CCPC Minutes 06/07/2001 RJune 7, 2001
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, June 7, 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 Government Complex, East
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Joyceanna J. Rautio
Russell Budd
Ken Abernathy
Lora Jean Young
Michael Pedone
David Wolfley
NOT PRESENT:
Russell A. Priddy
Dwight Richardson
ALSO PRESENT:
Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County
Attorney
Susan Murray, Interim Current Planning
Manager
Page t
CLERK TO THE BOARD
MAUREEN KENYON
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2001 IN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
°
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED l0
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A
MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN
ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE
CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A
MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL
MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A
PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF
APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ROLL CALL BY CLERK
NEW CHAIR TO BE ELECTED
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
LDC AMENDMENTS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MAY 3, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: Kenneth L. Abernathy, Russell A. Priddy, and Lora Jean Young
BCC REPORT: RECAPS April 24,2001, May 8, 2001; and May 22, 2001
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
BD-2000-43, Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Charles E. Nelson, Jr., requesting a
25-foot boat dock extension to allow for a boat dock protruding a total of 45 feet into the waterway for property
located at 162 Sunset Cay, further described as Port of the Islands (The Cays) Phase II, Lot 82, in Section 9,
Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
Bo
BD-2000-45, Miles L. S¢ofield, of S¢ofield Marine Consulting, representing James O'Connell, requesting a 46-
foot boat dock extension to allow for a boat dock protruding a total of 66 feet into the waterway for property
located at 183 Sunset Cay, further described as Port of the Islands (The Cays), Phase II, Lot 88, in Section 9,
Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
Co
VA-2001-AR-584, Ruth B. Williams, Architect, representing Carole L. Mendelsohn, requesting a 2-foot variance
from the required 20-foot side yard setback on the east side to i 8 feet for property located at 4388 Butterfly
Orchid Lane, further described as Lot 10, Block D, Quail Creek Unit One, in Section 17, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
Do
PUDA-2001-AR-488, Tim Hancock, AICP, Director Collier County Services, of Vanasse & Daylor, LLP,
representing HB Holdings of Southwest Florida, LLC, requesting an amendment to the DaVinci Estates in Olde
Cypress PUD for purpose of modifying the front yard setbacks as outlined in Section 5.5, Item 6, which states,
"Single-family dwellings which provide 2 parking spaces within an enclosed side-entry garage and provide an area
for guest parking other than private driveways may reduce front yard requirements to 10 feet for the garage and
twenty feet for the remaining structures", for property located on the north side of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846),
approximately 1.3 miles west of 1-75 and one-half mile north of Immokalee Road, in Section 21, Township 48
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 40.4+ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
PUDA-2001-AR-546, Don Cahill, Architect, representing the Barefoot Beach Property Owners Association,
requesting an amendment to the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, Section 3.4.7, Low Density Residential, Unit 1,
having the effect of increasing the number of habitable floors from two to three floors for Tracts A through K of
Unit l, for property located within the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, lying south of Bonita Beach Road and west of
Lely Boulevard in Section 8, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 333+
acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
8. OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS: WORKSHOP FOR TRAINING/PLANNING & LEGAL ISSUES - JUNE 21, 2001
9. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
10. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
! 1. ADJOURN
6/7/01 CCPC AGENDA/SM/im
2
June 7, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
gentlemen. Are we on?
MS. MURRAY: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
Good morning, ladies and
We're live. Good morning. I'd like
to call to order the meeting of the Collier County Planning
Commission for June 7th, 2001. The first item on the agenda is
roll call.
Mr. Priddy? Absent but excused.
Mr. Budd?
MR. BUDD: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy.
MR. ABERNATHY: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Rautio, present.
Ms. Young.
MS. YOUNG: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Pedone.
MR. PEDONE: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley.
MR. WOLFLEY: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And Mr. Richardson, absent but
excused. We do have a quorum.
We do need to elect a new chairman because our previous
chairman resigned just recently. So I open the floor to
nominations.
MR. BUDD: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that
we have as our chairman J. Rautio; vice chair, Mr. Abernathy.
And do we need a secretary? MS. YOUNG: I second.
MR. BUDD: Secretary, is that part of this motion?
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No.
MR. BUDD-' Just the chair and vice chair?
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Technically I think we have to
Page 2
June 7, 2001
elect a chair first, but the assumption would be -- MR. BUDD: Okay. Then I make a motion that Miss Rautio be
the chair.
MR. ABERNATHY: Second.
MS. YOUNG: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd, a
second by Mr. Abernathy that J. Rautio be elected as chair. Any
other nominations? (No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Close the nominations. All in
favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
MR. BUDD: I'd like to make a motion that Mr. Abernathy be
the vice chair.
MR. PEDONE: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd, a
second by Mr. Pedone for Mr. Ken Abernathy -- Abernathy to
succeed me as the vice chair. Are there any other nominations?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no other nominations, close
the nominations. All in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
MR. BUDD: And for secretary I'd like to make -- make -- do
we need a motion, or is that an appointment?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. We don't nee -- we still -- she still
fills this. We are only filling vacancies today, but thank you.
MR. BUDD: I was on a roll.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You were on a roll. Thank you.
Page 3
June 7, 2001
Okay. The next item would be addenda to the agenda. And
it says LDC amendments.
MS. MURRAY: Did you want to consider those now, or would
you like to move them to the end of your agenda? Which would
you prefer?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any speakers here?
MS. MURRAY: I don't have any registered speakers for the
LDC amendments, and I don't have actually any registered
speakers for the --
MS. STUDENT: I can just discuss real quick what they are.
You have them in your packet, so if you .... I need -- I need you to
bear with me just a second, though, because I -- I'm getting my
things together here.
There were three sections, 119. And if you recall, that had
to do with the change to allow the board the opportunity to
amend the land code on other than two cycles as was provided
at one time in Section -- or currently provided in Section 119.1.
And it just states, "Amendments to this code may be made more
often than twice during the calendar year if the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners by at least a supermajority vote
directs that additional amendments be made for specific
purposes."
And there was some language stricken out about the ability
to do that in the event of an emergency. So that was 119.13, if
you recall from your meeting last week.
The other one, it was 3 -- just bear with me a minute while I
find it in here. It was, I believe, 313.
MS. MURRAY: Yeah. 3.13, Marjie.
MS. STUDENT: That had to do with coastal construction
setback line variances. And there were some exemptions. And
it -- there was a statement that "exemptions allowed under this
provision are not intended to authorize any violation of Florida
Page 4
June 7, 2001
Statute Section 370.12 or any of the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 as it may be amended." and
that was Section 3.13.7.3. And there was also a reference to
change the development services director to the planning
director. And there was also a statement therein -- and I guess I
had better read it -- "Any structure such as beach umbrellas and
beach furniture that do not constitute fixed structures do not
require a building permit, weigh less than a hundred pounds, and
upon review by the planning" -- instead of development service
director-- "or his designee are determined to not present an
actual or potential threat to the beach and the dune system and
adjacent properties" -- and here's the addition -- "are exempt
from the variance requirements of this division."
Then there are also some penalty and civil remedies added,
and that was in 3.13.9.3.1. And that was basically for a first
violation, $500 fine; second violation, thousand dollar fine and a
5-day suspension of the exemption allowing structures on the
beach; and third or more violations, $5,000 fine and a 10-day
suspension of the exemption allowing structures on the beach.
And the last item for your consideration was in 1.8. The
reference is to -- came under hearing examiner provisions and
nonconformities. And the reference is to changes from one
nonconforming structure to another. And I believe there's
another provision -- if you'll just bear with me a second -- was
being amended to delete the reference to the BZA and contain
the reference to the hearing examiner. And that would be in
1.8.6, change in use, and also -- and that was a reference to the
BZA was changed to hearing examiner and in 1.8.10 dealing with
nonconforming structures.
So what I'll need as part of the motion is for you to find that
these are consistent with the comp plan, and then I did a
separate ordinance just for advertising purposes as part of that
Page 5
June 7, 2001
motion to just put the contents of that ordinance back in the
regular LDC ordinance. And, also -- I've got to find it here -- there
were provisions that were not -- they were handouts at the
meeting last Wednesday night. And they weren't listed. And I'm
not sure -- I don't think you received them.
Susan, do you have the -- it had to do with PUDs. I'm just
trying to find it here. I thought we were going to take this at the
end of the agenda so ...
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm sorry, Marjorie.
MS. STUDENT: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We would have done it in deference to
you.
MS. STUDENT: That's okay. It might as well -- I'm just
looking for the handout.
MS. MURRAY: I have one copy. I didn't realize -- I'm sorry. I
didn't realize we needed to hand this out today. I can have
copies made, and they could discuss it later.
It's-- it's really a housekeeping issue. It's related, really, to
procedural changes that were brought about by the passage of
the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, and we just cleaned up
some of the language to reference the Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance. There's really no substantive change other than to
reference that.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And there are no surprises in here?
MS. MURRAY: No. No surprises.
MS. STUDENT: So I don't know. I --
MS. MURRAY: I'll have copies made, and I'll have it handed
out, and if you want to discuss it at the end, that's up to the
chairman.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy has a question.
MR. ABERNATHY: Marjorie, is there anything in the comp
plan about the LDC cycles, the semiannual cycles?
Page 6
June 7, 2001
MS. STUDENT: No.
MR. ABERNATHY: Who -- whose initiative is this initiative?
MS. STUDENT: I believe it's a staff initiative. Sue's -- unless
Mary may have more detail on it, I believe I was told by staff --
I'm not sure if the board directed it or how it came about but -- .
MS. MURRAY: That was my understanding.
MS. STUDENT: -- that's my understanding.
And -- and I will state for the record, we've had -- well, we've
had a little difficulty with the two cycles. We've had to call an
emergency a couple times. One time was when we had to do the
moratoria for the final order.
And there was one other time. It happened about five or six
years ago, and I can't remember all the particulars, but there
were two times that we had to call an emergency, so this would
give some flexibility in that if -- if there was a problem that the
board needed to react to.
I was also here when we didn't have the requirement prior to
1991, and I think, you know, there needs to be a balance because
it seemed like we were always doing amendments to the code.
And it truly was a moving target. So I think there needs to be a
bit of a balance.
MR. ABERNATHY: Is that what the superma]ority is?
MS. STUDENT: I think the superma]ority does give you that.
MR. ABERNATHY: Otherwise you have sort of an open
season on LDC amendments.
MS. STUDENT: Yes. And when you consider the
requirement that we have the two night meetings for the board in
all cases and for the Planning Commission when there are
changes to the actual list of permitted conditional or prohibited
uses, then -- and it seems like almost every cycle they come up.
And I just want to state for the record the reason that these
amendments were being added at this time was because the
Page 7
June 7, 2001
cycle is -- or the content was sort of a moving target, and when
we did our first advertising, the items that I referenced were not
included in the advertising. Since they do not change the list of
permitted -- conditional or permitted uses, we are able under our
code to have a regular day meeting for those type of
amendments, and that's how we were able to do this. MR. ABERNATHY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because I'm not particularly supportive
of having more than two cycles. But you're saying this would
give flexibility in case of emergency? I don't recall reading it.
MS. STUDENT: No, not necessarily. No, not an emergency
but a supermajority of the vote -- vote of the board. It used to be
an emergency. But I can give you -- a really good example is the
final order of the governor and cabinet where we were told we
have to do the interim development control or moratorium by a
certain date that did not coincide with our cycle, and we have to
declare -- at the regular board meeting declare an emergency --
and that was one step that had to be taken -- and then we had to
go ahead with the amendments. And I will tell you, with the time
frames from when we got the final order and the advertising
requirements, given the board being on summer vacation as well,
we had a very, very tight time frame to do it.
And if I recall, we had to declare that emergency at the first
meeting that the board had when they came back from vacation.
And we had very, very tight time frames to meet the DCA time
frame for when we had to have it done. So I think it's -- I
personally think it's -- it's a good idea to give us a little more
flexibility.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But what type of topics would we be
looking at? Anything in the Land Development Code?
MS. STUDENT: Well, I think the way it's worded that that's
conceivable. Susan, I don't know if you may want to address --
Page 8
June 7, 2001
MR. BUDD: Anything we get a supermajority on by the Board
of County Commissioners.
MS. STUDENT: Where the board directs it by a
supermajority.
MS. MURRAY: Currently the board has the ability to require
to hold it -- an emergency amendment cycle. I think this is
outside of the scope of emergency, but whereas there -- MS. STUDENT: Right. That's correct, sir.
MS. MURRAY: -- is a superma]ority of the board decides that
they need to for some reason have a --
MR. ABERNATHY: It has to start with the Board of County
Commissioners.
MS. MURRAY: That's correct, that's correct.
MR. BUDD: I share Mr. Abernathy's concern that we don't
want an open season on Land Development Code being a year-
round process. But given the conditions of this amendment, I'd
be in favor because a superma]ority of the Board of County
Commissioners is not going to come by very idly and incidentally
and would give it the appropriate control. So I think it's a -- a
good idea. And when the time comes, I'll be glad to make a
motion to that effect.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other --
MS. STUDENT: Just, please, include in the motion the
consistency with the comp plan and the taking of the separate
ordinance and melding it back into the regular code amendment
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other discussion on
this item for Land Development Code or the other ones presented
to us?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So I guess we're probably ready for a
motion.
Page 9
June 7, 2001
MR. BUDD.' If it's time for a motion, I'd like to make a motion
that 119-1, the topic for most recent discussion, be found in
compliance with the Growth Management Plan and be
recommended for approval, that there can be amendments to the
Land Development Code other than the -- the current two cycle
per annum process.
MS. STUDENT: And -- the others, the 1.8 with the hearing
examiner and 3.13 with the --
MR. BUDD: I was going to take them separately.
MS. STUDENT: Oh, I see. That's fine.
MR. ABERNATHY: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd, a
second by Mr. Abernathy to approve the increase in cycles for
the Land Development Code. Is there any other discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I'll call the question. All in favor
say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Same sign, opposed.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries.
MR. BUDD: I'd like to make a motion on 3.13 which
contained items regarding the coastal construction setback and
some other things that we find it in compliance with the growth --
the Comprehensive Plan. But on the penalty section I have the
same problem in the penalties that we've discussed on similar
items in that cycle, that while I think it's appropriate to have a
first penalty, $500; second penalty, a thousand; third penalty,
5,000, in my motion I propose that in our recommendation we
eliminate the suspension language that is included in there.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have a second?
MR. PEDONE: Second.
Page 10
June 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd, a
second by Mr. Pedone to approve the 3.13 coastal construction
setback issues that we've discussed. Is there any other
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. All in favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you.
MS. STUDENT: And then the other one is 1.8 where the
hearing examiner is -- replaces the Board of Zoning Appeals in
areas where -- let me see, let me turn back to it real quick here.
The change in use from one nonconforming use to another, as
well as nonconforming structures, and also there needs to be a
finding of consistency with that as well.
MR. BUDD: I'd like to make a motion for Section 1.8 be
found in compliance with the comp plan and that we forward it
with a recommendation of approval. MR. ABERNATHY: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a second -- excuse me, we
have a motion by Mr. Budd, a second by Mr. Abernathy to move
the changes for the hearing examiner forward. Is there any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no discussion, all in favor say
aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you.
MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman, if you would just make a
Page 11
June 7, 2001
separate motion that the separate ordinance that dealt with
those three items be included into the land code -- regular land
code ordinance.
MR. BUDD: Do we also need to take action on 2.2.20, the
one that was just handed out?
MS. STUDENT: Yes. But that was not in that separate
ordinance. That was -- MR. BUDD: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: -- for last Wednesday night's meeting. You
can take the -- I just thought it made sense to do the ordinance
now, because the three items that were in there you already
have moved so --
MR. BUDD: All right. You're looking for a motion to wrap
those three together?
MS. STUDENT: Yeah. Into the regular land code amendment
ordinance.
MR. BUDD: So moved.
MR. ABERNATHY: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd, a
second by Mr. Abernathy to wrap the first three items we just
voted on into the regular Land Development Code ordinance. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All in favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. BUDD: I believe the last item on all of this wrap-up is
Section 2.2.20, the modifications to the consolidated-impact-fee-
ordinance be found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
and be forwarded with a recommendation of approval.
Page 12
June 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
process also?
MS. STUDENT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
MR. BUDD: Yes.
It shows Section 2.7.2 amendment
You need to include that.
MR. ABERNATHY: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd, a
second by Mr. Abernathy to go forward with the planned unit
development district changes and the amendment procedures.
Do I hear any discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All in favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
Those opposed, same sign.
Motion carries. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
MS. STUDENT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you.
their indulgence.
And thank the audience for
MS. MURRAY: Madam Chairman, I'm sorry. I have an
announcement that might be appropriate for you-all to hear at
this point.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We're at the addenda to the
agenda?
MS. MURRAY: Yeah. It's with respect to your next
scheduled meeting, which is June 21st. Unfortunately, we found
out at the last minute that this room is not going to be available,
and so we have set up to meet in the supervisor of elections'
room which is the building, I would say, just north of here so --
south of here, sorry. Are you-all familiar with that location?
We're also going to post signs on the door for the public, and
I'll post a staff member here to direct the public appropriately.
Page 13
June 7, 2001
We're also going to put another ad in the newspaper this Sunday
just clarifying the location, but I just wanted to let you know.
MR. ABERNATHY: Same time and date?
MS. MURRAY: Same time and date, just supervisor of
elections' conference room right when you walk in the front door
there.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Okay. Moving along, next
item is approval of the minutes for May 3rd. Do I have a motion?
MR. BUDD: Madam Chairman, I make a motion we approve
the minutes of May 3rd.
MS. YOUNG: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd, a
second by Miss Young for the approval of the minutes of May 3rd.
All in favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
Those opposed, same sign.
Motion carries.
Planning Commission absences.
MR. BUDD: I will be absent June 21st.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd, the 21st. No other
absences?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you.
Board of County Commission report. Susan, do you care to
recap anything specifically that we read in the recaps?
MS. MURRAY: Not really. I -- I think -- I don't think there
was anything that was approved that went contrary to your
recommendations that I recall, and I'll be happy to recap the
board decisions on the LDC amendments next meeting for you-all
because they'll decide on the 20th of June.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Did any members -- commissioners
Page 14
June 7, 2001
have any questions about what they read?
Okay. Moving right along, the chairman's report. I don't
really have a report, but I just want to thank my colleagues for
electing me as their new chairman. I appreciate it and do
consider it a great honor. Thank you.
Moving right along to our advertised public hearings, all
those wishing to have testimony will have to stand and be sworn
in.
The first item of public hearing would be BD-2000-43, a boat
dock extension.
(The oath was administered.}
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you, Mr. Gochenaur.
MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services.
Very briefly, for the benefit of Commissioner Wolfley, I'd like
to explain that boat dock extensions are something that's
allowed by the Land Development Code. The code considers that
under certain circumstances a longer boat dock than the code
provides for, which is normally 20 feet, are appropriate if they
meet ten criteria. This is not a variance. There doesn't have to
be a hardship attendant to the petition. The decision to approve
or deny is based on those ten criteria, and the final decision is
made by the Planning Commission. This does not go to the Board
of County Commissioners.
The main thing to remember is this is not a true variance.
It's an extension petition. If you have any questions, I'll be happy
to answer them.
Okay. BD-2000-43, Petitioner is requesting a 25 -foot
extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 45 feet
into a waterway which is about 180 feet wide.
The property is located at 162 Sunset Cay in Port of the
Islands and contains about 240 feet of waterfrontage. The
Page 15
June 7, 2001
project consists of construction of an L-shaped dock and boat lift
protruding into the inlet canal. The property is located at the
intersection of the inlet canal and Faka Union Canal. The
shoreline is reinforced but a riprap revetment, and dock
extensions are typically needed on these inlet canals. Nine
extensions ranging from 33 to 45 feet have been approved on
inlet canals in this area.
We've received four written objections to this project. And
on the drawing I have on the visualizer, the subject property is in
yellow, and in green we have the location of the properties from
which we've received objections, the owners of these properties.
To the west we received three objections from residents of the
Sunset -- excuse me, Sunrise Cay condos, and we also received
objections from the property owner who has adjacent Lots 80
and 81, Mr. Klarr, K-I-a-r-r.
Mr. Klarr was faxed plans of the project and has responded
by saying that he is requesting -- and I quote -- "that the walkway
to the west be moved to the opposite end of the perpendicular
section of the dock so that the pedestrian traffic it will bear for
Mr. Nelson's property is more centered on his lot than bordering
on mine." so I'm assuming that his objections take the form of
this one recommendation.
As far as the objections from the condo owners, I believe
that most of these people feel that the dock was to go in the
Faka Union Canal which wasn't made clear in the advertisement.
It simply said that the dock would protrude into the waterway.
The nature of the objections make me think that the people feel
that it's going to be in the natural waterway of the canal, rather
than the man-made canal itself, the inlet canal. Basically these
people objected to the dock as a hazard to navigation and to the
manatees.
And I will read from one letter that I don't think you have a
Page 16
June 7, 2001
copy of written by a Mr. Lawler. Mr. Lawler is concerned
because he purchased his home in Port of the Islands, quote,
because of the natural wilderness atmosphere. I am disturbed by
the demolition and construction of docks, floats, pilings
consistently destroying our fish and wildlife, not to mention our
endangered manatees. I'm not quite sure of the exact nature of
that objection, so I thought I'd quote that.
The objections notwithstanding, we do feel that this project
meets all criteria, and staff does recommend approval.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?
MS. YOUNG: I'm very concerned about the fact that we are
allowing these extensions. As you can see, every one of these
homeowners has a dock, and their view down there is very
important to them. We almost -- it seems we almost ought to
alter the code if we're going to allow every single request for an
extension.
MR. GOCHENAUR: The code allows, under certain
circumstances, longer docks than are normally permitted. When
you have a riprap revetment, which is something that the DEP
considers environmentally friendly, that in itself is a handicap to
the property owner as opposed to a vertical seawall. Typically
you can get greater water depth at the seawall than you can get
with a riprap revetment. So typically in Port of the Islands these
properties with these riprap revetment need extensions that
property owners who have seawalls don't. This is one of the
reasons that we see so many of these.
I think the objections that we're getting here in part stem
from the fact that this is a largely undeveloped area. People
aren't used to seeing development. But we do consider that this
is a waterfront community and that this is, in fact, a waterway. A
waterway is intended to convey boat traffic to a larger water
body. So we basically consider that people who buy waterfront
Page17
June 7, 2001
property should expect to see docks and that the property owner
can reasonably expect to put a viable dock on his property. I
hope that addresses your concern.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? Mr. Abernathy.
MR. ABERNATHY: Ross, would you run by for me one more
time this statement that Jerry Neal (phonetic) made the other
night about taking the dock out to the -- to where you get 4 feet
of water being a state suggestion or -- of some sort? I guess it --
it plays in these riprap situations that you're going out so far
looking for a certain amount of water. But what -- what is with
the 4-feet depth?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Sir, I can't address that. You probably
remember I was a little bit confused when you brought it up
originally. And, again, possibly the petitioner's agent can give us
some information on that.
MR. ABERNATHY: It was a sort of a surprise to me because
we had a lady here from Vanderbilt Lagoon who had gone to the
trouble of getting a statement from some marina owner about a
boat, a 22-foot boat, wouldn't need but 3 feet, and that wouldn't
make any difference if the -- if the idea is to go out to 4 feet.
Maybe Rocky can enlighten us on that.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Scofield, would you care to try to
answer Mr. Abernathy's question before you present?
MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. For the record, Rocky Scofield
representing the applicant.
I believe what you're referring to, there's -- there's so many
state and federal rules in the permitting. Four feet -- I'm not sure
exactly -- I don't know if I heard what Jerry was talking about,
but the 4-foot criteria only really applies to when we're
permitting docks in the aquatic preserves.
MR. ABERNATHY: So that's the Key Island situation.
MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir.
Page 18
June 7, 2001
MR. ABERNATHY.' You're not supposed to go beyond 4 --
MR. SCOFIELD'. You're not -- the end of your dock -- the
terminal platform, which is the end of your dock where you're
mooring your boat, cannot extend beyond minus 4 feet.
However, you can put a boat lift out beyond that or mooring piles
beyond that.
Now, the state's been trying to rescind that ruling for the
last two years, but it's easy to enact laws into the state; it's very
tough to rescind them or change them. They -- the DEP has
realized the minus 4 -- the reason they did that in aquatic
preserves, the minus 4 feet, was to -- they -- they trying to limit
the size of boats. That's -- that was their whole intention. It
hasn't worked.
People buying lots on Key Island, for example, spending lots
of money, they're building homes out there now. And some of
their boats are bigger boats that have deeper drafts. Well, they
come in. Well, the whole -- the main thing is the state doesn't
want you prop dredging. So this law has kind of turned around
and -- and bit them in the rear end.
And they're trying to get that done away with because now
you have manatee situation and -- and resources on the bottom.
And the more room you have between the bottom and the boat
and the bottom the better. So -- and -- and there we have wide
waterways which will allow them to go out even further. So that
ruling doesn't hold up too well anymore. But that is the law right
nOW,
And whenever we permit -- Isle of Capri is an aquatic
preserve. So when we come in here for docks, unless it's on a
man-made canal, everything in Isle of -- Isles of Capri has to be
out to minus 4 feet. It can't be any further out anywhere in the
aquatic preserves.
MR. ABERNATHY.' Then there's some other thing because
Page 19
June 7, 2001
Jerry's situation wasn't in an aquatic preserve, I don't think.
MR. SCOFIELD: I -- I think I heard him say that one time --
MR. ABERNATHY: And he --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time.
MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. ABERNATHY: And he said the state was encouraging
people to go to 4 feet, which would moot a lot of the discussions
we've had here about why you have to go out so far.
MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir. The -- they're -- the state would
like to get you into deeper water is what they're doing. That's
why they're trying to rescind this rule. The 4 feet, they did it
trying to minimize the size of boats in aquatic preserves which
has not worked, and they realize that now. But, yes, they'd like
to get you -- they'd like to have a foot to 2 feet of water
underneath the boats, especially for manatee situations where
boats are upmooring; manatees can get under the docks and
under the boats and stuff like that.
MR. ABERNATHY: Maybe that's --
MR. SCOFIELD: In this -- in this application, one other thing,
in -- in light of the changes that are coming on in the boat dock
extension permits applications, surveys are required now by or
going to be by registered -- I've already started this, having all of
my jobs surveyed for water depths, mean high and mean Iow
waterlines and all that. And I am requesting my out -- that the
applicants, the owners, that the surveyor actually go out and
stake out where the end of the dock goes so, in essence, the
spot survey is done kind of before the construction begins.
So in this petition you can see in the past I've requested two
additional feet beyond where the dock is going. The petition
requests 45 feet. The dock only goes out 43 feet. We -- you can
amend that this morning to 43 feet bringing it in to the end of the
dock because it will be surveyed, and we don't need that 2 foot
Page 20
June 7, 2001
of leeway, and it won't be in any future petitions. It'll be the
exact length of the request.
I can show you on the aerial if you'd like to see where the
project is.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Let's make sure. Are we -- do
we have any other questions about this particular aspect?
MR. WOLFLEY: I -- I do. What is the direction of the dock?
There's no indication on any of this which -- is it going out into
the canal, or is it going --
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Do you -- do you have the drawing in
your packet there?
MR. WOLFLEY: Yes, yes.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. If you see the -- if you see the overall
-- the larger one (indicating) where it shows the whole plot of the
lot and the dock in relationship to it.
MR. WOLFLEY: (Indicating) that's all I have.
MR. PEDONE: (Indicating.)
MR. SCOFIELD: It's in my application.
MR. BUDD: It -- on page 9 of the dock facility extension
petition.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's about four from the bottom of the
thick packet.
MR. WOLFLEY: There it is.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You got it.
MR. WOLFLEY: And how--
MR. SCOFIELD: I can show you here on the aerial. If-- if you
have this -- if you have this plan here, the end -- the man-made
canal runs this way (indicating). This is the man-made canal
here (indicating). This is the Faka Union Canal. This is the
natural waterway here (indicating). These are all the man-made
canals (indicating). The dock is going right on this corner lot
right here (indicating) in this fashion. The dock actually sticks
Page 21
June 7, 2001
inside the man-made waterway, not out into the Faka Union
Canal.
MR. WOLFLEY: And how wide is that man-made --
MR. SCOFIELD: The man-made canal is 189 feet wide. I
went out with a laser range finder and measured it yesterday --
excuse me, Tuesday morning. And by -- by reducing the dock
down to the four -- the request for 43 feet, it's 23 percent the
width of the waterway.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Miss Young, do you have a question?
MS. YOUNG: Yes. Where are Lots 90 and 917 This owner is
saying --
MR. SCOFIELD: They're -- they're adjacent in the canal.
MR. ABERNATHY: Inboard of the --
MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. The applicant's is on the corner. The
next two lots are going into the man-made canal. And the -- the
owner -- the owner faxed me a letter yesterday. I wrote him. I
faxed him a letter asking him if he had any questions, call me.
He said he didn't have any other than what -- Ross read you the
letter that he wrote back, and he -- they refer to these as
variances. And he said he will go along with it as long as we
move the walkway to the other side of the dock where -- we're 25
feet away right now. The county only requires us to be 15 feet
away. We went an additional 10. The -- the state setbacks are
25 feet, so we just went with the state setbacks.
This is a private residential dock which is only used six
months out of the year -- or five -- no, seven. I believe he's here
eight months out of year. He's back in Massachusetts in the
summer. So the reference to pedestrian traffic on this walkway,
I'm -- I'm not sure what he's referring to.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Gochenaur, did you have
anything more you wanted to present?
MR. GOCHENAUR: No, ma'am.
Page 22
June 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So we're fully into the
representative of the petitioner.
Do we have any more specific questions? Is there anything
specifically you wanted to bring to our attention, any registered
speakers?
MR. PEDONE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Pedone has a question.
MR. PEDONE: Yeah. Rocky, the -- at 20 feet, if I - I'm
reading this right, you've only got a draft of 2 foot, 8 -- 8 inches?
MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Wow.
MR. PEDONE: So a boat with a 3-foot draft is going to be
sitting on the bottom?
MR. SCOFIELD: At 20 feet.
MR. PEDONE: Yeah.
MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir. I've done, I think, just about all the
extensions in the Cays, Phase 2, which is 6 or 7, maybe -- maybe
more, in this area. And it's -- the man-made -- the canals are
much wider than the normal hundred feet we're used to around
town.
And the riprap shoreline, the way it was done there, as a
condition -- Todd Turrell did the -- did the riprap shorelines and
the dredging of the Cays Phase 2, which I work in con]unction
with. And the -- one of the things of the riprap shorelines with
the state and federal was that, you know, the shallow areas were
left in there. That's why all these docks have to be extended out.
Now, there are docks in there that extend 20 feet out, but they
can't get their boats -- most of them can't -- they're -- they're in
trouble. They can't -- at Iow tide.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any registered speakers?
Page 23
June 7, 2001
MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Then I close the public hearing.
MR. BUDD: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that
the Planning Commission approve Petition BD-2000-43 with a
modification of the total protrusion down to 43 feet instead of the
45 feet originally requested.
MR. ABERNATHY: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd, a
second by Mr. Abernathy. Do we have any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I call the question. All in favor
please say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you.
Next public hearing would be BD-2000-45, Mr. Scofield again
representing James O'Connell. All those wishing to give
testimony, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in
by the clerk of the courts.
(The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Mr. Gochenaur again.
MR. GOCHENAUR: Thank you. For the record, Ross
Gochenaur, planning services. This dock is also in Port of the
Islands, so it'll be a little bit confusing, but I'll try to make sure
we keep these things straight.
The petitioner is requesting a 26-foot extension to create a
docking facility protruding a total of 46 feet into an inlet canal
which is 330 feet wide. The property is located at 183 Sunset
Cay in Port of the Islands and contains about 100 feet of
waterfrontage. The project consists of a handicap-accessible
floating concrete dock situated parallel to the riprap shoreline.
Page 24
June 7, 2001
Docks on these canals typically require extensions, and 9 such
extensions ranging from 33 to 45 feet have been approved on the
inlet canals in this area.
We've received three written objections to this project. The
first objection has come from Mr. Peters who is the owner of
unimproved Lots 90 and 91 at the end of the canal. Mr. Peters
observes that no hardship or practical difficulty is attendant to
the lot. And, again, I would point out that this is not a variance,
that there need -- need be no hardship involved for approval. Mr.
Peters feels that granting this variance would allow a privilege
not available to others. And I would point out that dock-
extension petitions are available to the public. And, finally, Mr.
Peters suggests dredging as an alternative to the dock
extension. And I think I'll let Mr. Scofield talk about that
particular alternative.
The other objections, too, have come from residents of
Stella Maris condos to the northeast. That would be here
(indicating). And these objections primarily focus on view,
although Mr. Hayen, H-a-y-e-n, observes that the dock would, in
fact, ruin the landscape and wreak havoc on the environment and
points out that the area is, in fact, a nesting area for birds and a
manatee refuge.
These objections notwithstanding, we do feel that the dock
petition meets all criteria; and we, therefore, recommend
approval.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Scofield.
MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning again. Rocky Scofield
representing the applicant.
This dock, if -- if you'll -- in your packet only extends out 32
feet. This is a concrete floating dock. I -- I meant to look.
Page 25
June 7, 2001
There's -- there's -- 2 lots down there's one for Mr. Dillon that I did
about a year ago, and I forgot to look that up, but I think it was
out 42 feet, I believe it was, something like that, to the front of
the dock.
This one, the applicant, Mr. O'Connell, requested -- I mean,
he wanted to have a concrete floating dock with a gangway in
here. The back -- the reason for the distance out, if you look at
your cross-section, you have 2.2 feet of water at the back edge
of your dock. This concrete floating dock draws about 22 inches
of water, so it's marginal. On -- on extra Iow tides, he'll probably
bump on the bottom a little bit, but it's -- the concrete floating
docks can handle that.
His boat that he has -- I believe he has or is getting -- has a
13 1/2-foot beam, I believe it is. Mr. O'Connell is here, if I -- if I
say something wrong. That is the requested distance out for the
boat dock extension. A boat dock extension has to -- as you
know, is to include the moored vessel, not just the structure, the
permanent structure, but the moored vessel. A lot of docks, as
you know, they're permitted out a certain distance, and then
people park a boat out in front of them, and then that's not a
permitted use. But that's why the request for this.
The applicant at this time -- at this point is -- he has a -- he
may be confined to a wheelchair in the future. He has a
degenerative circulatory disease. If you want, he can tell you
about it. He's here. But -- and he -- so we're trying to make this
handicapped accessible in the future. We don't believe -- this is a
-- number one, it's a concrete floating dock. It only has a profile
of 2 feet above the water. So the view implication for the dock is
-- is much, much less than a conventional dock with a boat lift in
front of it. The moored vessel in front of it is on the -- on the
water. It's not up on a lift. We don't believe that the view will be
impacted. It's a very wide waterway, and if you have any
Page 26
June 7, 2001
questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions?
MR. ABERNATHY: Do you have a -- a second floating
concrete structure for the gangway to rest on? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir.
MR. ABERNATHY: Is that engineered in such a way that at
Iow tide that gangway won't fall off it?
MR. SCOFIELD.' That's why it's there. The -- your main dock
is 8 feet wide. Because -- because the -- the -- the land on -- in
the Cays there is about 6 feet vertically high above mean high
water, so it's a pretty good drop there. And the reason for that
extra float is so we won't go off the front or the back of the 8-
foot-wide dock.
And the other thing is, is you need to be able to move around
the main dock 8 feet without your walkway sticking out to the
front of it. You have to be able to access the whole dock. That's
why a lot of times we put this landing platform it's called on
these floating docks, so the gangway will roll onto the main
dock, and at Iow tides it will roll back onto that landing. MR. ABERNATHY: Oh, I see. Okay.
MR. SCOFIELD: And, again, the waterway here is 345 feet
wide. The dock with the moored vessel in front of it will take up -
- will protrude out 13 percent of the waterway.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions? We have a first
registered speaker?
MS. MURRAY: I don't have any registered speakers for any
of the petitions. If -- just as an announcement, if anybody wishes
to speak on these, they would need to fill one out.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: There is a speaker slip form out on the
table you can fill out. Sir, if you can come up and state your
name and where you live and spell it for the court reporter, we'll
have you fill one out afterwards. But if there's anyone else
Page 27
June 7, 2001
wishing to speak, please do get one of the slips and fill it out and
give it to Miss Murray.
Sir, for the record.
MR. FRAGIACOMO: Name is Leo. Last name is Fragiacomo.
Okay.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Could you spell that?
MR. FRAGIACOMO: F-r-a-g-i-a-c-o-m-o. Okay. And I'm Lot
71, 72. And I've written a letter to Mr. Ross Gochemer
(phonetic). Okay. And I also have a petition here that's been
signed by 40 people -- 40, 42 people in the Stella Maris area,
which I would like to submit. Okay?
And it's true; the view is important to us. We face west so
that we can see the entire inlet canal. I feel that going out 46
feet with the boat -- and the boat is 48 feet long from what I hear.
Now I may be wrong -- and it's not a boat that is normally used in
this area because of the depth of the water in the canal in the
Faka Union Canal and certain areas out before you get out to the
gulf.
The people on Stella Maris have all been -- have all been
regulated to 20 feet out basically. And they have a seawall,
okay. But because of the depth of the -- depth of the water, even
at times we don't get out. We can't remove our boat from the
dock at Iow tides, especially in the winter. And the water is not
normal -- let's see -- normal height for that kind of boat to be used
in the -- in the canal or in the Faka Union. It's -- right now it's
moored in -- at the marina, but we -- we people down there don't
see that size boat going in and out of the particular canal.
I would like to further read a letter here from Peters who
owns the Lot 90, 91. And Ross did read part of it, but he did not
read all of it. He's the owner -- (as read): "1 am the owner of
Lots 90 and 91 of Port of Islands, the Cays Plot Phase 2, Section
9, Township 52, Range 28 East. The -- those lots were purchased
Page 28
June 7, 2001
for their -- their location and view westerly to the marina. This
view which is long -- along the length of the waterway and across
the Faka Union Canal is an outstanding feature of the lots and
especially of Lot 91. The Port of Islands is a planned residential
community. An essential part of the community plan is the
unrestricted view of the waterways associated with the Port of
the Islands. The seawall of Lot 91 faces west and runs at a 90-
degree angle to the shoreline of Lot 88, the applicant's lot. There
is a distance of approximately 200 feet from the seawall of Lot
91 to the proposed variance dock. Lot 91 has 76 front feet.
The extending of dock and allowing dockage 46 feet out into
the waterway will obscure all but 30 feet of the direct view from
Lot 91. This will have a decided negative effect on the value of
my property and will impinge upon its uses as insured -- assured
by the development regulations. The Cays have regulations
providing for the intrusion of docks being limited to 20 feet into
the waterway. The purpose of that provision is to minimize the
burden on the surrounding property while at the same time
allowing everyone reasonable use of the waterway.
There is no hardship or partic -- practical difficulty attendant
to Lot 88. The subject lot does not possess any physical or
unique characteristics that make compliance within the 20-foot
limitation for extension of a dock into the waterway impossible.
The owner of Lot 88 can use his property for its permitted use
without a variance. Granting a variance for a 26-foot boat dock
extension would be granting a privilege to the applicant not
made available to others. This privilege would have an adverse
effect upon the neighboring properties and alter the essential
character of the area. Lot 91 would be particularly adversely
affected.
And then in setting the 20-foot regulation line, I am certain
the depth of the waterway was taken into account. An alternate
Page 29
June 7, 2001
to obstructing my view and use of 91 would be for the applicant
to dredge to a necessary usable depth within the 20-foot
limitation."
I don't know whether that's possible to -- to dredge. I -- I'm
not an engineer or anything like that. But I do know that this 50-
foot concrete floating dock 8 foot wide will be a problem for us.
Now, per -- perhaps for people in Naples or in Marco Island it's
not a problem. People in Fort Lauderdale it's not a problem, but
for us it is a problem in that we enjoy the view. That's why we
bought there, and that's why most people that are living in the
Cays and at Stella Maris bought there. Now, Stella Maris -- all the
people in Stella Maris on the south end will be looking at this
dock and this boat.
Now, perhaps you don't feel that this is a unsightly thing.
We do, and that's basically what I have to say.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you.
MR. PEDONE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Question? Mr. Pedone.
MR. PEDONE: Where is Stella Maris? What lot numbers
would -- would Stella Maris be at?
MR. FRAGIACOMO: Stella Maris is on -- my lot is facing
west, okay?
MR. SCOFIELD: Here.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: 717
MR. GOCHENAUR.' Commissioner, on the visualizer --
MR. FRAGIACOMO: Right here.
MR. GOCHENAUR: -- 71 is right here.
MR. FRAGIACOMO: And all of the other Stella Marises are
here. Wait, wait. Let's see. We're in this first unit here
(indicating), and the lot is ours. And then all these are Stella
Maris villas, and his lot will be approximately here (indicating).
MR. PEDONE: So then the lots that are along the canal that
Page 30
June 7, 2001
are opposite to the lot that -- that the request is in for the dock
extension, their view right now is of the homes that will be built
or that are built there and of the other docks. MR. FRAGIACOMO: That's right, uh-huh.
MR. PEDONE: So the only homes in Stella Maris with a view
of the -- of the marina, then, are the ones where you are. MR. FRAGIACOMO: On the west side, yeah.
MR. PEDONE: Okay. How far would you say your property
is, the beginning of your property, from that line on the -- on that
side of the canal? I mean, are you a hundred feet? Are you 50
feet? Seventy-five feet?
MR. FRAGIACOMO:
the
Which line are we talking about? Where
dock is going to --
MR. PEDONE: Yeah. Where -- where you have your -- no, no.
MR. FRAGIACOMO: Right here (indicating)?
MR. PEDONE.' Where -- where -- where the lot that we're
talking about is.
MR. FRAGIACOMO: Okay. It's right here (indicating). Okay?
It's approximately -- I don't know exactly what, but it's
approximately 200 feet. I can't really --
MR. PEDONE: Okay. So, in other words, his 30 --what is it? -
- 32 feet extension, you have another seventy to a hundred
seventy feet before your lot actually begins.
MR. FRAGIACOMO: Right. But the lot that he was talking
about, 91, is right here (indicating). MR. PEDONE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions?
MR. FRAGIACOMO: That's -- anything else?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you very much.
The next registered speaker, please.
MS. MURRAY: No other registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, there is one.
Page 31
June 7, 2001
MR. SCOFIELD: Unless you'd like to hear from --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Seeing no other registered
speakers, we close the public hearing.
MR. BUDD: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that
the Planning Commission approve Petition BD-2000-45. MR. PEDONE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd, a
second by Mr. Pedone for approval of this particular petition. Do
we have some discussion? Any other discussion?
MS. YOUNG: I find myself reluctant to vote in favor of this
because I think the -- the opponents do have a point that they
have purchased property down there and that the view is
important to them, and this is a rather long extension.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do have a question on that aspect.
Then when it comes to the 20-foot docks, was -- are they there,
Ross, because that's what the condominium association said we
-- all we're going to build and they didn't go in for variances? Is
that how that occurred?
MR. GOCHENAUR: That's not clear to me exactly what
regulations they were talking about that limited them to 20 feet.
The county would limit them to 20 feet, but there could be deed
restrictions. In that case the county wouldn't be involved. To my
knowledge, there's no reason that they could not apply for a
similar extension.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. In -- in -- as this gentleman here
was saying, that this is something being allowed the general
public is not able to take advantage of, and I disagree, because
anyone can apply for a boat dock extension.
MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. That's correct.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So that's not some special condition.
And as you mentioned, it's not a variance. Did you have any idea
of discussion on the -- quote, the community plan unrestricted
Page 32
June 7, 2001
view of the waterways? Is that a deed restriction?
MR. GOCHENAUR: If it were a deed restriction, we would be
prohibited by the Land Development Code from taking that into
consideration.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney. And I'd like to make two points. The criteria
that were read into the record sound like, without doing a word-
for-word check against our code variance criteria, and as Mr.
Gochenaur stated, that's not the correct criteria for a boat dock
extension. What is correct are the criteria that are listed in the
staff report and the ones that the Planning Commission takes
into consideration.
Secondly, we have a code provision where the county does
not enforce or interpret deed restrictions.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you for that clarification.
MR. BUDD: I'd also like to make some additional comment
with regard to the -- this dock extension. And, Rocky, you can
correct me if I misstate something here. But the way I
understand it is the basic dock length approved is 20 feet long.
The length that we have considered here, 46 feet, includes the
beam of the boat, which is 13 feet. So the net added length of
the dock extension is 13 feet, which is approximately the
distance from me to the speaker's podium. That dock is a
concrete floating dock that floats 2 feet or less above the water
in a waterway that's 330 feet wide. I don't see a view problem.
MR. WOLFLEY: Well, my comment is it may not be the dock.
It may be the boat --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: However, I'm just curious--okay, it's
the boat. But I'm just curious why would you want to live in a
waterway community and object to docks and object to boats.
That is sort of integral to the atmosphere of being in a water
community. It has always puzzled me since I've been up here,
Page 33
June 7, 2001
and sometimes we have cases where view is very significant, but
-- and I know people care about their view. I'm not saying they
don't. But I'm not sure what the point is to live in a water
community and object to docks and boats if you --
MS. MURRAY: The -- the Land Development Code, of course,
permits boats and docks as accessory uses. And, of course, if
you don't need a boat dock extension, then you can certainly pull
a permit and build a dock according to code and park your boat
there, so I think that's anticipated if you live along a waterfront
community, obviously.
MR. BUDD: And I'd also respond to Mr. Wolfley -- it's a good
question -- but I think it's important to recognize this Planning
Commission is -- we're reviewing boat dock extensions. We have
absolutely no control over the feasibility, economic or otherwise,
of an individual's boat size. You know, if they want to bring the
Queen Mary in there, it is beyond our control. We cannot
regulate that. We can only regulate the dock.
MR. GOCHENAUR: If I can make one observation, by way of
iljustration, if a property owner has a hundred feet of
waterfrontage with 15-foot setbacks, he could theoretically put a
70-foot boat with a 20 -foot beam there with building permits
without coming before this Planning Commission. If it's a party
barge, you get basically the same effect as a floating carport. So
we try to put this thing in perspective without limiting the size of
the vessel that a property owner can buy.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have -- let's see, we have a
motion and second on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please
state aye.
(Unanimous response.)
Page 34
June 7, 2001
yOU.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
Those opposed, same sign.
Motion carries unanimously.
Thank
The next public hearing is VA-2001-AR-584, Ruth B. Williams,
architect, representing Carole Mendelsohn.
All those wishing to give testimony, please stand, raise your
right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Reischl.
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl,
planning services.
This is a request for a variance in the Quail Creek
subdivision. As you see on the visualizer, Valewood Drive
coming in, and that's the location of the lot, backs up to the golf
course and adjacent to two houses. And the request is for a 2-
foot variance from the required 20-foot side yard.
The location of the house in blue, the subject house, and the
adjacent house I have outlined here in yellow. And the
measurements applied by the petitioner, there's approximately --
or more than 50 feet of separation between the proposed
addition to the house and the house of the neighbor, the closest
affected neighbor.
You can see in blue the existing house and in pink the two
proposed additions. The addition on this side (indicating} meets
the setback. There's -- that's not under consideration for the
variance. This addition protrudes 2 feet into the required 20-foot
side yard.
That neighbor to the east has, as you see in your packet,
supplied a letter of no objection. The homeowners' association
has approved the architectural addition. There was another
unsolicited letter from another neighbor that was notified.
Page 35
June 7, 2001
However, once again, there's no land-related hardship. An
addition could be built without protruding into that 20-foot side
yard setback. The petitioner-- I -- I told the petitioner what my
recommendation would be. She decided to go forward with this
because she was concerned about the architectural continuity of
keeping her house architecturally good looking.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe the term is symmetry
structure?
MR. REISCHL:
(indicating) is Mrs.
of the
Symmetry. Thank you. You can see here this
Mendelsohn's house. This is the closest
affected neighbor (indicating). And, once again, the view from
the road. Mrs. Mendelsohn's house and basically landscaping
will hide the -- the addition from the road. Again, this is probably
a better view of both -- both houses. And, again, from the road
the -- the addition will not be visible at all.
MR. ABERNATHY: It sure would be if it were 2 feet shorter,
though.
MR. REISCHL: That's true. And here is the view from the
back. You can see this is where the addition, approximate
addition, will go. And here is the closest affected neighbor.
I didn't see anybody stand. I know Mrs. Mendelsohn is at
her grandson's graduation. She said she was going to send a --
an agent, and I didn't see anybody stand.
WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: (Indicating).
MR. REISCHL: So somebody is here if you have any
questions.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have questions of staff?
MR. REISCHL: Oh. So my conclusion was we're constrained
from recommending approval on this petition.
MS. YOUNG: I would like to ask a question. The -- the staff
cannot approve it, what, because there is no hardship. Can we
approve it?
Page 36
June 7, 2001
MS. STUDENT: If you find, based upon the evidence
presented, that there is a hardship.
MR. REISCHL: Well, actually, there are other --
MS. YOUNG: We must find there is a hardship?
MR. REISCHL: Well, there are other criteria --
MS. STUDENT: Yeah. There are other concerns, and it's not
that -- you know, you weigh those together in making a
determination.
MR. REISCHL: Right. It's your job to weigh the criteria. We
put more emphasis on land-related hardship. If you want to put
more emphasis on the ameliorating factors, that's your decision.
MS. YOUNG: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Does the petitioner want to present?
And if you do you have to be sworn in because you didn't stand.
WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: No.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And with no additional
speakers, I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the
board?
MR. BUDD: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion.
Although I respect the planning staff, I'm going to disagree with
them and recommend Petition VA-2001-AR-584 be sent to the
Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval.
MS. YOUNG: Second.
MR. ABERNATHY: Second.
MR. PEDONE: Second.
MS. YOUNG: Whoops.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Budd
and I think Mr. Abernathy slipped in with a second. Do we have
any further discussion or questions? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All those in favor of the motion please
say aye.
Page 37
June 7, 2001
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
Those opposed, same sign.
Thank you. Motion carries.
Moving right along to PUDA-2001-AR-488, Mr. Tim Hancock
representing HB Holdings. All those wishing to give testimony
please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the clerk
of the courts.
(The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning.
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. For the record, my name's
Ray Bellows.
The petitioner is requesting a minor amendment to the
DaVin¢i Estates in Olde Cypress PUD. As you can see on the
location map on the visualizer, it's located north of Immokalee
Road approximately a mile and a half west of Collier Boulevard.
It's surrounded by another PUD, the Olde Cypress PUD.
It's a single-family subdivision. The petitioner is requesting
changes to the development standards to allow for some
different type of housing design where the garage -- when there
is a side-entry garage, that would encroach into the -- what
would be the 20-foot setback from a principal structure. They
want to have a 10-foot setback from the garage from the
roadway, and the principal structure would remain at 20 feet.
They also want to reduce the rear-yard setback from 25 feet
to 20 feet, which is the same rear -yard setback in the adjacent
PUD that surrounds it, the Olde Cypress PUD.
Basically staff is supportive of these changes. They don't
see any problem with that. Those setbacks have been approved
in other PUDs. It will not create any adverse impacts to the
adjacent developments. I have not received any letters against
this petition, so staff is recommending approval of this minor
Page 38
June 7, 2001
amendment.
MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. Madam Chairman, I'm sorry. Ray,
were they also requesting a -- a variance from signage?
MR. BELLOWS: Oh, yes. In the staff report there is mention
of language change dealing with project entry signs. It's a minor
change and pretty consistent with some other PUDs where they
have project entry signs.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy.
MR. ABERNATHY: Your write -up indicates that the request
is to reduce the rear-yard setback from 25 to 20 feet when
abutting a lake. I looked through there, and I didn't find that that
was a condition of the reduction of the rear -yard setback.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The lake is really not important. The
original petition when it came to me, the -- was from the
developer himself, and he was mentioning from the lake. But as
the process went on, they decided to make it throughout the
entire PUD, so that should come out.
MR. ABERNATHY: Most of the -- most of them back on a
lake but not all.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And that has been changed,
and now it's going to be PUD-wide.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We hear from the petitioner?
MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members
of the Planning Commission. Tim Hancock with Vanasse &
Daylor representing HB Holdings here this morning.
This project is wholly contained within the Olde Cypress
PUD. The standard you see being proposed here today for a 10-
yard front -- a 10-foot front-yard setback for side-entry garages is
identical to that that is within the Olde Cypress PUD. The rear-
yard setback being from 25 to 20 feet is the requested reduction,
Page 39
June 7, 2001
again, identical to that within the Olde Cypress PUD.
All of the lots within the DaVinci Estates PUD back up to
either lake, preserve, or in two occasions back up to near
proximity to other platted lots within the Olde Cypress. And,
again, the standards being proposed are identical to the Olde
Cypress PUD standards for purposes of setback.
I have a variety of exhibits that I can show you the impact of
the setbacks if you wish. I'll leave that to the pleasure of the
Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would someone like to see the
exhibits?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Apparently not.
MR. HANCOCK: We always prepare the 45-minute
presentation and the 5-minute presentation. I'm happy to go with
the 5 -minute presentation.
MR. BUDD: As when you prepare the long one which may
not pass and the short one that probably will.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Susan, are there any registered
speakers?
MS. MURRAY: The only registered speaker was Tim
Hancock. That's it.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay.
MR. ABERNATHY: Tim, are all these multiple affidavit
makers? Phoenix Homes, Vision Build, those are all people that
bought lots in there to --
MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. A great number of the
homes within DaVinci have already been -- are under contract to
builders. And as a purpose of the application, we needed to
show those contracts.
MR. ABERNATHY.' Okay.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. With no further comments from
Page 40
June 7, 2001
the public, I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the
board?
MR. BUDD-' Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that
the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval
for Petition PUDA-2001-488 with a recommendation of approval.
MS. YOUNG: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd, a
second by Ms. Young for approval of this petition. Do we have
any further discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no further discussion, call the
question. All those in favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
Those opposed, same sign.
Motion carries. Thank you.
Okay. Our next public hearing would be PUDA-2001-AR-546.
All those wishing to provide testimony today please stand, raise
your right hand, and be sworn in by the clerk of the courts.
(The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The petitioner
is requesting an amendment to the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD. As
you could see, the PUD is located in the northwest corner of the
county south side of Bonita Beach Road. We're dealing primarily
with Unit 1, Tracts A through K highlighted here in yellow within
the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD.
The applicant is requesting a change to the development
standard regulating height for those single-family homes within
the Unit I area. The PUD does not currently regulate building
height with a maximum height but limits it to the number of
habitable stories, two stories presently. However, 75 percent of
Page 41
June 7, 2001
the homes have been developed, and 21 of those homes have
been built with 3 stories.
During the permitting process over the 15 years, the building
permits for those homes that have exceeded the two stories, the
third story was labeled nonhabitable space, a use for either
recreation -- one was an observatory. There's some unique
architecture involved in these homes. And I have some pictures
to show you some of the different techniques. But they were
issued building permits properly because they noted on the plans
that they were not habitable space. This amendment will rectify
that problem by placing a maximum height and feet along with
making it three habitable stories.
As you can see on this one particular photograph or aerial,
75 percent of the lots have been developed in this Unit 1.
Twenty-one of those homes are the three habitable stories
because over the past 15 years the homes gradually became
habitable on the third floor. And this amendment is to rectify
that situation to address those nonconforming situations that
has occurred over the past 15 years. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: By magic.
MR. BELLOWS: Only sixteen lots are vacant, so it really
won't make a vast impact on any future development. Staff had
recommended or is recommending that we go with 3 habitable
stories with a maximum height of 50 feet measured from the
base flood elevation. However, I do have a letter from the
applicant, Mr. Cahill, Don Cahill, and he's explained to me that
the homeowners' association and the architectural review board
has adopted similar language. Basically it comes out in the
same area in height but better reflects the architectural
treatments of the buildings, and they would like the language to
read "Three stories with the highest point of the roof to be 70
feet above flood elevation or NGDV, including decorative
Page 42
June 7, 2001
elements but excluding chimney."
And we have some photographs here. This is one of the
homes that came in with a building permit for two habitable
floors with the third floor being a recreation, storage, and
observatory space, non -- nonhabitable space. The observatory
is up in this corner (indicating), a little round dome that's kind of
a unique architectural treatment. We also have another home
that's probably a good example of what's being built out there,
the little architectural treatment above the -- the roof line.
So staff is agreeable to the revised language by Mr. Cahill
about the 70 feet above the flood elevation to reflect those
existing homes with those architectural treatments. Staff has
not received any letters or correspondence in opposition and is
recommending approval.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are we approaching something that
because a whole bunch of people decided that they want to live
in their third story, now we're going to make it legal and remove
clouds from the title, and that's something we should be doing as
a matter of practice?
MR. BELLOWS: No. I -- I think, in effect, that's what's
happening. But from a planning standpoint the homes, the vast
majority of them, are three stories, and the unique architectural
character of that area now I think lends itself to three habitable
stories; is not an objectionable type of design treatment for that
area. So there are 16 vacant lots that would be allowed to build
legally what we see in this photograph, and I have no objection
to that from a planning standpoint. I think it's in character with
what's being developed there.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: From a planning standpoint. From a
legal standpoint, there is no issue?
MS. STUDENT: Well, once again, there are criteria for --
such as compatibility, and Ray may wish to allude -- our land
Page 43
June 7, 2001
code contains, I would say, about 12 criteria for rezones
generally, and then there are additional ones for PUD, such as
consistency with the comp plan, creating an isolated district, the
adequacy of infrastructure, and compatibility is one. So,
obviously, some of those don't apply to this, actually, what's
happening here.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right.
MS. STUDENT: But it's up to the Planning Commission to
look at this based on what staff has presented and placed in the
staff report and, yeah, make your determination as to whether or
not it fits the applicable criteria.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. It's consistent with all the county
ordinances and regulations concerning development standards
within PUDs. The only real issue at hand is compatibility with
the surrounding developments and -- .
MS. STUDENT: That's what I would think.
MR. BELLOWS: -- we do have a large amount that are three
stories already that were legally permitted under the building
permit process but over time, given the nature of the design of
the buildings, have become habitable space.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that's something that can happen
without a further building permit, so no one really notices that
that third story could be changed into something that's living
quarters or habitable, and then they don't have to do anything
about it like a building permit? Because it would -- they would
not get it.
MR. BELLOWS: Preexisting homes?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, existing homes. Is there some
mechanism by which it would change and they'd have to get a
building permit, and then code enforcement would say, "Oh, no,
you're in violation of your criteria that allowed you to build in the
first place .'.
Page 44
June 7, 2001
MR. BELLOWS: If this change was not -- is not approved,
technically the code enforcement could cite them for having a
habitable third floor exceeding the height restrictions of this PUD
as it exists. The alternatives that they would face, the property
owners would face, would be to go to Code Enforcement Board,
and they would have to determine whether that third story would
have to come down or make some other modifications to prevent
it from becoming a habitable space.
That's up to the Code Enforcement Board at that time to
figure out remedies. There could be a fine. It could be other
options. That seems to be rather drastic given the nature of the
way the community is developing, and it's not something that
we've received complaints about from anyone.
MR. PEDONE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Pedone.
MR. PEDONE: In other words, on that third story, when I --
when I built this house, put up the drywall, I even put a bathroom
in there so that when I went to go through my storage facilities,
if I wanted to wash my hands or use the facilities, I could do that,
that was legal at that point. Now, five years later I took all the
boxes of junk out of that room, and I put it in my garage, and I
put a bed up in there; that's basically what's been done. And,
therefore, the only way that anyone would know about that was
if the -- I guess the housing police came in and -- and checked it
out.
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
MR. PEDONE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you.
MR. ABERNATHY: How do you want -- how do you want the
ordinance to read now? It's proposed to amend it to say "three
stories with a maximum height of 50 feet above the minimum
base floor elevation required by flood elevation ordinance." what
Page 45
June 7, 2001
is it going to say now? Something like 70 feet?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the alternative language -- the
language that staff had originally proposed was the midpoint of
the roof, which is typical in our Land Development Code. But
they're proposing it to be to the top of the roof line, the top ridge,
as -- as how it's to be measured. And that would be 70 feet and --
because of the unusual roof lines in this development that that's
the reason that Mr. Cahill is proposing this alternative language.
MR. ABERNATHY: I don't see anything in here about
midpoint of the roof.
MR. BELLOWS: It's on the ordinance that's attached to the
rear. "three stories with a maximum height of 50 feet above the
minimum flood elevation required by the flood elevation
ordinance when the first habitable floor is raised a sufficient
height above ground level to permit the underbuilding area to be
used for automobile parking, other utilitarian purposes, that
underbuilding area shall not be deemed a story." that's the
section of the --
MR. ABERNATHY: Where does that say anything about a
midpoint of a roof?
MR. BELLOWS: Oh, excuse me. That's the typical Land
Development Code definition for measuring building height. So
that would be applied no matter what.
MR. ABERNATHY: So he doesn't want that, so we're going
to have to put something in here to change that.
MR. BELLOWS: Instead of staying with the county normal
LDC required "midpoint of the roof" measurement, he wants to
have in the PUD a special definition to measuring building height
to the top of the roof.
MR. ABERNATHY: Where do you put that?
MR. BELLOWS: That would be in the PUD document, and
that would be attached to this ordinance that I have attached to
Page 46
June 7, 2001
the back of your document.
MR. ABERNATHY: So this provision here, 3.4.7, wouldn't
have to be changed?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. We would modify Section 3.4.7 of the
Lely Barefoot Beach PUD to put the language he wants in there if
MR. ABERNATHY: Put it in the ordinance?
MR. BELLOWS: In the PUD ordinance, yeah.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So in -- if just an average person
were looking at this 3 stories, they'd think it'd be 50 feet, but it
sounds like it would be 70 feet. And that sounds like we're not
being very up front about what's happening because you have to
know all the technicalities.
MR. BELLOWS: It's just a different way of measuring, yes.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I think we need to hear from the
petitioner. Please identify yourself for the record.
MR. CAHILL: Yes. Good morning, Madam Chairman and
Commission, Planning Commission. My name's Don Cahill,
architect. I'm a consultant for Barefoot Beach and have been for
many years. And I guess I'm just here to answer questions that --
Ray presented my program very well.
I think one thing I might add is north and south of here
there's multifamily housing that's much higher and -- is that
correct, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
MR. CAHILL: And that -- the NGVD the ground level there is
still 7 to 8 already. And the -- the problem that we have had arise
is a matter of interpretation. This is in a -- right on the beach in
the velocity zone, which means that the bottom beam has to be
at a certain elevation, NGVD. At the current time, that's 20.5
feet. And then you can -- you have to have a beam to put the
house on and -- and a floor and a topping on the -- if it's precast
Page 47
June 7, 2001
concrete, for instance, that might take as much as 3 feet
generally. So you're already at 23.5. And if we go 50 feet up
from there, we're over 70 feet, and that's not to the midpoint of
the roof. So you could configure a house with a very tall roof that
the midpoint would allow you to build even much higher than
that.
And what we've done at that community is measure all the
houses that have been built, and that 70 feet right now is the
height -- just a few inches over the height of one of the houses,
and about a dozen of the other houses are within that 10 feet. So
we felt that that's the height, the maximum height, that we'd like
to see the houses as you perceive them from standing at the
street.
So when you look at the houses now, 70 feet is ample to put
3 floors and to have a good-looking house. None of these houses
are mine, by the way. And -- and they are getting kind of
expensive. The price tag on some of these is over $5 million, so
they're trying to get 5 pounds in a 3-pound bag, admittedly.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I understand what you just said.
I understand what staff said. But to the general public, to look at
this and see it, they're going to think it's 50 feet. Is there not
something that we should say to make it clearer, or are we
constrained by the definitions and regulations that one would
think you're 50 feet above and you're actually 70?
MR. CAHILL: Well, your -- you're 50 feet from the habitable --
the finished first floor and then 50 feet to the mean height of the
roof, and -- and the finished first floor is -- is not tied down solid
by state or county regulations; only the bottom of the beam. So
this, by far, makes it a lot more specific language and is much
clearer for any architect to look at this and know exactly that
that is the ridge of their roof, not the mean high point, the ridge
of the roof. And the -- the language that we want to have -- we
Page 48
June 7, 2001
want to strike that second sentence and make it agree with the
architectural review board committee's and -- and the public -- or
the property owners' association have passed this a few months
ago.
It says the highest point of roof to be 70.00 feet NGVD,
including decorative elements but excluding chimneys. The only
reason we exclude chimneys is because the code requires that a
chimney be 2 feet higher than any portion of a roof within 10 feet,
and that's to get the flow out of that fireplace. So this would be
the fairest thing and the easiest for any designer to follow.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So you're saying please put that
paragraph or that sentence, the second sentence of 3.4.7 --
MR. CAHILL: Right. Then we don't have the worry about --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. Excuse me. Okay. One at
a time. I wasn't quite through with my sentence.
So you're suggesting that language. Now, I want to ask the
staff why you don't have that language to present to us, why
you're going with this one.
MR. BELLOWS: Staff presented the stipulation at the
midpoint of the roof, which is from the LDC, so it's not written in
there as language. The application when it first came in was lust
to go from two habitable stories to three habitable stories
without a maximum height.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: It was our recommendation to put 50 feet,
which is, as the LDC requires, measured from the midpoint of the
roof. When Mr. Cahill got the staff report, he decided that -- to
send me a letter requesting this other language.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm not a builder, but I'm slightly
confused.
MR. CAHILL: I have -- I have a little picture. Could we put
that up on the screen?
Page 49
June 7, 200t
MR. ABERNATHY: I don't understand why we have to ferret
it out. That's --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: I'd just like to state a couple things for the
record. First of all, this is a PUD, so it can vary itself by the
language of the PUD district from other provisions of the code. I
guess you have to weigh that against, you know, what the code
generally allows for, and that -- I mean, that would be up to you in
looking at the criteria and making your findings and listening to
what your professional staff has to say.
MR. CAHILL: Can I show you my little humorous picture up
here? We have the ground level at about 8 feet NGVD. And then
the finished floor, which would be approximately 23 to 24 feet --
I'm showing 23 there -- and Ray's pointed it out. And then I have,
like, a hundred-foot-high roof. And 50 feet is the mean high roof
point which would put it at 74 feet NGVD. And then the peak of
the ridge of that roof would be 123 feet NGDV, which is totally
ridiculous but is possible with this language. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I understand now.
MR. BELLOWS: And I wouldn't put it past this community to
build something like that.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. That's a great visual. Thank
you. Do we have any other questions? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Since there's no further
speakers, I close the public hearing.
What's the pleasure of the board?
MR. BUDD: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that the
Planning Commission recommend approval of Petition PUDA-
2001-AR-546.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have a second?
MR. PEDONE: Second.
Page 50
June 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd, a
second by Mr. Pedone to approve this particular petition. Is
there any further discussion?
MS. YOUNG: Question: Does this include Mr. Cahill's
language as recommended by staff?
MR. BUDD: Yes. The peak-roof-height language, not the
average-height language.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: In -- so we're sticking with the staff
language. Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: My understanding, it's the 70 -- peak to the
top of the roof line at 70 feet. MR. BUDD: Yes.
MS. YOUNG: Oh, okay. Seventy.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions? Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All those in favor of the motion please
say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries.
MR. CAHILL: Thank you. I guess we can go home now;
right?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You can.
MR. PEDONE: Madam Chairman, I would like to thank -- I
have a motion to thank Mr. Budd for making every single motion
today.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. That's the end of the public
hearings. We have old business with nothing there. Is there any
old business other than what I think's under new business is old
business?
MS. MURRAY: Possibly. I don't have any other old business.
Page 51
June 7, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's been around a long time. So I guess
new business, the workshop for training and planning and legal
issues on June 21st, that is a definite?
MS. MURRAY: I will confirm that with the county attorney's
office again. But as far as I know, yes.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
MS. MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay.
have no comment, no addenda.
Thank you once again.
A definite maybe?
There's no public left, so we
I guess we're ready to adjourn.
We're adjourned.
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR
Page 52
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
July 30, 2001
Mr. Miles L. Scofield
Scofield Marine Consulting
3584-B Exchange Ave.
Naples, FL 34104
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FL 34104
REFERENCE: BD-2000-43, Charles E. Nelson, Jr.
Dear Mr. Scofield:
On Thursday, June 7, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved
Petition No. BD-2000-43.
A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 01-14 is enclosed approving this use.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400.
Sincerely~' ~ .
Ross Gochenaur
Planner II
g/admin/B D-2000-43/RG/lo
Enclosure
C;
Mr. Charles E. Nelson, Jr.
175 Eveningstar Cay
Naples, FL 34114
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- 14
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-43 FOR
AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such
business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance
91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County,
among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted
Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said
regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 23-foot extension of a boat dock
from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 43-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 Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Charles E.
Nelson, Jr. with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
Port of the Islands (The Cays) Phase 2, Lot 82, 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 23-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to
allow for a 43-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-2000-43 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 ~5t~ day of ~ b(~' ,2001.
ATTEST:
JOI-I~VM. DUNNUCK, III
Execttitive Secretary
Community Development and Environmental
Services Interim Administrator
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
iOL~~R COUNTY, FL~IDA
JOYCF~/~- J: ~-,A~UTI~, CHAIRMAN
Marjo~t~ M. Student
Assistant County Attorney
g:/admin/BD-2000-43/RG/cw
-2-
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
July 31, 2001
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FL 34104
TURRELL & ASSOC., INC.
MILES L. SCOFIELD
3584-B EXCHANGE AVE
NAPLES, FL 34104
REFERENCE: BD-2001-AR-463, JACK ANTARAMIAN BOAT DOCK EXTENSION
Dear Mr. Scofield::
On Thursday, July 21, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved
Petition No. BD-2001-AR-463.
A copy of Resolution No. 01-15 is enclosed approving this use.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400.
Sincerely~
Ross Gochenaur
Planner II
RG/lo
Enclosure
CC:
ANTARAMIAN, JACK J
Land Dept. Property Appraiser ~
Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI)i/
Customer Service
Addressing (Peggy Jarrell)
M. Ocheltree, Graphics
File
PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier, fl.us
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 01- 15
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2001-AR-463
FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON
PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such
business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance
91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County,
among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted
Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said
regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 120-foot extension of a boat
dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 140-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, representing Jack Antaramian, with respect to the
property hereinafter described as:
The North 89.3 feet of Government Lot 2, a/k/a Parcel 2, located in Section 14, Township
51 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
be and the same is hereby approved for a 120-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to
allow for a 140-foot boat docking facility in the A-ST zoning district wherein said property is located,
subject to the following conditions:
All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude the greater into the water, regardless of
length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at
the outermost end on both sides.
In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall
be posted during construction.
Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building
permit.
All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall
be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD 2001-AR-
463 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Donethis 21st day of June ,2001.
ATTEST:
JO J btR,FNUCK, iii
Exec~iv 'e Secretary
Community Development and Environmental
Services Interim Administrator
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLL R COUNTY, FL A
JOY~'t~AI~A J. RAUTI(~, CHAIRMAN
Marjor~ M. Studeni ' ---
Assistant County Attorney
RG/im
-2-
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DMSION
July 31,2001
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FL 34104
SCOFIELD MARINE CONSULTING
MILES L. SCOFIELD
3584-B EXCHANGE AVE
NAPLES, FL 34104
REFERENCE: BD-2001-AR-585, DCS, INC.
Dear Mr. Scofield:
On Thursday, July 19, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved
Petition No. BD-2001-AR-585.
A copy of Resolution No. 01-16 is enclosed approving this use.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400.
Ross Gochenaur
Planner II
RG/Io
Enclosure
CC:
DAMON CUSTOM STRUCTURES INC
Land Dept. Property Appraiser
Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI)~'
Customer Service
Addressing (Peggy Jarrell)
M. Ocheltree, Graphics
File
PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier, fl.us
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 01- 16
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2001-AR-
585 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON
PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida
Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and
enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the
public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code
(Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic
divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and
constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing
after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability
of an 8-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 28-foot
boat dock facility in an RSF-5 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found
as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning
all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21.
of the Collier County Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by
this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all
matters presented;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning
Commission of Collier County, Florida, that:
The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting,
representing DCS, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
Lot 9, Block A, Barefoot Bay, as described in Plat Book 35, Pages 61
and 62, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
be and the same is hereby approved for an 8-foot extension of a boat dock from the
permitted 20 feet to allow for a 28-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-5 zoning district
wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions:
All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude the greater into the
water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four
(4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides.
In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee
Area" sign shall be posted during construction.
Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be
presented prior to issuance of a building permit.
All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land
Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall
be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number
BD-2001-AR-585 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 19th dayof July ,2001.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
JOYCEAI~A J. KAuTIO, CI~.MRMAN
ATTEST:
JOI-]~M. EJ~N~k~ I~
Exe~tive Secretary
Corl~munity Development and Environmental
Services Interim Administrator
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency:
Mar]or~ M. Student - -
Assistant County Attorney
g/admin/BD-2001 -AR-585/RG/im
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
July 31,2001
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FL 34104
Mr. John Michael Riley
1850 Harbor PL
Naples, FL 34104-4219
REFERENCE: BD-2001-AR-670
Dear Mr. Riley:
On Thursday, July 19, 2001, the Collier
Petition No. BD-2001-AR-670.
County Planning
Commission heard and approved
A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 01-18 is enclosed approving this use.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400.
Ross Gochenaur
Planner II
RG/im
Enclosure
CC:
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. 01-1~8'
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2001-AR-670 FOR
AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred
on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business
regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance
91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County,
among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted
Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said
regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 22-foot extension of a boat dock
from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 42-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 John M. Riley, with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
Lot 26, Block G, Brookside Unit 3, Plat No. 2, as described in Plat Book 4, Page 99,
of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
be and the same is hereby approved for a 22-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to
allow for a 42-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.
2. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be
posted during construction.
3. 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.
4. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be
removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number
BD-2001-AR-670 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Donethis 19th dayof July ,2001.
ATTEST:
m ucr, m
Exe~l~tive Secretary
Community Development and Environmental
Services Interim Administrator
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency:
'1~I a~'j o ~Je~IVI. Stud~ht '
Assistant County Attorney
RG/im
~OLIqlEoLLiE~ ~U~N~ P~FLo~AG COMMIS SION
JOYCEA~INA J.-RAOTI~, CHAIRMAN
/
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
July 31,2001
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FL 34104
SCOFIELD MARINE CONSULTING
MILES L. SCOFIELD
3584-B EXCHANGE AVE
NAPLES, FL 34105
REFERENCE: BD-2001-AR-586, DCS, INC.
Dear Mr. Scofield:
On Thursday, July 19. 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved
Petition No. BD-2001-AR-586.
A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 01-17 is enclosed approving this use.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400.
Sincerely
Ross Gochenaur
Planner II
Enclosure
CC:
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- 17
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2001-AR-586 FOR
AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred
on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business
regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance
91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County,
among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted
Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said
regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 7-foot extension of a boat dock
from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 27-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-5 zone for the property
hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have
been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section
2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission
in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of
Collier County, Florida, that:
The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing DCS, Inc., with
respect to the property hereinafter described as:
Lot 8, Block A, Barefoot Bay, as described in Plat Book 35, Pages 61-62, of the Public
Records of Collier County, Florida.
be and the same is hereby approved for a 7-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to
allow for a 27-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-5 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.
2. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be
posted during construction.
3. 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.
4. 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 1T FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number
BD-2001-AR-586 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 19th day of July ,2001.
Community Development and Environmental
Services Interim Administrator
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency:
COLLAR COUNTY~PL~q~qlNG_COMMISSION
JO~-CEfkNNA J. RAUT10, CHAIRMAN
M~jo~M. Student ' t-
Assistant County Attorney
BD-2001-AR-586/RG/Io