Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/20/2001 RSeptember 20, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NAPLES, FLORIDA, SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: NOT PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Joyceanna J. Rautio Kenneth L. Abernathy Russell H. Budd Michael Pedone Dwight Richardson Mark Strain David J. Wolfley Lora Jean Young Russell A. Priddy ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Services Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2001, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI ~ EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: .NOTE; INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO $ MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIT_~ON 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 WRITrEN 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 CC'PC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- AUGUST 16, 2001 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES - RUSSEL PRIDDY 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Ao BD-2001-AR-938, Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Henry and Monica McVicker, requesting a 4S-foot boat dock extension to allow for a boat dock protruding 65 feet into the waterway for property located on Keewaydin Island, Lot 3.:5, South Naples Shores, in Sections 23 & 24, Township 51 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) BD-2001-AR-985, Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, ' representing Peter. A. Guglielmi, requesting a 25-foot extension for a boat dock facility protruding 35 feet into the waterway (45 feet as measured from the property line) for property located at 119 Heron Avenue, 1 Co further described as Lot 25, Block T, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 3, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) PUDZ-2001-AR-620, Anita L. Jenkins, MC'P, of WilsonMiller, Inc., representing Long Bay Partners, L.L.C., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" and "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Mediterra pUD having the effect of increasing acreage fi.om 954+ acres to 1168+ acres, adding a Village Center District with a maximum of 20,000 sf, reducing density from' 0.$6 units per acre to 0.65 units per acre, for property located approximately one mile west of 1-75 along the north side of the Livingston Road East/West corridor in Sections 11 and 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) 8. OLD BUS~S 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT1TEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN CCPC AGENDA/SM/lo September 20, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I wish to call this meeting to order of the Collier County Planning Commission for Thursday, September 20, 2001. Before I call the roll, I would like to invite everyone to stand and join with me in pledging allegiance to our nation's flag. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. First item on the agenda is roll call. Mark Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And welcome. We're glad to have you with us. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Rautio? Here. Mrs. Young? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And Mr. Priddy, absent but excused. We do have a quorum. Item No. 2 will be addenda to the agenda. MR. BELLOWS: I believe we have a change on the agenda Page 2 September 20, 2001 where Item B will be heard first. Item A will be heard second. And do we also want to talk about Item C, advertising, or do we want to wait for that? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: On Agenda Item C, I want to make a correction. It indicates the density being reduced from .56 per to .65 acres -- units per acre, and it really should be reducing to .64 units per acre. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we need a motion to change the order of the agenda? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So moved. MR. BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Abernathy and a second by Mr. Budd to switch Item B on the 25-foot extension for a boat dock on Heron Avenue to the first item and the McVicker to the second item. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All those in favor say aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' Those opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. The approval of the minutes for August 16th. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So moved. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. Page 3 September 20, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Richardson, a second by Mrs. Young for approval of the August 16, 2001 minutes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All those in favor say aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All those opposed same sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Madam Chairman, I will be abstaining from that vote. I wasn't here for that meeting. MS. STUDENT: I advised Commissioner Strain -- this issue hasn't come up before, but it's not a situation we have in actual petition. And there is logic to Commissioner Strain not voting on them since he wasn't here to be apprised of what took place to make an informed decision. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have one abstention. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd and I should probably should abstain, as well, since we weren't here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: However, you were given them in your packet to read. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't know if they're accurate, though. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Valid point. MS. STUDENT: I wonder if we then have a quorum. Let's see. Yeah, we still have a quorum. We'll have to delve into this issue further. It's a novel issue so... Page 4 September 20, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This is a novel group. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Item No. 4 on the agenda would be Planning Commission absences. We do know that Mr. Priddy, after his many years of service, was unable to attend today. We wish him well in his private life. Are there any other planned absences by the commissioners? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yes. Actually, this is my last meeting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's right. Mr. Pedone shall no longer be joining us. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I will be absent for the rest of the meetings. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you so much for your years of service. We appreciate it. Okay. The Board of County Commission report. We did not have one included in our packet, so we are at Item No. 6, the chairman's report. And I have nothing specific to report today. So that brings us to Item No. 7 on the agenda, the advertised public hearings. The first one we will hear isBD-2001-AR-985. All those wishing to provide testimony today please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the clerk of the courts. (All witnesses were administered the oath by the court reporter.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' Okay. At this point I would like to disclose that I had a conversation with an attorney, Mr. Tony Pires, and I have also received two e-mails at my home e-mail, one from Dick Lydon, president of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association, and another one from B.J. Savard-Boyer, secretary of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association, which I will share with you later. Any other disclosures? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Madam Chairman, yes, I was Page 5 September 20, 2001 contacted by Tony Pires as well, and he represents, apparently, a property owner nearby. I'm not even sure who exactly. We discussed matters concerning their review of the location and the distance from the seawall for this facility. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO. Any other disclosures? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I had an e-mail from Dick Lydon. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Your turn. MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services, G-o-c-h-e-n-a-u-r. The petitioner's requesting a 25-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 45 feet into a waterway which is just over 200-feet wide. The property's located at 119 Heron Avenue in Conners Vanderbilt Beach and contains about 193 feet of water frontage. The project consists of a dock and boat lift with provisions for temporary mooring of a second vessel at the terminal end, although no mooring pilings are requested. The shoreline is reinforced by a riprap revetment sloping into the water from the property line, and the dock itself would only protrude 20 feet beyond the riprap. We've received two written objections to the project from owners of condo units on the opposite side of the waterway. The main thrust of the objections seem to be that it would be a hazard to navigation. We feel that with a 200-foot-wide waterway there is more than enough room for safe navigation between the proposed dock and the docks on the opposite side of the waterway. This project does meet all of our criteria, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have questions of staff?. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I do. Ross, how do you measure the width of the waterway? Is it from mean-high water to Page 6 September 20, 2001 mean-high water? MR. GOCHENAUR: That would be from the property line which is the most restrictive point. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Property to property then. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. That was done by Mr. Scofield by laser range finder. His exact measurement was 201 feet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I wasn't arguing with the numbers. I was just wondering what the base was. It's not mean-high water then? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. We have to measure from the most restrictive point. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? I have one. I just was curious about the concept of temporary mooring of a visitor's vessel. I don't recall that being an item that we normally discuss in extensions of boat docks. Could you clarify that for me, please? MR. GOCHENAUR: I will try. It's not normally something that the petitioner applies for. The Land Development Code requires that a dock extension include -- the facility itself by definition includes the dock and vessel in combination. So if someone got an extension for a 40-foot dock and then moored a boat outboard of that with a 1 O-foot beam, that would actually be a 50-foot facility. So the boat would technically be moored illegally. In this case, the petitioner recognizes that there's going to be a boat moored out there under some circumstances and is asking for the additional ten feet to account for this. Normally, people don't realize that that's how the county measures facilities. The temporary use of facility is emphasized by the fact that the petitioner is not asking for mooring pilings. Normally when you're going to have a dock -- outboard a dock for a Page 7 September 20, 2001 long period of time, you've got mooring pilings to secure it at four point so that it doesn't bang up against the end of the dock. This to me just reinforces the statement that it's for temporary mooring. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And do we have some guidance on what the definition of "temporary" might be? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So it wouldn't make any difference since he has the -- he can have a boat there all the time. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. The code doesn't define temporary, and I don't attempt to. The only observation I can make is that if it were to be permanent, I would have expected mooring pilings. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: As long as it has no more than that 1 O-foot beam. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ms. Chairman, I have a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO. Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is there a requirement to provide the name of the individual owner, not as a trustee, but as a private party whoever that individual might be? Is there a beneficiary to the trust that should be provided to us? MR. GOCHENAUR: Okay. We do have that information in the file. I didn't include it in your package. The property owner is the sole trustee. I can provide copies of that to you after the hearing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That would be a good idea on a general basis to include it so the disclosure of who owns the property would satisfy some of the curious minds on the commission. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. That was my omission. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one other question, if I could. Page 8 September 20, 2001 The seagrass studies that were done, did staff do those, or did the applicant do those, and what time of year were those done at, and who did then if-- MR. GOCHENAUR: The environmental staff does the seagrass study for a typical boat dock. It was done within the last four months. I can't tell you the exact date. I can get that information for you after the hearing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Studies will come out differently depending on the time of the year they're done; that's why ! was concerned. MR. GOCHENAUR: I'm reluctant to comment on that because I'm not an environmentalist. I don't question it, but I'm reluctant to comment on that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. GOCHENAUR: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Would the petitioner wish to make some remarks? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. For the record, Rich Yovanovich representing -- I call him Mr. "G" because I have a very difficult time pronouncing his last name. Very preliminary matters, a couple of things I want to enter into the record -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: With a name like Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. Can you believe it.9 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How about "Guglielmi." How does that work? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, thanks. Whenever I say Mr. "G," if Mr. Abernathy could help me out, I'd appreciate it. Three things I'd like to enter into the record is exhibits. First is a copy of our application. I don't know if you received a copy of the entire application. That would be Exhibit A. Page 9 September 20, 2001 Exhibit B would be a copy of Section 253.112 Florida Statutes. And the final thing would be Exhibit C, which would be a copy of our DEP permit to construct the dock, which I'll give to Marjorie to pass along. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Ross did an excellent job of summarizing the size of the facility. The facility is a 20-foot boat dock. What was a little confusing at the time we made the application, the property line was measured at the platted line. Therefore, it appeared -- when we said we were asking for a 45-foot dock, it appeared we were going 45 feet into the waterway. In reality we're only 20 feet into the waterway because between the platted line and the riprap line, that was all filled in prior to 1975. And by operation of statute, which I've entered into the record, title to that land now belongs to my client. So the property line is actually extended to the riprap line. And to evidence that fact-- and it happens by operation of statute; there's no deed. To evidence that fact, you have the DEP permit. If you are not a riparian lot owner, you cannot get a permit from DEP. And in order to be a riparian lot owner, you must own land to the water. So if that filled, that gap between the platted line and the riprap line were not owned by my client, he would not be adjacent to the water and, therefore, could not get a lot. So in reality what we are asking for -- we are not asking for a boat-dock extension, other than arguably there's a little -- as you can see there's a gap between the riprap line and the dock. You can see there's kind of a little sliver. It's about three feet. That would be -- we're asking for a facility that arguably goes out 23 feet from the most restrictive point on the riprap line. And then we're asking -- so we're asking for a three-foot extension or four-foot extension related to that gap, and we're asking for permission -- which nobody asks for Page 10 September 20, 2001 -- temporary mooring of a vessel. Everybody just does it. We're being proactive and letting you know that there will be times where our property owner will not be mooring his vessel in his lift. And there will be times that people will be coming to visit. And we're saying that technically that's a violation of the code. We don't want to violate the code. So that's the additional ten feet. So in reality what we're asking for is a boat-dock extension of 13 feet, of which most people don't even ask or acknowledge the 10 feet that typically occurs. So the record -- Rocky will get up and give you a brief outline of the width of the waterway. That is measured waterline to waterline, not property line to property line, and Rocky will give that in greater detail. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Wait a minute. MR. YOVANOVICH: Rocky will explain the widths. He took the measurements. What I'd like to do, since there are speakers, to make sure that the record is clear and clean, I would like to qualify both your staff and Mr. Scofield as experts in the matters that they will be testifying to. They've been qualified as experts before you on many occasions. If you want them to get up and again explain their credentials, we'll do that. But, otherwise, I would request that you would recognize them for purposes of record and that Mr. Scofield will now testify regarding the temporary nature -- I think Ross did a very good job of explaining that. We do not plan on having a vessel their permanently. If we did, we would have had the pilings there to make sure there would be no damage to the boats. Have you prepared to say -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Rich, by your definition of property line, then the mean-high waterline and the property line are the same? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, it is. And that is the definition Page 11 September 20, 2001 of "property line." But, again, when we first applied, the plat line was further back. Our property line -- we don't have to be here but for that little sliver and the request that we be allowed to temporarily moor a vessel on the outside of the dock facility. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Richard, how did the DEP look at your temporary provision, or was that addressed -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, they don't-- really aren't concerned with that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And does staff agree with the analysis that Rich has provided concerning the movement of property line? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, we do. I would like to clarify for the benefit of Mr. Abernathy. I don't think we have a disagreement here where the property line coincides with the mean-high waterline. Than that is, in fact, where you take the measurement. I was considering the original measurement as taken from the original property line. Hopefully I didn't confuse you too badly with that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' I have a question. Is it the pleasure of the board that we accept Mr. Scofield and staff as expert witnesses? COMMISSIONER BUDD: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. All those in favor. Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. Page 12 September 20, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries that our staff and Mr. Scofield are acknowledged as expert witnesses. Thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: Rocky Scofield, for the record, representing Mr. Guglielmi. I've learned how to say his name right. One thing that's always confusing is the measurements, and I heard you say earlier, "Where's it measured from?" I take it literally. In the applications it says, "Width of the water body." When we have a property line sticking 15 feet back into the land, I don't include that in my measurement. That waterway is 200 feet wide or whatever I put here -- 193 feet. It scales about 200 on an aerial photograph, and my laser-range finder said it was 193, but that does not include the 15 feet. That is the actual width of the water body there. The condos on the other side of the canal extend out 35 feet. The docks -- they're finger docks, 35-feet long and 5 feet out from that is mooring piles, so we're actually extending out 20 to 23 feet from our seawall. And I know that the temporary mooring -- probably I, maybe, shouldn't have used that in there. That might be confusing, but, again, as Rich said, most people come in and they never even come to the extension. If they want a 20-foot dock, we could have hugged this back in, gone to the building department, got a permit for a 20-foot dock, and gone and moored a boat on the outside like most people do. And usually nothing's ever said. But whenever I'm doing a petition and I know that there's going to be a boat tied up there sometimes, we go and we ask for that because the law and the way the code's written, it's the entire -- Ross explained that to you just a little while ago. The boat-dock extension includes the dock and any moored vessel -- any moored vessel at that site. So that's why I always include it, and I usually get hammered for that. Most people just tie a boat up there and don't worry about Page 13 September 20, 2001 the code. But, anyway, what we're asking for is not too much, and I'll be glad to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You said that there's docks across the waterway that extend out 35 feet? MR. SCOFIELD. The condominiums across the way -- they're finger docks perpendicular to the shoreline. They're 30-feet long, and then they have mooring pilings 5 more feet out, so they're 35 feet in to the waterway. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They are directly across from where yours is going to be. MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So total of all that is less than half the waterway, isn't it? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir. More than 50 percent is left open. And the DEP doesn't have any -- they don't care about moorings. Their ruling is you cannot proceed further than 25 percent of the waterway. That's all DEP looks at. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know, Rocky, in larger projects the DEP and the State get involved in submerged land leases. Do submerged land leases come into play? MR. SCOFIELD: You only get into submerged land leases if you're over the ten-to-one rule, and that is ten square feet of dock and mooring area per lineal foot of shoreline. If you exceed that, you have to get into a submerged land lease. And we are, of course, way under that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. GOCHENAUR: If I could make a minor correction for the record. The waterway width as measured by Mr. Scofield was 201 feet. The property's water frontage is 193 feet. Page 14 September 20, 2001 MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, okay. MR. GOCHENAUR: So we're working with 201. This is what we've ... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Mr. Scofield, I do have a question for you. In my conversation with Mr. Pires, he had mentioned the item of "temporary" not being included in the ordinance. That makes me wonder if we discuss it here today and agree that a boat can be tied up there, are we giving permission for that, and should it be in the ordinance -- the resolution itself. MR. SCOFIELD: I would say probably don't confuse the issue. Don't bring this up. We're asking for an extension to park a boat in front of this dock. Whether it's -- I'm saying it's temporary because the man does not -- he has a boat lift on the inside of this slip. That's where the boat will be. Sometimes they pull up in front of the dock, and they unload their gear or they have friends come over, and that's why I use the word "temporary." But you can strike that, and we're just asking for a ten-foot extension in front of that dock to moor a boat. I'm just letting you know it's not going to be a permanent mooring situation. If it is we'd probably have to come back here and get mooring piles because there's a lot of traffic in there, and a boat would get beat up if we had it just sitting out there without mooring piles in front of that dock. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' Thank you. Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Just to address that issue more from ale -- and Rocky did a good job. I mean, you can analyze this as permanent if you prefer. We put the word "temporary" in there to show you that we did not intend to have a vessel there all the time. But if we're going to get hung up whether we can't ask for a temporary vessel, then we'll ask for permanent, but we're telling you Page 15 September 20, 2001 we're only going to keep it there temporarily. We're asking for ten feet. So ten feet; forget the word "temporary." CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We'll follow on and hear some more testimony. Mr. Bellows, do we have some registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we do. The first one is B. J. Savard-Boyer. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: ]3.J., would you please come forward and make sure you spell your name for the court reporter. It might be good, too, to identify where it is that you live. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Good morning. My name is B. J. Savard-Boyer, S-a-v-a-r-d--B-o-y-e-r. I live in Vanderbilt Beach-- Conners Vanderbilt Beach on Palm Court. I am secretary of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association, and I'm representing the board today along with many homeowners. I have some pictures here. I don't know if I can stand them on the board over here or what. It might give a better idea of the length of this property. This (indicating), I believe, is where the proposed dock is supposed to go. The property goes all the way around this way (indicating). There's also a walkway over here with pilings already in. So first I'd like to talk about this temporary mooring outside of the dock. Now, Rich said, "Let's drop it," and everybody says, you know, whatever. But why can't -- if there's going to be a boat dock here (indicating), why can't a visitor tie up over here (indicating) if he's going to be there just for a short time? It's hard for you to see this, but there's a walkway here (indicating) or a platform here or whatever, and there's also one over here (indicating), and there are five pilings over here. This other picture I took from the top of Blue bill Bridge, and it happened to be when the Nautilus, which is the boat-- sight-seeing Page 16 September 20, 2001 sunset cruise boat that goes out from the Fishfinder, which is around the comer and down here (indicating). You can see from this picture -- and it was taken from the top of the bridge -- these are the finger docks as Rich talked about coming out from the Yacht and Racquet Club. This is where Guglielmi wants to put his dock. Now, if these are out 30 feet and this goes out 30 feet or more, this is going to be tight in here (indicating). I don't care if they're saying it's 190 feet or 200 feet. When we have high tide, it might not be so tight, but when we have -- the tide comes and goes, and when it's lower, it's going to be tight. We also have a lot of kayakers. We have a lot of row-boat people. We have a lot of jet skis. Are we only going to allow one lane? Everybody has to get in line and go this way (indicating), and everybody has to get in line and go that way? I mean, this is one of the narrowest parts of the waterway coming in from Wiggins Pass all the way up to the Vanderbilt Lagoon. I know I have to leave these pictures, and I have duplicates. So do you want me to stand them over here? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO- Please. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: We're not opposed to the gentleman having a dock. He needs a dock. Obviously, he does. We don't fight 20-foot docks. The problem here is the fact that it starts out already 15 feet from his property, which gives it 35 feet, and if he wants another ! 0 feet for this temporary-- and if anybody wants to read what temporary-use permits -- it says, (as read): "The planning services director or his designee may grant a temporary-use permit for requests that demonstrate compliance with the intent of Section 2633. Approvals for such requests shall be based upon, but not limited to, the applicant's description of the temporary use." I didn't see a description here. (As read): "the intended duration of the use, hours of operation, Page 17 September 20, 2001 and the impacts of the proposed temporary use on adjacent properties. The applicants for a temporary-use permit shall include a conceptual site plan or a site development plan as provided for within this section." I'm not up on what site plans are. Is that dock plan -- is that a site plan? I don't know. But anyhow, (as read)' "the appropriate required plan and temporary-use permit application shall be submitted and approved prior to or simultaneously with the submission of a building-permit application if required." Well, I don't know anything-- you know, I don't know a site plan or any of that sort of thing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' We need a clarification, Mr. Bellows or Mr. Gochenaur. MR. GOCHENAUR: That section of the code does not apply to this situation. It typically deals with commercial businesses using property for something other than that that they were intended to be used for; car sales and parking lots, extra signs, and so forth. The dock is a permitted accessory use. Temporary use of that facility does not require any sort of permit or permission from the county. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: But what is "temporary"? Does it mean that he goes out during the day and then that it's gone and then he comes back at night 365 days a year? I don't understand that. MR. GOCHENAUR: The code doesn't define "temporary," but in this case the petitioner is asking for the extension as if it were permanent. If it, in fact, turns out to be temporary, then it's as he described. But he's asking for the additional ten feet, and our entire analysis is based on the fact that that additional ten feet, the entire facility, does meet all the code criteria. So if Mr. Yovanovich -- as Mr. Yovanovich said we treat this as a permanent facility including that ten feet, we are still well within Page 18 September 20, .2001 the code criteria. We're still required to recommend approval. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Well, as you know, I've been here before on these dock extensions, and we have successfully had a compromise with the owners of the -- or the builders of the other docks. We have been able to get them to pull back a little bit or redesign or whatever. I'm wondering if this particular homeowner could compromise and do the same thing. Is it possible that he would put the dock to the northern end of his property? If he has already spent a lot of money on plans and everything, I'm sorry, but I think if it went around to the north comer of the property rather than straight out in the narrow part of the waterway. Around the comer the waterway -- if you look at that other design, the waterway is a bit wider. Now, it might be sticking out like -- I want to say a pimple on a nose, but that's not whatever. But, anyway, it's going to stick out there, but I think it would be safer for the people if it was kind of around the comer rather than sticking right out into the narrow part of the waterway. So if he could come to an agreement of moving it up that way, I think that would help. Also, we are not in agreement -- none of us are in agreement with anything tied outside because it really will protrude out too far in the waterway. And I'll end with the fact that I'm not an expert. I'm just a homeowner and concerned homeowner. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you, and I'll enter your e-mail into the record. I did print it out, and it will be entered into the record. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: B.J., is that your bottom line, that the same dock be moved around to the comer is what you're looking for? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Without the temporary tie-up. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: So what he's looking for is the 35 feet Page 19 September 20, 2001 from his property line, but the dock will only stick out 20 feet. There are other docks, you know-- well, the ones across the waterway are out 30 feet, so how can we say, "No, you can't." We're trying to be reasonable. We want everybody to be happy, but we don't want -- we don't want to set a precedent where people can go out so far. This is going to be a very busy waterway. We're looking at 56 boats down at Regatta coming and going. That doesn't -- you know, 56 boats added to the ones that are already there. There are a lot of boating people back there. We have a lot of visitors that come and come out of Wiggins Pass and down in our area. I know you can't look at the future of Regatta, but I'm just telling you that is in the future. Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ma'am, can I ask a question? Do you know what the water speed is at the waterway? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: At that particular point, it's low speed. They have -- and you can see it on my picture. They have "slow speed" or "no wake," and there are also "manatee area" signs at the bulkheads -- at the seawalls. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If you were to want a desired width what you would feel safe for boats to pass, what width would you be looking? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Well, you know, we only want 20 feet, but this is not possible with this land because it goes in 15, so we have to look at 35 feet. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm talking about the width of the waterway -- MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Oh, the width of the waterway-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The width of this waterway is going to end up -- with the one across the way and the one you're talking about now, you'd end up with about 140-feet wide. Is that problematic for boats to pass over 140-foot width? Page 20 September 20, 2001 MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Wouldn't seem to be, would it? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's why I'm asking. I just don't know. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: I can only tell you what it appears to be. I don't live on the end of any of these streets. I know that people don't obey the speed laws. I know that they fly in because they're coming in -- they come under the bridge from Bluebill from over where it's more open area from Turkey Bay. They come under the bridge. They're always going fast. They slam on their brakes. They try to make no wake zone. It's a quiet area back there. We don't want a lot of fast-moving boats, so they do have the speed there. Is my five minutes up? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think we should probably halt, because you've made your points and you're not an expert witness, and we'll save our questions to the next -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could I ask one question just in clarification? There are, of course, other boat docks? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I suppose they also have visitors from time to time. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: I would suppose. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What are the accommodations for other boats that come in? Where do they tie up? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Well, they, obviously, have to tie up somewhere around the homeowner's boat dock. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So if they might tie up on the outside of the boat dock because there's -- if there's no other way to tie up ... MS. SAVARD-BOYER: If we had a visitor come to our house, they would tie up on the outside of the boat dock. They would tie up Page 21 September 20, 2001 closer to the seawall. They would tie one rope to one of the pilings at the end, and they would tie a rope to the nearest tree. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So your experience is that no one would tie up to an existing boat dock if they came to visit you? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Not the boat docks that I'm familiar with because if they got off the boat, they'd be on the outside of our dock. They wouldn't have anything to stand up on. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I just wanted to see what your experience was. Thank you. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Next registered public speaker. MR. BELLOWS: The next speaker is Frank Hallus. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And the one following that.'? MR. BELLOWS: Burt Saunders. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. He's close. MR. HALLUS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Frank Hallus. I live at 405 Flamingo Avenue, and I'm here today to discuss this boat-dock situation that's on Heron Street. In the course of this building of this house, I think one of things that come into being here is that if you look at where the plotted line is, okay, what's caused all this whole problem is you look at where the plotted line of property is. And if you look at the extension that was put out here -- now, what's happened is in the course of building this house, the property owner wanted to -- I'm sure wanted to make sure that he had a large enough backyard. So neither the builder and the owner or just the builder took it on themselves to backfill in this area (indicating), okay, to extend this property. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And in your report you're pointing to this area? Excuse me, sir. Just stay at the microphone and just sort of give Page 22 September 20, 2001 us an idea. MR. HALLUS: Okay. If you look at where the property line is, okay, and if you look -- this isn't -- I wish we could get the whole picture here. What I do -- I got some pictures here. Do we have an overhead that I could put this on? Okay. I think this would work better. Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Stand in front of the mike -- right there. MR. HALLUS: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: There you go. MR. HALLUS: Where we at here? Okay. This is what you -- this is the picture that's in here, but if you notice this portion right here has been extended out by either the builder-- and whether they've gotten a permit for this, I'm not sure of. And here's what a picture of this looks like today (indicating). Okay. Let's see if this shows up. If you notice, here's the neighbor's seawall which stops here (indicating). Now, if you notice the rock comes all the way out to here (indicating), and the dock here at the north that was brought up by B.J. in the prior discussion of the compromise of moving the dock to this location. Where the gentleman is talking about is at this very point here. That's the area of discussion where the dock is to be -- the proposed dock is to be put, okay. And I got another picture here of where the proposed dock is to be put where this walkway presently is here (indicating). Now, if you look -- if you get a picture of the site where the dock's going to be, you can see that all this is brand-new riprap in here. And, in fact, you can see where the fence comes down, where he's extended his property (indicating), okay. And there's also some steps that come down here (indicating) that are already permanent in this riprap with Page 23 September 20, 2001 the intent of putting a dock here. And the compromise position also has a set of steps there. I don't know -- I'm going back to the first picture here where the compromise is, okay. Now, we've gotten a lot of discussion here about -- excuse me -- let me get my notes here. We've gotten a lot of discussion here about temporary boat and so on. As it was brought up the waterway at that point is the narrowest point, which is going to be about 140 feet or 130 feet. In the proposal it brings up that there's going to be a 28- foot boat moored there. And then in the discussion of about three or four locations in this proposal, it makes a very strong point of a temporary boat to be moored on the outside. And I think that's what raises the flag because it sounds to me like this gentleman plans to have his boat moored in the sling of 28-foot, and then he's going to have another boat, whether it's his buddy's or whether this guy is going to want another boat, and he wants to moor it on the outside. He doesn't say this is going to be a 28-foot boat that's going to be moored on the outside. He only says in the proposal here that it is going to be a boat. Now, it could be a 50-foot boat, 50 foot in length, and that would be somewhere between a 16- and 18-foot beam, okay, beam being the width of the boat that it would protrude out from the pilings. Now, the builder of the dock says, "Well, if we were going to put the boat there permanently, we'd put pilings out there." Well, you don't really need to put pilings out there because it's a no-wake zone and it's a manatee zone. What we're concerned about is narrowing the waterway to any narrower than it is. As brought up in the prior discussion by B.J., we're also facing the additional impact of additional boats being put into this whole big basin area with the coming on line of Regatta, and we also know that there's going to be a proposal for a boat dock -- additional boat docks coming up on the Dunes eventually, okay. Page 24 September 20, 2001 Now, you're probably saying, "Well, what's that got to do with this?" Because people that have boats are going to come back and do a sight-seeing tour of all that beautiful bay area because it is very picturesque. And what we're trying to do is keep the aesthetics of that area the way it is. We feel -- or I feel also -- I agree with B.J., that the compromise of just putting a 20-foot boat dock out there on the north side of his property with no temporary docking. Now, I presently have a boat myself, and my boat stays in the slings. And if somebody comes and visits with me, they can tie the boat on the outside. But this is temporary -- by temporary being one or two hours and that's it; not days, weeks, or months. Any time you say "temporary," the boat could sit there for eleven months and be gone or two hours out in the Gulf, and that would constitute that being only docked temporary. So since this has come up as an issue, that's one of the big concerns, and we'd like to see the proposed dock be located on the north side here if possible. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I do believe you need to leave that picture since it's-- MR. HALLUS: I can leave the picture, and I can leave the other picture too. I'm sorry. MR. BELLOWS: We'd like it for the record. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Might I ask a question? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Why don't we -- well, okay. Is it very specific of him? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. I didn't catch what you said the waterway width was from your experience. MR. HALLUS: The waterway width is probably 140 feet that's navigable because you don't come right up to the person's dock or -- Page 25 September 20, 2001 you keep some -- it's kind of a courtesy in boating to stay off the person's dock by at least 10 or 15 feet. So if you got a boat out there that's moored temporarily, plus if that's a 50-foot boat, God only knows -- I'm just using worst-case scenario. Fifty foot in length would be equivalent to 18-foot beam width, okay. So you got the additional width of the dock plus the 18 foot of the boat plus the custom is to stay about 15 to 20 feet off a person's property. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just for clarification, I hope you understand, we don't regulate sizes of boats. We regulate sizes of docks. MR. HALLUS: Well, I understand that, but I'm using the 50 foot as an example that, worst-case scenario -- the footage of the boat doesn't have anything to do with it. It's the beam of the boat, okay. I'm saying that if you got a 28-foot boat, normally the beam runs 10 to 12 foot, okay. If you have a 50-foot boat, you're looking at a beam, which is the width of the boat that would be sitting on the dock. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Burt Saunders. MR. SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, my name is Burt Saunders. I with the Woodward, Pires & Lombardo law firm. We don't have any -- and I'm representing the Vanderbilt Yacht and Racquet Club. Tony Pires would have normally been here for this but is, unfortunately, up in Fort Myers this morning. I want to focus on the temporary issue, that extra ten feet, because, quite frankly, we don't have any particular problem with the 20 feet plus the 3 feet to get over the riprap -- the 23 feet of the constructed wooden dock, we have no problem with. And, quite frankly, I didn't have a serious problem with the temporary nature of mooring a boat temporarily on the end of that, but now the application has been changed. And it's been changed to that 10 feet Page 26 September 20, 2001 that was going to be temporary for mooring of a boat has now become an application for 10 feet of permanent dockage. And I guess that raises two questions: No. 1, is this a new application at this point, and if it is, we need some more time to evaluate that being permanent. And, No. 2, if you do make that permanent, can they go out there and build 10 feet more of wooden dock and then moor a boat on the end of it. So I think you have two choices this morning in terms of that extra 10 feet. Eliminate it in its entirety so that they are operating the way everybody else does. They get their 20 feet plus the 3 feet, the constructed area, and they know that under current law they can continue to moor a boat out there temporarily anyway. So just drop that out in its entirety. But if you're going to go to make that permanent, then I need to have some time to evaluate whether that means that they can actually construct a ! O-feet-more dock out there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Certainly, Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It would seem that even under your worst-case scenario they would still fall within the code that is less than 25 percent. MR. SAUNDERS: That may very well be the case, but I'm suggesting that is now a new application, and my client hasn't had an opportunity to evaluate it. None of the neighbors will have had an opportunity to evaluate it, and whether it's within that 25 feet may very well be -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Twenty-five percent. MR. SAUNDERS: -- or 25 percent may very well be. I don't know. But you're adding -- what I'm suggesting is that you may be having the 20 feet of constructed dock, 10 feet more of constructed dock, and then another 10 feet of a boat moored out there. And Page 27 September 20, 2001 whether -- that may very well be still within the 25 percent rule, but I don't think that's an appropriate thing for this commission to do, to change this application this morning. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You can't figure all those numbers out that quickly -- MR. SAUNDERS: I'm a lawyer. I'm not a mathematician. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I have a question. I need some advice from counsel. Ms. Student, do you feel that we now have a new application or we have an application that we're attempting to revise here? Clarify, please. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Or neither. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Or neither. MS. STUDENT: I think it's probably an amended -- it could be construed as an amended application, and just -- and I have to talk with staff about what one might be able to do if that's considered permanent. And I think Mr. Yovanovich is -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'll let you clarify that. Mr. Bellows, do you have a staff point? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I'd just like to say the advertisement for this item indicates they are requesting a 25-foot boat-dock extension. That means there's not an amendment to the petition. They are including that 10 feet in their request for boat-dock extension. Therefore, there is no --"temporary" does not come into play in this issue. It's just a term the applicant used to make it know n -- most instances there won't be a boat that comes all the way out which would reach 45 feet into the waterway. We're just saying that as a matter of courtesy. But the actual request is for the 45-foot protrusion into the waterway and an extension of 25 feet over the county regulations. So, therefore, it's not an amended petition. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Can I ask a question? Page 28 September 20, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. I just wanted to make sure that that was clarified. Thank you. Clarified in my mind. Yes, Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm sorry. I'm a little confused. Part of this Richard said that the property line is going to be moved, basically, to the seawall line or the riprap line by a legal maneuver you had talked about, not by deed. If that's the case then, wouldn't we be remeasuring the 45 feet because the diagram I have in front of me shows 45 feet from the plotted line? Now, if you remeasure that, you're looking at a change in depth into the waterway, and does that change the application? MR. YOVANOVICH: May I respond to that? There is no change into the depth -- into the waterway under both analyses. We're the same distance into the waterway, okay? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I agree with your statement, Richard, but the way it's written is what I'm questioning. MR. YOVANOVICH: We've always been the depth of the waterway. The question is: How much of an extension are we asking for? If you use the platted line -- it's 40 -- the total facility is 45 feet. However, as I pointed out, by operation of law, because this portion of property was filled prior to 1975, the distance between the platted line and the riprap is now owned by my client, meaning the property line is now the mean high-water line, not the platted line. So what I'm saying is we are here asking for, in a worst-case scenario, at the widest point of that little strip, a 3-foot extension plus the 10 feet for the temporary vessel. Now I'm a little confused because I've got Mr. Pires in a law firm saying "temporary" -- there's no such thing as "temporary" -- and I've got another lawyer in the firm saying we don't want "permanent." Now, the firm's got to figure out which one they want. I only made the change and addressed the issue of-- let's not call it Page 29 September 20, 2001 temporary anymore in response to Mr. Pires' comment. The facts don't change. The worst-case scenario, if there were a vessel there at our facility all the time, it would extend 30 feet into the waterway. If there was a vessel across the waterway there all the time, it would extend 35 feet into the waterway. Now, I'm just a lawyer, too, but I can do simple arithmetic. That's 65 feet. You subtract-- let's use 200, which is 201 feet, but I can do 200 in my head 200; 200 minus 65 feet leaves a waterway clear of 135 feet. Your normal application -- by right, on 100-foot- wide canal, you can go 20 feet, 20 feet leaving a clear waterway of 60 feet. We're more than double that. I would assume that's more than safe under a worst-case scenario of there being a vessel out there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I think-- MR. YOVANOVICH: In response to the question -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. I'm indulging in allowing you to respond, but now Mr. Saunders does have the floor, and I want to hear the rest of his presentation. MR. SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, we have a couple problems here. First of all, when I met with the petitioner this morning, we were talking about a 20-foot constructed dock and 10 feet of temporary mooring, and I certainly understood that. And we also clarified that this was not going to be 45 feet into the waterway; it was going to be 20 feet plus the 3 or 4 for the riprap. So that's why we don't have a particular problem with the temporary issue of mooring a boat because we know that that can happen anyway. I want to make two points. First of all, in reference to the application, we're looking at the entire application. There's a diagram that shows constructed wooden construction 20 feet going out in to the waterway 20 feet. The application says in a couple of places -- and I'll read it on the one page -- (as read): "most docks in the residential area extend out 20 feet, but they are located in the Page 30 September 20, 2001 man-made canals. The applicant's dock only extends 20 feet from the shoreline, but the property line is 15 feet. We are requesting 45 feet in order to temporarily tie up a boat on the outside of the dock." Again, they're saying their application is for a 20-foot constructed dock and temporary mooring of another 10 feet. Now, the application --just a few moments ago -- changed from 10 feet of temporary to 10 feet of permanent. We can sit here all day long and say, "Well, you know, everybody's changing their minds." But that's exactly what's happened. I'm telling you from a legal standpoint -- not a mathematical standpoint in terms of what the county's standards are -- but from a legal standpoint I don't know if that means that they can build another 10 feet of wooden dock or not. And I don't think anybody in this room can answer that question if they'd make that a permanent dock extension out the 30 feet. So I'm suggesting simply that we either stick with the original application, which is a 20-foot dock with temporary mooring, or you drop the temporary mooring in its entirety because they can moor a boat out there anyway. But to change the application this morning is, I think, fundamentally unfair to all the property owners out there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have another registered speaker? Mr. Wolfley, yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I've got a question. Is this not what goes into the records as far as what they are going to do, the 20-foot dock? Does this go into the records, and for permits and so on this is what we're looking at? As far as building an extra 10 feet, wouldn't they have to come back and get another permit to build that? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. And yes, sir. And it would be more than another permit. They would have to come back to this Planning Commission to add additional deck area to the dock that they're showing on that plan. Typically, we allow no more than a field adjustment to, for instance, avoid mangroves on the site and no Page 31 September 20, 2001 other major changes in the configuration. So they would have to come back to us to add additional deck area; that's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Does that satisfy you, Mr. Saunders? MR. SAUNDERS: Absolutely not. If you change the word "temporary" in this application to "permanent," then -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't see permanent in the application. MR. SAUNDERS: The record has been stated -- let me clarify this. You have a written application in front of you. If this is what you approve with the use of the word "temporary," then I'm not going to have an objection. But the attorney for the petitioner had said, "Let's change the word "temporary" to "permanent," and I'm saying if you do that, then we have an objection, and I think you're doing something that is fundamentally not fair to the property owners out there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't seem to recall exactly -- not trying to be argumentative, but I don't think he said, "Change it." I said consider that it even were permanent, it was only 35 feet out, or -- I'm sorry -- 30 feet out from the shoreline. That's what I heard. I didn't hear, "change the petition." MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Wolfley, that's exactly what I said. And my comment was in response to Mr. Pires' comment to the chairperson that temporary appears not to be allowed under the code. So, naturally, on my client's behalf, I'm protecting the record for purposes of potential appeal to the Board of County Commissioners based on you-all approving a temporary vessel that doesn't appear to be called on under the code. Now, if I try to address Mr. Pires' concern, I now am potentially exposed -- MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Pires is not here, Mr. Yovanovich, so let's talk about what I'm saying, not that you think Mr. Pires may Page 32 September 20, 2001 be -- you think Mr. Pires may be saying, okay? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Do we have other registered public speakers? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have one more other registered speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Diane Ketcham. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: And the next one after that is Carol Wright. MS. KETCHAM: What I wanted to say -- and now we're in the middle of something else. My name is Diane Ketcham, K-e-t-c-h-a- m. I am a board member of Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association, which represents more than 700 homeowners in the Vanderbilt Beach area. And my husband and I own on Gulf Shore Drive. We have a dock and a boat on Vanderbilt Lagoon just south of the property that we're discussing, and every time we take our boat out, we pass this property. This is the only way out of the lagoon. First a positive. I just want to say the house that was built there is a lovely home. It's one of the few where we don't have a monster house. They built a house according to the size of the property. So that's the positive for the homeowner. And, second, Vanderbilt Beach and Bay fully supports the right of a private homeowner to build a dock adjacent to his or her property, but there are some problems here. First of all, this piece of land we're talking about is the most narrow part of the lagoon. In the weeks and months ahead, builders and developers are going to be before you to add more boat docks to the lagoon with Regatta, the Dunes, and this will be the only way that people are going to be going. They're going to be going right past this piece of property. If this dock protrudes out too far, it will become a navigation hazard. This water is not, you know, ten foot deep across. We have to Page 33 September 20, 2001 go a certain narrow way through. So although we're talking 140 feet, we've got people jostling in low water much nearer to each other. Also what the problem is -- it's been discussed many times -- some time before, whether it was in the '70s or whatever, somebody took it upon themselves to take 15 feet of our waterway and put the riprap out. Now the riprap has been piled up. Before, it's my understanding that you could possibly put the boat dock over some of the riprap because it was low. Now it's really high, and you've got to deal with it out. Therefore, that 15 feet is lost to us forever. We're talking about temporary versus permanent. I think the petitioner's been very honest. They said-- and we-all heard it back there -- change it to permanent. So even if they are saying "temporary," we're talking permanent. And you've got to decide whether or not you're going to allow them another 10 feet. I don't begrudge them -- I'm sure the association doesn't begrudge them a 20-foot dock. The way they have it planned sideways, parallel to the seawall or riprap is exactly like everybody else does, and they should be allowed a dock. But when you're dealing with allowing them to extend past the dock and tie up something with you giving them the official go-ahead to tie it up for whatever amount of time and whatever size boat because who is going to be the marshal saying, "You only have 10 feet. The boat you tied up today is 15 feet wide." Whatever they tie up is going to be there, and we're not sure how long it's going to be there. It's definitely going to affect our navigation. There's a lot of growth going on here in Vanderbilt Beach, but there can be no growth in our waterway. Our waterway is what it is, and that's why we're here to protect it. We're going to be here before you every time there's a boat extension, any time there's talk about putting marinas or boat docks on Vanderbilt Lagoon because we now know that when we didn't say anything in the past, things just Page 34 September 20, 2001 happened. So we're all here today to say, "Yes, let the homeowner have his dock. We would love it to be moved to the north end." If you look at that land, it gets much wider. I don't think there'd be a problem, and that's what I have to say. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ma'am, can I ask one question? MS. KETCHAM: Sure. I'm hearing a voice, and I can't -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's me. You had mentioned that the navigable part of the waterway varies because you have different elevations and depths of the water. MS. KETCHAM: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wouldn't your shallowest points be near the shore and your deepest points be nearest the center? MS. KETCHAM: Absolutely, absolutely. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. KETCHAM: I mean, it doesn't affect where their dock is that that would make their waterway be more. But the problem is that that -- you hear 140 and you think, wow, that's so big. Well, we've got the Nautilus, you know, sight-seeing boats. It's not like we all have just little canoes going by. 140 feet on a main waterway is not that wide, and that's our concern. And as we said before, there are people -- it's an idle-wake zone. People totally disregard that. We've got jet ski people racing by, etc. We've talked to code enforcement. We've talked to the Marine Bureau. I know it's not the Planning Commission's department-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. KETCHAM: -- to take care of this, but it is a problem there. And it does affect our lifestyle, and it does affect our safety. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a quick question, Page 35 September 20, 2001 again, if I may. Again, from your experience to boaters that -- I suppose you have a boat? MS. KETCHAM: We have a boat. We have a boat dock on the lagoon. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Does anyone ever come to visit you and tie up at your boat dock? MS. KETCHAM: We have a different type of boat dock. On the side with the homes, people are parallel to the shore. They have boat slips where they come in sideways. We have ""T" docks, so we have a dock that comes out, and we have an open dock next to us where the people don't have a boat, and that's where people come. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: They only extend 20 feet where you are then? MS. KETCHAM: Exactly, I believe. That was the law so... COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And they don't tie up on the outside then? MS. KETCHAM: They don't -- they would come in into our seawall. So we don't have that. But, yes, people tie up temporarily. I'm afraid you're officially giving them the designation to have people permanently tie up there versus us when just-- you know, when somebody comes, they come. That's our concern. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. One more registered speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, Carol Wright. MS. WRIGHT: My name is Carol Wright, W-r-i-g-h-t, and I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association representing over 700 members. I did have a speech here today, but I just want to tell you that I feel all the issues have been presented here, and we do agree with all these speakers and what they're saying. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Gochenaur, you have something to Page 36 September 20, 2001 contribute? MR. GOCHENAUR: As a point of clarification, as Mr. Bellows has point out, the code doesn't define "temporary," so if you have a 20-foot permitted dock and you moor a boat outside that for 10 minutes, you are in violation of the code. If you moor it for a year, you're in violation of the code. "Temporary" is temporary. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Do we have any other clarifications from the petitioner, Mr. Scofield? MR. SCOFIELD: If I may just real quickly -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: sliding the dock around the comer? MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: all? Are you going to talk about That's not on the table at MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir. The owner has it situated where he'd like it. We more than meet all the criteria. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I know. MR. SCOFIELD: We are 25 feet away from the property line. We are way over 50 percent of the waterway. Everybody says this is the narrowest part of the waterway. There are three ends of the streets that have the exact or close to the same waterway width, that being the point on Flamingo, Heron, and the one next to it here (indicating). These three all have the same widths across it at one point on there. Some of them a little further, but they have the same points. The depth in this waterway, it's more than five feet from the outside of this dock to the outside of the docks on the other side. There is no sandbars or anything in this channel. This is deep, navigable water the entire way across. You're hearing a lot things, 50-foot boat tied up; that'd be illegal. We're not asking for that. If he did then we'd be cited, and we'd have Page 37 September 20, 2001 to come back. So there's just so many things that are thrown in to confuse. What we're asking for is very simple and very way under what's allowed for. It's just -- on the other side, there's 35 feet of permanent dock out there, permanent dock. Not if they tie up a boat, but it's permanent. You have a finger dock and a mooring piling out 35 feet. And someone could back in a 50-foot boat over there and be sticking out another 15 feet, and my guess is that nobody would ever say a thing. The gentleman that came up here and talked for quite a while, he admitted he has people tie up at his dock for an hour or two. Well, I don't care. If a person ties up for five minutes and it hangs out over 20 feet, he's illegal. When I make a petition, I come in here and I lay all the cards on the table. And I say, "We may tie a boat up there." I don't care if it's permanent, temporary, or whatever, but we're allowing for that to happen because almost everybody up there has a boat tied up to his dock at one time or another, and they are going to exceed the 20 feet. But they think that's fine, but the fact that we're showing that we're going to do it, people get upset. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And, Mr. Scofield, as I asked earlier and it was pointed out, it's not in the resolution, so we are not permanently saying forever that it's temporary in the resolution. MR. WOLFLEY: Mr. Scofield, you are obviously very knowledgeable in the area that you're just showing, and you said that each of the end of street -- Heron and Egret and so on, they are all the same width, the waterway is all the same width. Now, are there similar boat dock -- are you familiar with the boat docks on the other streets at the ends, those end properties, and how far do they extend? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, this is a '96 aerial, so it does not show on here. There are docks that are extending out on Flamingo. On the end there is one out that appears to be over 20 feet as it scales here. I Page 38 September 20, 2001 have not been over to the site. They tie a boat there, then you're in the same situation. Where it narrows down is right here (indicating). On the next street over -- I forget the name of it -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Egret. MR. SCOFIELD: Egret. On Egret -- Egret is the narrowest. It's actually narrower than we are, but there are no docks on this point. I believe this is the Monte Carlo Club, okay. The docks in the Monte Carlo Club are on the north end. They're not on this end. Not to say they couldn't ever build them there because they can if they were to go back and permit them, more docks, but up till now they haven't. So that waterway width is narrower. So if they came in for docks, they could go out 20 or 30 feet in there, and then you're only going to have a waterway width of maybe a hundred feet if they build out there. So the navigation is not a problem. It's an idle speed zone. There's more than enough navigation in this area. The owner's asking for a 20-foot dock, 23 feet out, and to me it's not a big issue. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve Petition BD-2001-AR-985. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd and a second by Mr. Abernathy to approve this petition. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'd just like to make a quick comment. I appreciate the fact that the residents have come down to express their concerns, and I can share your concern because we see a lot of growth and building taking place in Collier County Page 39 September 20, 2001 from this perspective. And as your waterway begins -- almost seems smaller because more and more people come in and more and more people build to take advantage of that. And I know you have the Regatta problem down at the end, and we have, perhaps, code violations as far as people actually using that waterway is concerned, but I hope you appreciate that we have a code. Now, if the code is wrong, then we all should be working on trying to change that. We have a code, and we're trying to apply it here. And it would certainly seem that based on our motion and action we'll take here, that we believe that that code has been fairly enforced here. That 100 feet, 100 plus feet, actually 135 feet is much wider than we have many other waterways where we have legal boat docks. So we hear your concern, but I'm certainly going to join with my fellow commissioners in casting a favorable vote. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now, that's a presumption. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, you've got at least tWO. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other discussion or comments from the commissioners? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's been a lot of discussion. We are reconsidering this as submitted, as applied? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That is correct. That is the motion. Okay. Hearing no further discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. Page 40 September 20, 2001 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. Motions carries. Thank you. Next item for public hearing is BD -2001-AR-938, a 35-foot boat-dock extension on Keewaydin Island. All those wishing to give testimony today please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All witnesses were administered the oath by the court reporter.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Do we have any disclosures on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing none, Mr. Gochenaur. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services. The petitioner's requesting a 45-foot extension create a docking facility protruding a total of 65 feet into a waterway which is about 600 feet wide. The property's located on Keewaydin Island and contains about 157 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. There are no residents on the property; however, the Land Development Code allows docks as a permanent principal use on bridge barrier islands such as Keewaydin. We received no objections to this proposal, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions of staff?. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, I have one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On the second page of the Page 41 September 20, 2001 extension petition, Ross, it referenced -- it says (as read): "Current zoning and land use of subject property, A-ST vacant lot." Then you add language that says (as read): "proposed dock and house in the near future." Why is that relevant to the question being asked, and is it necessary to include that kind of language in that category on these applications if it isn't something that's been applied for and approved at the time this application's filled out? MR. GOCHENAUR: Some commissioners have expressed concern in the past that boat docks are not appropriate on unimproved lots. And I believe this was the petitioner explaining that while the code does allow such a dock, that the property owners do intend to build on it in the immediate future. It's more informational. It's not a requirement. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I could be dead wrong on my assumption on this, but it does not seem to answer the question that's being asked, which is the current zoning and the current land use. I mean -- because you don't have a dock there right now, and there is no house right now. And I'm just wondering if we need to even reference it. Is that something that's necessary? MR. GOCHENAUR: Well, actually it does answer the question of zoning. It's A-ST and it does answer the question current land use. It's a vacant lot. It's unimproved property -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. GOCHENAUR: But it goes a little bit further in adding additional information that some of the commissioners might feel useful. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that has been an issue on almost every boat-dock extension out at Keewaydin Island. We've asked if there's a house there. If there's not -- and, in fact, most any other extensions we've always clarified whether there is a house under construction at the time. So I think they were giving us additional Page 42 September 20, 2001 information. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And since that information isn't subject to approval or review of this board, they could simply put down proposed dock house or hotel. I mean, it really wouldn't matter at this point. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. There's a requirement ordinarily -- not at Key Island, I don't think, but ordinarily there's a requirement that a dock can only be built on an improved lot. So if there's nothing on the lot, you can't build a dock. On Key Island, you have to build the dock first -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- so you can build a house. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's an exception on Key Island. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But every place else the code requires that docks only be built on improved lots, so if it's vacant, it doesn't pass the test. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Except on Key Island. MS. STUDENT: I just want to add a point of further clarification that if someone other than on Key Island had a lot on which they had not yet built their house and then came in for a boat- dock extension, presently that could be granted, but they wouldn't get their permit or anything until the principal structure was up. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Does the applicant care to present? MR. SCOFIELD: I don't have anything to add unless -- excuse me, Rocky Scofield for the record representing Mr. McVicker. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. I guess, Mr. Strain, I always offer too much information on my applications. Maybe I should restrict them not to confuse issues. But that's why we did it. The owner is in the process of having a house Page 43 September 20, 2001 drawn up and is going to be going there, but normally, I do all these docks on Key Island. Most of them are vacant lots, but the thing that's going on right now is a lot of people are building homes on Key Island, and he's in the plans of doing that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one other question about your paperwork, Rocky. The last two pages, your diagram shows a 5 by 28 -- on the second-to-the-last page, very last page -- calls the dock at 5 by 32. Is that the same and I'm just not reading it right? MR. SCOFIELD: I had three -- the DEP has cut me down twice on this plan. We're very restricted on Key Island. It's an aquatic preserve. We're very limited at what we can build there. At first I wanted to put a little -- cut the end dock down to 28 feet and put a little catwalk on the other side of the lift. DEP would not let me do that because they classified that as part of the terminal platform, and you are only -- you're only allowed to have 160 square feet of what they deem a terminal platform. And the fact that the little catwalk is connected by a walkway to the terminal platform, they deem all of that as the terminal platform, which puts me over the 160 square feet. So I had to revise it, go back, we made the end dock, again, 32 feet long. We eliminated the catwalk on the inside. So that's what's being built here. The issue, which you're here today here for, is just the distance out. The county doesn't restrict you to the square footage, but the State does. The State says you can have no more than 500 square feet of deck, and it's very restrictive. But we're here today -- and also the distance out, again, on Key Island-- you know, this guy's pretty close in compared to a lot of the docks because he's got deep water. The State only allows you to go to minus four feet at mean low water, an aquatic preserve. It's not a very good rule, and they're trying to change it, but that's all they allow us to go out. They are trying to discourage larger Page 44 September 20, 2001 vessels, and it hasn't worked. It's actually counterworked against the manatee issues and seagrasses, but the law being as it is we can only go out to minus four. And that's the distance to the end of the dock. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Rocky, I think in the future I'd stay away from temporary and permanent, if I were you, particularly since we don't know what they are. MR. SCOFIELD: Again, I offer too much information. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And you're not an attorney. Okay. Do we have any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No public speakers. I'll 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-938. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Pedone and a second by Mr. Budd to approve this petition. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: BUDD: Aye. PEDONE: Aye. RICHARDSON: STRAIN: Aye. WOLFLEY: Aye. YOUNG: Aye. Aye. Aye. Page 45 September 20, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Moving right along to the third item on our agenda, PUDZ-2001-AR-620, a rezone petition relating to Mediterra. All those wishing to provide testimony today please stand, raise your right hand, and be swom in by the court reporter. (All witnesses were administered the oath by the court reporter.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with the current planning staff. Petitioner's requesting to rezone the subject site from agriculture and agricultural with an ST or special treatment overlay to plan a planned unit development to be known as Mediterra PUD. It's having the effect of adding 213.7 acres to the existing Mediterra PUD and will also allow for the placement of a village center on the added lands to the PUD with the limit of 20,000 square foot of floor area. As you can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located north of the east/west Livingston Road, and Livingston Road north/south extends up through. The added lands are on the east side of Livingston Road, and the existing Mediterra PUD is on the west side of Livingston Road. And this kind of shows the added lands to be included into the PUD (indicating). The Growth Management Plan, future land use element lists this area as urban residential in yellowe. The based density is four units per acre. By adding the 213 acres of land to the project, the density overall is reduced to 2. -- or 0.64 units per acre, which is far below the maximum or the based density of four units per acre. This petition will not result in additional dwelling units. Staff has deemed this to be consistent with the future land use element. The traffic impact statement submitted by the applicant is also consistent with the transportation elements of the Growth Page 46 September 20, 2001 Management Plan. The transportation department -- we have Dawn Wolfe here if you have any specific questions with transportation, but it has been deemed consistent with the transportation element. And in regards to compatibility, the development standards have not changed from the existing Mediterra PUD. It's adjacent to other existing PUDs, and I have the master plan here. As you can see, the project has a mix of residential areas highlighted in yellow; lakes in the blue; preserve area along the north, which coincides with the preserve area of the Ronto PUD; Livingston PUD to the north and east (indicating). And the extension of Livingston Road comes up on the west side of this site. The village center has access here (indicating). The existing PUD has golf courses, and there is a village center on this side (indicating) to serve the residents west of Livingston Road. Staff has not received any correspondence for or against this petition and is recommending that the Planning Commission forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That east/west thruway is not there yet, is it? MR. BELLOWS: No. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mediterra, is that the gated community? MR. BELLOWS: I believe I saw a gate to it, yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This village center, then, as in the application says (as read): "Only to serve the residents on the eastern side of Mediterra." That means no one else can go in there but Mediterra people? Page 47 September 20, 2001 MR. BELLOWS: Well, the primary intent of the village center is to serve residents within the PUD. As you can see on the staff report, there is certain criteria that the village center is to meet. When this Mediterra was originally approved, they had some deviations from the specific requirements of what a village center should provide such as sidewalks to integrate the village center with the residential community. The idea is to reduce vehicular trips from the residents to go to other commercial sites outside of this project by having internal neighborhood village center commercial uses. It is hoped that it will serve these residents through bicycle, walking, and/or local trips and would keep off the local arterial road network. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Though the application seems to suggest that they want some forgiveness for some of these commitments. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm not sure how that helps the objective of making the connections internally. MR. BELLOWS: When this project was approved, it was deemed that the type of road networks, cul-de-sacs would serve as sidewalks. And that's how it was approved, and Mr. Reynolds here will provide a little more history on the original approval with those deviations. This is no different from the original approval and the deviations asked at that time and approved at that time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's what I wanted to have clarified, if there was a difference between from the original approval and this approval. MR. BELLOWS: No, there is not. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I wasn't quite clear reading the report. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: As a matter of legal clarification, is this a new PUD now or strike-out and so forth? Page 48 September 20, 2001 MS. STUDENT: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Do we have that information provided to us as to how it was changed from before? Do we have a strike-through version? I didn't notice that on mine. MR. BELLOWS' The copy you have is a clean copy of the PUD document. Collier County Planning Services has initiated a policy now where the applicant submits a draft document of the PUD, and under the review time period that staff has, we take control of the PUD document. It will be in our computer -- it is in our computer system, and we furnish a new PUD document with staffs recommendations and furnish the applicant a copy noting any changes staff has made. In this case we have not made any real -- any changes other than what was originally submitted and agreed to by the applicant. And since this is a PUD-to-PUD rezone, we are, in fact, creating a new PUD document. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So even though we have asked for strike-outs and revised versions for us to see what the changes are, your judgment is that the changes were not significant enough to warrant that effort? MR. BELLOWS: There were no strike-outs in development standards or density or anything else. We are just adding the 213 acres, so it's just actually adding, and that's what we're covering here today in my presentation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You know, it's possible as we go through more of these you might want to make a statement somewhere in your executive summary in light of what we discussed last night in the Land Development Code to know what was or wasn't there is only fair to us to make sure that we understand the changes in the PUD document. Is there anything you can do to give us that information in advance of the meeting? I know one commissioner would greatly appreciate it. Page 49 September 20, 2001 Mr. Wolfley, a question? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The density for this project is 950 units? MR. BELLOWS: The PUD was approved, and as you can see on the visualizer here, part of the project extends into Lee County -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. BELLOWS: -- and the county part. In the staff report, I believe I indicated the total number of dwelling units for the project, and I believe it was -- and Mr. Reynolds can probably find it faster than I can-- 950-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Top of page 2. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. 950 dwelling units overall for the project. That includes the Lee County. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Will the village center that's being proposed service the entire 950 units? MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Reynolds, would you be able to -- MR. REYNOLDS: I can answer that question. MR. BELLOWS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other further questions? We'll save that question for just a moment. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll probably have one more question after that question's answered. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions then? Mrs. Young? We'll save that spot when Mr. Reynolds gets up. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I observed that the Environmental Advisory Committee has approved this, even though it impacts something like 70 percent of wetlands. Could you just tell us a little more about the decision there? Page 50 September 20, 2001 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. When I presented this to the Environmental Advisory Council, the staff report presented by our environmental staff clearly indicated the appropriate mitigation and the quality of the wetland areas were such that the EAC deemed this to be an appropriate mitigation and recommended approval. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can you speak to how much mitigation is actually going to take place, what the acreage is, or is that to be determined? MR. BELLOWS: I believe the staff report indicates the percentages, and Mr. Reynolds, I think, can talk about the actual acreage. I think that would be a good question for him. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Are we through with questioning staff for the moment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Reynolds, you have the floor. MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Alan Reynolds. I'm not Anita Jenkins, who is the agent. As you probably figured out, Anita is on maternity leave right now, so I'm pinch hitting for her. I can forego, I think, a long presentation and maybe just give you a real quick overview and then answer the questions that have been raised. This project was approved by Collier County in 1999, and as Ray has indicated what's before you today is to add property that's east of Livingston Road into the PUD. And the only substantive change that's occurring as part of the addition to that land is to add an additional village center tract within that eastern portion and 20,000 square feet of retail uses as part of that addition. I do -- in response to Mr. Richardson's question, I have a copy of the PUD that we submitted, which is underlined and strike-through. I will tell you that the changes that were made to the PUD were to Page 51 September 20, 2001 change the legal description to add the additional property and then to add into the village center designation the list of retail uses that are allowed by Collier County in this kind of a tract. So those were the substantive changes to the PUD, and if you'd like to look at the underline and strike-through, I can make those available to you. I think in addressing the question about the village center and who it serves, first of all, the village center is a mixed use. So the retail uses are being added specifically as a result of a policy in your comprehensive plan that actually encourages the inclusion of small- scale retail uses within communities. And the reason for that is because without that residents and members of the public generally have to travel to community shopping centers for even there small- scale needs. So it has become an accepted -- in fact, an encouraged practice to include these kinds of uses in neighborhoods and in planned communities. So that's generally seen as a very positive addition and something that works well because what happens is residents then can go to the village center. They can buy a loaf of bread or some daily need. They don't have to get in their car and drive off the project and go to the community shopping center. The village center does serve the entire Mediterra community. It also is not restricted exclusively to the Mediterra residents. I think the language in the application and, in fact, in the county's policy is that it predominantly is oriented to the residents of the community, but that does not require you to prohibit access. So what we've done, which I think is a good practice, is on the village center we are not allowed to have a direct access to the village center from Livingston Road. So we have an access from the entrance road, but it is in front of the gate. So what that does is allow someone who might live here (indicating) or someone on the road to use the facilities at the village center. And we also have a connection internal to the project so that Page 52 September 20, 2001 residents can go to the village center without having to get on the external road system. To put the question of that use in perspective, 20,000 square feet of retail uses is a relatively small amount of use. It's about less than half a Publix supermarket, and that has to accommodate all of the retail uses that we're allowed to have. So I think it gives you an indication that these are pretty small-scale retail uses, but they do serve an important function, and it's something that's good for the community. The deviations that are referenced in the staff report -- and there are three -- are because in your Land Development Code there are some guidelines as far as how specifically to design a village center within a PUD, but also there's flexibility allowed so that you can adjust to conditions within the project. In the case of the pedestrian comment, we do as was indicated have a very detailed pedestrian system spelled out in the PUD that is consistent with your Land Development Code with three or four exceptions that have been noted and have been approved previously by Collier County. And they really have to do more with the size and location of the pedestrian system, not whether you have one. So just to give you a sense of how it works, if I live here (indicating) in the new area, I can walk to the village center. I can cross Livingston Road and I can walk over to here (indicating). I can get on a loop system here (indicating), so there's a very integrated pedestrian system, and it is pedestrian friendly. It really just has to do with the very specific design standards within the community. The other changes really were more location. It's mostly because the geometry of the site, the fact that we do have a public road that bisects the property, which is not always the case in a planned community, and because of the size of the community. So those, I think, staff have looked at and concurred that those were Page 53 September 20, 2001 reasonable standards to have in the PUD. Did I answer all the questions, or was there -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think somebody wanted to know the acreage of the mitigation. Is there a number of acres? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. The question about impact to begin with, the reason that there's a fairly large amount of impact is because the quality of the wetlands on the site have been substantially degraded. In some cases we have areas that are defined to be jurisdictional wetlands that are monocultures of melaleuca as a for instance, but they technically meet the criteria. So that's why I think EAC when they looked at it said, you know, what we did is we saved the areas that were important to be saved. The mitigation is actually a combination of techniques. We have a substantial amount of mitigation that occurs within the project that's in the form of restoration and enhancement of existing areas. If you've seen the community, there's a very large preserve system in the existing community. There's going to be another preserve system over here (indicating), and because the impacts from past activities have degraded those, part of the mitigation is enhancement and restoration. The other mitigation that's looked at is off-site through the purchase of credits in the mitigation bank. And all the details of that have not been finalized because we are right now in the permitting process with water management district. But I can tell you that the permit has been submitted, that the District is in the process of review. They have not identified any significant issues with the application, and, in fact, a couple of recommendations that came out of that actually caused us to do some slight modifications to the plan. And the plan that you're seeing today is the modified plan, so we expect them to find that to be adequate. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain, did you get your questions Page 54 September 20, 2001 answered then? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one more. On your utility provisions Sheet No. 7, you reference the population being served as 600 people. How does that coincide to the whole project? MR. REYNOLDS: Can you point me to what you're looking at? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's on the memorandum from the county staff. It's a statement of utility provisions for standard rezone requests, Item No. 7. I'm not sure if this was something filled out by the applicant or county staff, but I just had a question about the number of people being served. It's quite a ways into the packet. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. That's from the rezone application. The statement of utility provisions for standard rezone request is completed by the petitioner and submitted with their application. And total population served, approximately 600 people. So that's for MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. I think the reason for that number is because what they did is they took the number of units that we would expect to have within the 217 acres that are being added to the PUD and mm that into a population. So that if you think about what you're really reviewing here is the addition of the 217 acres of land, and so if, for example, we have approximately 200 units and project that forward, that would be the population of approximately 600, but the overall project would have a higher population than that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Doesn't this -- I mean, doesn't this statement of utility provisions try to determine the needs for water and sewer and other utilities? And if you're going to be serving a population larger than what's stated here, wouldn't that affect the demands on the rest of the utilities that are -- MR. REYNOLDS: It would, except those demands have Page 55 September 20, 2001 already been reviewed and approved by Collier County as a part of the original review of this. So we're not rereviewing the entire project at this point, even though, technically, it's a complete rezone. The only thing that is actually being changed is the addition of the land without any addition of additional units. So I think you could have probably done it both ways. The fact is that the county has already reviewed the overall population of the project. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, from county staffs viewpoint then, if No. 7 was answered, say, with 2,000 people, it wouldn't make a difference to the calculations in No. 8? MR. BELLOWS: Basically, we're approving the total number of dwelling units listed in the PUD document, not on the application, which is a general estimate submitted to utilities. The actual PUD document is sent to utilities for review, and they review the total number of dwelling units within both the Lee County portion and the Collier County portion. So they have the overall view of this project along with easements, drainage areas. All utility requirements specific to this project have been sent to them. They review the entire package including the PUD document, so they know exactly how many dwelling units are being proposed as a maximum. And it should be pointed out that most PUD developments such as this do not approach the total maximum they're allowed. It's just part of the planning process where they list general planning principle, how much they think they can fit it in, but as market conditions arise the types of larger lot units -- just about every PUD that is developed in Northern Collier County is far below the permitted density that they are approved at. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I understand all that, but this was inconsistent with other parts of the document, and that's what spurred my question. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Page 56 September 20, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Alan, how about jogging my memory and telling me why this isn't a DRI. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. The DRI threshold in Collier County up to spring of this past year was 1,000 dwelling units. The entire project has 950 dwelling units in both counties. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Both counties. MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. So at the time that the original project was reviewed, we had to go through a process with the State to have them look at it to make a determination as to whether or not it would be a DRI even though we were below the threshold. The State found that we would not be a DRI at that point in time. Since that time, every time -- for example, in this case we had to go back to the State and have them look, again, at the changes that we were proposing to make a new determination as to whether or not we now are a DRI. They have done that with this particular petition. They have again concluded that it is not a DRI. I would footnote that since that time the DRI threshold in Collier County has now changed. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That was going to be my next question. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, it has. Because of the census results, our threshold is now 2,000 units rather than 1,000 units. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions of Mr. Reynolds? Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I am just curious. I observe that the outgoing road ends up in Lee County. Is that Bonita Beach Road? MR. REYNOLDS: Unfortunately, this exhibit doesn't go all the way to Bonita Beach Road, but this is Livingston Road here (indicating). Page 57 September 20, 2001 COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Right. MR. REYNOLDS: Livingston Road is in the process of being constructed as we speak up to Bonita Beach Road. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Right. MR. REYNOLDS: By the end of the year, there will be two lanes of Livingston Road that will connect to Bonita Beach Road. So this is under construction (indicating). This exists right now (indicating), but the plan is that when the construction's completed, it will connect up to Bonita Beach Road. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I understand that, but I observed that as the roads go north they are going into Lee County; correct.'? MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: So our transportation element says it has no significant impact. I just wondered how you were working with Lee County planners for transportation impact. MR. REYNOLDS: Well, we've worked extensively with Lee County on this project since its inception because this is, I think, either the first or maybe second community that has ever been proposed that actually straddles the line. So every time we have done something with the Lee County portion of this community, we are before -- or in this case, now, the City of Bonita Springs -- to have them review their portion of it, and then also there is a coordinated effort to look at the composite. So this gets a lot of scrutiny from both Lee County and Collier County and now the City of Bonita Springs. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered public speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I close the public hearing. Page 58 September 20, 2001 What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make my last motion, and that is that we recommend Petition PUDZ- 2001-AR-620 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Pedone, outgoing that he is, his last motion, and a second by Mr. Abernathy for approval of this petition. Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. Thank you. Next item is old business. And it is correctly numbered this time. Mr. Pedone, we'll certainly miss you. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: And I will miss being on the board I think, but I will also look forward to not being on the board I think. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And watching us on television. Page 59 September 20, 2001 Do we have any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any public cormnent? Any discussion of addenda? I guess we're at No. 12 and motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So moved. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy, a second by Mr. Richardson. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:15 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY PAMELA HOLDEN, COURT REPORTER Page 60 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION September 25, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104 RE: Petition No. BD-2001-AR-985, Peter A. Guglielmi Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, September 20, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2001-AR-985. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 01-22 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Sincere/~ ~,.~ _ Ross Gochenaur Planner II Enclosure C: Peter A. Guglielmi 8111 Woodside Lane Burr Ridge, IL 60525 Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File RG/cw PHONE-i 9:[~-} 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier, fl.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 01- 22 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2001-AR-985 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 25-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 45-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-3 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 Peter A. Guglielmi Trust, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 3, Block T, Lot 25, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 89, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 25-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 45-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-3 zoning distri, ct wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. 2. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. o Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2001-AR-985 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 20th dayof September ,2001. ATTEST: Community Development and Environmental Services Interim Administrator COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CO LIER COUNTY, FL A· JOYCE~NNA'J. RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: MarjohJe M. Student Assistant County Attorney RG/cw COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION October 1 O, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104 RE: Petition No. BD-2001-AR-938, Henry and Monica McVicker Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, September 20, '2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2001-AR-938. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 01-24 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Ross Gochenauf Planner II Enclosure C: Henry J. McVicker 4100 Cutlass Lane Naples, FL 34102 Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) b~ File RG/io PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier, fl.u~ CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 01- 2/4 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2001-AR-938 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 45-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 65-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 Henry and Monica McVicker, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 3.5, South Naples Shores, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 11, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 45-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 65-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. o Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2001- AR-938 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this 20th day of Se~er. ,2001. ATTEST: JOH~/~,I. D~CK,~II Execl/tive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Interim Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: COLLIER COUNTY PI.{A~ COLI~ COUNTY, FL~ORID JOYCEA~INA J. RAUTIO, CF COMMISSION [AIRMAN Marj~ie M. Studen~t ' Assistant County Attorney RG/cw