CCPC Minutes 08/16/2001 RAugust 16, 2001
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, August 16, 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 8:33 a.m. In REGULAR
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples,
Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Joyceanna J. Rautio
Michael Pedone
Dwight Richardson
Lora Jean Young
David J. Wolfley
NOT PRESENT:
Russell A. Budd
Kenneth L. Abemathy
Russell A. Priddy
ALSO PRESENT:
Marjorie M. Student, Asst. County Attorney
Susan Murray, Chief Planner, Planning
Services
Page 1
AGENDA
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
A.
Bo
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 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 21, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: Russell A. Priddy, Kenneth L. Abernathy, and Russell Budd
BCC RECAPS -July 31, 2001
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
BD-2001-AR-619, Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Jean V. Ferrone, requesting a 67-foot
extension to allow for a boat dock facility protruding a total 87 feet into the waterway for property located at 10671
Keewaydin Island, further described as Lot 43, South Naples Shores, in Section 14, Township 51 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
BD-2001-AR-928, Miles L. Scofield of Turrell and Associates, Inc., representing Lois E. Anderson, requesting a 235-foot
boat dock extension to allow for a boat dock prolxuding a total of 255 feet into the waterway (84 feet beyond thc
mangrove line) for property located in Keewaydin Island, Parcel 18, Lot 2, in Section 14, Township 51 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
Co
Eo
PDI-2001-AR-949, Donald A. Pickworth, Esq., of Donald A. Pickworth, P.A., representing Naples Commercial, LLC,
requesting an insubstantial change determination to the Forest Glen of Naples PUD Master Plan, to reinstate access points
for the commercial tract for property located in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Ray Bellows) (CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 7, 2001)
PUDA-2001-AR-500, R. Brace Anderson of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A., representing The
Skinner and Broadbent Development Company, Inc., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development known as the Falling Waters Beach Resort PUD having the effect of revising the PUD document by deleting
automobile service stations, food markets, fist t~ood restaurants and restaurants as permitted uses, adding self storage as a
permitted use, increasing commercial sq. ft. from 49,000 to 73,000, decreasing minimum front yard setback from 50 ft. to
20 ft., and reducing the building height from 50 ft. to 36 ft. for property located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard
(C.R. 951) and U.S. 41, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 74.37:k
acres. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian)
PUDZ-2001-AR-383, Dwight Nadeau of MeAnly Engineering and Design, Inc., representing Mike Bozzo, Sr., requesting
a rezone from "C-I" and "C-l/ST" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Park Central North PUD for a
maximum of 36,000 sq. ft. of commercial office uses for property located in the northeast quadrant of the Airport-Pulling
Road approximately 1000 feet north of the Pine Ridge Road intersection, in Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 3.78+ acres.(Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
PUDZ-2001-AR-432, Karen Bishop of PMS, Inc. of Naples, representing Kenco Development, Inc., requesting a rezone
from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Indigo Lakes PUD and "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development to be known as Indigo Lakes PUD for the purpose of increasing acreage from 140.85 acres to
181.37 acres and reducing density from 3.14 to 2.43 units per acre for a maximum of 442 residential dwelling units, for
property located on Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), south of the existing Oak Ridge Middle School, in Section 27,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Susan Murray)
VA-2001-AR-979, Terrance Kepple, of Kepple Engineering, representing Shader-Lombardo Properties, LLC, requesting a
12.1-foot variance from the Vanderbilt Villas PUD required distance between structure setback of 20 feet to 7.9 feet for
property located at 515 Roma Court, further described as Lot 22, Vanderbilt Villas, in Section 21, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
VA-2001-AR-1138, Armando Parra Jr., representing Antonio Alfaro, requesting a 3.93-foot after-the-fact variance from
the required 30-foot front yard setback to 26.07 for property located at 2272 $2"a Lane SW, further described as Lot 2,
Block 211, Golden Gate Unit 6, in Section 21, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida
(Coordinator: Fred Rcischl)
8. OLD BUSINESS:
9. NEW BUSINESS:
10.PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
11 .DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
12.ADJOURN
8/16/0 I/CCPC AGENDA/SM/lo
2
August 16, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do believe we're live. Ladies and
gentlemen, I would like to call the Collier County Planning
Commission to order for August 16th, 2001. The first item on the
agenda-- the first item on the agenda is roll call.
Mr. Priddy, absent but excused.
Mr. Budd, absent but excused.
Mr. Richardson.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Pedone.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Rautio, here.
Ms. Young.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy, absent but excused.
We do have a quorum. Do we have any addenda to the agenda, Ms.
Murray?
MS. MURRAY: Good morning. Susan Murray, current
planning manager. We have a couple of-- three changes, actually.
The first two are Item 7-C, which is noted on your agenda, is
continued to the meeting of September 7th. Then staff is requesting
to continue Item 7-G, which is the variance request for Vanderbilt
Villas. We're requesting to continue that to the meeting of 9/7. And
then I understand Item 7-F, there's a conflict, and I'd like the county
attorney -- assistant county attorney to speak to that.
MS. STUDENT: Okay. This is on the Indigo Lakes matter,
which is Item F on the agenda under -- it would be 7-F. And I have
been advised -- and I need the commissioner to state for the record
the nature of the conflict. But what -- on this item what will happen,
then, is that he will not be able to take any action on the item. And
Page 2
August 16, 2001
that means we don't have a quorum to take action on that item, and
that will have to be continued. But I need him to state -- if he would,
please, just state for the record the nature of the conflict.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: David Wolfley. For the
record, my company has done business with the developer of Indigo
Lakes, and there may be a potential conflict there.
MS. STUDENT: That constitutes a voting conflict of interest.
And even when the item comes up on the next agenda, he will also
have to state it at that time, but hopefully we will have a quorum. So
this results in the lack of a quorum, so I believe I will need the board
to just make a motion to continue that item to the 7th meeting.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: He could not just abstain,
and we still have five members?
MS. STUDENT: We don't have a quorum. He can't vote on it
because it is a voting conflict of interest, but we need five members
to take official action on an item.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So I need a motion to continue Item F,
PUDZ-2001-AR-432, the Indigo Lakes PUD.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I make a motion we continue.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Pedone, a
second by Ms. Young to continue the item until the September 7th
meeting. Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a quick discussion.
Ms. Murray, I notice in looking at Item 7-F -- just so that we don't
have to waste time when it does come up -- that there's a great deal of
detail that seems to be required by the applicant that's not provided, a
whole list of things, you know, all the numbered items that show the
sorts of things that needed -- are normally associated with the
application that are missing in my packet.
Page 3
August 16, 2001
MS. MURRAY: Why don't I get with you after the meeting,
Commissioner, and I'll go over that with you, and then we'll make
sure you get that before the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So no further discussion?
Call the question. All in favor, aye. (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. Any
further addenda to the agenda?
MS. MURRAY: No further. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. The next item on the agenda is
approval of the minutes. We have a June 21st set of minutes, and I
would just like to state that for consistency we want to have the cover
page corrected. Do we have a motion to pass the minutes as
corrected?
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll make a motion that we pass
the minutes of June 21st as corrected.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Pedone, a
second by Ms. Young to pass the minutes of June 21 st with the minor
correction of the cover page, which was vice-chairman instead of
chairman. I guess I should put that on the record. All those in favor
say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you.
Now, fourth item is Planning Commission absences. We have -- we
know that Mr. Priddy, Abernathy, and Mr. Budd are absent for this
Page 4
Augustl6,2001
time. Do we have any planned absences in the near future?
September 7th would be the next one, which is on a Friday. It's a
different date due to a different conflict that we had, so it's on a
Friday, not Thursday.
MS. MURRAY: That's correct. And it's here in this boardroom
on Friday, September 7th.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. No planned absences, and
remember to come to this boardroom on Friday, not Thursday.
We have one recap from the Board of County Commissioners for
July 31st. Susan, did you want to give us any highlights?
MS. MURRAY: No, not unless you had any specific questions.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do any commissioners have
questions?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, if I may. I notice in
the minutes of the meeting that I missed you covered the results from
the Board of County Commissioners actions on the hearing examiner
in particular, and at that time there were questions that were asked
that you didn't have the answer to relating to ombudsman and some
of the detail. And since I missed a good bit of that discussion, I
would particularly appreciate finding out how we finally came out
relative to which items the Planning Commission is still going to be
in business on, because it seems that we're still going to be involved
in some zoning issues that earlier we were going to be written off on.
So however that sums out, I'd like to catch up on.
MS. MURRAY: How about ifI -- we have a summary sheet
that's actually in -- in writing for you. How about if I go ahead and
just make a note to bring that to the next meeting, or I could just mail
it out to you, if you'd like, and you could --
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That would be fine.
MS. MURRAY: -- read it. And then if you want to discuss it at
the next meeting, we could do that.
Page 5
August 16, 2001
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Any further questions?
Next item is the chairman's report. I would like to comment to our
audience out there and those of us that are watching us on television
that we do have three positions that will be up on the 1st of October
and that I believe the deadline for applications for appointment to this
board by the Board of County Commissioners is this Friday, the 17th.
So if anyone's listening to me that's interested in applying, please do
SO.
There seemed to be a lack of applications when I checked on
Monday with Sue Filson in the commissioners' office, so I want to
encourage people to apply so they can -- we can have a full
complement to this board come the 1st of October. Our enabling
ordinance is a little different than some of the others that I've served
on; therefore, a person does not continue to serve until replaced.
They actually have to depart the board when their term expires, and
we will need three new people come October 1st.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Which districts are --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those districts would be Mr. Budd,
District 3; Mr. Priddy, District 5 -- and there are a couple of
applications for that; and then I believe Mr. Wrage's vacant seat will
be considered on the 1 lth of September at the Board of County
Commissioners; and then Mr. Pedone, District 1. Are you going to
reapply, Mr. Pedone?
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: No, I'm not.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Long service on this board.
Okay. That's the end of my report.
We are at Item No. 7, advertised public hearings. The first item
will be BD-2001-AR-619, a boat dock extension on Keewaydin
Island. All those wishing to give testimony, please stand, raise your
right and, and be sworn in by the court reporter.
Page 6
August 16, 2001
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning, Mr. Gochenaur.
MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, Madam Commissioner.
For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is
requesting a 63-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding
a total of 83 feet into a waterway which is about 400 feet wide. The
property's located on Keewaydin Island and contains about 102 feet
of water frontage. The project consists of the construction of a dock
with one boat lift and one additional slip. There is a single-family
home on the property. No objections to this petition have been
received. The project meets all criteria, and staff recommends
approval.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?.
Would the petitioner care to talk for a moment until the quorum
comes back?
MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, Rocky Scofield representing
the petitioner. Do you have any questions? This is an existing dock
on Kee Island. Ms. Ferrone, Jean Ferrone, owns it. She lives -- she
actually lives full time on the island. And there's an existing dock
there which we're removing, and we're replacing it with one that's a
little bit longer. The new dock going in is going to be 11 feet further
out than the existing dock, but then the extra 20 feet is for mooring
pilings outside of that. And we're going to put a boat lift on the
inside. They have a small boat, and then they're going to have a little
bit larger boat that they'll moor on the outside between the end of the
dock and the mooring piles. We're allowed to go out a little bit
further. This is in the aquatic preserve, so we're allowed to go out to
minus 4 feet mean low water, according to the DEP rules and
regulations. So that's how we were able to extend the dock out 11
more feet. If you have any questions, I'd -- or do you want me to
keep talking?
Page 7
August 16, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I noticed in some of the --
in the last meeting there was some discussion about removal of the
exotics and whether that was required or not. And can you tell us
what the situation is on this particular site?
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, on this site, there's an existing home.
They do live there full time. So the only time the exotic removal
comes in is when you are going in to develop or place a home on that
-- on that lot or if we have a substantial impact through the
mangroves to put a boardwalk through, then that kicks in also to
remove the exotics. This one the dock just goes right up to the
shoreline. There is no mangrove forest on this. It's just a beach right
there. So they would have been required a long time ago to remove
those.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any registered public
speakers?
MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are there any other questions from the
commission? I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the
board?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chairman, I'd
recommend that we approve this BD-2001-AR-619 and forward it to
the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We have a motion by Mr.
Richardson, a second by Mr. Wolfley for approval of the petition.
Any discussion?
All those in favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
Page 8
August 16, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you.
The next item on the agenda is another boat dock extension on
Keewaydin Island, BD-2001-AR-928. Mr. Gochenaur, your turn
again. That's right. We probably would like to swear you in. All
those wishing to speak, please raise your right hand and swear before
the clerk of the courts.
(The speakers were sworn.)
MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning
services. The petitioner is requesting a 235-foot extension to create a
docking facility protruding a total of 255 feet into a waterway which
is about 420 feet wide. The property is located on Keewaydin Island
and contains about 111 feet of water frontage. The project consists of
the construction of a dock with one boat lift and mooring pilings at
the terminal end to accommodate a second vessel. Although the
protrusion is measured from the most restricted point as 255 feet,
only the last 80 feet would protrude beyond the mangroves into the
actual waterway. There is no residence on the property; however, the
Land Development Code allows docks as a permitted principal use on
unbridged barrier islands such as Keewaydin. We've received no
objection, and staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's always eye-popping to
see such a big number, 235-foot extension, when 20 feet is usually --
but I recognize the situation here, and I guess we're going to have a
pattern of these any time those are developed in that area.
MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, pretty much. The situation is similar
for most of the properties on Keewaydin.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Scofield, would you care to
comment?
MR. SCOFIELD: Rocky Scofield, for the record. I just -- one
comment on that. Ross and I just talked about this, the staff report.
Page 9
August 16, 2001
When -- and I made the comment it always says -- when you read the
first sentence, it says 255 feet into the waterway. Well, it's actually
not into the waterway. But if you read a little further, it explains that.
But that's what -- if you read that, a lot of times you'll stop -- and I
know I did a couple of times -- without reading further. And into the
waterway, the dock is only out 64 feet into the waterway, and then
we have, 20 feet further out, the mooring piles to tie the boat off. So
it is a staggering figure when you first look at it, read the first
sentence. It's 171 feet of boardwalk through the mangroves.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of staff?. Do we
have any registered public speakers?
MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: With no speakers, we close the public
hearing. What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'd like to make a motion that we
approve Petition BD-2001-AR-928 subject to the stipulations.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Pedone, a
second by Mr. Wolfley to approve the petition. Do we have any
discussion? Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in
favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. The next
item on the agenda was continued, so we're at D, PUDA-2000-AR-
500 (sic), a rezone for Falling Waters Beach Resort PUD. All those
wishing to give testimony today, please stand, raise your right hand,
and be sworn in by the court reporter.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The applicant's in the hallway.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Anderson should be
Page 10
August 16, 2001
here. His time's up.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They did not realize that the item
before that was continued. That's why they were in the hallway.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's why they're in the hallway?
Well, we'll go ahead and--
(Woman in audience speaking.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You can only speak from the
microphones. I'm sorry. Okay. All those wishing to give testimony,
please raise your right hand and be sworn in by the clerk of the
courts.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. And for those of you who
do wish to speak, please make sure that you fill out a speaker slip and
give it to Ms. Murray up here at the front so we have a record of your
names and addresses.
MS. MURRAY: And, Madam Chair, you may want to remind
the audience if you have a cell phone, that if you would, please turn
those off or put those on vibrate so it's not disruptive to your public
hearing.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All pagers and cell phones need to be
in the vibrate position or turned off. And each person has an
opportunity of about five minutes to speak, and we'd like to hear new
information from each speaker, if possible. Okay.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners.
Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Bruce
Anderson, representing the purchasers of this tract within the Falling
Waters PUD, are requesting a PUD amendment in order to remove
some of the existing uses -- approved uses and add one new use. The
uses that are being deleted include restaurants, fast-food restaurants,
food markets, and automobile service stations. The use that's been
added is self-storage use.
Page 11
August 16, 2001
Some other changes, they are reducing the maximum height from 50
feet to 36 feet, increasing the building area from 49,000 to 73,000,
and reducing the front setback from 50 to 20. These changes will
reduce the amount of traffic that could have been generated if
permitted uses were not removed. This will reduce the traffic by
4400 trips per day. They are reducing the front setback because
when this PUD was approved, the county-- they owned this parcel of
land here, but the county came later and purchased the 50-foot strip
for road widening. That's why these monument signs, these big large
monuments, which are cascading water monuments -- block, granite,
whatever they are -- they are right at the property line. They were
built with the 50-foot setback, but now they are right on the property
line. That's why the applicant is requesting to reduce this to 20.
Even with this reduced setback, as you can see, the buildings are
going to be 20 feet further back than those monument signs.
The commercial tract and residential tracts, they share the same
entrance. There's only one entrance from 951, which will be shared
by the residents and the commercial tract. That makes it difficult for
any substantial commercial development there because of the number
of trips that commercial tracts may generate. That's why staff is
supporting this change and removing all those uses and adding self-
storage. Self-storage is going to generate the least amount of traffic.
And as you can see from this -- let me orient --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are we having trouble with our
visuals?
MS. MURRAY: Sorry about that.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Sorry. And this commercial tract
which is located in here is within -- within Activity Center No. 18,
which allows a full array of commercial uses, and there are
commercial developments in the area. And this property's bordered
by Marco Island Water Treatment Plant to the north, which will not
Page 12
August 16, 2001
be developed in a residential or commercial way. It is a water
treatment plant. And basically they have tried to transition from
higher commercial to storage to a water treatment plant. Based on
this staff recommends approval of this request. Staff has received
around 26 letters of opposition. Around 25 of them are attached to
your petition -- to your packet. The rest were received after the
packet was mailed. They basically all say the same thing. They are
opposed to the reduction of the setback, and they basically don't want
more traffic in the area. And they don't want an increase of the
commercial area's square footage from 49,000 to 73,000.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a question. With reference to
the concept of reducing the maximum height from 50 to 36, it would
appear, then, that that's a trade-off to give additional -- another
24,000 square feet of commercial space. Is that something that's
done very often in the county?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It depends on the use. In here the
trade-off is that even by increasing the area of commercial, they are
reducing the traffic. Basically the traffic generated by this will be, as
I said, 4400 less than if they developed these tracts with gas stations
and restaurants, which are permitted uses. And reducing the height,
they don't really need the height for a ministorage building, so that's
why they are reducing, to reduce the visual impact for the residents in
the area in the residential tract, so they don't see the roof of the 50-
foot high building. And I think it's a fair trade.
And one more thing, they don't need as many parking spaces as
a restaurant or gas station would need. So instead of having a big
building with a large parking lot, they are asking for a larger building.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So we're reducing the heighth
because self-storage is generally not something that you want a
50-foot building for, and they're requesting additional square footage.
And you're saying that that, in itself, will give a different visual
Page 13
August 16, 2001
impact, and those are -- and in addition to that, the reduction of traffic
is why staff is recommending approval.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The reduction of traffic is the main
thing. Since they are sharing the same access with the residential tract
in the back, which they will have -- when finished they will have
around 430 units, they will share the same access to the site. That's
why it's important to reduce the amount of traffic that these
commercial tracts are going to generate. That's why staff is
supporting this. This is going to generate the least amount of traffic.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Now, the other aspect of
this that so many people did mention was the 20-foot minimum
setback. Would you clarify for me, once again, what that visually
does? And you say the county bought 50 feet of right-of-away, so we
lost a lot of right-of-way -- I mean, they lost their setback, Falling
Waters did?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Originally-- I don't know exactly
where the property line used to be -- it used to be 50 feet from this
line here. And the county came and purchased 50 feet of right-of-way
from Falling Waters Beach Resort, and that used to be the setback.
That's why these two structures are right now on the property line,
because they were built with 50-foot setbacks. Once the county
purchased that, that reduced the amount of land that can be
developed. That's why they have already lost 50 feet of land. They
don't want another 50-foot setback. That's why they are requesting a
20-foot setback. And usually setbacks in commercial tracts are used
for parking. And in here there's no need for parking, not as many
parking spaces as a commercial -- traditional commercial
development would need. That's why they are asking to reduce the
setback and build the building closer to the road.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So the corollary of that, if this
commission decides that we want to stay with the 50-foot setback,
Page 14
August 16, 2001
they would still -- they would lose about 30 square feet -- 30 feet all
the way down the property on the front. They could not have a
building on that 30 feet.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That will -- this being 20, that will
bring them to somewhere in here. They will lose substantial amount
of building.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Did anyone calculate the loss of that
square footage? I guess that would be something we'll ask the
petitioner.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The applicants probably have the
number.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just wanted to be clear why you were
supporting the specific aspects of it. Do we have other questions of
staff?.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If I may.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: First of all, the geographic
location, the west east side of Collier Boulevard, I was puzzled by
that. I'm not sure how to read west east when it's all on one side of
the road. That may just be --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm sorry. It's on the east side of
Collier Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. In terms of the -- of
this application, which is a replacement PUD as I understand it, this
replaces the old PUD.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't have a strike and
underline to indicate that. We had asked for that sort of thing to be
provided to us so that we can really see what the changes are. But on
the basis of what you've provided us, you know, this idea that the
county came along and just took this land, the developer was
Page 15
August 16, 2001
enriched by this, was he not? He was paid for the property?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe they were paid, yes.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Was it donated? We'll
find that out I guess, but I suspect it was purchased.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It was purchased. Correct.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, you know, to come
along now and say that they need to have a variance of the PUD to
reduce it from 50 down to 20, you know, it's in the guise of a new
PUD, but it's really a variance that they're coming in for. And with
that variance they're able to put a bigger footprint on the property, the
commercial property that's there. I have some real problems with us
providing this kind of a relief. So I offer that as comment. We'll
have to hear what the applicant has to say, but I question your
judgment in -- in granting this kind of a variance.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Pedone.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yes. Was the selling of that
piece of property, that 50 foot, in lieu of an eminent domain for the
widening of County Road 951 ?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Maybe Bruce Anderson can answer
that question in detail.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Before we get to the
applicant --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Save that question. Mr. Richardson.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The open space
requirements, 30 percent, can you -- is that tracked by tract, or is that
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. That's for the entire PUD.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The entire PUD?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. That's how we measure for
PUDs.
Page 16
August 16, 2001
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, it doesn't seem to
say that in the notes here. It says the said amount of open space is
equal to the open space requirement of 30 percent for commercial
and industrial PUDs. So I would assume that would mean just the
commercial portion of this PUD.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: For mixed-use PUDs, the Land
Development Code says we go with the commercial open space
requirements.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: So all they have to do is provide 30
percent open space for the entire PUD.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: For the entire PUD?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So you're going to -- they
can cram it all on the front end, then, and pick it up in some water
management areas in the back.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's the way our Land Development
Code reads, yes.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That doesn't seem -- it
doesn't seem to follow the intent of what the -- our Land
Development Code is trying to prescribe. We're trying to get a
balance of open space on all the structures within the buildings that
take place within a PUD. And what we're being asked to look at is a
-- taking a vacant piece and making it, you know, brutally intense
by--
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Commissioner Richardson --
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- giving a variance
allowing for--
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- I understand that. But, like, in
Pelican Marsh, they have tracts built with 20, 22 units per acre. They
don't have any open space. And on the other side of Airport Road,
Page 17
August 16, 2001
which is still the same PUD, they have a large golf course. And the
average is 60 percent open space, but it doesn't go tract by tract. It's
for the entire development. That's how it was interpreted in the past,
and that's how our Land Development Code reads.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, maybe it's
something that this board needs to revisit as we go down the line in
considering Land Development Code changes, because I don't think
it achieves the purpose that we want to see. And this is a good
example. It's all crammed up in the front, and I think it's going to
create a real hardship for the people that are there.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions from staff at the
moment? Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, this seems to be -- the
Land Development Code seems to be rather dynamic at this point.
And, I mean, when a developer can purchase a piece of property 20
miles away to get a higher density in a property or PUD they're
working on, I don't really see where that differs much from an overall
density of the whole project, in exact opposition of what was just
said.
MS. MURRAY: If I might add a little bit of perspective to that,
when you're designing a site, of course there's many factors you have
to take into account, and one most important one is some of the
environmental considerations. When you start regulating the exact
location of open space, you would run into issues -- I mean, this is
just off the top of my head here. There's plenty of other issues I
could bring up. One of the most important issues, of course, you
would run into is some of your environmental considerations and
your permitting requirements. So just something to keep in the back
of your mind. If you want to discuss it through the LDC cycle or
through a workshop or something, we can certainly do that and bring
you a little bit more detail in terms of open space and why it's
Page 18
August 16, 2001
calculated the way it is and where it's located and why and some of
the impacts of adjusting the Land Development Code to force open
space in very specific locations.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Before we have any more questions, I
did want to ask, Marjorie, we had asked before when we do a repeal,
as Mr. Richardson pointed out, of a PUD and bring another one
forward, that we were going to have the strikethroughs so we can see
the comparisons. Is that --
MS. STUDENT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- too huge of a document to give us?
MS. STUDENT: I don't know. Usually that's what-- staff
usually prepares it that way so you know. But, in fact, what really
happens in the final product is really the new PUD document
because, in fact, the -- it is a new PUD document. I don't know how
it may have been that that wasn't provided for you in your backup.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We usually do when we do a PUD
amendment to show the changes, but in here we are basically
repealing the PUD and adopting a brand-new PUD.
MS. MURRAY: We can provide it if--
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We can provide --
MS. MURRAY: -- you would prefer. It's probably my
oversight, and I apologize. We can provide that for PUD rezones as
well.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you.
MS. STUDENT: And I just wanted to state something, too,
more or less for the record, that I believe there are some uses that are
changed from this -- in this PUD from the previous, and Florida does
not permit use variances. Those things must always be accomplished
by rezone. Other jurisdictions do permit use variances, but in Florida
they are prohibited. So I just wanted to state that for the record
because I believe somebody mentioned something in terms of a
Page 19
August 16, 2001
variance so ....
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Marjorie, I wasn't
questioning about the change in uses. I was questioning about the
setbacks.
MS. STUDENT: I see. Okay.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And that setback is clearly
a -- I would view it as a variance request, at least.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Chahram, do you have -- Ms. Young,
questions?
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: You are increasing the
commercial building areas from 49,000 square feet to 73,000 square
feet. What is the justification for that?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The justification is the main objective
here is to reduce the traffic. By not allowing gas stations and
restaurants and allowing storage, we are reducing the traffic by -- or
the applicants are proposing to reduce the traffic by 4400 trips a day.
That's a major reduction in traffic, so in exchange for that, they want
a larger building. Basically, it's one of those things that they give
something, and in exchange they want something else. And I believe
it's a fair trade since, as I said, one access point to 951 is going to be
the only access for the residential and commercial. The main
objective should be to reduce the amount of traffic as much as we
can. If this wasn't the case, if the commercial tract had its own access
to 951 or the Collier Boulevard, staff would not be recommending
approval of this PUD. We are recommending approval because that's
the only access. If we can reduce the traffic on that small segment of
drive -- the road by 4400 trips a day, that's a major reduction for the
people living in this development.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: However, you realize that most of
the people who have written letters of objection to this are bringing
up that very point, the real -- really intense enlargement of
Page 20
August 16, 2001
commercial activity--
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. I realize that.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: -- on a very congested boulevard.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I realize that. But I also realize that
the number of people who objected is roughly 10 percent of the unit
owners.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just one final question. In
the -- since I don't have the strikethroughs, looking at Section 3 of the
PUD -- the new PUD, the minimum yards, was that the language that
was in the original PUD, or is this now what they're asking as part of
the new PUD? If that's always been there, then they didn't need to
come here, for the variance at least.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Section 3?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: 3.4-D.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson, it's not a variance.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, it's effectively a
variance. It's effectively a variance.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. It basically says abutting Collier
Boulevard 20 feet. It used to say abutting Collier Boulevard 50 feet.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It should say 50 feet?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It used to say.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Oh, it used to say.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The old PUD document says 50; the
new says 20.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So if we were given a
strikethrough, this would have shown 50, and then we could see that
it's 20 now.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
MS. MURRAY: That's correct. That was also summarized in
your staff report. As well, let me just also point out to you, just for
Page 21
August 16, 2001
your information and consideration, that the from yard setback in the
C-4 zoning district is 25 feet or one-half of the building height,
whichever is greater. In this case you told me the building height was
going to be 36 feet--
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Thirty-six.
MS. MURRAY: -- which would be 16 (sic), so the required
setback would be 25 feet front yard.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's if this were going in
asaC--
MS. MURRAY: C-4.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And that's not the case.
We're talking about PUD, which is a contract between the county and
the developer for some special considerations which we balance out.
MS. MURRAY: That's correct. I just wanted you to have the
information so you would realize the difference between if this was a
straight zoned parcel or C-4 zoned parcel and they were coming in
for a conditional use for a storage facility, what they would be
required to build at versus what they're asking within the PUD.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just didn't want us to be
misled, though, by the conditions we're really faced with in this case.
MS. MURRAY: No. Me neither. That's why I wanted to give
you that information.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Chahram, are you finished with your
presentation now --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe I am, yes.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- that we've distracted you with lots of
questions? Okay. Would the petitioner care to present?
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Madam Chairman,
Members of the Commission. My name is Bruce Anderson, and I
represent the applicant. I'd like to introduce Dave Cheslyn, vice
president from Skinner & Broadbent Company; and Bruce Tyson of
Page 22
August 16, 2001
WilsonMiller, who's the project planner; and Dan Johnson, who's the
project engineer with WilsonMiller. We're all here to answer any
questions that you might have. I want to be real clear about what the
choices are here today. The choice is between 49,000 square feet of
intensive commercial uses, including fast-food restaurants set back
10 feet from the new 951 right-of-way line, which -- and these uses
will generate approximately 3500 vehicle trips per day by cars and
semis serving the numerous businesses located on the property. Or
the other choice, the one we propose today, is 73,000 square feet of
enclosed self-storage with a caretaker's apartment set back 20 feet
from the new 951 right-of-way line. And this use will generate only
approximately 175 vehicle trips per day. Additionally, the building
height is proposed to be reduced from 50 feet to 36 feet to allow for
the office and caretaker's apartment. Otherwise, the storage buildings
themselves are limited to one story.
Now, I'll admit I'm biased, but it sure seems like a commonsense
choice to me. Would you rather have a single use that generates 175
trips per day or an assortment of uses that generate more than 3500
trips per day? Make no mistake. Those are the choices before you
today. The PUD allows as a matter of right, without any public
hearing, fast-food restaurants, other kinds of restaurants, grocery
stores, and other miscellaneous retail uses. This PUD amendment
eliminates those uses and substitutes self-storage in its place. Not
only does this PUD amendment dramatically decrease by more than
90 percent the amount of traffic to be generated by the retail uses that
are already allowed, there is also a more-than-90-percent reduction in
the demand on the county's water and sewer system by a self-storage
use as compared to these other retail uses that could be built there
today. These are real and substantial public benefits and benefits to
the neighboring residents that would result from approval of this
PUD amendment.
Page 23
August 16, 2001
I'd also point out in response to one of the questions that
Mr. Commissioner Richardson had, when you compare the self-
storage use to the retail uses that could be built there today and you
compare the decrease in the amount of asphalt area needed for
parking as compared to the amount of asphalt area needed for parking
for a 49,000-square-foot shopping center, there is no change in the
amount of greenspace available.
My client and I have worked closely with the residents of
Falling Waters. We have met with their group twice to explain the
project, answer their questions, and receive their input and address
their concerns. In response to the requests from residents, we have
modified landscape plans, reduced our signage, and agreed to a
monument sign.
We have decreased our storage space in order to increase
internal vehicle turnaround areas, and we agreed to install a light at or
near the property line at the northern end of where our property abuts
the remainder of the PUD in order to provide a safety light in a
darkened comer along their interior roadway.
Even before this petition was filed, my client and I worked to
anticipate and address in advance the concerns that residents of
Falling Waters might have. As examples, we oriented the buildings
so that the access to the self-storage unit is only from an internal
courtyard so that no exterior doors are visible, either from the Falling
Waters' residents or from 951. The plan also chose to propose stucco
buildings and a barrel tile roof on the two-story office in order to
blend with the structures that already exist in Falling Waters.
Lastly, I'd like to address myself to the phantom issue of a
setback reduction along the 951 right-of-way. Although I use the
term phantom, it is completely understandable how someone could be
confused. It is a little complicated, but the bottom line is that we are
changing -- that although we are changing the language in the PUD to
Page 24
August 16, 2001
provide for a 20-foot setback rather than a 50-foot setback, the reality
is that we are increasing from 10 to 20 foot the amount of setback
that would be required on this property by the Land Development
Code.
Let me explain. When the Falling Waters PUD was originally
approved, it contained a future requirement that the developer had to
convey to the county, whenever the county was ready for it, up to 50
feet of right-of-way along the east side of County Road 951. And in
connection with that 50-foot dedication requirement, the county also
imposed a 50-foot setback requirement from the then-existing right-
of-way for 951. The purpose in doing that was to guarantee that no
buildings or other structures would have to be removed when the 50
foot was eventually conveyed to Collier County. That 50 feet has
been conveyed to Collier County. And, as Chahram told you, the
Falling Waters entry signs are placed at the edge of the new right-of-
way sign (sic).
Section 2.1.13 of the Land Development Code provides that
where land that was to be used to satisfy setback requirements is
conveyed for a public use, the minimum setback is also reduced by
the same amount as the land conveyed for the public use, except that
a minimum front yard setback of 10 feet must be provided. Under
this section, in the case of Falling Waters, that would mean when the
original 50-foot setback area was conveyed to the county for 951
right-of-way, the buildings would have to be set back 10 feet only
from the new right-of-way line.
Our PUD amendment proposes to increase that setback from 10
feet to 20 feet, measured from the new right-of-way line. Our
buildings would be set back 20 feet from behind where the Falling
Waters monument signs begin. Let me try to explain that. I see some
-- it is complicated.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But, however, I guess the point I
Page 25
August 16, 2001
missed earlier, Mr. Anderson, was is from -- staff did not tell us that
this dedication of right-of-way, the 50 foot to the county, was part of
the PUD from the very beginning.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, and you wouldn't know that because
you didn't get a strikethrough and highlight version where we took
that out and restated that it had already been conveyed.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And it does make a big
difference, as you are presenting at this point, for all the discussion
we had earlier.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If I just -- since I brought
up that issue, just for my clarification, and I'll ask staff. They could -
- they can -- based upon the existing PUD, if they hadn't come in for
a change, they could put a building 10 foot from the property line?
MS. MURRAY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then the strikethrough --
or what I have that says 20 feet, you're saying that's just a generosity
on their part, then.
MS. MURRAY: It's an increase of 10 feet over the minimum 10
feet that they're required today to build to.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the other assortment of
uses that they're currently permitted to do based on the previous
contract on the PUD could come in at the 1 O-foot mark. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. Today.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Such as a fast-food restaurant.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I'm not against
assortment of uses. I'm not -- you know, that's a marketing question.
And I'm not sure that the people that live out there would object to
having some additional amenities available to them, so I'm not sure
how strong that argument is.
MR. ANDERSON: That's for you to decide.
MS. MURRAY: I just want to apologize on behalf of staff. I
Page 26
August 16, 2001
think that there was just -- I personally didn't know the history of the
dedication of the roadway, and it wasn't obvious in our presentation.
But Mr. Anderson is correct in his statements.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That certainly clarifies, in my mind, a
number of things on the right-of-way issue. You can continue, Mr.
Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. As a result of our good
neighbor outreach efforts to the residents of Falling Waters, yesterday
I received by e-mail a letter of no objection from the boards of
directors of the Phases 1, 2, and 3 homeowners' associations, which I
will distribute and make a part of the record. We appreciate the
support of these neighbors. I do want to clarify one statement that is
in their letter of no objection. It says there will be a minimum 6-foot
hedge around the building. That 6-foot hedge is on the side of the
building that faces the residents of Falling Waters. It's only a 3-foot
hedge adjacent to 951.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
Is that not a safety issue?
The 3-foot hedge.
And that's what's required by the
county's code. And I -- like I said, I'll distribute copies of the letter of
no objection and give one to the court reporter. And if there are any
other questions, I or -- you need another one? We'll be glad to try to
answer them. And I would request the opportunity to respond to any
public comments.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Anderson, I only have
one other comment. My document looks like it came out of war
time. It has a lot of blackouts in it. Was there something in there that
I should be interested in?
MR. ANDERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's not -- it doesn't bear on
Page 27
August 16, 2001
-- it doesn't bear on the issue at all?
MR. ANDERSON: No. What's blanked out there are dollars.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You might be of interest (sic), but
you're not going to get that information.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's not a requirement to
have complete documents provided to us?
MR. ANDERSON: You have a complete document. You have
confidential information that has been excised out.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: How would I know that?
MR. ANDERSON: Because I just told you, and I'm under oath.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We do have registered
speakers?
MS. MURRAY: Yes. The first speaker is Joe Geoffroy.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Please state your name for the record,
and it does help if you include your address.
MR. GEOFFROY: Good morning. My name is Joe Geoffroy.
I live at 6650 Beach Resort Drive. I have some concerns with the
building, mainly the traffic congestion that will arise from the trucks,
cars, and trailers exiting and -- and entering the -- also the traffic
from over 400 residents coming and going on County Road 951 and
also 41, which has been designated the fifth most dangerous comer in
Collier County.
I feel that if this project does go through, a curb cut is essential
so that the congestion burden can be held to a minimum. What I'm
saying by that is that if they were to enter our entrance and go out the
back and was able to get a curb cut, I think that would alleviate a lot
of problems. I don't know if--
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm not sure -- you mean
some other entrance and exit onto -- or exit onto 951 ?
Page 28
August 16, 2001
MR. GEOFFROY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So they would go --
MR. GEOFFROY: They would come in and then go out the
back way of that property.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Has staff taken a look at
that? Is that a possibility?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Russ Muller is here, but I believe this
is a limited access road, 951, and the Growth Management Plan
doesn't allow us to provide additional access points.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You can continue. We'll talk about
that a little more.
MR. GEOFFROY: Okay. When we purchased our condo, we
were given a set of documents containing the rules and regulations.
When I read Exhibit 7 on page 2 -- I'd like to pass them out. I don't
know when this was changed, and I'd like to have somebody clarify--
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You can just hand it to him and then
go back to the mike. Thank you.
MR. GEOFFROY: I know that the PUD was changed, but we
weren't notified. It says, "Commercial property shall mean and refer
to all commercial property within the Falling Waters Beach Resort
Planned Unit Development; however, under no circumstances shall
convenience stores/gas stations be constructed or maintained within
the Falling Waters Beach Resort Planned Unit Development." I
know this might be old, but people continue to get these documents.
When are we going to be told of the correct ones?
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney. These documents do not emanate from the county.
The condo documents emanate from -- I don't know if the developer
still has control or if the association itself now has control of the
condo, but I would suspect that the developer/property owner
originally prepared those documents. That's a private matter, and the
Page 29
August 16, 2001
county does not enforce or really have anything to do with those
private docs that exist between the original developer of the property
and the people that purchase the condos in the property.
I would point out, however, that this is a change. And those
uses, as I understand it, that you referenced in the docs are not going
to be a part of this development so -- you referenced, I believe, gas
station and--
MR. GEOFFROY: Yes. And I was told that because of the
Marco water supply, gas stations were not allowed on that north end.
MS. STUDENT: And I believe prior to this amendment, that a
full range of commercial uses were going to be -- could have been
permitted there. But as a result of this amendment, it's going to be
limited to the self-storage facility.
And I would also point out that our Comprehensive Plan calls --
which controls all development in the county and was adopted back
in 1988 and approved by the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs, that sets up that comer as an activity center.
And in the county activity centers were where the commercial
development was to be funneled. And you get into some issues when
you deal with deed restrictions vis-a-vis zoning, and there's case law
about that, and it's a rather complicated area. But I don't believe that
anything that's being done here today, really, is not, you know, in --
or isn't in line with what you have in your docs.
MR. GEOFFROY: So our documents here is not a true
representation of how -- when we purchased our property.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It may not be; however --
MS. STUDENT: That's a matter between --
MR. GEOFFROY: It's a matter between the developer and --
MS. STUDENT: The developer. That's correct.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's not under our purview at this point,
but I would suggest you go to your board of directors and carry on
Page 30
August 16, 2001
that conversation with them.
MR. GEOFFROY: Okay. I would like to just say that if
someone could just check into a curb cut for this property, I think that
this would alleviate a lot of hardship for all the residents in Falling
Waters. I mean, we're going to be -- you're going to have tractor-
trailer trucks coming in there and you're going to have -- they're
going to be trying to enter and exit in two different directions. It's
going to be -- it's going to be a circus.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you.
MR. GEOFFROY: Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Next speaker.
MS. MURRAY: Gerry Krisanda. Following Gerry will be
Vincent Mattaliano.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And if Vincent would step up and be
ready to speak, that would be helpful. And you need to -- if you have
a slip, please bring it to Ms. Murray up here.
MS. KRISANDA: My name is Gerry Krisanda. I'm a resident
of Falling Waters.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would you spell that.
MS. KRISANDA: K-r-i-s-a-n-d-a. 6560 Beach Resort Drive,
No. 3. I am a resident. I'm not on the board of directors. I just
wanted to express my opposition to this, and I would just question,
where are they getting the figures, the 3500 trips that the present
usage would--
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
MR. BADAMTCHIAN:
Mr. -- Chahram.
I can answer that. It's not the traffic
generated by the residential development at this point. That number
is if the commercial tracts are developed with permitted uses, that's
how many trips they would generate.
MS. KRISANDA: I know. But, I mean, do you just pull these
figures out of the air?
Page 31
August 16, 2001
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, ma'am. We have -- there is a way
of doing the calculations.
MS. KRISANDA: There's formulas, but you really don't know.
Anyway, it is a real problem.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN:
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
There's a manual.
One at a time, please.
MS. KRISANDA: I don't know if you understand how this is
going to work. When the trucks come in or the people come in for
their storage units, they are going to cut across our exit way. I mean,
it's not just they're going to have a straight shot. They're going to cut
across this way. Our-- we will be coming out in this direction.
They're going to be cutting across to go into the units on the left.
When they come in, also they can go to the right. There's going to be
more storage units on the right. Possibly they can travel from this
section, go across our incoming and outgoing traffic to go to the other
side. I mean, it just -- on paper it doesn't look bad, but when you go
there and you see what we have to put up with, I mean, it's -- it's very
discouraging.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have a question. What -- what
kind of a traffic problem do you think you would have with people
going into a Kentucky Fried Chicken and an Arby's?
MS. KRISANDA: Honestly, I can't see that a Kentucky Fried
Chicken would want to share an entranceway.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: There is that possibility. If
you're zoned for that -- let me finish.
MS. KRISANDA: I know. I know.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: If you're zoned for that right
now, you could have Kentucky Fried Chicken. You can have a
hardware store, maybe, or a dentist and doctors' offices or whatever
they want to put there. You're going to generate traffic either way.
Wouldn't it be better to have the less of the two evils where you're
Page 32
August 16, 2001
going to have less traffic rather than more traffic?
MS. KRISANDA: That's how it's been presented to everybody,
but I honestly don't think that a business would want to share -- this is
an aging community that we live in. There's going to be
approximately 450 units. I mean, and we're -- people are coming and
going all day, and I don't see where a businessman would want his --
his business located in there.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: What would you suggest they do
with that property?
MS. KRISANDA: Sell it to the residents.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Sell it to the residents, and you
would make it into a nice treed area and have a nice entry and not
worry about--
MS. KRISANDA: Which would certainly enhance 951. I
mean, if you travel north on 951, it's beautiful up there. I mean,
there's some very, very expensive homes up there, golf courses.
Well, anyway, thank you.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Next speaker would be?
MS. MURRAY: Vincent Mattaliano followed by Margaret
Mattaliano.
MS. MATTALIANO: May I speak first?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. We're -- you need to give your
slips here to Ms. Murray, and then ask her -- right. She needs to call
-- bring them to her.
MR. MATTALIANO: Could you swear me in, please? I was in
the rest room.
(The speaker was sworn.)
MR. MATTALIANO: Vincent Mattaliano, 6610 Beach Resort
Drive. I don't know if yous could see the entrance that we're talking
about. Right now that's fine at this time of the year. But when we
have everyone here and everything is finished with 450 residents,
Page 33
August 16, 2001
plus, they said, 800, what are they going to do? Allow once a week
that you could go into there? Suppose most of these people are
starting to come in at one time. Right now there's times when, even
though it's not the busy time, that we get stuck out in traffic, and
we're waiting on the side to pull in. And there's not a lot of traffic.
This isn't the busy time of the year.
This is 951. Yesterday they had a car overturned right on the
corner. I mean, this is a very, very bad section. Are we going to
make it worse? I mean, we have elderly people that are there.
They're not going to move as fast as maybe young people or drive as
fast.
We're going to create such a hazard. I mean, it's going to be on
people's heads. People are going to get killed on this corner waiting
to walk into -- drive into an area that is so small now. There's only
two cars going in. The ones on the left have to wait until they are
checked in because they're coming in to see -- you know, see
somebody so they park there.
Now this is stopped. You only have one lane. You don't have
two lanes anymore. That one side is completely stopped. And so the
guard at the gate checks them in and calls and finds out where this
person's going or this truck is going, if he has a delivery. It -- right
now they have backups once in a while. It's ridiculous now. And to
say that there's 10 percent of the people that oppose this, when you
don't tell the people, that's how you have 10 percent. No notification
to the residents. Nobody was told. We're just finding all this out
now, and most of them didn't know. And the people that live there
and are away right now have no idea at all. There was no meetings
saying, "This is what's going to happen." No meetings at all, none,
zero. Not for the residents, anyway. Maybe there was a meeting for
a chosen few. But in order to have a meeting, you have to have
everybody involved. There's something drastically wrong here. I
Page 34
August 16, 2001
don't know what it is, but I understood that everybody was supposed
to be involved.
If yous check out the entrance and exit to this, somebody --
we're causing a problem on 951 on the entrance. If they said they
have a 50-foot setback now, suppose the state later on wants to widen
this road? What do they do?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's not an issue we're going to be
able to handle here today, the widening of the road.
MR. MATTALIANO: That's true. But you might be having --
you might have a problem down the road. You can't think about
down the road and not handle it today. You have to have everything
in your mind now, no? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: For the record, you did give
notification to the -- the proper notification --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Everybody was notified at least two
weeks prior to the hearing, and I -- I sent out around 500-and-
something letters. I have copies of that, and I have record of that.
Everybody was notified. People received notification where they
receive the tax bill.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. And I believe the attorney
for the applicant has already stated that we had two meetings, so
perhaps you missed those meetings, but thank you for --
MR. MATTALIANO: We had two meetings, but the people
weren't involved. I mean, let's -- we're going to call something
something. The people themselves weren't involved in the meetings.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Should your board of directors,
who the meeting was with, have informed the residents that there was
going to be a meeting of this sort and --
MR. MATTALIANO: They don't. They said this was -- you're
right. That's your -- right. This is our problem here, but you have to
understand when somebody says to you, "Well, we agree to it," it's
Page 35
August 16, 2001
not so. I mean, you have to understand. If you're listening to
somebody and there's a few that say, "We agree to it, and we
represent" -- they're not representing the people that are here.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Well, that -- you can get into the
problem of that you've elected a board of directors to represent --
MR. MATTALIANO: No. I didn't elect nobody.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We're not going to have a debate here.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: And they made the decision.
That's your problem with your board of directors.
MR. MATTALIANO: You're right. It's supposed to be just like
you said, but what's supposed to be is not, unfortunately. It's not your
problem. It's my problem. But what's supposed to be is not.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MATTALIANO: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The next speaker?
MS. MURRAY: The next speaker is Margaret Mattaliano
followed by Sylvia Grinder.
MS. MATTALIANO: I'm Margaret Mattaliano, wife of Vinnie
Mattaliano. You have the address. Basically, what he's saying is my
feelings also. I'd like to make one comment. You have in your
possession a letter from the representatives of Falling Waters. I
would also like to see the letters that they solicited from the owners
that said we agree to this. Where are those letters? If it's important
to have something in writing, they should have something in writing,
and I would like to see it.
In addition to that, Mr. -- I'm sorry. Your first name is
Chahram. Excuse me for calling you by your first name. When did
you visit that property?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. We're not going to have a
discussion back and forth. You ask --
MS. MATTALIANO: No. I just am asking --
Page 36
August 16, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You ask us the questions, and --
MS. MATTALIANO: Okay. Could I ask--
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- then I would ask the staff.
MS. MATTALIANO: -- Mr. Chahram (sic).
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go ahead and ask us. That's how it
works.
MS. MATTALIANO: When did he visit this property, this
entranceway?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Three weeks ago. I don't recall
exactly what day it was.
MS. MATTALIANO: And you saw the entranceway and the
congestion that would be caused by this.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We can't go back and forth.
MS. MATTALIANO: All right. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But go ahead and make your next
point.
MS. MATTALIANO: The point is what -- the point -- what
people have been saying. When we're trying to get out, when we're
trying to come out from this entrance -- the units are over here.
We're coming out here. The trucks or whoever it is is going to pass
across us and try to go into -- they say now 800 units. I mean, there's
-- 600 units, 800 units. With the increase in the size for the
commercial property, it's going to be a traffic jam even, on the other
side. The space between the fence and the -- the waterfall is so small.
I mean, if somebody has to make a decision, we have to get, you
know, people that evaluate these things and say, "Well, this is the
congestion." Okay. You're going to reduce the congestion on 951.
What are you going to do to the people that are trying to live there?
What about the accidents within that area?
And in addition to that, they say the water, the drainage from
this area here now, is going to go back into our lakes over there.
Page 37
August 16, 2001
They have to drain off into our lakes over there. I called the water
commission when I first came here the end of July, the lake was up
on my property. Now they're going to put more water in that lake? I
don't understand that. When they're going to do something that's
going to interfere with the canals and the rivers and every -- don't you
have, like, the water commissioner or somebody goes out and
evaluates that?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe the PUD has been designed to
handle the water and the drainage for the residential areas and the
commercial areas.
MS. MATTALIANO: Though now, with the heavy rain, it was
very, very bad. It was very bad. And I think basically -- I -- again, I
take -- take exception to the 10 percent, only 10 percent of the people
here. We're only 10 percent of the people that are here. The people
are up north. They're going to come in January. If you want to hear
a voice, you know, I could say to you I called -- and I have. I called
people in Brooklyn that I know that have units. "Are they crazy?
What are they doing?" And what are you going to say to me?
"Where are their letters?" Where are the letters from the homeowners
to the board of directors that said I approve of it? I'm sorry. That's it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Our next registered
speaker.
MS. MURRAY: Sylvia Grinder followed by K. Wagner.
MS. GRINDER: Sylvia Grinder, 6720 Beach Resort Drive, No.
13. I'm in Phase 3. Phase 3 was not advised of those meetings, and I
would like to see what's in those letters that you have.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Which letters you are --
MS. GRINDER: The opposition.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The notification--
MS. GRINDER: And how many were in Phase 3?
Page 38
August 16, 2001
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Notification was sent to everybody
within the development.
MS. GRINDER: Not of the meetings that transpired on Beach
Resort Drive clubhouse.
MS. MURRAY: Excuse me. I'm sorry. The notification Mr. --
Chahram is referring to is the official notification of this public
hearing. If your board had other meetings, ma'am, that's not a
notification that--
MS. GRINDER: It was with these gentlemen, and Phase 3 was
not advised.
MS. MURRAY: We're not required to notify other than -- I'm
sorry -- our legal notification for the public hearing. That would be
an issue you would need to take up with your board of directors.
MS. GRINDER: Is there any way to find out how many letters
are from Phase 3 and from Phase 4 that Mr. Chahram has?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Why don't we let him -- you finish
your part, and we'll have him count through -- MS. GRINDER: I'm finished.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. And then as we get
to that -- when he comes up with an answer, we'll let you know.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't know what address would be
Phase 3. I have letters with addresses on them. I don't know which
one's Phase 3, which one's Phase 2. 6680 would be -- I don't know
which phase it would be.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You are representing,
though, that a letter was sent to every property owner in the area.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct.
MS. MURRAY: We would have the addresses of all those that
were sent, so you're, you know, welcome to look at the file after the
hearing.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Chahram, why don't you hand her the
Page 39
August 16, 2001
letters that were included for us and let her look through them.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't know if she's
wanting the objections.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, if she -- anybody from Phase 3
said anything about support -- those are the only ones we have
available.
Our next speaker.
MS. MURRAY: Eileen La Rocco.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And the one after that'?
MS. MURRAY: The final speaker after that is Robert Williams.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. And would you spell your
name, please.
MS. LA ROCCO: My name is Eileen La Rocco, and I'm at
6580 Beach Resort Drive. Okay. First of all, I also have to say I
heard nothing about the 10 percent in favor of it until right now. I
was not asked to sign anything, whether I was for it or against it or
anything. This is the first I've heard of it.
We were also wondering when the PUD was changed. Okay.
Does anyone know that.'? Because according to the documents, none
of-- fast food and all that stuff was not allowed, and then all of a
sudden it is allowed. So we were wondering when it was changed
because nobody was aware of their right to oppose it.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm going to defer to our county
attorney.
MS. STUDENT: I think I can address that. I think the PUD
document, just so everybody understands, is a document -- a zoning
document that's approved by the local government. I think the
document that you're referring to are condo documents, which are
private documents. The local government has nothing to do with
those. So that is a matter between the developer and the property
owners.
Page 40
August 16, 2001
And sometimes you find situations -- and there is just a plethora
of case law that deals with these issues, particularly with deed
restrictions that have different requirements than zoning. And
problems can evolve with that because the local government does its
zoning on the basis of the police power that's reserved to the state by
virtue of the United States Constitution, and these other documents
are private matters between property owners. So there can be some
inherent conflicts, and it gets rather complicated.
MS. LA ROCCO: But if the zoning was changed giving it the
okay to have the fast-food restaurants, we did not have to be notified?
MS. STUDENT: I think, just by way of history again, what
typically happens is you have a developer or property owner that
comes in and has his -- applies to have his property rezoned to PUD.
This occurs, obviously, before he develops it. Once he develops it
with the residential component, then you have other property owners
involved.
So this property would not have been developed at all when the
first PUD was approved. And subsequent to that if a PUD
amendment, as the case is here, is applied for and processed, then the
property owners are notified. So what I'm trying to say is that
original PUD was done -- it had to have been done before the
property was even developed.
MS. LA ROCCO: I know. But I guess it's either a yes-or-no
question. When it was changed -- now we were notified of this. But
when it was changed, just yes or no, were we supposed to be notified
like we were now?
MS. STUDENT: You couldn't have been because you didn't
even own it yet. It was owned by the person that developed it, and
that was when the first PUD was done. And rezone --
MS. LA ROCCO: But I thought it was done sometime in
between, like maybe a couple years ago.
Page 41
August 16, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now, we do --
MS. STUDENT: That's my understanding.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
information in the --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN:
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
MR. BADAMTCHIAN:
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
Right. Chahram, you did provide us
Originally --
One moment, Chahram.
Sorry.
You provided this information in our
executive summary that this PUD document has been changed two
different times since 1988. Would you care to clarify that? Thank
yOU.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. It was done in 1988. Then in
1992 they amended. It wasn't a major amendment, just a minor
amendment. But in 1998 they added recreational tract. They added
this tract, and that was another amendment. These uses, commercial
uses, have been there since 1988, so they did not -- they were on here
when this was approved, the commercial uses. I believe that there
was a sales trailer sitting where the commercial tract is, and it was
nicely landscaped, and people did not realize that that's a commercial
tract. They thought that was the landscape buffer or something when
they bought those units.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Does that clear--
MS. LA ROCCO: Yeah. Okay. I have a few other things. One
thing to make clear, most people that live in Falling Waters Beach
Resort have really been intimidated with "if you don't have this, look
at what else you could have" and making it seem very bad. It's sort
of like asking all of us, "What would you rather have, a punch in the
mouth or a punch in the head? Take your pick." And you're standing
there -- "I don't know," you know. So, I mean, we -- but I have -- I
have a solution, as I go on, to what we -- possibly what we could
have.
Page 42
August 16, 2001
Also we should not have to share the same -- I'm also a Realtor,
and I've been a Realtor for 25 years. And we should not have to
share the same entrance with something that is going to be busy.
Now, I don't know about any of you on the panel, but I ask you to
consider this: Wherever you live, if you live in a gated community,
would you want to share your entrance with -- with another? All
right.
I have another point. There -- I personally cannot think of any
other developments that share an entry that are gated communities.
There may be. I may be wrong. I don't know of every single
community in -- okay.
But another very good point, I think, and nobody brought this up
yet, is when you come in on the left side where the trailer is right
now, okay, where they're proposing the building, there's an awful lot
of children that live in the development, and they walk outside the
gate right there. They can't stand on 951. They'll for surely be killed.
They're little kids. Now, if they stand on the side where this proposal
is supposed to be built-- and that's where they stand there, so when
the cars are going in and the cars are coming out, they're not hit by
any cars coming out neither. So they stand there.
Now, can you imagine these little kids, littler than me, and
standing there and waiting for trucks. The trucks aren't going to see
them, and you know kids. I ask you people not to make a mistake
because this is an accident waiting to be -- happen. And you don't
want to have, God forbid, a child -- and I -- I do not have any
children that live in the development. My children are adults. But I
would not want to see any child, God forbid, killed or maimed and
then have somebody on the panel say, "You know what? In hindsight
I think I made a mistake."
Also, they should have their own entrance and their own exit. Not
only an exit, they should have their own entrance and exit because
Page 43
August 16, 2001
this is an accident waiting to be -- happen. Every day kids are
standing there waiting to get on the school bus, and then they get off
and they walk home. And you're having transient drivers a lot, you
know, coming in and out.
I would say to all of you if you could -- before you make your
decision, if you could visit the entry and say to yourself, what would
you want if it was your decision? I think, you know, you have to
look at it personally. I think it's fine to look at pictures, but go there
personally and look at it. See where the kids right now stand and
wait for their bus. If you were to see it visually, I think you would
understand it more.
And someone asked, "Well, what do you propose instead? What's
the other proposal?" And we were never given this opportunity, but I
was figuring something out. Yeah, why not have all the people buy -
- and I wouldn't handle the transaction, so I wouldn't take any
commission.
All right. Why not have all the people just offer to put in -- and
it would only be whatever -- and buy it. And, you know, even if
some people didn't want to buy it, I was figuring out that over five
years' of time, it would only amount to about $40 raised per month in
their maintenance fee. I was doing different calculations. I do not
have the exact sales price, but I was doing some calculations.
There should be an alternative. And you say, "Well, what would
they want it for?" To keep it beautiful. Why do you think they
bought there for? You know, even if they leave it totally green and
with flowers and nothing -- just to keep it the way it is. People
bought there, with children, wanting a nice place, gated, quiet. The
kids can't stand on the highway. I mean, it's a lot of-- it's a lot of
problems.
And I guess finding there's problems with the water. There's so
many, and I won't even go into it, that other people did. But I'm
Page 44
August 16, 2001
going to ask you if you would please postpone it until you can come
out there personally and view everything. And also, even if you give
us limited time to ask the people of Falling Waters if they want to
buy it, I think they should be given that right. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Just as a comment to that, you do have
that right. Enter into negotiations with the current owner. MS. LA ROCCO: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: There is a contract on the property now
with this specific sales -- excuse me, self-storage as a condition in the
requirement, so you may wish to talk to your people to determine
that, because you do have that option, and you do have time between
now and the time that--
MS. LA ROCCO: What do you mean?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You could discuss with the owner of
the property the purchase of it, if you chose to. But there is a contract
on the property right now.
MS. LA ROCCO: Oh, I know. But I mean, if this -- if this --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But that's not something that we can --
MS. LA ROCCO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- offer for you --
MS. LA ROCCO: Right.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- to do. There's no help that we can
be in that particular category. It's -- we could almost get into a
discussion about the rights of private property and what you can and
can't do with it.
MS. LA ROCCO: Right. Okay.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The zoning that is currently there right
now, and they -- as you mentioned you were concerned that --
whether you get a knock in the head or a knock in the face, it's two
different things. But we're talking about a private property that is
zoned, and you can literally have over 4,000 trips a day if it is
Page 45
August 16, 2001
developed to what is allowed in the PUD right now before we make
any changes.
MS. LA ROCCO: I know.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And there would be a lot of traffic
coming in and out. So a self-storage presented to us is a lot less
traffic. And I believe it's the Uniform Traffic Code that you do
something with for calculations, and I would like to hear from staff to
get it on the record--
MS. LA ROCCO: Can I just make --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- when you're through. I want to be
able to have a couple of comments made with reference to the limited
access on 951 in this entrance, that type of thing.
MS. LA ROCCO: Okay. Yes. I understand that. But, you
know, if that were to be so, that -- that their contract went through
and so forth and that was so, no matter what was built there should
not have the same entry and exit that we have. This is an accident
waiting to happen. As you know, many times things have been
passed, and then somebody is either killed or maimed, and then they
say, in hindsight, "Maybe we should have reviewed this a little
more.
If this self-storage, for whatever reason, did go through, ! think the
biggest concern that people have over all -- anything is sharing the
entrance because it's backed up now when you get there, and it's
summer. And imagine if you're going to turn in there when it's
season. Where's the cars going to be, backed up on 951 ? And what
about the children that stand there? This is really creating a very,
very hazardous problem, dangerous. And I don't think any one of
you, if, God forbid, something happened, would want that hanging
over your head. I think maybe you should review with the people
who are petitioning this and see if there's another access road or some
way.
Page 46
August 16, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's up to the county, and so we've
made that particular point, and we will have transportation explain
just a little bit more for the clarification of why -- MS. LA ROCCO: Okay. But--
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- there's only one entrance into this --
MS. LA ROCCO: But rules can always be changed. That's
what happened in between, and that always happens. Rules are
changed. I mean, let's face it. Foxfire was a private road and became
a gated road, I mean --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We're not going to discuss Foxfire.
MS. LA ROCCO: -- without bringing that up again. But, you
know, there's always rules to be broken. And this is kind of a silly
rule, to have two -- a gated community be an access with another
business. I ask you to just review that.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I will say that I have been there
before myself, and I do not live in a gated community. MS. LA ROCCO: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do not live in a gated community.
MS. LA ROCCO: Well, that's fine. I mean, I'm not saying any
preference over a gated community or not a gated -- even if it wasn't
a gated community, I don't think anyplace should have to share an
access road like that and cause more of a havoc with traffic. I ask
you to please visit it and see what I'm talking about.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. We'll hear from
transportation to clarify that point, and then we'll have additional
public speakers.
MS. MURRAY: We have one more public speaker.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let's have the additional public
speaker first, and then we'll --
MS. MURRAY: That's Robert Williams.
MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning. I'm Robert Williams, and
Page 47
August 16, 2001
I'm kind of naive to this process so very unprepared. But from what
I've listened to here, I feel for all these people because I get a sense of
deceivement here. It says here -- all the focus has been on 951 and
Collier Boulevard, but it also involves 41, I believe, and it says right
here it does, anyway, which is my agenda more. And as I drive down
there where I own some property there, I notice that there is another
access being installed there to -- to Falling Waters, I believe.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, sir. That's a different property.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's a different property. Okay. Well, it
looks like it's going into Falling Waters from what I see. And the
square footage being raised to 74,000, my property only has 65,000
so that would do -- wouldn't do me any good at all for resale purposes
or -- or future benefit for my property. So I just feel like there's more
that needs to be revealed on what's going on over there and have a
future --
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Where did you live, sir?
MR. WILLIAMS: I live in Golden Gate.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: In Golden Gate? And the
prop -- I'm trying to understand your concern. Your concern is that
you own property on Tamiami Trail that's nearby that might be
impacted by this?
MR. WILLIAMS: Exactly right. It's on 41, and it's not up to
the new changes that they're proposing in here, which I bought it, you
know, under the PUD now.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is your property in the
activity center?
MR. WILLIAMS: It's on 41 on the canal there, the water
management canal, Henderson Creek.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And you have a PUD on
Page 48
August 16, 2001
it? You have a PUD now?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm unprepared. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I just wanted to make sure
I understood your concern.
MR. WILLIAMS: But I did get this letter, and it says in here
intersection of Collier Boulevard and U.S. 41 in Section 3, Township
51, which is where my property lies.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It would appear that the
instant issue doesn't really impact you, if I understand correctly.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN:
gentleman, no.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
I don't believe it's going to impact this
Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, that's--
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- all I have, so I'm going by that.
Thank
yOU.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Can we have a clarification from
transportation about that limited access road, 41, 951 or Collier
Boulevard?
MR. MULLER: I must apologize. I wasn't sworn in.
(The speaker was sworn.)
MR. MULLER: Russ Muller, for the record. I think the trip
generations that were calculated were calculated using the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, and the limited
access on 951 is controlled by the access management plan. It's a
Class 3 road, and they can only have intersections or driveways every
660 feet. There isn't enough room. If they would put something on
the north side, it would conflict with what's across the street.
Somebody would be trying to go all the way across and make a U-
turn. The PUD allows for access to U.S. 41 under certain criteria.
And if you have any other questions -- it's a controlled access. The
Page 49
August 16, 2001
board has -- has seen that 951 in the future is going to be a heavily
traveled road. And it's control of access. We don't want a number of
driveways on it.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: In view of the children, is it
not so -- and maybe you don't know -- that, for one, the right side of
the entry is wider than -- the entry is wider than the exit and that
school buses come in, get the children, and then do the U-turn right
back out the exit before it hits the gate? To your knowledge, is that
what happens? I've watched it.
So I'm wondering -- if there were a McDonald's there, I'm afraid
that would cause a tremendous amount of traffic -- people back there
in the morning, getting a cup of coffee or something, and going to
work-- than a storage facility, who I don't believe would create the
traffic and the opportunity for a child to be injured. Since the school
bus comes in and goes a couple hundred feet, picks up the children,
and immediately goes out, I'm having a hard time seeing the validity
of that -- that problem. I just don't see it. Do you? Do you see
something with what the lady --
MR. MULLER: Well, children are always a problem in traffic.
We try to separate them as much as we can. In a number of
locations, the -- they've put in bus-stop-type facilities through a PUD.
This one doesn't. But if the, you know, residents would go together,
I'm sure that the county would permit such a thing to where the
people that are entering the -- the development will know that this is
a place for kids and where they hang out to wait for the bus. But
you're correct. A McDonald's would generate a lot more traffic than
a storage unit.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON:
I'm not in scale here. How
Page 50
August 16, 2001
wide is the frontage on 951 ? You talk about curb cuts every 660 feet.
MR. MULLER: Maybe the petitioner can help me with that. I
can't read my little thing.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So the only access is on U.S. 41 ?
There's nothing on Collier Boulevard?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No. On 951.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. It's on-- right.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm just wondering how
far it is over to the comer of the tract. Is that more than 660 feet?
MR. TYSON: For the record, I'm Bruce Tyson with
WilsonMiller. The access point -- this distance right here is 100 feet.
The -- that right-of-way is 100 feet.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: My question was, if we
were -- you know, if we were considering, with transportation's
interest in this, having another entrance/exit, some way to make a
better traffic pattern, they've thrown up that we have a access
management plan that decrees that it can only be 660 feet, and I'm
wondering if this is within 660 feet. I just want to know how wide
that is from there to the comer of your property.
MR. TYSON: There's another major access that is already with
a median in this location, and the distance between those two is
approximately 800 feet.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So then it would be very
conceivable that you could have an exit because --
MR. TYSON: No. Impossible. It's got to be 660 feet apart.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's not within? It has to
be exactly 660 feet?
MR. MULLER: Minimum.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well --
MR. MULLER: The access management --
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You've got 800 feet now.
Page 51
Augustl6,2001
MR. MULLER: The access management plan would say a
minimum of 660 feet. We do have that controlled access corridor
which goes beyond that, and it would probably not look at
minimums.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, just simply, at the
comer of-- I'm looking at Falling Waters Beach Resort. This thing
right here that you have up. If you'd point, Chahram. The one you
had up. On the upper right-hand comer, that's all facing 951. It looks
like, as has been indicated, there's a curb cut right there going out to
wherever it goes. Right? On the north? Here. This is the curb cut;
right?
MR. MULLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Now, I'm wondering why
you can't get a connection from here --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Turn this way when you talk so she
can hear.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm wondering why you
can't get a exit or some kind of traffic control arrangement just to go
out on 951. You're right there. I'm not seeing how that violates the
access management plan.
MR. MULLER: We wouldn't want that to be a full median. It's
too close to 41.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON:
already have a full median.
MR. MULLER: That's directional.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON:
It's already there. You
I'm not sure I understand
your --
MR. MULLER: It's a left hand.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON:
MR. MULLER: Northbound.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON:
Coming which direction?
Going northbound and I
Page 52
Augustl6,2001
can only mm left?
MR. MULLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, that's the way that
people would want to come out. I mean, give them that opportunity.
You know, we're trying to solve a problem here. This is a PUD that
was designed in 1988, and I'm sure, you know, the wisdom of staff,
we wouldn't design a PUD this way anymore. I mean, it's -- has
created its own problems. We have it. Now we're trying to see if we
can't be a little innovative and figure out a way to solve some of these
problems.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That would require the property
owners to the north giving permission to connect and grant easement
to this property to go through the existing driveway. So that's not a --
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Those property owners are
what? You said that's a water treatment plant or something?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's not the county water treatment
plant. It's a private plant. It supplies water to Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It doesn't sound to me like
it's such a big stretch for the applicant to get a little bit involved here
and see if we can't work something out.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But I don't think, Mr. Richardson, that
we can require the private property owner to talk to another property
owner at this point. That is not part of what we can do here.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: We can certainly request
it, and I'd like to see that as part of at least the considerations to
resolve some of these issues.
MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair, you could certainly make that
as part of your recommendation, as part of your vote, to the Board of
County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And the issue is to have another
access, entry, egress and ingress, into Falling Waters specifically by
Page 53
August 16, 2001
the commercial tract? Is that what we're --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The feasibility of that being explored.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The feasibility being explored.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Because, you know, I
think clearly -- and what I'm hearing from the residents, they got kind
of an unfortunate situation here, but it is a situation we're all faced
with. It's a really -- with a single entrance like this, you're going to
have conflicts, and it's a poor design. I think we're moving in the
direction of the lesser of two evils to reduce some of the traffic
volumes here with the proposed use, but you're still left with a
potential that could-- I think could be more innovatively explored.
And I just would like to encourage the people that are involved in
this, and the BCC as they get to it, to consider that.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any further public
speakers? Any further comments from staff?. Excuse me. Ms.
Murray, is that the last public speaker?
MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. That's the last public speaker.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Okay. Close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could I ask--
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. Let's have some -- oh, yes. I
believe the applicant may wish to comment, but I closed the public
hearing. Do you wish to say anything further? I guess I have to give
some latitude because we closed the public hearing.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, a lawyer rarely gives up the
opportunity --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's true.
MR. ANDERSON: -- to speak. I just would ask you to take a
cold hard look at the facts, particularly with regard to the traffic issue.
I mean, all the commercial uses that are presently permitted and that
we propose to eliminate were in the original approved PUD. The
Page 54
August 16, 2001
joint access was in the original approved PUD. We'll check into the
possibility of-- of that connection on the side, but perhaps the thing
that is really most accomplishable, that the residents could do on their
own, is try to get that access open on 41 so that they have two ways
to get in and out. That would be -- seem to me to be the thing to do.
That way they'd have an option.
And this is a prime parcel in an activity center, and it will be
developed commercially. Let there be no question about that. And
we can't please everybody, but we did try. And we do have a letter of
support -- or no objection from the elected representatives of three of
the condominium associations. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Anderson, there were
a couple other issues raised that I wonder if you might be able to
creatively respond to. The children and the safety issue and the
school bus, it seems that that might be something that your -- your
client could help us deal with in terms of some sort of representation
there. Is there -- could you design a better pickup and drop-off area
for the school children as part of what you're going to plan on your
space? I mean, if that's -- you know, that's brought up as a question,
and I just thought --
MR. CHESLYN: I'm David Cheslyn. I'm with Skinner &
Broadbent, the applicant. A comment about that is, I don't know how
we would work out a bus stop acc -- you know, location for the kids.
We could look into that. But one thing to keep in mind, everyone
visiting our facility is a tenant, and it's a secured facility. We don't
have -- you know, if it is a fast-foot restaurant, McDonald's,
whomever, you have a number of different people coming through
the facility every day.
The only people visiting our facility are tenants. They've leased
a space from us. And they make very few trips, generally speaking.
Less than 15 percent of our business is commercial business.
Page 55
August 16, 2001
Everything else is the individuals. So as far as the traffic flow in and
out of the project, it's going to be greatly reduced from what
potentially would be on the site of a commercial development.
Now, we can look into a bus stop, but keep in mind, like I said,
we don't have people just driving through our parking lots. If it's a
shopping center, you know, you can have people coming and going
that are just making turnarounds, whatever. They can't even get into
our facility. It's gated so we limit access. We limit traffic. So from
that standpoint I think it's a safer environment for the children than
what it would be if it were a commercial shopping center.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You bring up an issue that
I've not heard discussed before. I did not realize that you were going
to have gated entry into these two parcels.
MR. CHESLYN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON:
Would you explain that?
MR. CHESLYN: It's a gated, monitored system. We have full
security cameras. We have 24-hour on-site management that lives in
an apartment/office. And we also monitor, via our computer system,
trips made to the facility. So we know who's coming, who's going,
when they're leaving, so on. So that is all --
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is this something like a
keypad sort of thing?
MR. CHESLYN: Keypad.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And the gate swings open
and --
MR. CHESLYN: Yes. Either lifts or swings, depending on the
actual design, but correct.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So even if we had another
entrance/exit arrangement on the -- what I'll call the front right -- top
right-hand side, it would only be available to people that had already
securely entered your facility.
Page 56
August 16, 2001
MR. CHESLYN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It wouldn't be available for
any other traffic, for instance, from the rest of the residents?
MR. CHESLYN: For the rest of the residents?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I had not assumed
that this was -- it wasn't explained.
MR. CHESLYN: Right. It's a gated facility for security
reasons, and so we can -- and that way we can limit, you know, who
is accessing our property. I mean, that's, again, why, you know, the
traffic generation is -- I mean, it's very limited.
And someone asked about -- pointed out something else.
Someone mentioned that, you know, someone -- what, someone's
only going to visit this facility one time a day? The reality is people
won't visit it one time a day. I mean, we -- less than 15 percent is
commercial. So on the commercial side, sure, you may have
somebody making -- you know, manufacturers' reps store shoes in the
space, whatever. He goes there to, you know, pick up product and
go. He may be there a few times a week.
The average person, you or I, renting a storage facility is going
to store something in that facility. Maybe you're moving. You're
going to store it, you're going to leave it, and you're going to come
back and pick it up when you're ready to move. I mean, so you could
go months with making just two trips: One there, one back to pick up
your stuff, and you're done. And like I said, that's 85 percent of our
traffic.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON:
helpful. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay.
discussion or questions?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY:
Your comments are very
Do we have any further
We are here to discuss setback;
correct?
Page 57
August 16, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's part of what the changes are for
this PUD, yes.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I want to try to stay focused
here.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just in the way of
commentary before you call for a motion, I'd just like to summarize
where I am on this. And I must say that -- and I want to say this as
gently as I can -- I don't feel that I had as much information from the
staff as I could have had that would have made this whole process a
little smoother.
In terms of my reaction to this, I look at this as -- the proposal as a
lesser of a number of evils, all of which were put in motion when this
PUD was originally put in place back in 1988, meaning there was a
commercial area that was established. As I said before, and I'll say it
again, I don't think we would be designing a PUD or permitting a
PUD to come in with this current design if we were looking at it
fresh. We'd try to plan some other entrances and exits. But this is
what we've got. It's a poor traffic design. This is a lesser of two
evils.
Right now the residents there are looking at this as vacant
property, so they're not seeing the impact that could happen. And so
on that basis I would encourage the applicant to do as much as he can
to be a good neighbor there, including looking at some way to -- on
the safety issue for the children, if there's a way to work that out. But
absent that, I would certainly move in favor of approving this.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is that a notion to move for approval?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion for-- move for
approval. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And I will second it.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Richardson
Page 58
August 16, 2001
and a second by Mr. Wolfley to approve this particular petition. Do
we have some discussion?
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: If I may, I was on the boards that
-- that changed the PUD for the side entrance. That's now a
recreation area. If I remember correctly -- and sometimes my
memory isn't as good as it used to be -- you were supposed to have an
entrance onto 41 from Falling Waters, and the people at that time
didn't want it, and we changed it to a recreation area. So there was an
entrance and exit that you could have had that you didn't want.
I think it's the lesser of two evils, and I'm going to vote for it,
although I can sympathize not wanting change to your entry. Nobody
likes change. Once they've moved in, they sort of get used to what
they have. But that's the nature of the game in Collier County.
Everything changes.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: They certainly could
reopen that issue of an entrance and exit to 41 as possibly a little self-
improvement of their own.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Young.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I agree. I've-- I know that
entrance and have checked it out, you know, with some care and am
very sympathetic to the problems of the residents. But I can only
conclude, under the law, that this is the lesser of two evils.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other comment? No further
discussion, I'd like to call the question. If you want to make a
statement when you vote, that's okay. All those in favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed say no.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The motion carries. My comment is
that I have to vote for this because of the reduction in traffic very
specifically. It is a poor design entryway. And I would like to
Page 59
August 16, 2001
encourage the residents to see if they could get another entry --
excuse me -- exit from their development, and you may want to chat
with your -- the owners to see if there is a possibility to buy in case
this contract does not come through. Your next opportunity to talk
about this will be before the Board of County Commissioners, and
that, I believe, is scheduled the 11 th of September, according to the
information we have in front of us. So thank you very much for
taking your time to come today.
We'll move on to the next agenda item unless we need a break for
the court reporter. We'll take a short recess for the court reporter.
(A break was held.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We'd like to go back into
session again here. Our next item is PUDZ -- Item No. E, PUDZ-
2001-AR-383; is that correct? Okay. All those wishing to present
testimony today, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in
by the clerk of the courts.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is the petitioner here?
MR. REISCHL: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. Fred
Feischl, planning services. This is a request for a rezone of property
that's currently C-1 and C-l/ST to PUD. You see the location on the
visualizer. Here's Pine Ridge Road, Airport Road. So it's in the
northeast quadrant. The blue is the subject parcel. To the south is the
existing Park Central office complex. To the east is the YMCA, and
to the north is the Tall Pines subdivision.
The site is 3.78 acres, and the petitioner proposes approximately
-- not approximately -- proposes 36,000 square feet of office and
medical office. The land uses are generally compatible with the C-1
zoning district that currently exists today. There are a few
exceptions. I've noted them in the staff report. If you have any
questions on them, I'd be happy to address them for you.
Page 60
Augustl6,2001
The reason that the petitioner is proposing this rezone because it's,
basically C-1 to C-1, is that the configuration of the -- size and the
configuration of the wetland on site. You can see the -- in green the
wetland, and it takes up a considerable portion of the site. The
petitioner-- the rule of thumb that generally developers use is -- and,
again, it's a rule of thumb; it's not a code or anything -- but generally
10,000 square feet per acre is expected to be usable, developable
land. And with a 3.78 acre parcel, they are proposing 36,000 square
feet of office and medical. It generally goes along with that rule of
thumb.
What the petitioner proposed in the PUD was to keep, generally,
all the C-1 uses but, because of the limited footprints, to go up higher.
And in C-1 the building height limitation is 35 feet. They propose
going to 45 feet. The petitioner and staff entered into discussions,
and we came up with a compromise that the -- any of the tracts along
Cougar Drive, which is closest to the Tall Pines subdivision, would
be limited to 35 feet, which is the C-1 height limitation and also the
height limitation in the Tall Pines subdivision. That would provide a
visual transition between the res -- I'm sorry -- between the
residential subdivision, the 35-foot buildings here, and the taller
buildings on the south side adjacent to existing Park Central.
Access -- this is Airport Road over here, and this is YMCA Road.
Access would be through an existing easement on the east side of the
existing Park Central development here. Actually, that easement
goes all the way up to Cougar Drive. Cougar Drive is controlled by
the school board. They did not grant an access off Cougar Drive.
There will be also no access from Airport Road, so the only access is
from YMCA Road.
The parcel is within Activity Center 13, and it's consistent with the
Future Land Use Map and the Growth Management Plan. The EAC
recommended approval 7-0. I've received no calls or letters, pro or
Page 61
August 16, 2001
con, and staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I have a question, ifI may.
This site is a really good example of where -- what I think we should
be trying to do with application of our zoning ordinances. It has a
rather large area that needs to be preserved, and it has an area that can
be developed. I guess I'm going to work on contesting this rule of
thumb that you've used to come up with the square footage that's
permitted on this particular application. Would you help me if--
understand if you took the -- just area that was able to be built on, the
white areas indicated on this, and give me an idea of what square
footage the applicant would be entitled to under a strict application of
just building on what he could build on?
MR. REISCHL: If the wetland was configured the same way it
is on this master plan?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes.
MR. REISCHL: That's approximately an acre and a half, I
believe. So, again, using a rule of thumb, that would be about 15,000
fewer square feet.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So if we were applying a
standard that said that unbuildable land should not be built on and no
bonus density credits should be given for its preservation, this
application would be entitled to something in the order of 15,000
square feet, following my assumptions.
MR. REISCHL: Closer to twenty if my -- if I'm doing my math
correctly.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. Twenty versus the
36,000 that's presently being requested? MR. REISCHL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And I direct your attention
back to the -- your summary here where we talk about the
Page 62
August 16, 2001
consistency with the Growth Management Plan. And I'm looking
back on conservation and coastal management element and going
down through the recitation of the policies that we're trying to
implement in the county.
MR. REISCHL: Oh, are you talking about the EAC staff
report?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. I guess that's it. I'm
sorry. They're not numbered. It's page 3 of 10. And I can understand
why the EAC approved this, because it's -- it's complying with these
policy objectives. I mean, we're preserving land. But as I go through
these policy objectives, it's -- each one of them talks about incentive
to try to preserve land that shouldn't be built on, but no one --
nowhere in here do I see in these policies a statement that says that
we should award bonus density, then, to the developer that's -- that
owns the rest of the property -- owns this site. And I wonder how
staff feels about that, how -- how you can make it consistent for me
that -- that these bonus density credits go to support these policies
when the policies don't require us to do that.
MR. REISCHL: You're correct. However, this is an activity
center. And in an activity center, we -- we accept off-site mitigation
for wetland impacts.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is there off-site mitigation
in this case?
MR. REISCHL: I don't think so. They -- the petitioner -- yes,
there is. Okay. I'm sorry. There is a small amount of wetland
impact to create the drive aisle between the two parcels that --
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: As I understand off-site--
I didn't mean to interrupt you. As I understand the concept of off-site
mitigation, that allows you to fill in something that shouldn't be built
on. So you built on it, so you make up for it someplace else.
MR. REISCHL: By creating wetland in a mitigation bank.
Page 63
August 16, 2001
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But except for this little
piece that you've identified, the wetlands that are being preserved is
the area that's right on the site, the green area shown here. MR. REISCHL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So under -- absent a
mitigation off site, that property would have to be -- this ST overlay,
that would have to be preserved, would it not? I mean, is there any --
any circumstance the county would allow him to build on that?
MR. REISCHL: With off-site mitigation.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I know.
MR. REISCHL: But except for that, no.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So without significant off-
site mitigation, the only buildable land he has is this one point
something acres.
MR. REISCHL: That's -- the unbuildable is the 1 1/2. It's two
point something for the buildable.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm getting my numbers
wrong. It's two point something that's buildable by your assessment?
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: All right. Then I would
think that the staff would be looking at this to scale this down to the
amount of square footage that would be permitted on the buildable
land. I mean, that's where I come out.
MR. REISCHL: Well, we looked at it -- and, again, the EAC
looked at it -- from the perspective that you were getting -- that the
petitioner is getting the desired square footage, and the county is
preserving a wetland on site without preserving something at the Lee-
Collier line in the Panther Island mitigation bank, which is a rural
area. Here you've got the busiest intersection in Collier County, and
you're preserving a cypress wetland and some surrounding
vegetation.
Page 64
August 16, 2001
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I understand --
MR. REISCHL: That was --
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I understand you're
preserving it, but you're also giving him density as if it weren't even
there.
MS. MURRAY: It's -- there's nothing in the land Development
Code that -- that limits the intensity. And it's not density. When we
speak of commercial, we talk of intensity. When we speak of
residential, we talk of density. So there is no limitation. It's simply a
rule of thumb. And in many cases in PUDs where there's been
preservation areas, we've allowed additional -- I mean, we've agreed
with additional square footage over and above the rule of thumb of
10,000 square feet.
Another consideration is, as Fred pointed out, this is in an activity
center. This is basically a C-1 use, which is the least intense
commercial district, at a very intensely developed intersection. So I
think by-- there's a trade-off there. When you've got C-1 less intense
uses generating less traffic, I think it's reasonable to allow, you know,
a little bit of leeway in terms of this rule of thumb that we apply.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, the applicant has an
opportunity to come in and make an application based on the zoning
that's there.
He has chosen C-1. I mean, don't say he could have done
something else. If he wanted something else, I'm sure he would have
come in for something else. So he comes in with C-1, so C-1 has
certain --
MS. MURRAY: Unfortunately, that's not the way we apply our
-- our policies and objectives in the Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And this is an activity center.
MS. MURRAY: That's correct.
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
Page 65
August 16, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. So he has -- it's not the full
range of uses, or is it the full range of uses? MR. REISCHL: Yes, full range.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All commercial from 1 through 5?
MR. REISCHL: C-5, correct.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So that's significant to me.
Plus, I just want to reiterate to those that are out there listening to us
that the EAC has done a unanimous approval, which is very unusual
in the year and a half, almost two years, I've been sitting on this
board, to get the economic -- excuse me -- the Environmental
Advisory Council to agree on something. So they -- I take a lot of
stock in what they have said, and apparently they've discussed it at
length. To actually say, "This is a good project" and get a unanimous
approval out of them has a lot of weight for me.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And I have no problem
with that, Madam Chairman, because I think what they are -- what
they're trying to enforce or trying to persuade the government to
consider more seriously is preservation of this kind of space, so that's
why they would vote. But they're not considering the density of the
use.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Intensity.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Excuse me. Whatever
"ensity" you want to put on it. They're considering the intensity of
the use. They're considering the preservation of sensitive wetlands in
this case.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think they would have discussed the
trade-off for the square footage, would they not have?
MR. REISCHL: They had-- most of the questions were not
environmental at the EAC. They were asking me how the footprint
ratio compared to the size of the building. It was mostly planning-
type questions rather than environmental questions. They were
Page 66
August 16, 2001
happy with on-site preservation and then just had me basically
explain the planning process to them.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I certainly understand what Mr.
Richardson is saying, but I want to repeat again, I put a lot of weight
on the EAC's unanimous decision.
MR. REISCHL: And, again, to just emphasize how staff looked
at it, it's on-site preservation rather than -- I'm not picking on Panther
Island, but Panther Island is the one that comes to mind-- which is at
the Lee-Collier line tucked behind Corkscrew Swamp, and not too
many people are ever going to enjoy that wetland. We looked at
here's a very intensely developed comer. You're preserving and
enhancing, because you'll have water flow into it, a small wetland on
site.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. Any other questions of staff?. I
think it's time to hear from the petitioner.
MS. FARMER: For the record, Megan Farmer with Butler
Environmental, agent. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to
answer them. If you have any regarding the mitigation issues or --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would you clarify the little bit of off-
site mitigation? I think--
MS. FARMER: I believe at the time that this PUD was
submitted there was no off-site mitigation proposed. Since then in
beginning to go forward with the permitting process with the South
Florida Water Management District, we have -- looking at past
projects and how they were permitted, we are going to propose a
small amount of off-site mitigation. That does not change what was
proposed for the county. There is a total of 1.2 acres of on-site
mitigation or on-site preserve. That does not include any open space
that you see around the border, so the heart of the wetland is being
preserved, the highest quality.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And when you say a little off-site
Page 67
August 16, 2001
mitigation, what would you call a little? MS. FARMER: Less than a credit.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Less than a credit. Okay.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm not familiar with that
terminology. What does that mean? What does a credit mean? Is it
an acre, or is it --
MS. FARMER: No. It has to do with the value -- the functional
value of the wetland. If you have 1 acre of wetland impact, for
example, depending on the functional value of that wetland, how it
provides habitat for wildlife, for the state of the hydrology, the state
of the vegetation, there are conversion units for-- it's kind of a
complicated process. There are conversion units on how to -- how to
calculate what a credit -- I'm sorry -- what an acre of impact is worth
for a credit. So you may have 1 acre of impacts, and you may have to
pay -- or purchase 4 credits. It just depends on the value of the
wetland.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: There is a process.
MS. FARMER: There is a process.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: A complicated one at that. Any other
questions? Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. In the event of the no registered
public speakers, I close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'd like to make a motion that we
recommend approval of Petition PUDA-2001-AR-383 (sic) to the
Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I second it.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Pedone, a
second by Ms. Young for approval of this petition. Do we have --
excuse me. Do we have any discussion?
Page 68
August 16, 2001
me.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'd like to offer -- excuse
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'd like to offer a little
additional discussion to supplement, compliment, my vote of no for
this project as it's presently presented. I -- I really am supportive, as
the chairwoman is, of the EAC's approval of this, but I feel that their
responsibility is as we've identified it, and they really don't have the
purview of the intensity relative to the nonsensitive area. I think that
is our purview.
And I feel that staff, though they have these, quote, unquote,
rules of thumb which are not in the zoning code that they apply to
these kinds of situations, I would seriously consider and suggest that
we should be looking at these rules of thumb. To take a look at a site
-- and this is as good an example as I've currently seen, and there's
been a lot of them, because it's so small and it's easy to comprehend
-- that there's really only a certain portion of this site that's buildable,
and we've identified what that is.
The rest of it is going to be preserved, either directly on site, as it
is here, or with some off-site mitigation. They could have come in
and off-site mitigated, I guess, the whole thing. But either way, what
we're left with is the buildable land that's been brought in front of us
to consider for its intensity. And that intensity, following your rule of
thumb of 10,000 square feet per acre, would yield them only --
whatever that number was. Was it 15,000?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: About twenty, twenty-one.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: 20,000 square feet versus
the 36,000 that they're asking for. That 36,000 feet, you see, it
compounded the other problems. It causes us to raise the buildings
taller than we normally would permit in this area. It -- you know, and
you've done a good job by stacking them, you know, putting the
Page 69
August 16, 2001
lower ones up towards Tall Trees (sic). But I see this as an intensity
that we don't have to have and -- by following our own codes. So I'm
really very strongly objecting to the board approving this.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other comments
about --
MS. MURRAY: May I comment?
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Comment from Ms. Murray.
MS. MURRAY: I just think it's important to know that the
Growth Management -- understand that the Growth Management
Plan is the plan that's adopted by the county, by the Board of County
Commissioners. And in there it discusses how we calculate density
and intensity, and that's on gross acreage.
I guess I'm going to just keep it short and sweet here, and that
is by voting no -- and that certainly is your option -- I don't think
-- if the message you intend to send to the board is we don't like the
way the Growth Management Plan reads, I think there are better ways
to probably send that message. And you as -- collectively as the
Planning Commission need to decide if you all agree with that, Mr.
Richardson, or not.
Otherwise, I mean, we're -- you know, we're basically going to
stand up in front of the Board of County Commissioners and tell
them why you voted no, Mr. Richardson, and they're going to go,
"Okay. Thank you." And I think if you're trying to send a message,
there's better ways to do it other than vote no on these petitions and
force this in front of the board rather than letting it go forward on a
summary agenda.
And I would just -- with that as food for thought, in your future
meetings if you want to discuss the issue and send -- you know, and
vote on it and send another message to the board about how you don't
like the Growth Management Plan or you do, we could do that at a
different time.
Page 70
Augustl6,2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Wolfley.
MS. STUDENT: I'm just going to -- and this is something that
will have to be looked at legally. But what this really amounts to is a
mini transfer of development rights. And later on this year and into
the next year, you will, as part of the rural fringe -- it's being
evaluated, but it's very possible that the TDR program for that area,
you know, will be coming before the board if our economist, in his
evaluation, determines that this is a viable option for us. And this is a
method that's used to preserve land and give incentives to preserve
land.
And if it's the Planning Commission's direction, at the
appropriate time we can consider taking those lands that are preserve
areas out of the area, if you will, that would be calculated for density.
I would have to do research. I am not sure at this point whether that
may be considered a taking or not. The Supreme Court, United
States Supreme Court, has been coming down hard on governments
and very staunchly supporting private property rights. We have
another case that was recently decided in June that, in fact, gives not
even the original developer, but subsequent individuals that
purchased from that developer, rights against governments when the
property's been taken. And this is, you know, a little new twist.
So that's something that would have to be evaluated if it's the
will of the commission for us to put this in the mix. But I did want to
explain that it operates like a mini TDR, which is an acceptable
means that has been developed -- if it works, that is -- to -- for a local
government to avoid a takings' claim. So these are all issues that
would have to be looked at and so forth as part of that, from the legal
side.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. I think Mr. Wolfley had a
comment.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just feel that there's certainly
Page 71
August 16, 2001
a need for some more development like this in the area as far as for
medical, you know, for attorneys or whoever wants to work there. I
think 1.29 acres of preserve is more than generous, especially
concerning the area where it is. I mean, we're on, again, Airport and
Pine Ridge, very busy area. And I strongly support the motion.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other comments? We have -- we
do have a motion and a second on the floor. With no further
discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE:
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Aye.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG:
Aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm opposed.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Motion carries 4 to 1.
MS. MURRAY: Marjorie, does that--
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Does it carry?
MS. MURRAY: Does it carry forward? It was 4 to 1.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Or is this a rezone?
MS. STUDENT: No. It should -- let me think a minute. It
should carry because it's -- it is a -- it is a majority of the board that's
here. Where we would have the problem is with the comp plan
amendment that requires, under our Special Act that we still have, an
absolute majority of the board whether they're here or not. So that
would take a five vote, but this should be fine.
MS. MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Am I to understand this
will not be on the summary agenda, then; it will be fully heard before
the BCC?
MR. REISCHL: Correct.
Page 72
August 16, 2001
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Moving along to the next item
on our agenda, it would have been the Indigo Lakes. Do we discuss
this again, or has this been -- that's right. We did continue it by
motion.
Our next item was the variance for Vanderbilt Lakes, and I
believe that's been continued.
So we are VA-2001-AR-1138, a almost-4-foot after-the-fact
variance. All those wishing to give testimony, please stand, raise
your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Mr. Reischl.
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a
request for an after-the-fact variance in RSF-3 zoning. And on the
visualizer you can see the location. Santa Barbara Boulevard is to the
left, Coronado and Hunter, and you see the single-family lot located
there. Zoom in there. The required front yard in the RSF-3 district is
30 feet.
The building permit for this house was issued with the front and
rear setbacks reversed on the permit. It was a county error, a
customer service agent error. The builder built according to the
setbacks that were on the permit. The error was caught at the spot
survey so the system of checks and balances did work at that point.
And here you can see the blue is the property line, the red is the
house, and the yellow is the paved right-of-way. I have shown on
both sides of the -- on both sides of that the unpaved right-of-way.
The ameliorating factor that I found in my analysis of this is that
the house will still be over 45 feet from the edge of the pavement.
It's not -- that's technically not how yards are measured. They're
measured from the property line. But that may be considered as an
ameliorating factor. There were -- no calls or letters were received,
pro or con, and because of the county error and the ameliorating
Page 73
August 16, 2001
factor of the unpaved right-of-way, we've recommended approval.
That's the -- the site. You can see the block has been placed but
no tie beam. The tie beam would be the next inspection. You can't
get a tie beam inspection until the spot survey's approved. They did
proceed at their own risk to put up the block before the spot survey
was approved or, in this case, not approved. But they did not get as
far as tie beam at this point.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And before we go further, I'd just like
to disclose that I had a brief conversation during the break with
Johnnie Gebhardt, the customer services manager, about this issue.
Do we have any questions of Mr. Reischl?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just have one. What is the
normal setback from the property line to the structure?
MR. REISCHL: Thirty feet. Thirty feet front, twenty-five rear.
It was reversed, and they marked twenty-five front.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So we're asking for a 3.93 --
MR. REISCHL: Variance.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Further question, if I may.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is there any possibility -- I
don't suppose there's any possibility this street is going to be widened
any time in the future that that right-of-way would be required?
MR. REISCHL: I don't know for sure, but it's a typical local
street in Golden Gate. It -- when I did my site visit, there was plenty
of room for both cars to pass. I can't see it being four-laned.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I notice in the -- in our
packet we have a letter from Edward Perechio (phonetic) -- MR. REISCHL: Perico.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Perico, sorry-- to the
applicant saying that we're going to take care of this, so don't worry
about it. I'm just concerned about taking our prerogatives away from
Page 74
August 16, 2001
us before we even have a chance to look at it.
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Perico was the author. I just included it
for your information.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: "We will do everything in
our power to expedite processing of your variance so that your
construction can continue on your house."
MR. REISCHL: Okay. I think he was referring in that case to
expediting the timing of it. This was put on a fast track. Reviewers
were given a shorter time to review it. Unfortunately, the July 31st
board meeting was missed. This is going to go to the September 1 lth
meeting.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And just as a comment, we're
very -- we look very closely at the variances that come here. People
make mistakes and all, and this mistake was made by our own
building department, customer services. And I think that's probably
why Mr. Perico is referring to speeding this along as fast as they can
because we have individual property owners attempting to build, in
good faith got a permit, and there was a mistake made. And we're
very hard on subcontractors and contractors when they come before
us, and now we have a property owner here because something
within our own organization created the difficulty for them. So I'm
tending to be very supportive of this particular petition.
And if we don't have any further questions of Mr. Reischl -- oh,
he must have some more presentation.
MR. REISCHL: Well, not a presentation, but Ms. Gebhardt
asked me to put on the record that we probably have three or four
county-caused variances per year, and she processes over 25,000
building permits per year.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have the petitioner?
Would you like to speak?
Do we have any registered public speakers?
Page 75
August 16, 2001
MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any more questions of
staff?.
I'll close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'll offer a motion this
time, that we recommend approval for this Petition VA-2001-AR-
1138 --
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- to the BCC acting as the
Board of Zoning Adjustments.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Board of Zoning Appeals.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Appeals. Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Richardson
and a second by Mr. Pedone to approve this petition. Any further
discussion?
All those in favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you.
Do we have any old business? That's the end of our public
hearings. Any new business?
MS. MURRAY: I just have a couple of announcements. I
handed out to you -- there's a Collier County logo in a packet. That is
the draft commissioner introductory packet that you've asked for.
And rather than -- we're going to bind it and everything, but rather
than do that first, I thought we'd pass that out, have you take a look,
comment. Feel free to write on it and/or send me an e-mail, or if you
want to discuss it at the next meeting, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excellent. Thank you.
Page 76
August 16, 2001
MS. MURRAY: The other thing I had to hand out was the
NAICS books we ordered for you. Unfortunately, I only brought
four instead of five. I'll bring the next one --
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I already have mine.
MS. MURRAY: You have yours?
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah. I found Ray in the
hallway, and he gave me one.
MS. MURRAY: That's right. I'm sorry. Thank you. And this
is really going to become pertinent for the second LDC cycle -- not
the special cycle, which is next, but the second LDC cycle -- when
we take a look at converting the C-1 through C-5 districts to the
NAICS. So you don't have to worry about looking at that right now,
but you will need that for the future.
We also have ordered the SIC code books for you, and as soon
as they come in, I'll bring those in. I think that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any --
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just in new business.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: New business?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Perhaps a thread to old.
I'm very concerned about how we deal with the conserved or to-be-
conserved spaces in our-- in our county, as I'm sure we all are. I'm
seeing cracks, if you will, in the way our zoning code is being applied
relative to giving density credits. And I know the attorney has views
on this, and I know there's a lot of issues. I have found out, with the
help of staff, that there are counties in Florida that do not use gross
acreage. They deduct sensitive lands and other things before they
apply the intensity or density, and I plan to pursue those to clarify just
what those conditions are and whether they could be applied here in
our county.
So I guess in short, I'm asking for the board, and particularly as
we get our newer members on and we get a full complement, that we
Page 77
Augustl6,2001
try to set some sort of agenda that would permit us to have a
workshop and have some -- a fuller discussion with staff and others
that could help us understand this and perhaps lead us in -- away
from the error of our ways or perhaps to new vistas of opportunity to
preserve things in the county and not make things necessarily more
intense. And that would be my interest, to see if there's some way we
could do that. So I request that through the chair.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So we could possibly have a
workshop with reference to the intensity when it comes to
commercial and the density when it comes to residential. And, of
course, we do have to remember the big picture of where we are in
the urban area. And part of our goal in this county, the way 1
understand it, is to sort of create -- not create a problem on the rural
fringes and not overly intensely develop out in our rural areas. So
there is some logic to intensifying in your urban area versus
intensifying, or even developing to any great degree, out near rural
areas. So we will have, a number of times, an opportunity to discuss
this, I believe, again, through the Land Development Code and
maybe even a workshop.
MS. STUDENT: I think what we would need would be a
workshop because if the TDR process is going to be, you know,
utilized -- and we don't know that yet, but -- because the economist is
looking at it -- for the rural fringe, that will involve having receiving
areas that may -- I'm just saying may -- be in the urban area. So that
will also result in an intensification by changing that density, if this
program goes forward, and retiring it, I guess you could say, from an
area in the fringe. And part of that receiving area may be in the urban
area. It may be in areas of the fringe where, you know, there's
nothing really to preserve. That's not known yet because that's under
study, and we had our first meeting with the economist just a couple
days ago.
Page 78
August 16, 2001
But those are things that, I think, that we need to keep in mind
and maybe somehow, if we can, you know, work in tandem because I
do -- staff, I hope, agree with me, but I see a relationship between,
you know, what actually works as a mini TDR on a given piece of
property and the larger issue of the larger TDR process. So I think
we need to, you know, keep that going and keep -- and look at it
together. And that's not to say that there could be a legal problem
with just using net density, but it's an area that we do need to look at
and make sure that there is not one; or if there is one, if we want to
pay for that some way. That's all.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: And can I make a suggestion?
That on behalf of Commissioner Priddy and Commissioner Russell,
that you do that, maybe, after October.
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I think that's a good
suggestion. We want a full complement of people that will be able to
follow through on whatever the --
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. I think that is a good
suggestion, the waiting until after October, maybe even into
November.
MS. MURRAY: We would also -- I would concur with
Marjorie, and we would need to look at the schedule for the rural
fringe issues as well and just kind of keep that in mind. So we'll take
a look at that and then maybe suggest a time frame and see if that's
acceptable to you. I would need everything -- I would prefer to have
all your issues out in writing to me so that if there is some research
that we need to do or things of that nature, that we could be aware of
that before we--
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is an e-mail acceptable?
MS. MURRAY: Sure.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any public comment? No
public comment.
Page 79
August 16, 2001
No discussion of addenda.
Do we have a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second.
CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion and a second.
are adjourned. Thank you.
We
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:20 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY
PUBLIC
Page 80
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION_
September 12, 2001
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FL 34104
Mr. Miles L. Scofield
Tun'ell & Associates, Inc.
3584-B Exchange Ave
Naples, FL 34104
RE: Petition No. BD-2001-AR-928, Lois E. Anderson
Dear Mr. Scofield:
On Thursday, August 16, 2001,
Petition No. BD-2001-AR-928.
the Collier County
Planning Commission heard and approved
A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 01-20 is enclosed approving this use.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400.
Sincerely,
Ross Gochenaur
Planner II
Enclosure
C: Loise E. Anderson
6500 Estero Boulevard
Ft. Myers Beach, FL 33931
Customer Service
Addressing (Peggy Jarrell)
Land Dept. Property Appraiser
M. Oeheltree, Graphics
Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) t/
File
RG/io
PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier, fl.us
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 01-20
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2001-AR-928 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 235 -foot extension of a boat dock
from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 255-foot boat dock facility in an "A-ST" zone for th~ property
hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have
been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section
2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission
in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of
Collier County, Florida, that:
The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield, of Turrell and Associates, Inc., representing Lois E.
Anderson, with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
South 100 feet of the North 1271.57 feet of Government Lot 2, a/k/a Parcel 8, being
located in Section 14, Township 51 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
be and the same is hereby approved for a 235-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to
allow for a 255-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.
o
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.
A Special Treatment (ST) permit for the site must be obtained prior to issuance of a building
permit
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number
BD-2001-AR-928 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 ~g day of August ,2001.
ATTEST:
JOHN 1~. DUNNUCK, III
Executiqe Secretary
Community Development and Environmental
Services Interim Administrator
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency:
COLLIER COUNTY PLAITING COMMISSION
COLtER COUNTY, FL~p
-- 5~qN ' · UTIO, ~CHAIRMAN
Marj°ri~vI. Student' '
Assistant County Attorney
RG/lo
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
coMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENV~_RONMENTAL SERVICES DMSION.
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FL 34104
September 12, 2001
Mr. Miles Scofield
Scofield Marine Consulting
3584-B Exchange Ave
Naples, FL 34104
REFERENCE: BD.2001-AR-619, Jean V. Ferrone
Dear Mr. Scofield:
On Thursday, August 16, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commissiorheard and approved
Petition No. BD-2001-AR-619.
A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 01-19 is enclosed approving this use.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400.
Sincerely,
Ross Gochen~ur
Planner H
Enclosure
C: Jean V. Ferrone
P 0 Box 1079
Naples, FL 34106
Customer Service
Addressing (Peggy Jarrell)
Land Dept. Property Appraiser
M. Ocheltree, Graphics /
Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI)
File
(941) 643-6968
www. co.collienfl.us
~03-2400
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 01- 19
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2001-AR-619 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 bf 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 63-foot extension of a boat dock
from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 83-foot boat dock facility in an A-ST zone for the property
hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have
been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section
2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission
in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of
Collier County, Florida, that:
The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Jean ¥. Ferrone,
with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
The south 100 feet of the north 2,100 feet of Government Lot 3, a/k/a Parcel 43, being located
in Section 14, Township 51 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
be and the same is hereby approved for a 63-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to
allow for a 83-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.
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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number
BD-2001-AR-619, 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.
_, 2001.
Done this 16 day of August
ATTEST:
Community Development and Environmental
Services Interim Administrator
Approved ~ to Form and Legal Sufficiency:
Patrick G. White
Assistant County Attorney
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FL ·
BD-2001 -AR-619/RG/lo