CCPC Minutes 07/19/2001 RJuly 19, 2001
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANN1NG COMMISSION
NAPLES, FLORIDA, JULY 19, 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 8:34 a.m. In REGULAR
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples,
Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Joyceanna J. Rautio
Kenneth L. Abemathy
Russell H. Budd
Russell A. Priddy
Dwight Richardson
David J. Wolfley
Lora Jean Young
NOT PRESENT:
Michael Pedone
ALSO PRESENT:
Fred Reischl, Principal Planner
Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services
Marjorie M. Student, Assistant
County Attorney
Susan Murray, Planning Manager
Page 1
AGENDA
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JULY 19, 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 10
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
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JUNE 7, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
BCC RECAPS: June 13, 2001, June 20, 2001, and June 26, 2001
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
BD-2001-AR-585, Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing DCS, Inc., requesting an 8-foot
boat dock extension to allow for a boat dock facility prowuding a total of 28 feet into the waterway, for property
located at 5320 Barefoot Bay Court, further described as Lot 9, Block A, Barefoot Bay, in Section 6, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
Bo
BD-2001-AR-586, Miles L. Scofield of Scofieid Marine Consulting, representin~ DCS, Inc., requesting a 7-foot
boat dock extension to allow for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 27 feet into the waterway, for property
located at 5324 Barefoot Bay Court, further described as Lot 8, Block A, Barefoot Bay, in Section 6, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
o
9.
10.
11.
12.
Co
BD-2001-AR-670, John M. Riley requesting a 22-foot boat dock extension to allow for a boat dock facility
protruding a total of 42 feet into the waterway for property located at 1850 Harbor Place, further described as Lot
26, Block G, Brookside Unit 3 Replat No. 2, in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gocbenaur)
Do
PUDA-20OI-AR-702, Margaret Perry, AICP, of Wilson.Miller, Inc., representing Eagle Creek Properties, Inc.,
requesting an amendment to the Eagle Creek PUD having the effect of amending the PUD document to allow self
storage facilities and related accessory structures for the exclusive use of Eagle Creek residents as a permitted use,
for property located at 401 Tower Road, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 298+acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
ADJOURN
7/19/01 CCPC AGENDA/SM/lo
2
July 19, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
I'd like to call to order the July 19th, 2001, meeting of the Collier
County Planning Commission.
First item on the agenda is roll call. Mr. Priddy?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd?
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Rautio, present.
Ms. Young?
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All accounted and present, and we do
have a quorum. The approval of the minutes -- excuse me -- the
addenda to the agenda, Ms. Murray?
MS. MURRAY: No additional addenda -- or no addenda to the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman, I have
an announcement, if I might, at this time. It's come to my attention
that Ron Nino of the planning staff has been in the hospital and has
had surgery and is now at home recuperating. I hope I'm not
invading his privacy by making that announcement, but on behalf of
the Commission, I'd like to wish him well.
MS. MURRAY: Ron is actually back at work.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh. Well, good.
MS. MURRAY: He came back on Monday.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: My wish came true.
Page 2
July 19, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. The approval of the
minutes for June 7th.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I so move.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Ms. Young, a
second by Mr. Abernathy for approval of the minutes. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing none, all in favor, aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you.
Planning Commission absences.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I will not be here for the second
meeting in August.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Second meeting in August, that would
be the 16th.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Nor will I.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy, 16th. Any other
planned absences? Thank you. If that would be noted on the agenda,
we'd appreciate that immensely.
Okay. We have three different recaps for the Board of County
Commissioners. Any particular questions, comments -- or, Ms.
Murray, would you like to touch on the highlights?
MS. MURRAY: I don't have any additional comments unless
you have questions about any of the items.
Page 3
July 19, 2001
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question about the
June 26th minutes, page 4. As I recall, Item A was a young couple
whose grandmother wanted them to be able to subdivide her lot and
build a house on it. I think we recommended approval of that. There
were a bunch of neighbors who saw that as an encroachment of
urbanization into agricultural zoning as I recall. I assume that, s why
the County Commission has continued it, or is there some other
reason?
MS. MURRAY: Actually, it was continued at the request of
staff. I guess, as you noted, the neighborhood was pretty involved in
that petition, and as I understand, the petitioner wasn't aware of some
of the limitations that the RSF Zoning District would place on them.
And with all of that in mind, staff decided that it would be best
to request a continuance to work some of those issues out.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What was staff's position
the first time around on that? Did you recommend approval or not?
MS. MURRAY: We recommended approval, yes.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And we did as well?
MS. MURRAY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? Okay. Item No.
6 is Chairman's Report, and I don't have a report for this meeting.
Moving along to advertised public hearings. The first public
hearing would be BD-2001-AR-585. All those wishing to give
testimony today, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in
by the clerk of the courts.
(All witnesses were administered the oath by the court reporter.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning, Mr. Gochenaur.
MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, Madam Commissioner.
For the record, Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services.
The petitioner's requesting an eight-foot extension to create a
docking facility protruding a total of 28 feet into a waterway which is
Page 4
July 19, 2001
112 feet wide. The property is located at 5320 Barefoot Bay Court
just south of Bonita Beach Road and contains about 143 feet of water
frontage.
The project consists of the construction of a T-shaped dock and
boat lift. The petitioner has developed a master plan for all of the
docks in this small subdivision in order to allow unrestricted access
to each.
No objections to this project have been received, and it meets all
criteria, and staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: At the risk of being repetitive, we
seem to be approving these extensions every time. Are they
reworking the code on this so that it doesn't have to come before the
board?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Not necessarily. We tried to amend the
section that dealt with boat docks during the last amendment cycle.
That was rejected by the board, so we're kind of back to square one
on that.
It's staffs intention to try to weed out petitions that clearly don't
meet the criteria before we come before the Planning Commission so
that you don't necessarily see all of the extension requests that come
in.
We do explain that if they don't meet the criteria, then we'd
rather not bring them forward, and in these cases some people prefer
not to. So usually you only see the ones that we're going to
recommend approval and meet criteria.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is this an improved lot?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. There's a house under
construction on the lot.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: As I recall, too, Ross, for
Page 5
July 19, 2001
Laura's edification, this doesn't go any further than the Planning
Commission. It doesn't go to the BCC, so we are the final ones to see
it. So this is where it's all wrapped up. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions?
Would the petitioner care to present?
(No audible response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are there any registered public
speakers?
MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No registered speakers, we close the
public hearing.
What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll make a motion to
approve BD-2001-AR-585.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy, a
second by Mr. Budd--
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Quick discussion.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- one second-- to approve the motion.
Do we have any discussion?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ross, you mentioned that
there's a master plan for all of these type docks in this area?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. Mr. Scofield developed a master
plan for the developer that would minimize the impact on view and
allow all the property owners unrestricted access if they built
according to the master plan. It's my understanding that the
individual property owners will eventually decide whether or not they
want a dock and then come before the Planning Commission if an
extension is needed.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Might be something that
Page 6
July 19, 2001
staff could look at if there is such a thing as a master plan that we
could take a look. It might answer Ms. Young's questions about
perhaps doing this on a broader basis rather than one lot at a time.
MR. GOCHENAUR: I think under those circumstances if the
developer came forward with a plan for all of the lots, then we could
do it as a single petition. But, again, it's my understanding that the
individual property owners will decide whether or not they want
docks on their lots.
I believe the developer is asking for these two extensions. Is
that correct?
MR. SCOFIELD: Rocky Scofield, for the record, representing
DCS, Inc. DCS owns all -- they developed this little piece of land.
It's called Barefoot Bay, and it used to be Spoonbill Cove. They
changed the name to Barefoot Bay.
There's nine lots on it. And what I did-- there's very small lots.
Some of them have very, very narrow water frontage. Some of them
have a lot longer. But what I did is develop this master plan, so he
uses it for sales showing that everybody can have a boat dock and
they can get in and out. So that's why that was developed, and that's
used for the permitting in the future.
If there's any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I guess that's a clarification, even
though we did close the public hearing.
MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's okay.
placed in the record.
MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you.
I was allowing that to be
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any further discussion?
We have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor say aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
Page 7
July 19, 2001
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
Those opposed, same sign.
Motion carries. Thank you.
Moving right along to BD-2001-AR-586. All those wishing to
give testimony, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in
by the clerk of the courts.
(All witnesses were administered the oath by the court reporter.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Gochenaur.
MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, Planning
Services.
The petitioner's requesting a seven-foot extension to create a
docking facility protruding a total of 27 feet into a waterway which is
110 feet wide. The property is located at 5324 Barefoot Bay Court.
In the interest of brevity, this is exactly the same situation as
with the previous petition. We feel that it meets all criteria. We are
recommending approval.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?.
Mr. Richardson, do you want to put that on the record?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I was just looking at the
master plan, and as indicated, it's right next door to the other one, and
it matches all the rest of the master plan.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Would the petitioner care
to present?
MR. SCOFIELD: No.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any registered public
speakers?
Page 8
July 19, 2001
MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Having no registered public speakers, I
close the public hearing.
What is the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll make a motion to
approve BD-2001-AR-586.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy, a
second by Mr. Budd. Is there any discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no discussion, call the
question. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
Those opposed, same sign.
Thank you, motion passes.
Next public hearing. Okay. We are on Public Hearing
BD-2001-AR-670. Mr. Gochenaur, you are here again.
All of those wishing to give testimony, please stand, raise your
right hand, and be sworn in by the clerk of the courts.
(All witnesses were administered the oath by the court reporter.)
MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, Planning
Services.
The petitioner is requesting a 22-foot extension to create a
docking facility protruding a total of 42 feet into a waterway which is
Page 9
July 19, 2001
169 feet wide. The property is located at 1850 Harbor Place in
Brookside and contains about 32 feet of water frontage.
The project consists of the removal of an existing dock and its
replacements by a dock and boat lift situated perpendicular to the
shoreline, the configuration required by the converging riparian lines.
Although the length of the vessel exceeds the percentage
requirement relative to the property's water frontage, the owners
obtained letters of no objection from both neighbors and the local
homeowners association.
I was approached by the owners of Brookside Marina on the
opposite side of the waterway, Mr. O'Connor. He expressed some
reservations about whether or not the dock would interfere with
navigation. He seemed to feel that the deepest part of the channel
was, in fact, close to the petitioner's property where it very well may
be, but that didn't necessarily mean that it was going to cause
problems for navigation. I suggested that he talk this over with
petitioner, which I understand he did. I have not heard from him. He
hasn't filed any formal objections, and I noticed there are no speakers
here today. So I'm assuming the petitioner was able to reassure him
about the depth issue.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, staff feels that this
project meets the main criteria, and we therefore recommend
approval.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a quick question.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: We don't really regulate
the size of boats that can use docks except perhaps indirectly by the
amount of space they use on the dock?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Right. And that criteria is actually related
to view more than anything else. Again, we try to fine tune these
Page 10
July 19, 2001
criteria, and it wasn't accepted. But basically that length is only in
relation to view. In this case the riparian lines converged toward the
center of the waterway, which gives him sort of a pie shape riparian
area. That basically means that it would be impossible for him to
moor his boat parallel to the shoreline, which is usually preferable.
In this case he has to go perpendicular to the shoreline, which
requires a little bit greater extension.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would the petitioner care to present?
PETITIONER: Not unless you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any registered
public speakers?
MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. With no registered public
speakers, I close the public hearing.
What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll make a motion to
approve BD-2001-AR-670.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by
Mr. Abernathy, a second by Mr. Budd for approval of this petition.
Is there any discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no discussion, I call the
question. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
Page 11
July 19, 2001
COMMISSIONER YOUNG:
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
Those opposed, same sign.
Motion carries. Thank you.
Moving right along to the next public hearing, PUDA-2001-AR-
702.
All those wishing to give testimony today, please stand, raise
your right hand, and be sworn in by the clerk of the courts.
(All witnesses were administered the oath by the court reporter.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning, Mr. Reischl.
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioner. Fred Reischl,
Planning Services.
This is a request for a PUD to PUD rezone, in effect, a PUD
amendment in the Eagle Creek PUD. Just to go over the location,
that's Tamiami Trail East, U.S. 41, Collier Boulevard, and the road
that will have a bearing on this amendment, Tower Road, the
landmark around Tower Road, if you're familiar with Collier
Boulevard would be Rookery Bay over here, and I think it's now the
Comcast building on that side of it.
The -- also while I'm on the map -- the -- that area is the area
affected by the PUD amendment. The amendment is to delete a use,
which is water and wastewater treatment plants, and to replace that
with a use of self-storage facilities for residents only. As far as the
Growth Management Plan goes, Comprehensive Planning has
reviewed this and made the determination, as you read in the staff,
report that this is consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
It's not a commercial use. It is an accessory to residential since
it will not be commercial. It will not be open to the general public. It
will be as if a-- for example, a closet in a condo, except it's not
attached directly to the condo. So it was determined not to be a
commercial use.
Page 12
July 19, 2001
And, again, that's a closeup of the facility coming off Tower
Road. The facility's going to be either, say, golf course or stormwater
management lake, and these are the nearest residences on that
portion.
This is actually a good example of what our new public
participation plan is going to hopefully forestall in the future. The
petitioner and I had discussed this, and it didn't seem like a
significant change to either of us. And then once the advertising was
out there, we received -- I gave you a packet of letters. In addition, I
received one phone call that objected, and I'd say a dozen phone calls
of people asking questions that didn't necessarily object, but there
were a lot of people who for various reasons -- most of them being
that they didn't believe that this would be a for-residents-only use.
That was probably the objection I received the most, that how could
this be only for residences; it's eventually going to be open to the
public, and it's going to be commercial.
Despite those objections we still recommend approval. It is a
use that fits in with the Growth Management Plan. We understand
the neighborhood's objections. There were also concerns about
traffic to the site. Our transportation reviewer at first said that there
had to be internal access to it. They had a discussion between the
petitioner and transportation, and they eventually said that with the
low volume of use from that the access from Tower Road would be
adequate, and no internal access would have to be provided
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Did you get the results of the survey
mentioned in the April 12th letter which was done in February 2000?
Were those results provided to you? MR. REISCHL: No, I didn't.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We'll ask the petitioner about
that. Any questions of staff?.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Fred, what is the access --
Page 13
July 19, 2001
I don't see how it's shown -- from Tower Road, but is there a road
there already?
MR. REISCHL: You can see the access right there.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. So they would plan
to raise this and put in a number of units?
MR. REISCHL: It was under demolition at the time. I think it's
completed now -- almost completed now.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, that wouldn't be
permitted if they didn't have a permit to do this, would it?
MR. REISCHL: The demolition?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes.
MR. REISCHL: It was supervised by the State to have a
demolition permit. The State supervises demolition of wastewater
treatment plants.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So that is independent of
this application?
MR. REISCHL: Yes. They could demolish the structure, and
the use could still be in the PUD. It's just that now that central sewer
is available to Eagle Creek. It's not required anymore.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: How would the residents
within this area actually get there? Would they come out of-- is that
a gated entrance on the south side?
MR. REISCHL: Yeah. The entrance -- the main entrance on
Eagle Creek on Collier Boulevard, and then they would travel down
Collier Boulevard and on to Tower Road.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And I haven't been down
on that south side. That's a gated entrance as well in and out?
MR. REISCHL: To the -- it's the golf course maintenance
facility and former wastewater treatment plant.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I meant getting out of
Eagle Creek on to Tower Road.
Page 14
July 19, 2001
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You can't.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So that's not the way
they'd get out--
MR. REISCHL: No. As you can see with the lake here, this is
pretty much a little self-contained portion --
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. I guess that's --
MR. REISCHL: There's no internal access from Eagle Creek.
That's what transportation division originally asked for. And in
discussions between them and the petitioner, they decided that the
traffic volume was low enough not to warrant internal circulation.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So just to clarify, they
would go out on 951, come around to Tower Road, and go in?
MR. REISCHL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Priddy, your mm.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And while we're on traffic, that
would certainly be, in my mind, preferable than going out on Collier
Boulevard, then getting on 41 to get to a storage facility. So it makes
some sense to me that this be an in-house project. That would keep
some traffic off our road system in the future, off of 41. MR. REISCHL: Off of 41, right.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Number two, the -- what
landscaping has to be done for this project over and above what was
there for the wastewater treatment plant or -- if any? I mean, you're
not going to be able to see it?
MR. REISCHL: I'm sure you'll be able to see it from
neighboring properties, but it will be landscaped according to Land
Development Code site development plan regulations.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. I didn't know if the
landscaping that was currently in place for the wastewater treatment
plant was such that that was basically blocked from the residents
Page 15
July 19, 2001
view, and maybe that's a question for the petitioner.
MR. REISCHL: I don't recall that.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Is there a need for this facility?
This means that the Eagle Creek people have to come out of a gated
community, go on to Collier Boulevard, and turn in to Tower Court.
As many of the correspondents have said, there are other facilities in
this area. Why are they asking for this?
MR. REISCHL: As I said, this was what -- our new public
participation plan will hopefully ameliorate this question before it
comes to you in the future. However, this one is here now. The
developer conducted a survey, and according to the results that he
got, thought that the storage facility would be used by the residents.
And, apparently, some of the residents who have contacted us don't
agree with that.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Don't agree.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Fred, some administrative
matters first. Following page 5 of your memorandum, there's an
ordinance -- sample ordinance that relates to Park Central North, Pine
Ridge Road and Airport-Pulling. On the back of that is something
prepared by WilsonMiller about Eagle Creek Country Club. I
assume that's --
MR. REISCHL: That's the cover page for this --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's the cover page, but
what's this on the back?
MR. REISCHL: No. That's the incorrect ordinance. I
apologize.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Was that your doing or
there's? It says received on July 3rd. It sounds like it came from --
MR. REISCHL: That's my mistake. No. That's my mistake. I
Page 16
July 19, 2001
don't know why -- I was just commenting previously. I don't know
why we stamp our own stuff "received" now.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay.
MR. REISCHL: We do. But I apologize. That's an incorrect
PUD ordinance on there --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Next question --
MR. REISCHL: -- but it's the correct PUD. The PUD
document itself is the correct document.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. The application for
public hearing submitted by WilsonMiller has some interlineations of
certain sections, fractionalization of tracts, site plan approval. I
assume that is because those things are overtaken by events, those
sections that are attached to your report don't contain those
interlineations.
If we approve this petition today, are we approving the
interlineations as well as the --
MS. MURRAY: Commissioner, what are you referring to
specifically? What page are you on?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm on page 2-1 of the
application for public hearing, which is under a cover letter of 12
April. Am I the only one that has this? This is all lined out. This is
all lined out. Is that before us or not?
MR. REISCHL: Right. This is the format that we use for a
PUD to PUD rezone, which is, in effect, a PUD amendment.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. But there's nothing
in your report that talks about deleting these sections, about
fractionalization of tracts, is there?
MS. PERRY: Margaret Perry from WilsonMiller.
Fred, if I may. That was deleted at the request of the county
attorney's office because that language is not applicable anymore.
That's 1985 language.
Page 17
July 19, 2001
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That was overtaken over by
events.
MS. PERRY: Yes.
MR. REISCHL: Thank you, yes. That's what it was. The only
request by the petitioner was that one change; however, the county
attorney also goes through and brings legal matters up to date.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So we'll be approving --
giving them the authority to strike those provisions if we approve this
petition today; is that right?
MR. REISCHL: As recommended by the county attorney; that's
right.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Our county attorney is not here right
now. I think we need to have her identify that because --
MS. STUDENT: I'm sorry. I had to make an important phone
call on an item that came up. I'm sorry. What was the question?
MR. REISCHL: The changes that were recommended by you --
the petitioner's only recommending the one change of deleting the
wastewater treatment and adding the self-storage. You had also put
some changes into the PUD document, and Mr. Abernathy was --
MS. STUDENT: Yeah. That's typical. Usually my changes
have to do with things like this. The little subtitle that reflects what's
underneath it, is it worded clear enough, but that's fine to add that
into the motion.
MS. MURRAY: Commissioner, just for some clarification, if I
may. Normally, when we do these PUD-to-PUD rezones, if it's just a
very simple amendment like this, we do go through the document.
And while we don't substantially change the intent of the document
or the regulations, we do try to clean up things that may be dated or
may not apply anymore. So sometimes you'll see things of this
nature just struck out that may not be discussed in detail in your staff
report.
Page 18
July 19, 2001
MS. STUDENT: I think in some of this -- and I'm not sure
because I review so many of these -- but there may be some outdated
stipulations about utilities or transportation or something that I had
asked to be cleaned up.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, we've just spent five
minutes on this, and if it had been noted, even in passing in the staff
report -- it shouldn't be up to us to ferret this stuff out on page 2,
sub-1, and then make our own decision as to whether this is
substantial or insubstantial or whether it's outdated. All the report
has to do --
MS. MURRAY: You're absolutely correct, Commissioner.
We'll reference that in the future even if it's a notation that there are
some cleanup.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe Mr. Budd has a comment.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I had some more questions.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, well then, Mr. Abernathy, you
definitely have the floor for questions.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do we know how many
units there are in Eagle Creek?
MR. REISCHL: There's three hundred and change, I believe.
MS. PERRY: Eagle Creek is approved for 470. At the present
time, there are approximately 360 units; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do we know how many
units are proposed for this storage facility?
MR. REISCHL: Not at this time. They did not propose a
maximum number. It's on 1.3 acres. They would be limited by
parking requirements, landscaping requirements, etc.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, Mr. Priddy seems to
find some comfort in the fact that they won't have to go out onto
Highway 41 to access this, which is --
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: They will.
Page 19
July 19, 2001
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- certainly a round-about
way, but I don't find any comfort at all in the fact that they have to
come out onto County Road 951 when you've got all of this acreage.
If they want a storage facility, it seems to me they ought to self-
contain it. It's well and good that fortuitously the sewer plant is no
longer going to be there, so we'll take that place and put our self-
storage facility.
I don't have to reach the issue of whether nonresidents are going
to be able to use it to think that it's a bad idea to make people come
out and take a right mm, go down Tower Road, do their business,
come out and have to make the left turn back on to 951 and make
another left turn to get back into Eagle Creek. That's a cockamamy
idea if I ever heard one, period.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: How do you really feel
about it?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: I just want to further the point
brought up by Ms. Young regarding the economic need for this. If
I'm not mistaken -- and Fred or Marjorie, you can correct me if I'm
wrong -- it's my understanding that economic need is not one of the
criteria by which we review this.
In other words, if this were a request for a gas station, it
wouldn't be pertinent for other gas stations to come in and make --
present testimony that we don't need another gas station. Similarly is
a self-storage facility. If economic need was a criteria, every other
self-storage facility being self-serving in the community would come
in and say that we don't need another.
Am I correct in my understanding that economic need in this
free market society we live in is not a relevant criteria?
MR. REISCHL: That's correct, and especially with this. They
would only get their revenue base from Eagle Creek residents
Page 20
July 19, 2001
according to the way the petition is worded.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are you done? Okay..Ms. Young has
a question.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. In the WilsonMiller letter,
they refer to, "A results of the survey indicated the residents' strong
desire for such a storage facility."
I would be interested in exactly how many of the 360 residents
expressed a preference for this storage.
MS. PERRY: We have that information. Would you like to
hear it now?
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes.
MS. PERRY: Okay. We received approximately 325 responses
back. Of those 180 indicated no need for self-storage facility at the
present time; 32 residents expressed interest, and, in fact, said what
size units they wanted, 5 by 10, 10 by 10, etc.; 15 residents wrote on
the survey strongly opposing this idea.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: So about half-- almost half did
not respond; 180 out of--
MS. PERRY: 180 plus the 32 residents who did want it --
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Oh, I beg your pardon.
MS. PERRY: -- plus 15 strongly opposed the idea.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay.
MS. PERRY: Again, that's about 320, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Since Mr. Abernathy
brought up this fractionalization of tracts -- and I appreciate his
sleuthing to do this -- it occurs to me that this may be a
fractionalization of a tract if they are going to sell this off for another
use, and wouldn't this still apply, our concern?
MR. REISCHL: What concern?
Page 21
July 19, 2001
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, this is a tract PUD,
and they're apparently going to split off a piece of this for a -- another
use. Isn't that a fractionalization, or am I bending the --
MR. REISCHL: It's the wording of it. We now use plats to
what used to be accomplished through the old subdivision master
plan and PUD for fractionalization. It's just something that's --
MS. STUDENT: I've got to make a comment here. That was --
this brings along this PUD. This is an old, old PUD from what like
when, 1985? And that's exactly why -- when I reviewed the PUD
document -- we don't use that language anymore. And if I recall, in
the fractionalization, it talks about how if you do that, you got to
come in for a separate site plan.
When that PUD was written, I don't think the county even had
much of a site plan ordinance. And that was my exact point about
bringing this PUD up to current standards, because when you do a
PUD-to-PUD, rezone as opposed to breaking out one little piece of it
to change a use, you readopt that whole PUD. And to have it with
old stuff that we don't do anymore puts the county in the position of
adopting old language -- readopting old language that we don't even
use anymore. And that was one of the things I now recall on this
particular one, seeing that fractionalization language and knowing
that's been out of our PUD since about '89 or '90.
MR. REISCHL: And just to emphasize, the only change the
developer proposed was that one -- cross that one sentence and add
an additional sentence. Everything was -- county attorney.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And just for the record,
Ms. Student, I truly would like to see that the information from staff
identifies that we're having some language cleanup or clerical
changes, those types of things. I think it would be wise to encourage
that type of language in the future.
MS. STUDENT: I think that something -- that's -- the attorney
Page 22
July 19, 2001
doesn't make a report to the Planning Commission other than my
presence here and answering questions on these individual items.
And I think that's something we can work with staff on to make sure
something gets in the staff report.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. I think that's fair to us and
the public to know that there may be some other types of language
changes because that is one of the concerns expressed by the public
on a regular basis. How do we know when these PUDs are changed?
And can they be changed for just any simple reason? So if it's a
language change that is reasonable, we should at least identify it up
front so that we know.
MS. MURRAY: You are absolutely correct, Madam Chair, and
we will make sure we do that.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Okay. Do we have any
other questions, and maybe our petitioner would like to make a brief
presentation.
MS. PERRY: I would. Thank you, very much. Again,
Margaret Perry from WilsonMiller. With me today is Mr. Dave
Amico, president of Eagle Creek Properties, and Jeff Perry from
WilsonMiller, also to answer any transportation-related issues.
This has become an emotional issue for the residents of Eagle
Creek. During the past couple weeks I've had conversations with a
gentleman by the name of Mr. Sherwood, and I'd like to publicly
thank him for his kind and professional treatment of me during all our
discussions.
I'm here to talk today about land-use planning and the
appropriateness of locating a self-storage facility at this location. The
site is 1.35 acres, and it's located directly northwest of the existing
golf course maintenance facility. From 1985 until late 1999, the site
was used as a sewage-treatment facility for the Eagle Creek
development.
Page 23
July 19, 2001
I hope you can see this. This is the subject site. North and west
of the site is the Eagle Creek Country Club golf course. Directly east
of the site is the Comcast radio tower and a privately-owned garage
warehouse building. Again, directly south is the two-story golf
course maintenance facility and across Tower Road is basically
vacant land with a single-family house located quite a distance from
Tower Road.
The sewage-treatment plant contains two large tanks
approximately 20 feet in height and bright blue painted -- colored and
accessory-mechanical structures. During this approximate 15-year
time frame, the residents of Eagle Creek accepted the presence of this
treatment plant, and its presence did not detract from the property
values, cause a disturbance to their golf play, or present a negative
visual effect to the homeowners. To our knowledge, the structure
was not offensive to the residents.
Since the plant was no longer needed, how to use this property
in the future became an issue. In February of 2000, Eagle Creek
Properties polled its residents and found the following information:
Approximately 32 residents expressed a need for such a self-storage
facility, 180 people indicated no interest for a storage facility at this
time, and 15 expressed a strong displeasure in this type of use. I
added these numbers up, Ms. Young, and it's, like, 221. That's how
many people responded of the 323 at that time that were sent out.
I'd like to talk about some site-related issues. First of all, use of
the facility. The facility will be for the sole use of the residents of
Eagle Creek. How do we police that? At the time you want to rent a
unit within the facility, proof of residency will be required. If this is
violated, this will become a code-enforcement issue just like any
other zoning violation. It's the intent of the developer to make this an
exclusive use of Eagle Creek residents.
Access to the facility will only be from Tower Road. The
Page 24
July 19, 2001
reason being is it's not physically possible to provide access
internally. There's a cypress preserve, as you can see, directly north
of the site, and it would destroy the golf course integrity. The
exceptionally low traffic volumes generated by this type of
self-storage facility will not create any adverse impact on the area
roadways.
Next I'd like to talk about the visibility of the storage facility.
The site is currently heavily buffered from view by a small lake and
vegetation to the west. This buffer has adequately screened the
sewer-treatment plant and will continue to screen the site for golfers
and the nearest residents, which is approximately 600 feet away.
Another issue is security and hours of operation. The facility
will be entirely fenced and access will be by a card-key system. The
facility will not be open 24 hours a day but will be in keeping with
the hours of operations of the golf course maintenance facility, as that
is also gated at Tower Road.
Under the current PUD, the following uses are permitted:
Clubhouse, pro shop, small commercial establishments such as gift
shops, cocktail lounges, or restaurants for the exclusive use of the
patrons of the golf course. However, given the location near the golf
course maintenance facility and the TV tower to the east, we do not
think these uses are feasible. It is the intent of the developer to
provide a much less offensive use than the sewage-treatment facility
that would also provide a benefit to the residents of
Eagle Creek who want to use a self-storage facility. If the residents
don't want to use it, that's their prerogative; however, there are people
within the community who have expressed an interest. And it would
be a compatible use given the surrounding uses. The residents who
don't use the facility will not be affected by the location. It will not
affect their golf play, and it will be properly buffered. The proposed
use is in keeping with the uses in the area.
Page 25
July 19, 2001
Your staff has recognized the compatibility of this proposed use
and has recommended approval of our request. I would appreciate
your favorable consideration of this request, and Mr. Amico and I
would appreciate the opportunity to address you after public
comment if needed. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just want to ask one question. Maybe
I'm doing the math wrong. You said there were 360 -- MS. PERRY: Now.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Or-- and 325 survey letters went out.
MS. PERRY: Approximately.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And 32 came back with interest?
MS. PERRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's considered strong? That's less
than 10 percent; isn't it?
MS. PERRY: But given, in our opinion, the small site, we feel
that, like, only 70 to 110 units could be -- depending on the size, of
course -- could be placed on the site. And we think once the facility
is there, interest will grow knowing how close it is to their homes and
how convenient it will be to get to.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So, actually, you're making a
correlation between how many number of units are available to how
many people would be expressing interest. That's where you get the
idea of strong in the letter? MS. PERRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Strong is a real stretch.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy just mentioned that
strong is a real stretch. And I'm having a little difficulty with that
too. I would not consider 9 percent of the people that live there as a
strong desire for this particular facility.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I think you'd have to maybe take
a look at the number of the available units in the county based on
Page 26
July 19, 2001
county population and see if 9 percent might be a high number of
people that have interest in a self-storage unit in relation to, you
know, the county numbers. I don't know whether it's strong or not
strong. Nine percent doesn't sound like it's strong, but if you take the
number of available storage units in Collier County and take a look at
the 260,000 population, that may come out to about 2 or 3 percent of
the population. So, you know, 9 would be very strong in relation to
that number.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: In relation to the whole county.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: In relation to the whole.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm still not sure that that's a feasible
way to look at this, but I'm open to information, for sure.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But, there again, that's an
economic decision that whoever's going to put up the money to build
the facility, if he builds it and no one shows up, that's, you know,
kind of his tough luck. I mean, if he feels strong enough going in up
front to risk a couple hundred thousand dollars or whatever it takes to
put this up that 32 people or 9 percent is strong, I think he's probably
got a little better feel for that than perhaps what we would.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chairman, may I
ask a question?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, you may.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You indicated in your
earlier remarks that the use of these units would be restricted to
people that own or live in Eagle Creek? MS. PERRY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And they would have to
show proof of that before they could get an opportunity to -- MS. PERRY: To rent a unit, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And if they -- that turned
out not to be the case, it would be a violation, a zoning violation.
Page 27
July 19, 2001
MS. PERRY: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then my question is for
Mr. Reischl. Am I to understand that the county will enforce private
arrangements within a PUD?
MR. REISCHL: This is a PUD. It's a county ordinance, and
code enforcement personnel enforce PUD conditions.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, no, wait. The fact
that these are going to be rental units restricted to the use of the
residents is part of the PUD? I didn't read that. MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It seems like a strange
provision for a PUD to have.
MR. REISCHL: No. It's essential because if it was not
restricted to Eagle Creek residents, then it would be a commercial
use, and we'd be -- they'd be requesting a commercial use outside of
an activity center or a previously zoned commercial property. This is
an accessory to residential, not commercial.
MS. MURRAY: It's not dissimilar from a private golf course or
a private pool and tennis courts within a development. It's the same
concept.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And our code enforcement
would go out and tell people that they couldn't swim there because
they weren't residents? Has that happened? I mean, that's --
MS. MURRAY: In certain circumstances there are -- for
example, have been in the past, like, private restaurants that serve
only a development that are not open to the public. So, yes, it's the
same concept that way, and it would be enforceable.
MR. REISCHL: And I do have personal knowledge of that
example of a restaurant that was restricted to members of the
community. Code enforcement went out there with some kind of
sting operation and shut them down for a while.
Page 28
July 19, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley, you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And it's merely a financial one.
If you get under -- I'm sure there's a certain percentage of units that
have to be rented to make this thing even worthwhile. And it just
seems to me -- now you're saying that nobody outside ever will be
able to rent a unit outside of the Eagle Creek PUD; is that correct?
MR. REISCHL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Never will happen? Even if
they are losing money every single month on a loan, let's say, to build
this facility. I mean, I just don't get it.
MR. REISCHL: It's a risk that the petitioner is taking. You're
right.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's a risk for the petitioner. I guess I'm
more concerned about the self-contained aspect of it and the travel on
the highways. So I'd like to hear a few more comments from our
petitioner.
MS. PERRY: I'm going to turn that over to Jeff Perry from
WilsonMiller.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you.
MR. PERRY: Good morning, Commissioners.
Jeff Perry, WilsonMiller.
Access -- as Ms. Perry has indicated, there's actually several
ways of getting to the site. It is all external. You have to go outside
the development to get to this particular site. The access point that
was previously discussed is the main access off of Collier Boulevard
coming through the gates and coming back down to Tower Road and
coming to the site this way. Access is also available -- there's an
Eagle Creek access that goes to the shopping center, and for those
people who don't feel comfortable traveling Collier Boulevard could
certainly go out this way through the shopping center entrance to
Price Street, down Barefoot Williams, down to Tower Road, and
Page 29
July 19, 2001
back into the site this way without ever going to Collier Boulevard or
using U.S. 41.
I think the point that Mr. Priddy brought up is one that I raised
with the transportation department. Although the traffic volumes are
very low in this kind of use where you have theoretically one or two -
- three people a day at the most visiting a site like this -- I have one of
these storage units in Fibber McGee's Closet in the industrial area,
and if I go to it two or three times a year, that's probably more than I
really need to.
But the fact is that there will be people coming to and from this
particular site, oftentimes on a trip that they're out making someplace
else anyway. They don't go to the site specifically to make that trip.
But the important thing that Mr. Priddy was talking about was that
the people that have sites elsewhere in the county today or would
theoretically be potential customers of this particular site here, they
now have to travel up the East Trail or up 951 or go someplace else
to get to an existing site, maybe three or five miles away.
Instead, they would simply rent their site here, come back down
-- I would presume from a market standpoint, it might be a little
easier to ensure that you're going to have space available there than
somewhere else. But they would have a much shorter trip obviously
from a network standpoint. That's better for our transportation
system, but it also simply means that there isn't another access point
that people can use. They really don't feel comfortable making those
left turns back on to Collier Boulevard.
Access through the site can be controlled through the same type
of card-key system -- code system that the residents use to get into
and out of their site. So as far as -- we don't believe there's going to
be a violation problem. But if the county is concerned about it, they
do have code enforcement procedures. They find out that anybody is
renting there illegally, they have the ability to stop that. But we don't
Page 30
July 19, 2001
suspect that that's going to happen just like that there's any access
control problem.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: This may be a foolish question,
but, Marjorie, this plot of land could never be sold off by Eagle Creek
and be used as a commercial facility?
MS. STUDENT: Well, we don't put restraints on alienation on
PUD documents, and it could be sold. But since the PUD says it's for
the use of the residents, it would still have to be for the use of the
residents.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Okay.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? I believe we
have some public speakers.
MS. MURRAY: We have three registered speakers. The first is
Paul Alvarez.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Please state your name for the record.
MR. ALVAREZ: Paul Alvarez, A-l-v-a-r-e-z.
Good morning, Madam Chairman, and good morning members
of the Collier County Planning Commission.
I am president of the Eagle Creek Golf and Country Club, and
with me today -- accompanying me here today is another member of
the country club board and the current and the immediate past
president of the Eagle Creek Condominium Association.
Our purpose overall today is to respectfully request a 60-day
continuance in this matter for the following reasons: Being it
mid-July, approximately 80 percent of our residents, including 20
percent who live beyond the borders of the United States, are away
from the property at this time. Those of us who live on property
received this notification 14 to 16 days ago, and we think that people
away from the property may have only recently received it. And
those in foreign countries may not have received it at all to date.
Page 31
July 19, 2001
Therefore, we have been unable to survey all our members to find out
their feelings about the proposed feelings of building storage sheds
adjacent to the golf course.
Secondly, we are novices in the matters of changing PUDs and
zoning issues. We wish to have adequate time to identify and seek
opinion from qualified legal counsel as to what our rights are in this
matter and to communicate that opinion to our members. And for
those reasons we respectfully ask your indulgence in granting this
continuance.
I must say further on, I have heard things today presented that I
think are somewhat questionable and even more concerning and
require us to get more information from our members. We have
never seen the survey that the developer claims had 32 strong
interests. We have never had access to that.
I also want to point out that while they say there was a treatment
plant back there, of course, the treatment plant was very necessary at
the time. It was a part of the entire part of the property. What
screens this is -- what is talked about is vegetation -- are pepper trees
that we're currently in the process of, you know, removing which will
require extensive landscaping, not only to this facility, but also to our
own maintenance storage shed -- or maintenance facility up there.
But the concept that this is screened from view, it was screened from
view until we started a very aggressive pepper tree removal situation.
In addition to this, when I hear about all of this for Eagle Creek
members, we have run our own very quick survey among
condominium owners, who are judged to be the most likely people to
use this facility because about half of the condominium owners do
not have garages for their condominiums. About 190 -- there are 190
condominium owners -- we did a very quick survey, or the president
of the condominium association did a very quick survey. He got 126
returns, and 124 were against and 2 were for. Our issue here today is
Page 32
July 19, 2001
that because we don't have a great deal of experience in these kinds
of matters, and we believe that our members do not support this -- but
we're not truly prepared because we're inexperienced in matters like
this -- to come today to you with a thoroughly reasoned and
substantial presentation on this matter.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I believe it's the prerogative of
the petitioner to request a continuance or go forward and take the
chances on what the board will vote for. Marjorie, could you provide
some guidance for me here?
MS. STUDENT: Yeah. I think ultimately it's up to the
Planning Commission to determine. What usually happens when the
petitioner staff requests a continuance, they are usually granted. I
don't know if the petitioner may wish to consider the statements that
were made and wish additional time to, you know, work with the
residents.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think we should hear the rest of the
public speakers. Mr. Priddy?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'd like to also point out that, you
know, this is not a popularity contest; that even if everyone showed
up and said they didn't want it, that's not a criteria that we're having
to base our decision on. So, you know, the fact that there's two
people or a roomful of people, you know, isn't a head count as to
what's going to sway my vote.
Now, what they may have to say in testimony may shed some
light on it, but certainly I can't support a continuance based on, you
know, the fact they might can bring (sic) some more people next time
because that's not going to affect the process.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Next registered speaker, please.
MS. MURRAY: Irving Sherwood.
MR. SHERWOOD: My name is Irving Sherwood. I'm a full-
time resident at Eagle Creek, and I'm a member of the country club
Page 33
July 19, 2001
board of governors. I've been doing a lot of work on this program in
concert with Mrs. Perry and Fred Reischl.
In support of Mr. Alvarez's comments, presently there is ample
storage facilities, not only on 41, which is a concern of some you
respective to the navigation of 41 and 951, but if you go down 951
past Tower Road entrance probably about a half to three-quarters of a
mile on the right-hand side, there's several storage facilities there. So
supply and demand at this point in time is really not an issue because
I think we have ample supply. I just wanted to carry that on in
support of what Mr. Alvarez said.
And in addition to the number of letters received or returned
from the condominium people, we had a number of verbal requests
and a number of written requests that were sent directly to Mr.
Reischl's office.
The one thing that we didn't want to get involved with today is
an emotional situation. And this has gotten to be rather emotional.
We could have stacked this whole room, but we elected not to
because we would like a continuance. And I think that's a fair
request. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Next speaker, please.
MS. MURRAY: David Amico.
MR. AMICO: Good morning. I'm David Amico, A-m-i-c-o,
and I'm representing the developer here today.
A couple comments that I'd like to make and certainly answer
any questions you may have. One comment was made about
landscaping, or a couple comments. The current sewer-treatment
plant which is in the process of being dismantled and removed is
currently not seen because of the pepper hedge plays a big part of
that. There's also other vegetation there as well. We previously -- we
meaning the owner of the developer company and myself as a
representative -- met with the president of the club and has agreed
Page 34
July 19, 2001
that if and when the landscaping is required to shield not only our
storage treatment -- excuse me -- storage units, but the maintenance
building, that we would share in the cost to make sure -- we plan to
landscape it so you're not going to see it, but it certainly is -- as
Mr. Alvarez has mentioned -- is a requirement to shield it as well as
the other facilities that are there. There's a two-story maintenance
building. There's a wash-down facility for washing lawn equipment.
And this facility would be compatible in looks. We certainly would
shield that, and we're sensitive to that as well.
The entrance, I think, was addressed. There was some question
as to whether you had to go on to 951, Collier Boulevard, or 41, and
there is a back entrance to Eagle Creek. It does go Price Street to
Barefoot Williams to Tower Road so that the access to and from the
facility could be -- would be made available by not going out onto the
main corridors as you would have to if you did rent in one of the
other facilities.
The access to it would be during the hours of the maintenance
facility with a similar key system that is there today. You know, I
think that that would -- and being residents only -- that certainly, we
thought, was favorable. We think the use of this land is more
compatible than and favorable than a sewage plant.
The last thing, I guess, I would like to say is there are numbers
and surveys and things that have been proposed and promoted. What
our intent is -- we feel as -- again, as representative for the developer,
that we had adequate response and yeses to proceed to this point.
Our intent is, before we actually start the construction, to take another
survey. And if it becomes nonfeasible where the residents feel that
they don't want to rent it, or we find that there's only
20 people that want to rent, then they probably would not be built.
We're not asking today for a permit to build. We're asking for
the permission to pursue that use. And we want to -- our intent is to
Page 35
July 19, 2001
go forward and to build them. But we would do that after we send
out another survey and find that we do have adequate response.
There was reference to one other survey that was made by the
condo group. And I've made these comments to the individuals as
well. I feel the survey that went out -- the letter that went out by the
president -- he readily would admit that he's very much against this.
And the letter that was sent out to solicit response in my opinion was
very biased in that regard stating his opinion. I think that should be
taken into consideration if we're going to look at surveys at all. But
certainly there's copies of that available if you wanted to read the
letter that they go out (sic).
But more importantly -- I don't think that that's as important as it
is that the -- we're hoping that we have a right to use this property
that is owned by the developer for use that we feel that is compatible
for the residents of Eagle Creek, and that we feel that the storage
facility is a much more palatable use than would be the continued use
of a sewer-treatment plant. That's why we're here, and we're hoping
that you would agree with that.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Questions?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you have a time line on
when the developer will turn this over to the owners there, when
build-out -- is there any projection of that?
MR. AMICO: Well, this particular piece of property may or
may not ever be turned over to the homeowners. That's really up to
the developer, but it's more -- although it's for the private use and sole
exclusive use of the homeowners, it's not done through the
homeowner's association. It's going to be done as a developer
project.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What facilities is the
developer going to retain out there? I didn't understand that? The
golf course?
Page 36
July 19, 2001
MR. AMICO: No, no. The golf course has been turned over
and sold to the members. The residential properties are being turned
over, obviously, as they're sold. The common areas right now are all
right now developer controlled, but they will be turned over at build-
out, and this would remain.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You mean the only thing he
would retain is the self-storage facility?
MR. AMICO: Yes. Or there may be some arrangement where
there could be -- just as the golf course was owned by the developer
and sold to the members, perhaps this can also be as well sold to
them.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just for clarification, the
notice was sent out 300 feet, or did it actually get to everyone in
Eagle Creek, or is it just limited to the space?
MR. REISCHL: It was to everyone within
Eagle Creek and surrounding property owners within 300 feet --
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Beyond.
MR. REISCHL: It was a large number of--
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. So it was beyond
the PUD itself.
MR. REISCHL: Yes. Everyone within and 300 hundred feet
without.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Refresh my memory when that went
out.
MR. REISCHL: Longer than 14 days prior to this hearing.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No comments from the audience.
Thank you. You have to come to the microphone.
MS. MURRAY: It's required to go out at least 15 days before
the scheduled hearing.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Fifteen days before the scheduled
Page 37
July 19, 2001
hearing.
MS. MURRAY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions? Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm in somewhat of an
agreement as they said. You know, sitting in the middle of summer,
it seems as though the residents may suffer by us shoving it down
their throat.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: As a representative of the developer,
are you in a position to discuss whether you would want to do a
continuance or would like to go forward?
MR. AMICO: The discussion of storage units is not something
new to the residents of Eagle Creek. We turned the plant over to the
county approximately 18 months ago, and prior to that we knew that
was going to happen. We had a year's time frame to sort of wind up
the business of that. So you're approximately two-and-a-half years
ago when the decision was made that the county was going to take
over the facilities of the sewage-treatment facilities.
At that point I was asked the question on numerous times what
will happen with this land. And as president of the homeowners'
association, the community association, and director of the
condominium association board as well, I attend every meeting, and I
had made the presentation at every meeting that when I was asked,
and answered the question, "What will happen with this land?" and
we discussed this early on with the homeowners. This is not
something that is brand new. We sent out a survey that was
approximately a year ago. It was May or June of last year. So that
was, again, brought to their attention there.
The process here was not timed to try to make it during this
time frame. As you know, a change to a PUD is something that is a
time-consuming process. We hired WilsonMiller, and this has been
an ongoing process. It was not something that we said to let's do
Page 38
July 19, 2001
during this period. It started long ago. So the discussion with the
homeowners has started two-and-a-half years ago. You know, I don't
believe that by continuing this we're going to be any further. I think
that this is not something new.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think the answer to my question is
that you'd prefer to continue on.
Mr. Priddy.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Let's say that you don't put a self-
storage unit on this property. What are some other uses that you as
an owner or you as an owner representative could think of to do with
this property?
MR. AMICO: Well, we would have to come to the Planning
Commission and find a use for it. We would have to sell it to an
outside group and have them come before you to find a use for it.
You know, the property has a value to be used. You know, it doesn't
have a value not to be used. Part of the concern I know of the club
would be the club may want to take a look at it as well and possibly
use that land or purchase it. We would continue to deal with them if
they want that interest. We expressed that we would do that. But this
would not preclude doing that, and I don't believe a delay in this --
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Certainly one of your options
would be, "Well, we don't want to be involved in this property in the
future, so we would break it out of the PUD" -- come back here and
break it out of the PUD -- "and sell it as a residential lot or sell it as a
commercial lot." Probably commercial because of the surrounding
uses.
MR. AMICO: Right.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And then that owner certainly
would have a right under whatever commercial criteria, whether it's
C-1 or C-5, to build whatever the county allowed in that case. So I
think by -- I guess what I'm getting at is by telling the developer that
Page 39
July 19, 2001
they can't use it for something that might be palatable to the
community, that if we say no, you could end up with something a lot
worse that you have absolutely no say so in and control over so -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe Mr. Reischl wants to
comment on that.
MR. REISCHL: I want to make a clarification. You mentioned
rezoning to some kind of commercial. Right now, before you could
rezone it commercial, you'd have to do a Growth Management Plan
amendment because this is not in an activity center. So it would not
be a very simple process to do that.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. Then I'd ask the county
attorney, where does that leave us with telling a property owner they
can't use their property because that's in effect --
MS. STUDENT: Well, I mean, these are all suppositions of
what might happen. Assuming that wasn't done, yes, it could be
broken out of the PUD and rezoned something consistent with the
comp plan, or whoever owned the property may wish to pursue a
comp plan amendment because of, you know, what the surrounding
uses are and so forth. That doesn't mean they can't use their property
for nothing whatsoever.
What would they be able to put there, Fred, assuming the
treatment plant were dismantled and, well, it did not remain in the
PUD, or I'm assuming they could put some kind of residential or a
certain amount of units per acre? I don't know if it'd qualify for some
type of infill but...
MR. REISCHL: Just in the PUD the permitted uses in the golf
course district are clubhouses, pro shops, practice driving ranges,
small commercial establishments, including gift shop, golf equipment
sales, restaurants, cocktail lounges intended for the exclusive use of
patrons of the golf course.
So there are accessory uses that are permitted there now. I
Page 40
July 19, 2001
think Mr. Amico's problem is the inaccessibility directly from the
golf course or the right hole that you would normally have a snack
bar or something like that. So therefore I think that's why he's
considering a change of use from those that are currently permitted.
MS. STUDENT: But if it was broken out of the PUD, under the
comp plan, it would be in the urban area, so it would have to be
rezoned to something else, and we don't have that situation come up.
I don't think we've had it come up.
MR. REISCHL: No. It's a small 1.3 acre parcel.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And it's the whole concept that it's in a
PUD right now. This would take extra effort to have this occur.
MS. STUDENT: Oh, yeah. You'd have to rezone it-- they'd
have to rezone it from PUD to something else. If it were one of the
residential uses, they would have the density under the comp plan. I
don't know if the infill provisions of the comp plan might work for
them to be able to do something there or not. And they could seek a
comp plan amendment to allow some kind of commercial use there if
they were to break it out of the PUD. This PUD predates our comp
plan.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are there any further questions from
the board of Mr. Amico? Do we have any further registered
speakers?
MS. MURRAY: No more registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I wanted to
make a disclosure. I neglected earlier in our conversations to disclose
the fact that I had a phone conversation with Mr. Amico regarding
this petition, and, further, I would like to make a motion that we
approve Petition PUDA-2001-AR-702.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd and a
Page 41
July 19, 2001
second by Mr. Priddy to approve this petition. Is there discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, call the question. All those in
favor say aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you need the board to poll?
COURT REPORTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm no.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm a no.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm a no.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I'm a no.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm a yes.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So that's --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Four to four.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Four to four.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Three to four.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Motion fails then.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion fails.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: All right. I would like to move
that we allow a 60-day extension of PUDA-2001-AR-702, a 60-day
extension so that the residents may make their wishes known.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe that that's --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We can't do that.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Point of order, we can't do that.
Page 42
July 19, 2001
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: We can't do that?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We've already acted on it.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We've acted on it.
MS. STUDENT: Yeah, it's failed.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, and, furthermore, if we're
going to do that, we might as well shut government down from about
May 15th to November 15th because, you know, a third of the
county's gone. If we're going to use that as a criteria for doing
business in the county, let's just not meet for five months.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't think that's the issue. I
think that the issue is that all the information that went to the
residents -- I'm pretty dam familiar with homeowners and condo
associations, and it's tough to get work done in the summer for
notifications. And that's why maybe the letters and notifications to
the residents should have gone out in the wintertime -- excuse me.
And that's my point. It seems like every time the communication to
the residents has happened it's been the summertime. And I think it
would have been more prudent to do it in the winter.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, I don't disagree that that
would be the time to do it, but let's not waste our time for scheduling
meetings for two or three months during the summer when we know
people aren't here and notices --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, the homework should be
done when the residents can speak.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, you know, our county
government just doesn't function that way. There's no need us
arguing about it, but that's just not the way it works.
MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Murray.
MS. MURRAY: Typically, when the Planning Commission has
recommended denial of a petition, of course, we inform the Board of
Page 43
July 19, 2001
County Commissioners of your action. But we also inform them as
to why, and I guess that I would just ask that -- and it sounds like that
the folks that voted no would prefer an extension, if that's correct, or
if I could get that clarification so that we could forward that
information --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That didn't play any part in
mine at all. I based it, first of all, on the fact with all this lip service
we give to interconnectivity that we're putting a facility here within a
facility and not even connecting to it within itself. That's to me the
cardinal sin.
Secondly, it seems to me in view of the posity of real interest
expressed in this, that it would do well to wait until the homeowners
at Eagle Creek take over that facility and let them decide whether
they want a self-storage facility.
I keep scratching my head wondering why we're doing this here
today at all, whether it's a marketing ploy, or what has given rise to it
is quite beyond me.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: My decision was based on the idea of
the self-contained, and I was concerned about the traffic, and I think
that's probably what won me over. The second concept, though, is
this public participation. And although I understand how the process
does work, I strongly support additional information from the
homeowners, from the public in general.
But, actually, I believe it was traffic that swayed me, and I
would like it self-contained, and I don't think enough information was
provided as to why they can't get from Point A to Point B internally,
and as Mr. Abemathy has said, the interconnectivity is an issue we
talk about on a regular basis. So perhaps additional effort can be
made to determine if this comer could be reached from inside.
MS. MURRAY: I appreciate your referencing the sections of
the code that you're obligated to consider when you're doing this, so
Page 44
July 19, 2001
thank you for doing that.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other comments? Do you want to
clarify your points?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, you covered the public.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you.
MS. MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I believe we're up to old
business. There's no old business listed. New business.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes. Rumor has it that we have
only one agenda item for the next Planning Commission, and I would
suggest if there is only one item that we move that item to the -- what
would be the second meeting in September.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Or August.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: August.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Of August, yes.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: August 19th?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're moving it to August 16th?
MS. MURRAY: From August 2nd to --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: From August 2nd?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion. Do we need a
second on that?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do we need clarification
from staff?.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Clarification of the rumor.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let's clarify the rumor first. What's
our agenda for the 2nd of August?
MS. MURRAY: Right now you have one petition scheduled for
the 2nd of August.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One petition.
MS. MURRAY: There were a number of others, and they were
Page 45
July 19, 2001
continued.
MS. STUDENT: I just want to -- I'm sure it hasn't been
advertised yet.
MS. MURRAY: No.
MS. STUDENT: There'd be a problem if it were advertised
because we'd have to wait until that meeting to continue it to let
people know.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So it has not been advertised?
MS. STUDENT: I just want that clarification. It has not?
MS. STUDENT: I can't answer that honestly. I'd have to check
with my staff, but it's a 15-day advertisement requirement, and I
apologize. I don't have my calendar in front of me. Is it 15 days
prior to August 2nd?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's 14 days from today.
MS. MURRAY: Today?
MS. STUDENT: We may have a problem then because if it's
already been advertised, and what happens is -- that you would
normally continue it -- the item at the meeting when you convene.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll withdraw my motion, and
back to an earlier question. I will not be here on the first or second
meeting in August.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Because, Marjorie, what's
happened in the past--
MS. STUDENT: We haven't had this happen, really.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, what has happened
in the past, though, is we've not had a quorum. MS. STUDENT: Right.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And it would seem to me
that if we didn't have a quorum by same cabal that occurred within
this group, and if the staff where able to communicate with the single
Page 46
July 19, 2001
petitioner, the likelihood of not having a quorum that this resolves
itself.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have an issue also that I've -- a
professional issue -- but I've made the commitment to be here for the
meetings, and I would prefer not to be here if I could. So if I have to
say I'm not going to be here to not have a quorum --
MS. MURRAY: I have another item to discuss with you. Why
don't we move on to that. Fred's checking on the advertising and
everything, then we'll -- we can come back to that.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Then we'll come back then to --
I guess this is old business or not new business.
MS. MURRAY: Actually, this would be new.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: New.
MS. STUDENT: The other aspect -- I just want to say besides
the advertising is -- the posting's probably not an issue, but did the
letters go out? That's -- I mean, that's all part of it. MS. MURRAY: Right.
The new item I wanted to discuss was, as you know in the last
round of LDC amendments, the code was amended to allow
additional cycles of LDC amendments by majority vote of the board.
And as such, on the 31 st of July, we will be seeking a vote from the
board to have a special cycle for a number of issues, mainly the
public participation issue that's coming up that the board has directed
us in the past to bring forward to them in an expeditious manner.
With that, I have a proposed schedule. I just kind of wanted to
give you a heads-up because it's not set in stone, but, of course, that
requires that you attend night meetings. And I'd like to just go ahead
and hand that out. If you-all are -- just be made aware that this isn't
set yet, but just to give you just an indication of what we're looking at
in terms of dates.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: While you're handing it out, could you
Page 47
July 19, 2001
mention it so that it is for our TV viewers.
MS. MURRAY: There's two options, and so I'd rather not.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We'll probably discuss this, I'm sure,
so the public has some idea what it is we're looking at for night
meetings.
MS. MURRAY: What you're looking at, essentially, is roughly
a special cycle. Planning Commission would meet in September.
Choice A would be late September, September 19th, and then early
October, October 3rd, with the Board of County Commissioners
meeting October 17th and November 7th. That's one option.
As a second option, you-all would meet on September 5th and
September 19th with the board meeting on October 10th and final
action taking place on October 24th.
And I'm just waiting for approval from the administrator before
we select an option, but I wanted to let you know ahead of time.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Choice A would be two night meetings
for the Collier County Planning Commission on September 19th and
the 3rd of October. Or the other Choice B would be September 5th
and September 19th.
Do we have any concerns about those dates right now that we
could get on the record?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I prefer Choice C, but --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And Choice C would be what,
Mr. Priddy?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Choice C would be the October
3rd and whatever the next date after October 3rd would be, but short
of that I'd go with Choice A.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Does the A and B reflect
some preference of staff?.
MS. MURRAY: Yeah. Actually, I'm not really trying to give
you a choice because the choice really is up to the Board of County
Page 48
July 19, 2001
Commissioners. We've indicated to them that we'd like to wrap
things up in October, and I think that's kind of the indication back to
us as well. I mean, they were actually talking September, so we're
trying -- and this is the schedule that we could come up with and
meet all of our statutory requirements for night meetings and
committee meetings and all that so...
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we could have this -- so you're
saying Choice B is preferable.
MS. MURRAY: I think they're probably looking at choice B as
probably the likely choice.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And then we would have
meetings again in, then, November.
MS. MURRAY: That's correct. And then you're also looking at
another second cycle, so you're actually looking at an overlap of
cycle, and, again, that -- the regular second cycle has not been
determined and nailed down yet, so I didn't want to bring that
forward to you. Just wanted to bring this to your attention now. I
will clarify -- the next meeting we have, I'll have both schedules for
you, and they will be set.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. And clarification, about
how many do you consider a few items coming that need to be
considered in a special cycle?
MS. MURRAY: In a special cycle, we're looking right now at
about four items.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Four items.
MS. MURRAY: Public participation, the excavation issue -- I
don't know if you're aware of that, but that's kind of been an ongoing
thing -- and a couple of very minor items.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe the excavation took a little bit
of publicity last night in Golden Gate, so I'm sure that we will have a
lot more people explaining things and taking pictures to give us an
Page 49
July 19, 2001
opportunity to make some reasonable decisions on excavations.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chairman, I notice
on our list here that several of us have e-mail addresses, and I would
encourage staff to utilize those to communicate anything so that we
don't have to wait until meetings necessarily to find out.
MS. MURRAY: Actually, I'm very glad you brought that up
because I would, in turn, encourage you-all to use those, and if there's
anything you get in your mailouts that you don't understand, for
example, our PUD that we discussed today where you had a number
of strike-outs where you read the staff report and it wasn't clear, if
you would just send me an e-mail, we'd be happy to clarify that
before the meeting.
That also provides somebody like Fred the opportunity to say,
"Well, we need to put that on the record because obviously it wasn't
clear to our Planning Commission, and we want to make sure it's very
clear to the public."
Often when the mailouts go out, obviously, there's not enough
time to correct the staff report if an error is found or some
clarification is needed, but if we do know ahead of time that you're
having difficulty understanding something, then Fred could stand up
here on the record and make that known verbally, and we could not
waste a lot of time trying to figure out where you're not
understanding something and where we failed to make it clear.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And, for the record, your
e-mail is?
MS. MURRAY: Susan -- my personal e-mail?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes.
MS. MURRAY: Susanmurray, one word,
S-u-s-a-n-m-u-r-r-a-y, ~Colliergov, one word, .net.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It works?
MS. MURRAY: It works.
Page 50
July 19, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Susan, I'm looking at my
calendar with all of these LDC things, and I notice that I have a
Collier County Planning Commission meeting on Friday, September
7th. Am I dreaming that, or did we move that because of the holiday
or--
MS. MURRAY: You did that some time ago. The room was
not available.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So we're going to meet on a
Wednesday night, the 5th, and then again on Friday; is that right?
MS. MURRAY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: It's a full agenda. You're going to
be here all afternoon.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You'll be watching us.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You'll have your TV turned on. Okay.
Are there additional comments -- one at a time. It has to be on the
record. I'm sorry, gentlemen. We're still in session here.
MS. MURRAY: I just want to make sure you understand this is
just a draft and the next meeting I'll have both cycles set for you so
you can set your calendars.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I believe we now have
information about the August 2nd meeting.
MS. MURRAY: Right. Go ahead, Marjorie.
MS. STUDENT: What you could do is just direct staff to re-
advertise it for a subsequent meeting now, and that would alleviate
any concern about, you know, whether or not there's a quorum and
then coming and not enough people here to constitute a quorum for
one item. I don't know if that presents a problem for the petitioner or
not, but that's what could be done.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So I can do that just directing staff to
do that rather than have a motion?
Page 51
July 19, 2001
this.
MS. STUDENT: Just direct staff--
MR. WEIGEL: No. You have to have a motion.
MS. STUDENT: No. You have to do it by motion.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Priddy, I think you started
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. I move that we direct staff
to re-advertise the agenda for August 2nd to the August 16th meeting.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Priddy, a
second by Mr. Budd to re-advertise the August 2nd agenda. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All in favor say aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
Those opposed, same sign.
Thank you very much.
Just
MS. MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We have no public to comment.
one gentleman. No? Okay.
Discussion of addenda. No discussion of addenda.
I guess we're ready to be adjourned. We're adjourned. Thank
yOU.
Page 52
July 19, 2001
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:05 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING, INC., BY PAMELA HOLDEN, COURT REPORTER
Page 53