VR regulations from allowing three residential floors over one of parking down to two residential floors over one of parking. During that hearing process, we met with the members of the civic association and explained to them the concern that we did not want to lose our development rights, which at that time we were entitled to 47 units on the property, and that we would like to work out a compromise where the residents of Goodland would get what they wanted, which were smaller-scale buildings, and we would not lose our density. And we proposed this PUD situation or scenario where the rezone would allow the entire property to be multi-family instead of single family on a portion and VR on a portion, and we would include the commercial in one uniform development. And that concept was endorsed by the civic association board and the membership, and in reliance Page 31 May 17, 2001 upon that the Board of County Commissioners agreed to adopt the overlay changing the VR standards. Since that date we have met with both the membership and or the leadership of the civic association five times to work out the PUD document. In doing that there have been some changes, and Mr. Abernathy pointed out to me in your meeting that originally the civic association had requested or endorsed that the commercial be expanded to over here to basically be .78 acres of commercial with the remainder being residential. Upon further reflection the civic association decided that that's not really what they wanted and that they wanted us to leave the current commercial the same size. So the original application we made was for .78 acres of commercial, but the PUD in front of you is for .45, which is the original size of the commercial. I just want to briefly take you through what the PUD does. The PUD incorporates the commercial property within the PUD. The commercial property is still subject to the architectural standards that the residential property has; that it must be old Florida so it will be a uniformly developed, and they will have commercial standards. As many of you know, the C-4 zoning district currently allows a building to go up to a hundred feet. We could not build a hundred-foot building on that site. The most we could have gotten was 75. We agreed to limit ourself to 42 feet on that parcel. The PUD lists all the uses that we're allowed on that property. We were specifically requested to delete the permitted use of a hotel and marina. We have done that. So we have incorporated every -- all of the requests of the civic association into the commercial portion of the PUD. We then addressed the residential portion of the PUD, and as Page 32 May 17, 2001 Ray has pointed out, the civic association board of directors wrote a letter subsequent to our several meetings with the membership outlining some changes that they would like to see made to the PUD, but I'd like to take you through what we have done. The goal was to assure them that they would have small-scale buildings in an old Florida architecture because as Ray pointed out on the VR piece, we could have built 32 units, and we could have built it at any configuration we wanted to. It could have been in one large building. It could have been in two 16-unit buildings. It could have been in four 8-unit buildings. We had ultimate flexibility on what we wanted to do. But the civic association wanted us to provide them with smaller-scale buildings. So what we agreed to do is we agreed to limit ourselves to a building size of a maximum of eight units. We also agreed to vary the unit types, so you will not get all 8- unit buildings. We agreed to vary that so we can offer a variety of product on the site. I need to point out that we are not the developer of the project right now, so I cannot give them a specific site plan at this point. This is a follow-up to the compromise we made in December, so there has to be written assurances to get them what they want, but I cannot give them the actual site plan at this time. We also incorporated very detailed architectural standards in the PUD, and I'm sure you've seen that. It will assure them that they have old Florida-style architecture. This (indicating) is a sample of what could occur under the architectural standards in the PUD, and I believe that these renderings have been very well received by the people of Goodland. We have agreed to keep the total density of what we already have, which staff has pointed out could be 48 units. But we Page 33 May 17, 2001 agreed to 47 in December, so we're not asking for the I unit we could have had that we inadvertently gave away. We were also -- we originally had proposed a rather standard minimum unit size, which was 800 square feet. The community was concerned that that might lead to a more transient type of ownership and requested that we go up to a minimum unit size of 1,200 square feet, which we have agreed to do. So the minimum unit size is 1,200 square feet. We have agreed to vary the setbacks on the building so it's not one long line of the buildings. So we have -- originally we had proposed what your code currently allows which is a zero-foot setback on the waterside. We have been requested to back that up to -- to back that up to ten feet from the water, so we have done that. With that that's going to impact some of how we can stagger the buildings so you don't have a long line. But if that's what the civic association wants, they want a minimum of a ten-foot setback from the waterside, we will go ahead and do that. We also agreed -- and this was very important to the civic association -- that we not have a gated community. So this will not be a gated community. We have taken out all references to this ever potentially becoming a gated community. So we have basically agreed to, I would say, 90 percent of their requests. From the outset we have told them that we could not -- there's been -- unit size or building size has been an issue for some of the membership. I can't say for a majority of the membership, but it has been for many of the members, unit size. They would prefer to limit us to four unit buildings. We could not -- and we have always said, we could not agree to that. We needed to have the maximum size of eight units so we can vary our product type as well as meet the other conditions which was to stagger the buildings. We have said, "You know, we've given Page 34 May 17, 2001 you everything else. We're requesting that you let us have 8-unit buildings, and we'll agree that they will not all be 8-unit buildings, and we'll stagger the unit type." Recently at the end of April, I believe it was, the board of directors of the civic association wrote us a letter basically saying that we could -- they wanted all 4-unit buildings, but if there had to be anything greater than 4-unit buildings they'd allow us to have three 6-unit buildings, and they all had to be on the VR-Ps. We cannot agree to that. We request that the civic -- I'm sorry -- the Planning Commission follow your staff's recommendation that we be permitted to have a maximum of 8- unit buildings. They also requested that we not have a wall. Now, the wall would shield us from the marina. It would be landscaped on our side. There would be buildings here (indicating). Our having a wall on a berm in no way impacts the people across the canal. This is -- right there (indicating) there's heavy machine operations that occurs right here (indicating). The wall is for our protection to shield us from the marina. I don't see in any way how it hinders the -- or impacts the people across the canal. So, again, we could not agree to that condition. They also requested that we not trim mangroves at all. That's governed by state statute. We could not agree that we're not going to be -- that we would not trim the mangroves. And, finally, they requested that we not be permitted to have any boat lifts on the canal. Now, obviously, you all know that we're entitled to boat docks as a matter of right to go out 20 feet. If we want to go further than that, we have to come through a boat-dock extension. Why we should not be permitted to have boat lifts, as a matter of rights, while everybody else on the other side of the canal is permitted to have boat lifts is beyond -- we don't understand why they would want that Page 35 May 17, 2001 condition imposed upon us, so naturally we could not agree to that condition. So what we are basically asking for is a PUD that's consistent with current county code that meets the intent of the compromise that we reached with the members of the civic association and are agreeing to not oppose the overlay. We're not asking for any variances from the boat-dock requirements or boat-lift requirements or anything to that extent. We would hope that the civic association will go forward with us in front of the Board of County Commissioners supporting the 8-unit -- the maximum of 8-unit buildings and that the Planning Commission would likewise also support us in our application. If you have any specific questions regarding the architecture or the planning for the project, I've got my experts here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No. Just a question to your conceptual drawing. It looks like it's three floors, and I thought I heard two floors over parking. MR. YOVANOVICH: garages. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It is. The bottom floor is actually the Okay. Any questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I have a question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You've come up with 47. Obviously that's an odd number. I don't see how the 4, 6, 8 is going to work. That means one of the units is going to have to have an odd number in it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, or it could be a stand-alone. We have the ability to do the whole gambit from single family to multifamily, so we would have to have an odd number in a building or a single-family structure. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, it seems that one of the concerns we've heard -- and perhaps we'll hear more -- of the Page 36 May 17, 2001 citizens down there is that they were concerned about the massive large units, the 8-plex that you've spoken concern of. And you've indicated a willingness to vary the product, vary the unit. Can you put any kind of expression on that, any kind of a percentage or something that would further ameliorate this problem? MR. YOVANOVICH: At this point we can't. We don't know the flexibility. We have committed in the document that it will -- we will not have all 8-unit buildings. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So can I interpret "vary" to mean that you'll have at least one 4-plex, you'll have at least one 6-plex, and one 8-plex? Is that what "vary" means? MR. YOVANOVICH: We may not have any 8-plexes. Maybe we'll ultimately decide they're all 6-plexes and a couple of 4s. I don't want to be put in a -- right now to where I have to guarantee you one 8-plex, one 6-plex, and one 4-plex. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm just trying to understand what you've committed. If you say you're going to vary it, that suggests there's more than one type. MR. YOVANOVICH'. And there is more than one type. We've committed to more than one type. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So they won't all be 8-plexes? MR. YOVANOVICH: They will not all be 8-plexes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: They won't all be 4-plexes? MR. YOVANOVICH: And they will not all be 6-plexes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: There may be a 7-plex out there. MR. YOVANOVICH.' There may be a seven-plex. What we're trying to do is -- we're trying to -- we were trying to address -- the primary concern was the ambience of the development, what was it going to look like. I think everybody Page 37 May 17, 2001 agrees that that is a nice-looking product to be on Goodland, and they wanted decent sized units, 1200 square-foot units. We've assured them on everything we could. We just can't say, "Right now you're going to have X number of 8-unit buildings, X number of 6-unit buildings, and X number of 4-unit buildings." COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just one last question. You mentioned the concept of staggering buildings. What does that means? MR. YOVANOVICH: What that means is -- what they asked us is don't give us a long line of buildings. They want us to have some buildings close to the water, some closer to this end, so they want us to stagger those back and forth, and we've agreed to that. There will not be -- there will be varied setbacks from the water so that there's not a -- one long line of buildings, and we've agreed to do that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And that stagger that you're defining is that each one will be different from the other -- each one will be different from the other? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that every other one -- THE COURT REPORTER: Your name, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's Wayne Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Our commitment was that -- for the record, it's Wayne Arnold. What we would do is not give them the same building line continuous along the entire length of this property, but the way this ultimately gets developed you may end up with an enclave of, you know, two 8-unit buildings separated by open space to transition to a 4-plex type of facility. What we've agreed to do -- and keep in mind we have a very narrow depth. The side width is 130 feet, and when you less out your landscape buffer, your rear yard setback, you end up with a building envelope that's about 90 feet in width maximum. Which means within this 90 feet we have committed to adjust Page 38 May 17, 2001 these buildings so that they're not all built on the same building line. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I want to ask the same question to either one of you that I asked staff. Is there something unusual about the site that would have the Goodland residents want you to put the building -- the bulk of the buildings in the -- what, the VR? Is there something unusual about this site that would -- under normal circumstances to plan and say, "Okay, we can do that"? Obviously you have a reason that you've chosen not to, and they must have some reason that they're asking this. MR. ARNOLD: Again, Wayne Arnold. We have more than a couple of reasons why it makes sense. If I were looking at this independent of anything else in Goodland, and I'm looking at the fact that I'm next to a commercial marina with its travel lift operating on our western boundary, I would say I need to put my larger units against that so that I can offer maybe lower-price points in my units and put higher-price point units somewhere else. I would probably have flipped the opportunity to put multi- family all along adjacent the active part of a marina as opposed to, you know, the way you have it now. Right now the single-family zoning is against the marina, and the multifamily zoning is on the north side across from the single family. And I think that, first of all, we're separated by a hundred-foot-wide canal, which is more than adequate to transition building types and types of structures. And, secondly, within our own project we're going to have a variety of product type anyway. And I think -- as Mr. Richardson was trying to point out, I think all along there's been this elusive how many of each kind are you going to have, and even though it's a relatively small number of units, we don't at this point know what the ultimate mix of unit types will be other than we can commit that we won't have Page 39 May 17, 2001 anything more than 8-unit buildings, which we thought really got at that impact of massing of buildings, scale of buildings, and the character of buildings. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Wayne, would it be fair to say that when this actually gets started you-all may end up with four buildings because four people came forward with enough money that wanted to buy it all, and you would have four staggered buildings along there? MR. ARNOLD: I think that there is a distinct possibility that ultimately you could have a market for a strong mixture of single- family or villa-type units as well as multifamily. It just really depends on the market when this comes out. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Everyone is talking about the maximum of 47, and I know as a landowner and developer, you know, you have to protect that, but the truth is in Collier County in the last seven or eight years almost nothing gets built to the max because market drives it in a different direction. And I just, you know, want to point out for the record that, you know, that same scenario is likely to happen down there. While you have to protect the 47 units, that by the time you get ready to pull a building permit, the market might say that it's, you know, 20 or 30 or 3. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, if I could just make an observation. With all due respect to my colleague, Mr. Richardson, it seems to me like we're sort of trying to micromanage this project, which has not been our custom on this planning commission. We're almost into a site development plan type of discussion. I don't think we can micromanage it. And although I'm a product of neighborhood associations, I'm not sure the neighborhood association ought to micromanage it. So that's the way I view this conversation this morning. Page 40 May 17, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, when Mr. Yovanovich started out, he indicated he gave away so much I was almost thinking they weren't going to build anything but -- any further questions of the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If not, members of the public. Susan. MS. MURRAY: We have three registered speakers. The first is James Graham. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Come up to the podium, please, and give and spell your name for the court reporter. MR. GRAHAM: G-r-a-h-a-m. My name is James Graham, and I'm a resident of Goodland. And I don't know how it ever happened, but I'm on the board for the Goodland Association, and I really don't know how it happened. It didn't start out this way. Bear with me, I'm not a professional, but we are learning. The first thing I would like to say is that there was a meeting April 3rd, which was a vote by the community, and they voted for the PUD, which the board of directors prior to that agreed to go along with the opposition or however you say it. The community and the board do not agree on giving an open check. We do not have any details on footprints or anything like these -- we don't know nothing. All we know is they're going to design these buildings similar to something like that. Old style, Florida style, or Key West style is what they're really saying. I noticed in all the meetings that I've been to where they're presenting their side and their opinions they've been showing wonderful pictures, but for some reason or other today they deleted the 4-unit picture. It's not up there. I wonder why. It's not a bad-looking building, four units. It really conforms as close as possible to the character of Goodland, the four units. The 6-unit building which you see -- you can see the size of it. If anybody knows about Goodland, it really don't conform at all. Page 41 May 17, 2001 It's a change. It really is. It's a change. The 8-unit buildings, there's no real sense in me even talking about it because the entire community does not want to see that eight at all. We have no idea where the footprint is going to go or what size footprint that is going to be. And the same thing for the six. We had a meeting after that, the board of directors, because of the meeting that they both had to go along with the PUD, and by way of -- the concerns of the neighbors is we -- like, we took kind of a survey and come to find out the majority of the vote that came in -- it came from Goodland. Of course, they voted. But it came really not for the PUD. It really didn't come from the people who were in the 300 feet of this parcel of land. The opposition seems to be by the majority that they don't even want it, period. But we understand that -- we realize that the developer or the owner, I should say, has rights, owner's rights, but so does the community. We have rights, too, not to get rolled over. So we have been dealing -- as a matter of fact, I think we're becoming friends because it's been like David and Goliath here. But my point I'm trying to make here is, we sent this letter out, which I believe most of you people received. Everybody got it. We sent the letter -- this letter has been sent out of the seven things that we're opposed to. Because before you make an approval on this, we have an opportunity to understand -- which we were told that the way it's in that piece of paper is the way it's going to be. And it ain't going to be that way as far as I can see because you people have -- you make the decision or somebody makes the decision on what kind of project will be put on that piece of land. So the compromise we're coming up with is, if you don't keep it to the four units, which basically will be the closest you can Page 42 May 17, 2001 come to the character of the village of Goodland -- they came up with an anonymous -- not anonymous, but they came up with an agreement with everybody that -- to go along with the six, and they don't really want to if they go along with the six units, but put it in the VR area, the six units in the VR area, and keep the four units strictly in the residential area that is still existing today before the PUD. The reason for that, from what I understand or from what I'm told, is because the abutters are to live within that three -- whatever that is -- three hundred -- you know, the distance on the other side of the canal. They're residential. Their homes are residential, and they're very nice homes at that particular end of that canal. I mean, three hundred thousand, if not more. It's not fair to them to have these big units across the street from them. It's not fair at all. They have rights. But down where the VR area is it's like -- they're small homes. You know, there's trailers. They're double-wides. They're this sort of thing. They're the abutters across there. So we're dealing with two types of situations here. Well, that's the main issue that we came up with. We just do not want eight units there, period. We don't want six, but I don't know. The other thing is -- I'm shaking. Would you believe that? The other thing is, on the commercial -- the No. 7 way down at the end of the list, that No. 7 thing, we want that commercial building to be Iow profile and old Florida style construction. We want that written in there. Coming back up we've got the wall he talked about. We don't want the wall. Personally I don't care. Myself personally, I don't care. I'm speaking for the people. Personally I don't care, you know, because I live on the other side now. But I can see where they would rather have trees and things of this nature which could buffer the sound if they're all nice and tight. You know how that Page 43 May 17, 2001 all goes. You people are in the business and I'm not. The other thing is mangroves. We threw that in because I guess it's a nice thing. You know, mangroves, you know. You know, we give them some information to talk on. You know, notice all the data we had to talk on? Wasn't that great? We gave them everything. Jesus, it's amazing how you can twist things around. Talk about spinning. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I have allowed a little latitude here, sir, but I would ask you to sum it up, please. MR. GRAHAM: Oh, sure. Absolutely. No eight units, really, because the abutters don't want it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: MR. GRAHAM: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: In my mind, if you don't want the eight units nor the six units, are you saying that to allow this developer, the owner of the property, to have 47 units, which they calculate by all the regulations, that we're looking at 11 or 12 buildings down this long thing of four buildings a piece? Is that what you people in Goodland are saying? That's -- MR. GRAHAM: Well, we don't -- I believe the people of Goodland are saying they don't mind the four units going down there. They'll be, like, staggered all the way down. It's going to be up on, like, stilt-type things, and there will be porches going around, and it will be the closest thing to the character of the community. You're not seeing the four units there. They didn't put the picture up. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right. But you're telling me you want 11 or 12 of these -- well, 11 would be four units, and one would be three units, and you want those staggered down this long -- that's to you attractive or to the group you're speaking or representing? Sir, may I ask you just a question? Page 44 May 17, 2001 MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, back and forth. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Fascinating. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was clear in my visual. MR. GRAHAM: Yeah. Or if you don't go along with that, at least we're willing to -- willing, I don't think we have any choice -- but willing to go along with a six-unit, but no way eight-units because it's just way out of line in my opinion. That's my opinion, and I'm speaking for -- that's my opinion, and now I'm speaking for the people, and they don't want it either. They really don't. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If not -- thank you. MR. GRAHAM: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Niki Graham. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'll just ask the speakers if you agree with the previous speaker, just say so. You don't have to beat us over the head. Okay. If you've got something new, we're willing to listen. MS. GRAHAM: Thank you so much. I'm Niki Graham, and I have a little note for you. Okay? Up to about here (indicating) -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You have to use the microphone, ma'am. MS. GRAHAM.' I'm sorry. Up to here (indicating) is about -- is single-family residences right now. Across the canal is single- family residences. When these people bought their homes or built their homes, they were told that single-family houses were going to go in here (indicating). Then we knew that village residential was going to go here (indicating). You may not understand why Goodland is so persnickety about this, but if you Page 45 May 17, 2001 had bought your house over here (indicating) being told that houses were going to go here (indicating) and not condos, you might be a little upset having the rules changed midway in the game. So we have single-family residences here (indicating). To answer your question on why we would want smaller buildings instead of bigger buildings is because the single-family house that thought that they were going to have single-family homes across here (indicating) would prefer to have small buildings. I would ask you that if you're going to let the PUD go through to please limit the smaller buildings to this single-family residential area and the larger buildings to the village residential, which was what was on the drawing boards when people bought their homes. This (indicating) area is lined by trailers. This (indicating) area is lined by nice homes. This (indicating) is village residential. This (indicating) is village residential. This (indicating) is single-family. Personally, I'm against the PUD. Most people are against the PUD. But if you're going to let it go through, at least make them build their smaller buildings here (indicating) instead of their larger buildings here (indicating). Something else that's new, too, is you don't see the whole picture when you're looking at this. This is a wonderful view down here. This is what we call an unobstructed water view, the very most expensive water that you can build on. If you don't limit it, let me tell you as a realtor, you're going to have 8-plexes right down here going through for the view. It's the money, honey. So I would ask you even if you're going to let them have the PUD -- which Goodland has been up, down, and all around. We've heard everything known to man from the people asking for the PUD -- to at least limit where they can build their bigger Page 46 May 17, 2001 buildings. Make them build the bigger buildings on village residential, the smaller buildings on what's now single-family residential, 17 of them. So we would have 17 single homes, 30 condos, and commercial. With the PUD we're going to have commercial and condos through the whole thing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You're welcome. MR. BELLOWS: I have some photographs to show you from the petitioner-- Ray Bellows -- as you can see on the visualizer what the applicant's property or the view would be of the marina. You can see why they're attempting to have the wall and maybe have the larger buildings to the south to act as a buffer between that project and the residential on the other side. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Commissioner Pedone. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll let Commissioner Rautio go first. MS. GRAHAM: There's also going to be a road going down this (indicating) strip. The road is going to be here (indicating), and then you're going to have the marina over here (indicating). It's not -- this makes it look like that's right on top of you. You've got two roads, the road to the marina and the road to the PUD going down that strip. So this isn't going to be right here, right on top of the thing. It's going to be over here. As you know, roads aren't five feet wide. So we've got two of them between the marina. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question of staff, or I guess Mr. Pedone has a question too. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Pedone. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I would defer to you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I heard this lady saying that's single-family residence now. You have single-family zoning at this end on this strip of property? MR. BELLOWS: Let me get to the zoning -- Page 47 May 17, 2001 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It's across the bay, but I thought it was RSF-6 or -4 or something. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Four. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: While they're putting that up, Commissioner Rautio, might I point out something? That if these people would sell me a portion of that land, I could build a 10,000 square foot, three-story tall, single-family residence the size of the eight-unit building in this same spot, and nothing is to say that that can't happen. Why sure I can. If it's a single-family residence, I can build a single-family whatever size home I can afford on that lot. MS. GRAHAM: You can't get it on this size -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Not from the audience. MS. GRAHAM: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: If you sold me enough land, if I paid you enough money, I could build a 10,000 or 12,000 or 20,000 square-foot home -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm assuming this is a hypothetical and not an offer I can bring to my client. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Right. MR. YOVANOVICH.' Absolutely. I mean, there's nothing that prohibits us from combining lots on the RSF portion of the property to build the biggest mansion we want to build -- or if I could afford one, I could -- anybody who could afford one could consolidate the property and build the biggest house they want. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Now, I'm back to Commissioner Abernathy. I think we're, you know, trying to manage something that we, in effect, have no control over the final product going on it. And I think the folks in Goodland need to understand that as much as we might try we cannot prohibit this monster building from Page 48 May 17, 2001 showing up on one of these lots because it can simply be done by, you know, combining lots and building a single-family residence. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I have the zoning map up, and you can see the location of the RSF-4 zoning. It follows this (indicating) line down and around. This is all RSF-4, primarily all developed single family. This (indicating) is the village residential portion that abuts the VR. It kind of lines up in the same portion. It should be also noted that there's a thick mangrove hedge all down this (indicating) side. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have a question. Is the VR the area with the mobile homes? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. It's zoned for mobile homes. There's a mix of mobile homes. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: In other words, it's okay to put the big buildings across from the mobile home park because those are the cheaper homes rather than the more expensive homes in the single-family district? MR. BELLOWS: I don't think anyone is implying that. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I think the lady just implied that. MR. BELLOWS: Well, the lady, but not -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: That's what I'm trying to find out. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Could we -- MS. MURRAY: You have one more speaker. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yeah. Let's hear the rest of the speakers, and then we'll get into the discussion portion. MS. MURRAY: Nicolette Bauer is your final speaker. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Were you sworn in, ma'am? MS. BAUER: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Would you give your name and spell it for the court reporter? MS. BAUER: Nicolette Bauer. The last name is B-a-u-e-r. I Page 49 May 17, 2001 really don't have too much to say. I do live in Goodland. I was trying to find that long strip you guys had, the piece on the side. I live here (indicating). I have two lots. I have lived here for 17 years. I've actually lived in Goodland for 30, but I've lived here (indicating) for 17. I was under the impression that this was residential and just homes were going to be built there, and I would like to see the zoning stay as residential. The other question I had was, I tried to get a hold of a few of my neighbors today to see if they were coming, and I thought it was -- we were to be notified of this meeting if you live within 300 feet of this new project. I never was notified. None of them have been notified. I was very surprised that there were only three of us here today, and I would like an answer. Were we to be notified of this meeting? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We'll ask that question. Do you have any other comments? MS. BAUER: No, sir, that's all. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All right. Thank you. Ray, would you go over the notification procedure for the lady? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. This question arises every so often on petitions. The county makes its best effort to get the latest property addresses from the property owners within 300 feet. If they have recently purchased or are not on that list or for some reason they're not accurately reflected or the address is incorrect on the property appraiser's addresses, the letters do not get there in time or they're late or they're forwarded up north. If they have listed their winter or summer address up north, the letters sometimes head up that way. So there's many reasons why these things are late or don't arrive. There are many reasons, but we do make the best effort to get the letters out. We also have an advertisement in the Page 50 May 17, 2001 newspaper informing them of the hearing agenda and the specifics about the requests. Also, we post a sign on the project entrance point along the roadway to notify neighbors as they drive by that this site is open for a zoning act. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: How many days does the site notice have to be placed -- MR. BELLOWS: Fifteen days. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Prior to the meeting. Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Very briefly. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I was just making sure we didn't have some more discussion up here. MR. YOVANOVICH: I feel compelled to respond to a couple of comments regarding the people of Goodland who don't want this. First of all, in December when the concept was brought to the membership of having the entire property, including what is now RSF-4 rezoned to PUD to allow multifamily buildings, the vote was 73 to I in favor of the concept. Okay. We moved forward with that and did not object to the overlay based upon that vote. I asked the Board of County Commissioners to delay that vote on the overlay until we had the PUD done. I was told, "Don't worry about it." So we went forward and said -- the vote happened. Niki Graham makes a very good point about, "Hey, these people bought on reliance upon existing zoning." Well, we all know zoning changes. We bought the property -- or my client bought the property when there was no limitation on the number of residential floors that can be constructed on VR property. This all started over a different project. I don't want to say the name, but you have a 35-foot height requirement. If you could get four floors in 35 feet, you could build it. About two years ago now the code was changed with my client's consent to three residential floors over one of parking. Page 51 May 17, 2001 She was moving forward on reliance upon that, and then another attempt was made to change it to two over one, and that went through, but with a comprise. Remember that property rights go both ways. My client had property rights, bought the property with certain development restrictions on the property, and the people of Goodland wanted that change. This PUD is a compromise. It's what the purpose of the PUD was. It was a compromise. Now, the vote that occurred -- we went to the people of Goodland two times in one day so the maximum number of the members could attend the vote on what we were proposing. We went at ten o'clock in the morning and we went at seven o'clock at night. There were a hundred people who voted on whether or not the PUD should go forward or not. The vote was 65 to go forward, 35 against. That's a pretty substantial majority in favor of our concept. Yes, there were dissenters who did not like everything in the PUD, but the overall PUD was voted on, and it was supported 65 to 35. That is the picture that was presented on the date of the vote because we wanted to show them the worst-case scenario, not the best-case scenario. We wanted them to know exactly what they were voting for when we came forward on the PUD. It would have been disingenuous for us to parade out the four- unit building and not show them what the eight-unit building looked like. We didn't do that. We've been upfront, and we've always said, "This is a compromise." We agreed to move forward to compromise for the betterment of Goodland. We gave up something. The people of Goodland are not giving up much. We're just asking for a no larger than eight-unit building, and we would hope that the Planning Commission will go forward with staff's recommendation and send this to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Page 52 May 17, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Further questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: One last question, Mr. Yovanovich. The PUD document, in fact, does specify some details. While my fellow commissioners are chiding me for micromanaging, you, in fact, have in this section a commitment that no building shall contain more than eight dwelling units. I mean, that's specific. MR. YOVANOVICH-- Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Would you consider, not as an exaction, but just as a way of further compromise that that language be changed to six dwelling units? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we won't consider it. At this point, we would like to leave it like it is. We have -- I believe we put all those restrictions in there to provide greater assurance than you will see in any other PUD that usually comes through here as far as architecture and building sizes. We've gone on to assure them that they would not get large buildings, and they would get old Florida. We need the flexibility at this point to be able to vary the market type to meet the demands that they wanted. So we would like to go forward with the eight units -- the maximum of eight units. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'd like to make a comment, but I'm not sure if it's the right time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: During discussion. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff or the petitioner?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No one else from the public wishes to address this? Very briefly. MR. GRAHAM: My name is Jim Graham. I'd just like to make one statement. The buyer of this piece of property was well Page 53 May 17, 2001 aware of the controversy before the property was bought. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Very quickly, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: While she's coming up here, I think it's interesting to say how well the civic association has actually worked with this developer and how well the developer and planners have worked with the civic association, because you have a major list of items here of accomplishments that Goodlyn has been able to approve and agree upon and that you've actually really cooperated with each other, and I just want to say congratulations to all of you for that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Have you been sworn in, ma'am? MS. OSTER: No, I haven't. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Give your name, please. MS. OSTER: Lynn Oster. I have a lot across from this development. I have not built on it yet. It's on Coconut Street. It's towards the very end. And when I bought it, which was last spring, I bought the particular lot I bought so I didn't have to look at the marina. Then after I went into the marina and looked at the marina -- and even though the building on the marina isn't the most beautiful thing to see, the lot and the property is quite pretty. It's almost like a park. But what I wanted to mention is two weeks ago I was out on a boat and came in to look at my property from the water, and when I came in, I was looking at mangroves all the way along there on the left, and I thought there was rules and regulations on mangroves. And I just wonder if in the case of a hurricane or if something else happened like that, if this wouldn't be a problem having this development there because the mangroves should be there. This is my -- you know, I'm not against the developer at all. I, you know, think that, you know, he should be doing what is Page 54 May 17, 2001 right for Goodland, but he has his rights. I understand that. What I'm saying is I thought you can't build on mangroves. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We'll ask the petitioner to address that, ma'am. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I mean, we all know that the state regulates what we can and cannot do with mangroves, and we're bound by state law on any trimming that we do to the mangroves. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Seeing no other speakers, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward PUDZ-2001-AR-348 to the Board of County Commissioners for their recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Pedone. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: A question, Mr. Chairman. If this is a unanimous vote, does this automatically put it on the consent agenda of the Board of County Commissioners? MR. BELLOWS: May I answer that? Again, Ray Bellows for the record. We do have letters from the Goodland Civic Association with concerns that this would be presented to the Board of County Commissioners despite what the vote is here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, I'm not sure that the people of Goodland have reasonable expectations of what can or can't be placed on this property. I certainly am sympathetic to someone purchasing property and thinking they're going to still Page 55 May 17, 2001 have the same view or not have a change in the zoning. However, I want to state again that I'm really impressed that you-all have made such an effort to work with each other, and I'm pretty much persuaded by a vote of 65 to 35 in favor of this particular PUD to go forward. And, again, I want to commend the civic association and the developer and owner's representatives in taking so much time to resolve things like the old Florida style. I mean, that would be extremely significant to me, and the 800 square feet being changed to 1200 square feet for the minimum size of the units, working out the details on the C-4 zoning, the whole concept of the staggering of the setbacks, and not a gated community. I mean, you-all have done a pretty good job here. I think this is going to be a decent product. I don't feel it's my responsibility as a planning commissioner to limit the flexibility of the size of the buildings -- excuse me -- the number of units in the building. The sizes are controlled. So I'm going to have to support this. And, again, I want to say thanks for everybody working with each other. I know you-all don't agree, but I think you have a much better product because you-all in Goodland have taken the time and effort to talk with the people that own the property and their representatives, and you've taken the time to come here, so thank you. Any other discussion? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: signify by saying "aye." (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE-- Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If not, all those in favor of the motion Thank you. Just a quick question for Page 56 May 17, 2001 staff. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: reporter?. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: break. Do we need a break for the court Okay. We'll take about a five-minute (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Are we ready? Okay. meeting back to order. Let's call the We're going to go to PUDA-2001-AR-531, which is the Bretonne Park PUD. All those wishing to give testimony, please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. We keep getting speakers that aren't registered, and I really need folks that want to register to -- or want to speak that need to fill out a registration form. It's in the hall, and hand it to me if you would, please. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. Petitioner Kevin Higginson is requesting an amendment to the Bretonne Park PUD. As you can see on the location map, Bretonne Park is located on the north side of Davis Boulevard and south side of Radio Road. It abuts Countryside to the east. Petitioner is requesting an amendment to Tract J, which I highlighed in yellow. It's this (indicating) area centered in the PUD. They are requesting to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet. This is to allow for their 4-unit multifamily buildings. Some of the narrower parts of the lot have forced the driveways to be shorter than what staff would like to see them. We'd like to see at least 20 feet from the back of the curb so that Page 57 May 17, 2001 cars don't back out or don't overhang into the street. So they felt that if they could push the buildings back a little bit, it would give them the adequate driveway length, and this would only be allowed where the backyards abut a golf course or lake, not abutting another residential lot. I have a master plan here that shows Tract J is completely surrounded by lakes and golf courses, so there would not be any impact to any particular adjacent residential lot. The applicant also has indicated that not all the lots within Tract J would be reduced to a 12-yard setback, only maybe one or two at the most, and some of the others maybe less. And I think he may be willing to talk about some other setback scenarios due to some of the concerns raised by residents within the Bretonne Park development. As you can see, though, there's the fairway that comes along this (indicating) side. Some of the residents within the community sent letters and a petition indicating their concern about buildings coming closer to the golf course, where there might be damage with golf balls interfering, and maintenance, insurance problems, so Mr. Higgginson has some alternative language in the site plan to show you where the buildings are to be encroaching into the golf course area. I really don't have anything else to say. It's consistent with the Growth Management Plan. There's no traffic impacts, no environmental impacts, so staff is recommending approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Who had the concern about the golf balls? MR. BELLOWS: I have a letter from some of the residents within this development who are members of the golf course within this development. They're expressing concerns that this developer in other areas had buildings moved or shifted and Page 58 May 17, 2001 encroaching into their golf course areas, and they see this as a further example of that lack of caring for the golfers' needs. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: My only comment to that is, if they think eight feet is going to make a difference, they haven't seen me play lately. But, anyway, any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If not, can we hear from the petitioner, please? MR. HIGGINSON: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kevin Higginson. I'm with Coastal Engineering Consultants, and I am representing the applicant, Transeastern Properties. I do have an exhibit to show you. I'll put it up here (indicating). You're not going to be able to -- you're not going to be able to see it from where you are, so if it's acceptable I'll approach and give you -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll pass them down for you so you can keep talking. MR. HIGGINSON: We had originally submitted a relatively generic request to ask for a reduction in the setback from the existing 20-foot rear setback to 12 feet, strictly limited to Tract J and limited to parcels or buildings located adjacent to the lakes and the golf course. We just received the letters of objection yesterday from Mr. Bellows, and it appears that most of those seem to be concerned -- most of those, concerns relate to the golf course. If you take a look at the exh,bit, what we're trying to do is as Ray mentioned try to get a uniform driveway length of 18 feet from the back to the garage, and in order to accomplish that that's what we've drawn on this exhibit. We need, actually, a little bit less. We don't really need to go down to the 12 feet in all cases. In fact, along the golf course we only have one unit that would be affected or we would want to Page 59 May 17, 2001 change as a result of this PUD amendment, and that's Building No. 31. I've spoken to the applicant, and based on the objection letters, they have agreed to amend the request to reduce the rear setback along the golf course to 17 feet rather than the 12 feet that we had originally proposed. Again, it only affects one unit along the golf course. The rest of the units along the golf course would not be affected by -- or would not be shifted back to this 17-foot setback. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Just a quick question. Don't all of the units' backyards, either on the golf course or -- I assume that's a lake -- MR. HIGGINSON: Yes. Along the-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Really all of the yards, all of the lawns, nobody has anything behind them; is that right? MR. HIGGINSON: The only thing behind all of the lots are either golf course or lake. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. HIGGINSON: It's along the -- along this boundary right here where there's golf course fairway that the lots back up to. Here (indicating) there's the lake. Actually, I believe there's golf course here (indicating), and then there's lake all the way around here (indicating). COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Your new request is for three feet affecting one building, so I'm not sure we need to spend a tremendous amount of time beating this to death, because the golfers can't get to the homes around the lake, so the letters of concern are for one building that's now been reduced to three feet. MR. HIGGINSON.. That's correct. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.. We should not have a problem here, I wouldn't think. Page 60 May 17, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So then what we're going to do is if we find that this is acceptable, we will go ahead and approve this with the exception of Building 31 being reduced to -- am I saying 17 feet then? He just said 3 feet. It says, "12 foot request," so instead of 12 feet, you want it 17 feet for Building 317 Is that what you're saying? MR. BELLOWS: No. I think that's what he's saying. In Building 31 there will be a 17-foot setback instead of a 20, which is basically a three-foot variance. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. That would be included in our motion if that's acceptable? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions of the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Could we -- members of the public. MS. MURRAY: Mary Manning. MS. MANNING: Good morning. I'm Mary Manning, M-a-n-n-i- n-g, and I came to protest because I did receive a letter saying that the setbacks would be 12 feet, and I felt that was a danger to the homeowners that would be living in those homes. And while when you live on a golf course you can expect golf balls even over a lake, but to deliberately set somebody's house or home in the path of those golf balls is a danger and a safety issue. Now, I just want to make it clear that what I heard today was one home, one house, No. 31, and it would be only three-foot difference. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. Page 61 May 17, 2001 MS. MANNING: And that's the only house that's going to be affected? MR. BELLOWS: On the golf course side. MS. MANNING: And what about the lake side because those balls shear across that lake? What are we hearing there? MR. BELLOWS: As proposed. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. We will ask -- MS. MANNING: I-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ma'am -- MR. BELLOWS: The current proposal still applies to that. MS. MANNING: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We will ask the petitioner that just to make it specific. Okay? MS. MANNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. MANNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Where do you live, ma'am? MS. MANNING: I live in Glen Eagle. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But not in any of these buildings we're talking about? MS. MANNING: No. Those buildings .- I'm a neighbor. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Scott Clark. MR. CLARK: For the record, I'm Scott Clark, and I represent Transeastern Properties. I really don't have any comments unless there's other questions of the petitioner. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Seeing none, thank you. Any other speakers? MS. MURRAY: That's all the registered speakers. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. To the petitioner a specific question, we're talking about -. the only one on the golf course is Building 31; right? Page 62 May 17, 2001 MR. HIGGINSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. And as far as the lakes are concerned, it could be any of those. Is that what I understand? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All of those. MR. HIGGINSON: Any or all of those could be -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Could be. MR. HIGGINSON.. -- reduced down to 12 feet. It's not our intent to do that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Depending on the driveway? MR. HIGGINSON.. Correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I'll close the public meeting. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I would like to move that the Collier County Planning Commission forward with the recommendation of approval Petition PUDA-2001-AR-531 as presented for purposes of amending Section 3.6 of the Bretonne Park PUD with the one exception of Building 31 being 17 feet. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Rautio, seconded by Commissioner Priddy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He's seldom here so -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I know. I forgot his name. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Hearing none, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And I'm going to make a habit of Page 63 May 17, 2001 that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Next up is RZ-2001-AR-451 located on 6150 Polly Avenue. All those who wish to give testimony in this, please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning again, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a small rezone on 4.55 acres. The applicant is requesting a rezone from agricultural to RSF-3. The purpose of this rezone is to enable the applicant to subdivide the property into two lots and build a house for his grandson. As you can see, the area is mostly zoned agricultural, but they own one of the largest lots. All the other lots are either two-acre or one-acre lots. In the area we have a five-units per acre area, six in here, and a PUD in here approved for 3.25 units per acre. As I said, they are asking for RSF-3 because RSF-3 is the zoning that most of the residential areas in the county are zoned. However, the intent is just to create two lots and build an additional house on the property. Staff reviewed this by virtue of being within the urban residential area, and it's compatible with the Growth Management Plan. Staff recommends approval. We received -- I received four letters of objection from neighbors saying that they don't want residential in here. They want to keep it agricultural. Or they're afraid that a large development will be built, 10 or 12 homes, and they don't want that. Maybe we can amend this to say RSF-3 and put a cap on it with a maximum number of one unit per acre or one unit per two acres since the applicant is requesting only to build one additional house. So we can have the zoning as RSF-3 but with a Page 64 May 17, 2001 cap of no more than one unit per acre or one unit per two acres, which would satisfy the applicant and I believe would satisfy to a certain extent the neighbors. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just to clarify particularly for myself and the public, the other parcels are obviously much smaller than five acres, but they're already grandfathered in; is that correct? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They were already grandfathered in. They were subdivided before 1974. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? (No response.} CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We'll hear from the petitioner. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I do have one question of staff. Chahram, if we put a cap on this of one unit per acre, those would -- that would still be much larger parcels or lots than most of the neighbors have a house on, is that correct, or not? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: His neighbors, they have around -- a little bit more than one acre. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: A little bit more than one acre. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are somewhat small lots, and in here it's zoned RSF-5, so it's five units per acre. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. So one house per acre would be pretty close to what the neighbors have? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. That would be in line with the neighbor. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. We'll hear from the petitioner. MR. RASCHER: I'm Walter Rascher for the record. I don't know what to say. All we want to do is divide the property in half. My grandma wants to sell me the back half of her property. It's been grown over for the last 20 years. She's lived there for 26 years. And all we want to do is be able to build a house back there for ourselves. Page 65 May 17, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, would you be in agreement if we put this that you could only have two units on the total acreage? MR. RASCHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I can't divide that exactly, but that comes down to one unit for every two and a quarter acres approximately. MR. RASCHER: Yeah. We had it surveyed. The back half, which would be mine, was 2.29 acres. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe that the survey they've given me -- they want to subdivide it. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Before you completely agree to that, are you thinking about your grandson that might want to put a house next to you? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I asked a question, and I heard an affirmative reaction. Okay. Any further questions? (No response.} CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If not, can we hear from members of the public? Susan. MS. MURRAY: Suzanne Orschell. MS. ORSCHELL: I apologize. I'm a little nervous. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Give your name for the court reporter, please. MS. ORSCHELL: My name is Suzanne, S-u-z-a-n-n-e, last name Orschell, O-r-s-c-h-e-I-I. I live at 6266 Adkins Avenue. I'm about a block west -- I'm sorry, a block east of the petitioner. I think the first two points I'd like to make based on what I've just heard are the size of the properties out there. I live on five acres. Most of my neighbors live on two and a half and five acres. I don't know of anybody necessarily who lives on five. And it was my understanding that when Dewey Polly established Sunset Estates the lots were either two and a Page 66 May 17, 2001 half or five, and then no more splitting was allowed. In other words, if you weren't at two and a half at a certain point, you were not allowed to subdivide at that point. So, again, we are on very large parcels there, certainly not on acres. That's my first concern. My second concern is that once we make -- and I appreciate the efforts, and I empathize with what they're trying to do here, but my concern is once we make a change for one, how do we say no to anybody else who wants to change from agricultural? I have letters with me from seven other families in the area who were not able to be here. Unfortunately, most of the residents of this area work. Thank heavens my boss is flexible and allowed me to take off from work today to be here for this. But, again, I've got seven other individuals or families, and I've got their letters, and they are opposed to this. I think our basic reasons are, again, we're a very rural community, a very - what do I want to say? -- kind of a country estate setting. To increase the zoning to three structures per acre would certainly tax our infrastructure. We have one paved road. We're on septic tanks. Again, this is not the direction we want our neighborhood to take. I think - I guess I've kind of hit it. Again, I appreciate what they're trying to accomplish, but I think trying to change the density to this degree would certainly impact our quality of life. So, again, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If you would like to give those letters to the gentleman's name that I can't remember at the end here -- understanding we have to keep those. MS. ORSCHELL: Yep. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: A question before you step down, ma'am. Page 67 May 17, 2001 COMMISSIONER YOUNG: rural estate area .- MS. ORSCHELL: Yes. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: It sounds to me as if you live in a -- in which many of your neighbors live on two and a half acres or so. MS. ORSCHELL: Or five, basically five. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Well, so this, in essence, breaking a five-acre plot in about half would more or less conform to the neighborhood; am I correct? MS. ORSCHELL: I believe you're taking, what, five acres and trying to break it into two and a half or one acre parcels? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: No. Five acres divided by two is approximately two and half. MS. ORSCHELL: Two and a half. Again, what I'm concerned about is this particular zoning, this SF -- SF -- I'm sorry; I apologize -- RSF-3 would allow up to three structures per acre. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We have a cap on it. MS. MURRAY: I think .- I'm sorry. Let me try to explain this. RSF-3 zoning district as originally requested would allow three -- up to three dwelling units per acre. I think what the commission has asked the property owner is if they're willing to put a cap on that. So in total there would be two dwelling units, and the property would essentially be split in half if that's the way the Board of County Commissioners ultimately approves it as well. MS. ORSCHELL: Right. And I understand that, but then I say, "Okay. If you -. if we agree -- if we agree with this particular petition, what's to prevent everyone else from doing the same thing," and then the whole flavor of the neighborhood has changed. I think that's what we're afraid of. It's that we don't want to lose the complexion, the flavor of our neighborhood. We want to keep some space. We don't want to turn into at sprawl. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If you look at this map, there are very Page 68 May 17, 2001 few five-acre parcels left. It's on the monitor. You can look at it. They're all either an acre or an acre and a half, two or two and a half acres. There are very few five-acres left anymore. You own one of them but -- MS. ORSCHELL: I'm certainly not the only one. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, you're not the only one, but there aren't that many left. MS. ORSCHELL: That's-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a moment, please. I don't want any arguments back and forth. Direct your comments to us, and we'll go back to staff. MS. ORSCHELL: Sorry. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any other points you need to make, ma'am? MS. ORSCHELL: If that's -- if that is an issue, then I need to come back with further ammunition. I didn't know that this would be the issue raised here, but I would definitely like to see that documented because I live there. I've been out there for 12 years. Certainly the parcels are large, and that would be -- if that's a deciding factor, then I would like to see that in black and white. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: When you say 'that's a deciding factor," it would be that it's going to only be two parcels. And this gentleman just agreed, and we have the right to put in that stipulation, and then Board of County Commissioners has the right to put the stipulation on that this almost five-acre parcel would only be split in two, and it's two dwellings. Therefore, would you feel comfortable with that? MS. ORSCHELL: No, I would not. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And this is because you don't want it to be -- the concept of agriculture versus residential? Page 69 May 17, 2001 MS. ORSCHELL: Yes. I want to keep our agricultural zoning. Again, I'm afraid that once we start to make the change, that's just going to open the door, and it's going to increase -. then someone else is going to come in, and maybe they won't agree to this cap. Or someone buys this property from them and says, "Hey, look, you know, I don't go along with this. I want to change it." I think it's going to have a ripple-down effect, and that's not why we bought out there. And you will see that reflected in those letters. Everyone bought because it's agricultural, and that's the way we want to keep it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. MS. ORSCHELL: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Susan, just a quick question. There is no other avenue under agricultural zoning that they could put two houses on there? MS. MURRAY: Unfortunately not because of the minimum five-acre requirement. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I knew that. I just wanted to hear that. MS. ORSCHELL: May I ask one more question then? I under - - now, I have seen instances where people have built guest homes. In fact, the property right across the street from me is a guest home situation. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: To answer that, you can build a guest home, but the size of the guest home cannot be more than 40 percent of the living area of the main house. And when you have a small main house, building a guest house makes it really small and -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well -- MS. STUDENT: The other thing is you can't have permanent occupancy in a guest house. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The grandmother's house could be Page 70 May 17, 2001 the guest house if they build a bigger one, but then she's got to find a place to live six months of the year. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker. MS. MURRAY: Susan Buckley. MS. ORSCHELL: I'm sorry. She has a sick child. Oh, you're back. Good. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry. You were sworn in, ma'am? MS. BUCKLEY: No. I'm sorry. I had to run something over to my son's school. (The oath was administered.} CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Can you give me your name for the court reporter, please. MS. BUCKLEY: Susan Buckley. I represent myself and my husband. We live at 6378 Adkins Avenue, and I just want to reiterate what my neighbors are saying. Our little hammock, we bought it because of the zoning, and we're very -- we knew that you can't build additional on there. And when we went in there and built our home, that was the way it was, and we accepted that, and we go against this zoning request. Keep our little hammock a nice little hammock. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can you show me on here where you live? MS. BUCKLEY: I live on the very end of Adkins Avenue. I can't really tell where that is. They live on Polly where they want the change. My son catches the bus right over there, so it's around the corner. It's on a dirt road on the other side. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: How many acres is your lot, ma'am? MS. BUCKLEY: Two and a half. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Let me get this straight then. It's okay that you're on two and half acres, but these people can't be? Page 71 May 17, 2001 MS. BUCKLEY: We bought it like that. COMMISSIONED PEDONE: Yeah. But so they cannot be on two and a half acres; they have to remain on five? MS. BUCKLEY: Well, if it's only one house on two and a half acres, yes. But you open a Pandora's box with these kind of zoning changes. I moved from Miami. It all starts out this way, and then it turns into a big mess. That's the way I feel, and that's what I would like to go on record with it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. BUCKLEY: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Next speaker. MS. MURRAY: John McCandless, and he's your last speaker. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Were you sworn in, John? MR. McCANDLESS: Yes, sir. My name is John McCandless, M-c-C-a-n-d-l-e-s-s. I live at 6134 Adkins, which is right across the five acres or right across the street on Adkins from that gray area right there (indicating). I'm under the understanding -- I came in there with my life savings and bought the five acres because that's where I wanted to have horses and animals. I'm totally against rezoning. I'm speaking for my neighbors which have two and a half, and they bought up an acre beside them. The guy across the street bought up the other acre beside them so we could all have more property. I'm representing three of my neighbors, like I said, on that same street. I'm under the understanding that RSF-3 can be three units per acre, and also I called up and they can rent them out. So if these people want to do that, who knows what's going to happen down the road. They could rent it out. I live right across the street. I came from an area where I had to sell my house because they changed the zoning and rentals came in, and it ruined the whole neighborhood. You know, I have the addresses of the people that couldn't be Page 72 May 17, 2001 here because they had to work. Everybody I've talked to is against it, and some people on Polly are against it. They're back there (indicating}. You can see Mr. Handshaw. And the Harrises at 6142 also right across -- beside that property, 6145 Adkins Avenue. He just bought an acre beside his because he's against it. And I don't understand why it should be all split up. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to move again because I won't be able to have the animals. Once it starts changing, it just snowballs. We're totally against it. I bought the five acres because I want the room around me and the privacy around me, and I like that area the way it is now. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question here. We're getting conflicting stories. He's saying that two or three people have recently bought one acre around them, and yet the other lady says everything is two and a half and five. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: As you can see here, this being five acres, the lot adjacent to it used to be five acres is subdivided into two per lot. So that's a little bit over a one-acre parcel. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. And are there homes on those one-and-a-quarter-acre lots? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There are homes scattered around. I don't know if-- MR. McCANDLESS: No. I have yet to see a home on a one- acre lot out there on Adkins. My neighbor right across the street from me, directly across the street from it or that's beside that, he bought those up because he don't want other homes built on his. He's got one on there, and he bought up the others so he doesn't have people around him either. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But he just bought a one acre? MR. McCANDLESS: Yes, right across the street. See, everybody's trying to -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let me finish the question. Then on Page 73 May 17, 2001 that one acre someone could build a house under the grandfather? MS. MURRAY: If it was a legal nonconforming lot. MR. McCANDLESS: My point is, the neighbors in there, the people in there, are trying to buy that up so people won't do that. They just want more room for themselves so people wouldn't do that. Once it starts getting subdivided -- I've seen it happen -- it's all going to go. I won't be able to have my agricultural or my horses or my animals and my privacy. And I don't understand about splitting it up. It's not supposed to be split up. If you want to go to a residential area, you should pick another area. Sell this one and pick another area. There's plenty of people that are looking for five-acre property out there that would buy their property there. I mean, I would want to do it myself. I'm looking to buy as much around there as I can to keep it like that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I just did want to remind the board that this is in an urban area, and it is possible that people are assembling the lots to come in and rezone and subdivide into RSF or some type of other compatible zoning district with -- pardon me -- and build urban area densities such as four dwelling units per acre. MS. STUDENT: I just want to make a statement. Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. As you know, we're under a final order from the governor and cabinet about spreading our development beyond the urban area. And one of the things the Department of Community Affairs has told the county is to look at the urban area for compact urban growth. And as long as we have ag areas and so forth left, we have a more difficult time, you know, going beyond our urban area. That's just what the Department of Community Affairs has told us. Page 74 May 17, 2001 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: May I ask Susan .- you made the -- you alluded to the fact that some are buying it up. Now, this gentleman is saying they're buying so that they can have a larger space. Literally in this agricultural area someone could go around and buy out four or five or six of these different sizes, whether they're one-and-a-quarter acre, whether they're two and a half, or they're five acre, and they can start assembling those pieces, and they would have the right in the urban area to go ahead and develop once they assembled the parcels and became one parcel. MS. MURRAY: Once they're assembled and rezoned, that's correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So that's something you-all have to be aware of. What I think we're doing here if we believe the petitioner -- and at least I believe the petitioner -- that it's his grandmother's property. He's going to cut it into a two-and-a- half-acre parcel. And right now that would be a lot better than having the grandmother die and sell it to somebody to chop it up or buy the next couple down from them and put may ten or eight MR. McCANDLESS: Well, what happens if their family or if their kids want to do it and have rentals? I don't understand the RSF-3 where it can be rentals. If they said "no rentals" and they wanted to have one house there, it can be rentals. I don't want rentals across from my five acres. And I think we need more time because we couldn't get enough people together here. They had to work and everything. But if it's this serious, everybody that I talked to on the street that has property, five acres and two and a half, they want to keep it like this, and we'll fight no matter what we have to do. If we have to start buying up the little ones, we'll do whatever we have to do, but I don't think there should be a decision on it Page 75 May 17, 2001 today. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It's understandable what you're saying. But what I'm trying to say is that we, as a board here, appear to be accepting the fact that with the RSF-3 zoning we are going to only allow two dwelling units on this property, period. They would have to go through the whole entire process to do something different just like you with your -- MR. McCANDLESS: Yeah. I don't have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Let me finish. MR. McCANDLESS: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Sir, let me finish. You would have to go through the whole process to do this all over again. And somehow I understand that you like being in the agricultural area, but the only option to these people to have two dwelling units on this property in an urban area is what we're doing now with the cap that they're only going to get two, and you don't want to accept that either? MR. McCANDLESS: No. They can have one house on the two and a half acres. I wouldn't mind that, but I don't want it to be a rental, a rental down the road, which this is what RSF-3 means. Three units per acre. And I called up the county, and I called a couple -- and they can rent it out. If the people dye or their family dies, then they can rent -- someone else can come in there, and they can rent it out. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Correct me if I'm wrong but -- MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I need to -- okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let me ask you -- you can rent your place out right now. MR. McCANDLESS: Right, on five acres, but I don't -- I'm not in a rental area. I don't have no intention of renting it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No, but you can and all your neighbors can rent their house out right now. Page 76 May 17, 2001 MR. McCANDLESS: But we don't even consider that. We don't even want to consider that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MS. STUDENT: I need to -- as your counsel I need to put a couple things on the record. When you do a straight rezone, you can't impose any more conditions on that rezone other than what's in the district already unless the property owner agrees. We don't have anything in our zoning code about prohibiting rentals. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I understand. MS. STUDENT: So that -- you know, you would -- it would be an ultravirus act. The other thing I want to mention is, just so everybody knows, the urban area is the urban area, and it was established in 1989 in our growth management plan. The agricultural areas that exist within the urban areas are considered holding zones. Under the Snyder case for the Florida Supreme Court, when a land use has been projected as appropriate for urban or whatever in our comprehensive plan, that was the time to come and complain about it. And we have to have a very strong public health, safety, welfare, and reason not to, you know, go forward consistent with our comp plan. And that's all I want to put on the record, and that's the law. MR. McCANDLESS: I would just like to have more time to get more of our neighbors and more people in here to -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: (No response.) Any other speakers? MS. MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: MR. McCANDLESS: Any further questions? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Page 77 May 17, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Correct me if I'm wrong, but by going to the rezone they're basically giving up quite a bit. They're not going to be able to do the things that you can do or that their neighbors can under the RS -- i.e., horses, those kinds of things? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They cannot have horses. They cannot have chickens. Yes. They cannot have agricultural uses anymore, and they know that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And as Mr. Priddy brought about, if I'm a developer trying to go in there and buy up a bunch of lots, then I wouldn't want this one particularly because it's already got a high restriction on it. In fact, it's going to slow down some development it looks to me like. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' I have one question before you close the public hearing just so if I'm quick enough to make the motion I comply with our county attorney. You, as the applicant, will agree to a limit of two units on that five acres. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: He needs to come up to the podium and make -- be careful what you request for. You might get it. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: You're agreeing to that as the applicant? MR. RASCHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anyone else from the public wish to address this issue? Very quickly, ma'am. Have you been sworn in? MS. McENDREE-' Yes, but I did not give her my name. You don't have my name. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That's fine. Give it for the court reporter. MS. McENDREE: M-c-E-n-d-r-e-e, Tammy. My comment is I own property on the corner of Polly and Everett. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I can't hear you. Page 78 May 17, 2001 MS. McENDREE: We have property on the corner of Polly and Everett, which is 4.55. Actually the reason I'm here today is Mr. Bellows had told me that these people were looking to split theirs in half because that's our interest as well. I understand with that RSF-3 the confusion seems to be that -- I'm with Mr. McCandless -- that we were told that you could build three units per acre; is that correct? What we, indeed, want is the same as these petitioners; it's to split in half and agree to the cap of what he was saying. We just want to split it and stay with the 2.5. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But you would have to go through the same process he did. MS. McENDREE: Right. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MS. McENDREE: But isn't there any other type of zoning between the RSF and the agricultural? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That was the question I asked Susan, and I don't believe-- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We have the state zoning. We have other RSFs and RMFs. But the area is mostly either RSF-3 or PUD with two units per acre, and RSF-3 would be in line with what's around it. And with the cap of one per two acres, we are achieving what we are trying to achieve while keeping the base zoning consistent with the surrounding properties and subdivisions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just have a question, and maybe our legal counsel can help me here. Would we -- let's see. The gentleman that's here, Walter Rascher, is the agent for Ester and Francis? MS. STUDENT: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But I don't see anything in here Page 79 May 17, 2001 that says that they either have a pending purchase of this property or that they represent .. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They represent -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Is it not required here? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. They are representing the grandparents, and we have a letter from the grandparents allowing them to represent them. MS. STUDENT: If that's the case, they can bind them with the agreement about the one -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we were dealing with the right property owner and the person that really had the legal representation in case something goes wrong down the track here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I suggest you put that in for the Board of County Commissioners. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Sure. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ma'am, you're cutting into our lunch time, and we're getting very despondent up here, but I'll give you one minute. MS. ORSCHELL: I feel very strongly or I wouldn't come back up here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You have to give testimony at the microphone. MS. ORSCHELL: Yep. I'm a coming. Again, Suzanne Orschell. I just want to state that the neighbors that I've spoken with, and I've probably -- we're not a large neighborhood. Of probably the 15 people that I've spoken with, there is not one person who's in favor of this. I just ask you to please consider that in your decision. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: We can't consider it a popularity contest. I mean, that's not what we're up here to do. Page 80 May 17, 2001 MS. STUDENT: Mar]orie Student, assistant county attorney. The case law in the State of Florida is that rezones, conditional uses, are not popularity contests, and they're to be governed by the criteria set forth in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Thank you. MS. STUDENT: If the surrounding property owners can bring in competent, substantial evidence that would show that it doesn't meet that criteria, and that's all well and good, but just a popularity contest is not legally sufficient. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that I close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward Petition RZ-2001-AR-451 to the Board of County Commissioners for the recommendation of approval, but with a cap of two units on this parcel. MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' Didn't we say one unit per two acres? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Two and a quarter. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, no, I don't want to say two acres because then that leaves some little .4 acres in limbo. The property can be divided into two parcels and a house placed on each parcel. MS. STUDENT: Or one cap per two -- or one unit for two and half acres. Would that work? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, no, that won't work because there's not five -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's 4.5 acres, so it should be one per two-and-a-quarter acres. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: What? MS. STUDENT: One per two and a quarter, I think he said. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: One unit per two and a quarter acres. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Interesting. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: It's 4.5 acres, not 5. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: 4.55. Page 81 May 17, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: 4.55. COMMISSIONER PEDONE.' Yeah, whatever it is. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' I'll agree to that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Has it been seconded? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. I will second it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Priddy and seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes. I certainly do sympathize with the people on Polly Avenue and the concept of a rural area in the agricultural zoning that you-all have here now. I've been out there a few times myself. It's a very nice area. But one of the things that we have to do up here is make decisions on criteria, and I don't see anything in the criteria that's been presented to us that would allow me to vote against it. Our legal counsel has advised us that there are certain requirements and laws that we have to follow. Therefore, even though I'm very sympathetic to what you perceive as a change in your neighborhood, I can't not -- I cannot vote against this particular motion. And you may wish to rally your troops for the Board of County Commissioners, but you must make relevant facts and provide specific information that would be factual to the Board of County Commissioners for their decision because we cannot do it on emotion. It must be done on criteria and facts and case law, as our representative here has pointed out. I do feel sympathetic to the petitioner. I'm sure they want a house on two and a half or 2.29 acres, and they'll be great neighbors for you-all, but we have to do it on criteria, on fact. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, just a quick comment. I think the folks that are against this or that have expressed their concerns about breaking the zoning and going Page 82 May 17, 2001 from agricultural down to what you perceive to be a greater density, if you really step back and look at this and what the results of this vote may turn out to be, you're just splitting, you know, in essence, a five-acre lot almost into two pieces and having two homes. We have gone through a lot of mechanics, which are imposed upon us because of the way the zoning code is set up, but I don't think having another property out there of two-plus acres with somebody on it really destroys your character, because there's many other homes out there on two-and-a-half acres now. So if you step back and look at the end result of this, I don't think you should be quite so concerned as you seem to be expressing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? Motion carried. The next item is CU-2001-AR-478, VoiceStream Wireless. All those wishing to give testimony please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a conditional use for a communications tower to be located at the fire station site on Golden Gate Parkway. They have a smaller tower right now. The county has adopted a 800 megahertz radio system which requires a taller tower, and that's why they're asking that. And they're also going to allow three cellular phone companies to co-locate with them on this tower. So approving this will allow also similar phone companies to be on this tower and not build their own, which Page 83 May 17, 2001 would reduce the number of towers in the area. Staff reviewed this and recommends that you forward this to the BZA with the recommendation for approval. They comply with all the requirements, setback requirements and everything, that is required in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm not seeing anybody from the public here, but do you have any comments or letters concerning this application? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. I have not received any phone calls or any letters. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Would a sign be posted on this property on this kind of a change? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. We post a sign, and we also mailed letters to neighbors concerning this. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. We'll hear from the petitioner. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Wait, Chahram. There's nothing in here to indicate that the Golden Gate fire department knows anything about this or agrees to it or -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. The land is not owned by the fire department. It's owned by EMS. Actually, it's kind of complicated. It used to be owned by the fire department. They gave it to the county with the understanding that the county is going to build a building for the fire department. Every year they are paying rent they are getting a portion of the land back. At this point I believe the land is owned 57 percent by the county and 43 percent by the fire department. It's a little bit complicated, but EMS and the fire department are in agreement because both of them will have the antennas on this tower. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We could have avoided this conversation if that had just been indicated in here. Page 84 May 17, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I thought it was pretty interesting. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It does not indicate that because it was supposed to go to the board for a lease agreement. Since it's county-owned property, the county commission -- approval was required. And it was continued at the last meeting because of some minor thing, whose antenna will be on top of whose antenna, but it will go before the county commissioners for approval this next session. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But doesn't the Board of County Commissioners really want to know who owns the land also? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I certainly can't tell from looking at these pieces of paper, Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. The Board of County Commissioners knows that the county owns 57 percent. The question -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: How much, Chahram? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Fifty-seven percent. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Fifty-seven percent. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And interest with the fire department and EMS. The thing is since it's partially owned by the county, the Board of County Commissioners' approval was needed to allow other cellular phone companies, besides the fire station and EMS, to install equipment on the towers. MS. STUDENT: I have a question. Is the applicant, then, the agent for the property? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The applicant is representing EMS. MS. STUDENT: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Actually, he's representing both sides, but with EMS being the major property owner, I had to deal with EMS. I had very little contact with the fire department except I talked to the attorney several times, and they were all in Page 85 May 17, 2001 agreement that they need this antenna. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Pardon me. How our county gets involved in these kind of deals -- can we hear from the petitioner, please? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How he can't fill out a form is even more amazing. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's even more amazing to me. MR. MERZ: Good morning. My name is Jeff Merz. I'm the zoning manager for VoiceStream Wireless in the Miami market that also includes Collier County. I'm not real well versed in the specific terms of the lease. I do know that we've been working with the county specifically. My understanding was the county owns the land 100 percent. That's county property. And I believe they have a long-term lease with the EMS department. I have met with our legal representatives on a couple meetings with the fire department specifically. I believe it's Chief Peterson who we've been dealing with, so they're certainly aware of it. I know -- and, again, there's lease hearings associated with this item and land-use hearings, which we're going through today. They're kind of paralleling each other, but they're somewhat separate decisions. Right now, just as to land use, we're just seeking land-use approval on this, but the lease was scheduled last week for hearing. There were some minor glitches. As far as percentages you mentioned, my understanding was - - and, again, I'm not as well versed on the lease -- but EMS wanted a larger percentage of the lease proceeds from VoiceStream than the county did or wanted to give them. That's my understanding, but again that will -- that's being worked out. It's a 47 or 57/43 percent. But the issue was the terms with the lease. But as far as the land-use issue, which I'm representing Page 86 May 17, 2001 here and I'm better versed in, Chahram has indicated that it complies with the codes. We have met with the fire department. Just to brief you a little bit on the design, we're rebuilding the tower for EMS. We will locate whatever antenna type they want at the top of this facility to satisfy the public facilities needs, and then this is co-locatable as well. The design is going to be a pole, just a standard pole. We had entertained a flag, placing an actual flag on it. Chahram mentioned that that may open a can of worms. Everyone would -- there would be flags all over Collier County. So the tower -- it's not your traditional tower with a lot of visible antennas. These are stealth antennas. It will just be a singular slim-line pole that we're proposing. And, again, it satisfies the need and provides funds to EMS and certainly to the county under our lease terms, which the board will be entertaining next week, and it also -- it provides service in the sense that VoiceStream -- we currently have a gap in coverage in this area, and this will satisfy the entire Golden Gate urbanized area, which we feel there's a demand for service in that area. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question, and I don't want a specific answer but a range of answers. The person right underneath the -- or the company that has shared space right underneath fire department's antenna would likely pay whoever owns this land how much money? MR. MERZ: Well, actually, we would be just below the fire department. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And you would be giving the nice folks here in the county how much money, a range of how much money? MR. MERZ: I don't even know. Again, it's the lease terms, and specifically they keep me out of that side. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. But the person right below Page 87 May 17, 2001 you would pay a little bit less, and the person right below -- MR. MERZ: Again, that would come out in the wash how aggressively the county negotiated that. I know they've done these deals before. But traditionally in these situations -- let's say Sprint came in below us. They would have to pay a lease amount, too, again, under the lease terms and ground space -- don't forget -- for their equipment. We have to place some BTS units at the base. We're going to landscape and wall those in. But they're going to have -- Sprint would have to come in, or any other carrier would have to come in and rent their own ground space. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. Are we talking about $10,000 a year or $1 million a year? MR. MERZ: More than $10,000. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. on that? MR. MERZ: Yeah. But I don't know specifics and, again, I can get this for you if you'd like. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe the income would be around $30,000 a year. MR. MERZ: The income is -- let me put it this way. The income is significant enough for the county to have gone through this process with us, and it appears to be worth their while. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Mr. Priddy, I'm surprised at you. We do not discuss monetary value here. I don't think it's relevant. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Oh. You-all were getting carried away with all these properties. I was getting carried away with dollars. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Per person per entity that's Any questions of the petitioner?. Anyone from the public wish to address Page 88 May 17, 2001 this issue? MS. MURRAY: I just had one question maybe of Marjorie. Would it behoove the board to put a condition on this that subject to a lease agreement being reached between the county EMS and these individuals that -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Isn't that going to be an issue with the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: No, because if the fire department or EMS needs the tower for their own use, let's give them the approval of it. I mean, I don't -- I'm not hung up on the money side of the thing. I mean, if they need the tower, they need the tower. MS. MURRAY: I'm just concerned that we're sending the message to this individual that we're approving a tower, and there's a lease agreement that has yet to be worked out. That's my only comment. MS. STUDENT: I would want to talk to Mr. Palmer in our office about that. He is the -- he wrote some of this, part of the ordinance, and he's done a lot of work on, you know, the permutations back and forth with the leases and so forth, and I have not, and I would want to talk to Mr. Palmer before. MR. MERZ: And if I could just add, we fully understand that we're before you today for a land-use decision. Regardless of what your decision is today or if this is deferred, we know we still have to have an appropriate lease and that lease has to be approved by the county commissioners. So we know this is not one aspect of the entire project, but there's quite a few steps that we still need to go through. MS. STUDENT: I would just observe that they're acting as the agent for the county, and if the lease with them for some reason wasn't approved, the county would still have this tower there, and they could have other people -- it's a land-use issue. Page 89 May 17, 2001 They could get other people perhaps to lease it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I would offer a motion that would forward this petition CU-2001-AR-478 to the board of zoning adjustment, which is the BCC, with a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I second it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Richardson and seconded by Commissioner Young. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If not, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? Motion carries. MR. MERZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. No old business. Under new business, just a reminder, two weeks from last night is the next LDC meeting at 5:05 right here. One last comment. I delayed my chairman's comments from the beginning. I guess I regret with heavy heart that this is my last meeting as chairman and also as a member of this commission. My employer no longer supports my time spent on this board, and I feel that in order to give private time -- that's not fair to my family. So this will be my last meeting. I appreciate your consideration. I've enjoyed it very much, especially Susan and the staff. I haven't always agreed, but they've been very professional -- Marjorie -- so I thank you, and I Page 90 May 17, 2001 wish you all the best of luck. And with that -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, could we at least ask you to show up for the May 30th meeting? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Your vice chairperson has already been warned that I might not possibly be here. She took very good notes last night. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm just worried about quorum. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I didn't know why. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So with that we are adjourned. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: COMMISSIONER YOUNG: COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So you're resigning? Congratulations. You're trying to make it even more difficult for me not to show up for the last few meetings. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:22 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GARY WRAGE, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY MARGARET A. SMITH, RPR Page 91 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION May 22, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Jerry C. Neal 270 Robin Hood Circle, Unit 201 Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-42, Paul C. Minning, Sr. Dear Mr. Neal: On Thursday, May 17, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-42. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 0.1 - 10 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Plmmer II g/admin/B D-2000-42/RG/cw Enclosure C.' Paul C. Minning, Sr. 48 Maryland Road Little Egg Harbor, NJ 08087-1019 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.collier, fl.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 01- lo RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-42 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 19-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 39-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 Jerry C. Neal, representing Paul C. Minning, Sr., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Port of the Islands (The Cays) Phase II, as described in Plat Book 21, Pages 1-4, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 19-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 39-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-4 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. 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-42 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 17 day of ~q~y ,2001. ATTEST: JOH Exel Con M. I~~C~, III COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER CO~.~.~ Y,~ORIDA utive Secretary munity Development and Environmental Services Interim Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: l~larj'ori~jM. Student ' Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-42/RG/im -2- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMF~NT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION May 22, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Turrell Associates, Inc. 3584-B Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-41, Melissa R. Spicer Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, May 17, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-41. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 01-11 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Ross GoShenaur Planner II g/admin/BD-2000-41/RG/cw Enclosure C~ Ms. Melissa R. Spicer c/o George N. Sarkus 1159 Walnut Grove Road Bridgeport, NY 13030 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.collier, fl.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 01- i. 1 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-41 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 afler notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 52-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 72-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, representing Melissa R. Spicer, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: The South 100 feet of the North 1,000 feet of Government Lot 3, aka Parcel 32, Section 14, Township 51 South, Range 25 East, Collier, County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 52-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 72-foot boat docking facility in the A-ST zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD- 2000-41 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 17 day of l~lay ,2001. ATTEST: JOVAN M. DUNNUCK, III Exgcutive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Interim Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY. Marjori~i ~VI. Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-41/RG/cw SunBelt Title THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARF, D WITHOUT OPINION OF TFFI~ BY: J. Ban Taylor. Esq. 2272 Airport Road Saab. Naples, Florida 34J 12 Gs~mee · I T.I.N.: Greme~ II2 T.I.N.: 264465 0R: 2683 PG: 0427 UCOIDID ti OffiCIAL ilCOll)I o! COM, Zll colrrr, It Oi/l$1ZOll it I~:~ll~l DIrZGIT I. IIOCZ, CLIsr ~-.70 2101.02 le~: WARRA]qTYDEED THIS INDENTURE, execmed this .~ day oF r la., FOELLER nad CHARLENE IL met ,e ............. .2000, by DOUOLA~ [. .......... ~,,~r,.~-~r..~ au~uuua mm wile (nerelnaflet referred !o 'Gmmar"l. Io m~..L,i~A K. SI'ICr. R ami M~L3NDA M. SO~O, whose eddtess is 86~0 Tum;k; E.. ML~us, Ne~ York 13104 (herebmfler referred to ~s 'Orntee"). WITNESSETH, ~ml the ~. for ,mi in ea)nsidemllon of'Ibc sum ofTen Dollars and other ~x~cl and valuable considerations, receipt wbemol'is hereby acknowledged, beft.~ ~Jan~ bey, sins. sells, aliens. remises, mle'asas, conveys end conf'um.; unto the Grantee I/I lhll eettlin Imld sitoale and being in Collier CoumT. Florkla: The Soulh IIX) feel of'the Noffh 1,000 feet of Oovemment Lot 3. Section 14, Township $ ! South. RaffLe 25 East, Collier County, Florida. F~.~m f/00721240000 TOGETHER wbh all the ~%.meflls. })ercditarnents md appufl~ lhe~lo belonging or in anywise appertainin&. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD Ihe same in fee simple forever. AND Iflc Grantor hereby co~er, aaU with said Grantee ~hat b~e O~lor b hw~lly ~ oF~d I~ in ~ s~ple: ~ ~ G~ ~ ~ ~ ~ hwful au~ lo ~!1 ~ ~ ~M ~; ~ ~ h~ ~l~ w~ ~e ~h~ ro ~M I~ ~d will deled ~e ~e a~i~ t~ la~l cbi~ of all ~ns w~~ ~ ~ nM ~ ~ f~ ofail ~cum~ ~ept ~n~, ~cl~ ~d ~w~ns IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ~he Gnmlor has signed ~d sealed these presents Ihe day and year first above wrincfl. Signed. senled and dclivemcl in our prrsencg: OOUGi.~$ r. lrO~i.'~E'~-'- - Exhibit "A"