Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/04/2001 ROctober 4, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 4, 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 8:35 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION at the Supervisor of Elections Building of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: MEMBERS ABSENT: Joyceanna Rautio Kenneth Abernathy Lora Jean Young Dwight Richardson David Wolfley Paul Midney Mark Strain Russell Budd Lindy Adelstein ALSO PRESENT: Susan Murray, Planning Services Manager Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2001 IN THE GU'~"~Z COivE,~ISg~_ w~Pq MEET~!G k~O0~ ~, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINLrrES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED I 0 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPE~ PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 7, 2001 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 6. BCC REPORT - RECAPS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, MEETING. 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS BD-2001-AR-1198, Richard D. Yovanovich and Turrell & Associates, Inc., representing Vanderbilt Partners, requesting a 56-slip dock facility which, in combination with a required mitigation marsh area, would protrude a maximum of 245 feet into the waterway for property located at 425-L~h-Circle, further d~s~-n'b-~d-~Lbt'l;-Block F;C~--~er'~-Vatxd-erbi~ Estates, Urdt 2 (Coordh-iator: '"~.,,oo--- ,.,,,,,..,~..,.,..~'~' ..... ~ BD-2001-AR-1122, Ben Nelson, Jr., of Nelson Marine, representing Jeff Garard, requesting a 20 foot boat dock extension to allow for a boat dock protruding a total of 40 feet into the waterway for property located at 267 3rd Street West, further described as Lot 15, Replat of Block G, Little Hickory Shores, Unit 3, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) RZ-2001-AR-1208, William L. Hoover, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc., representing Larry $. and Marcy A. Gode, requesting a rezone from C-3 to RMF-6 for property located on the north side of 109th Avenue North, about 275 feet west of U.S. 41 North, further described as Lot 10, Naples Park Unit 1, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian ) CU-2001-AR-1103, Scott E. Gustafson fi'om Lodestar Towers, Inc., representing Florida Department of Transportation, requesting conditional use for a telecommunication tower in the CON-ACSC/ST zoning district per Section 2.6.35.7 for property located on the north side of 1-75, Mile Marker 63.3, within the rest area on the south side of Alligator Alley in Section 1, Township 50 South, Range 32 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) CU-2001-AR-1105, Scott E. Gustafson from Lodestar Tower, Inc., representing Florida Department of Transportation, requesting conditional use for a telecommunication tower in the CON-ACSC/ST zoning district per Section 2.6.35.6.7 for property located on the south side of the existing Florida Department of Transportation fence within the Department of Transportation Right-of-Way in Section 1, Township 50 South, Range 34 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) PUDA-2001-AR-881, William L. Hoover, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc., representing James Morande, of Morande Kia, Inc., requesting an amendment to the Salvation Army PUD for the purpose of a adding an automobile dealership as a permitted use, for property located at 3180 Estey Avenue, on the western side of Airport Road, approximately 600 feet north of Davis Blvd., in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5.78± acres. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) SV-2001-AR-1265, Bo Gallegher, representing Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. requesting a 5-foot variance from the required 150-foot road fi'ontage established for pole signs to 145 feet for property located at 5495 Airport Road North, in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) PDI-2001-AR- 1220, George Vamadoe, Esq., of Young, vanAssenderp, Vamadoe and Anderson, P.A., representing WCI Communities, Inc., requesting an insubstantial change determination to the Marco Shores PUD revising the Master Plan by the relocation and reconfiguration of Residential Parcel Two and the Golf Club (Clubhouse) Tract, in Sections 26 and 28, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) 9. OLD BUSINESS !0. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 10/4/01/CCPC AGENDA/lo October 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to call to order this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission for Thursday, October 4th. Please stand and recite the pledge of allegiance. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The first item on the agenda today is roll call, but I would like to make a couple of comments before we start. This is not our usual meeting room, and our mikes are only going into the camera for recording. I believe the mike up here at the front actually does work, so please, everyone, speak up so that everyone in the room can hear you. And, remember, talk slowly so the court reporter can record everything. And please show courtesy to each person, whether it's staff or commissioners or the public. Do not talk over the other person. It's next to impossible for the court reporter to record two conversations at the same time. Thank you. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Abstain. Oh, here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I hope you're here today. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was just trying to get your attention. I'll abstain from being here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Abstain from being here. Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Adelstein. Absent, but excused. Mr. Midney, a new member, is lost in action. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Miss Rautio. Present. Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. Page 2 October 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Present. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We do have a quorum. The next item on the agenda is addenda to the agenda. MS. MURRAY: None, Madam Chair, but I would request that anybody wishing to speak on any items of the agenda please fill out a speaker slip. They're located on this table to the left, and hand them to me me, please. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Item No. 4, approval of minutes. We did have September 7th before, so we were given September 19th last night from our Land Development Code meeting previously. I need a motion for approval or any revisions. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I will move for approval of the September 7th minutes. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Richardson and a second by Mrs. Young for approval of the minutes for September 7th. All those in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All those opposed same sign. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll be abstaining from that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries with one abstention from Mr. Strain. Do we wish to consider the September 19th minutes? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So moved. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Richardson-- COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- and a second by Mr. Budd for approval of the minutes to the September 19th meeting. All those in Page 3 October 4, 2001 favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll be abstaining from that one as well. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have one abstention also. Okay. Item No. 5, do we have any Planning Commission absences that you- all are aware of? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing none we'll move on to the next item. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Madam Chairman, does that mean coming up? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Since I haven't been here and it's my second meeting, I didn't know that. The next meeting I may not be able to attend due to some medical issues that have to be resolved. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The next meeting being the 18th, I believe, of October? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Hopefully, if you could attend, that will be an informational workshop. We've been attempting to have a review and training session for all new commissioners for quite some time, and I believe that is still scheduled for the 18th if it's possible to attend. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It might be real difficult, but I'll see what I can do. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The Board of County Commissioners' Page 4 October 4, 2001 report, the recap, do you have any highlights that you would like to point out, Miss Murray? MS. MURRAY: None, unless you have questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do the commissioners have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Item No. 7 is the chairman's report. I would just like to make a couple of comments. Again, please do show courtesy to everyone that's in the room when they are speaking and, of course, to the commissioners. I would like to thank the staff for officially placing the pledge of allegiance on our agenda from here on out. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman, before we go ahead, I forgot -- Susan, what did the county commission do with that Vanderbilt Villas that we recommended disapproval? MS. MURRAY: At the last minute, they voted to continue it to -- and I don't have the exact date. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't care about the date, but it hasn't been resolved then. MS. MURRAY: Correct, it has not been resolved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. Excuse me. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are at Item No. 8, advertised public hearings. The first public hearing is BD-2001-AR- 1198. All those wishing to giving testimony on this item please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the clerk of courts (sic). (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur of planning services. I passed out an addenda package to this petition. Hopefully, you-all have it. It includes the Resolution Exhibits A and B, the site map that I would Page 5 October 4, 2001 be putting on the visualizer if I had a visualizer, identification of the partners, and the three letters of objection we received. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. I would like to note as a disclosure that I received an e-mail from Mr. Dick Lydon, president of the Vanderbilt Property Owners Association, I believe, with reference to an agreement. It's not attached to my information, but as best I recall they have resolved the issues as long as it's signed, witnessed, and included in the proceedings today that the association will accept that declaration of restrictions. So as a matter of disclosure, I did as chairman receive an e-mail to that effect. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I received the same e-mail as vice-chairman, I guess. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. GOCHENAUR: The petitioner is requesting a 225-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 245 feet into a waterway which is about 940 feet wide. The property is located at 430 Launch Circle on Vanderbilt Beach and contains about 1100 feet of the water frontage. The project consists of the construction of a communal dock facility comprising 56 slips supporting the Regatta condominium. The facility would include a mitigation marsh as a condition of DEP approval of the project. Some of the slips would extend north of this into the lagoon. In order to minimize the protrusion, a dredging plan has been approved by state and federal regulatory agencies. The proposed facility and particularly the mitigation marsh would have some effect on navigation in the waterway; however, it would not necessarily impede or prove a hazard to navigation. The facility would also have an impact on the view from the condos to the west. This impact would be significant but not necessarily negative. The facility would be similar to existing multi-slip docks on the west side of the lagoon. Page 6 October 4, 2001 The petitioner held a public meeting on July 6th to solicit community input into the project. According to the petitioner, no objections were voiced at this meeting. Three written objections and one verbal objection have been received. The meralia PUD ordinance allows a maxium number of 74 slips, and the petitioner is requesting only 56. Since the requested slips, which are allowed as a permitted accessory use, require an extension for their construction, the petitioner's responsibility is to propose a reasonable plan to accomplish this goal while minimizing the impact of the facility on the surrounding community. Staff believes that the proposal submitted is reasonable meeting the criteria to the greatest extent possible under the circumstances, and we, therefore, recommend approval of this petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions from commissioners? Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If I may, Ross, I'm just kind of overwhelmed by the immensity of this compared to what we usually see in boat docks. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I realize the PUD underlying it contrasts some of the numbers, but just to help clarify it, typically we allow boat-dock extensions beyond 20 feet in order to get a boat into the water that's deep enough to support it. MR. GOCHENAUR: That's the most common reason for requesting a boat-dock extension. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If that reason were applied to this project, it would change the configuration of this considerably I would suspect. In other words, you would have one 20-foot boat dock. But 20 foot out from where the shoreline is, how deep is the Page 7 October 4, 2001 water? MR. GOCHENAUR: Well, it depends on where you are on the property. If you look at the drawings that the petitioner submitted that included water depths, they vary. In some cases they're able to put the slips that they need within the 20-feet limit, but in order to get the maximum number of 56, they have to extend out beyond the mitigation marsh for that one multi-slip dock. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let the record reflect Mr. Midney has arrived. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You have kind of a cart and horse here. I don't know that I'm seeing the full picture. If we have to, I guess, assume that there's going to be a dredging and a lot of fill and a whole situation then before you ever even get to put in the docks. I'm just thinking normally people would come in, and they'd have a shoreline, and they'd be looking to get the dock out to a certain depth, and I'm wondering why this applicant wasn't constrained the same way everybody else was constrained. MR. GOCHENAUR: The constraints were basically the same. The underlying fact is that the planned unit development document allows them a certain number of boat slips. What their job was was to figure out how they could get 56 slips on this property that were all viable. And in order to do that, at one point they had to construct a mitigation marsh to comply with the DEP requirements, which means filling. Again, I'm going to let the petitioner explain this in detail, but they had to create that area in order to get the DEP permits. They're also doing dredging in order to minimize the extension that they need. Even with that dredging, they're still going to need a certain extension to allow the docks. The 245 feet is measured from the absolute most restrictive point, and once they construct the mitigation marsh, that will be well landward. It's easier understood by looking at the drawings than me trying to give a narrative Page 8 October 4, 2001 description. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, in summary, this problem started because of the PUD, and we really are -- our hands are tied at this point? MR. GOCHENAUR: It's not a problem. It's a challenge. The Board of County Commissioners allowed that number of boat slips. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then we've been dealt a deck that we can only deal one way. MR. GOCHENAUR: Well, again, as I hope I made clear, the petitioner's responsibility is to give us a reasonable proposal for constructing a facility with 56 slips. And I think under the circumstances they've been able to do that in compliance with the code as closely as possible. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I just think it's much, much too intense. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ross -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me, Mr. Strain. Marjorie Student. MS. STUDENT: I just want to put something on the record about that PUD. That reflects a settlement of a lawsuit. I worked on it, and another attorney in our office worked on the lawsuit. Then many years ago when Ken Cuyler was still the county attorney, he and I together worked on a settlement, and the PUD was done to effectuate the settlement that was blessed by the Court. I just wanted to put that on the record. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: My concern is going over the 25 percent. It's just 10 foot, but why couldn't they just go 235 feet instead of 245? MR. GOCHENAUR: According to the petitioner's application, that's what they needed at that most extreme point in order to get the Page 9 October 4, 2001 slips in. We met with the petitioner at least three times to discuss the configuration of the docks. They modified it twice in response to some of our comments as far as to how it will impede the use of the docks to the west. The configuration they came up with was as close as they could get under the circumstances. Although it doesn't meet the 25 percent, it comes close to it. We also have a very broad waterway. So I don't think the end result is going to be an impact on navigation or safety. That was our conclusion. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, rules are the rules. That's why we have the codes to keep people in that area. I mean, ten feet -- I don't see why we are breaking -- I agree with Mr. Richardson here. I've got a problem with that situation. MR. GOCHENAUR: Okay. Possibly the petitioner can give you a more detailed explanation on why that extra ten feet was considered necessary. My understanding is it was a result of the water depth. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Then we're going to have boats beyond that, so then we're going to have to make it even wider. MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. That 245 feet is as far out as anything can legally go. Nothing can be more, so that's most extreme point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ross, the settlement agreement that Marjorie referred to as well as the PUD have identical language in them in reference to the docks. This says, specifically, that the docks are approved for Parcels 1 through 4. Parcel 1 has a -- Parcel 4 has a canal on it. Parcel 3 is mostly submerged bottom lands of which these docks extend past. My question is, if they have by the PUD approval to put docks in those parcels or within those parcels because some of those are Page 10 October 4, 2001 bottom lands or submerged lands, going beyond the parcel limitation is a change to the configuration of the PUD. Wouldn't that trigger a substantial change to the PUD and thus an amendment to the PUD instead of a dock-extension request? MR. GOCHENAUR: I can't answer that question off the top. My understanding is that the PUD is considered a single site for the purposes of development and that there are points at which the dock can be constructed naturally along the waterline. Whether the parcels that were described when the ordinance was approved have the same legal description as the parcels currently registered with the property appraiser's office, I can't answer that question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I reviewed the legal descriptions, and they appear to be the same. Parcel 3 goes 166 feet into the water, which means they have 166 feet of depth past the seawall of submerged lands right now. So they're asking for the extension of 240 feet which then would put the PUD's accessories outside the PUD boundaries. I know there's an issue concerning amendments, insubstantial and substantial deviations to a PUD and what triggers that, and maybe Marjorie could answer that. MS. STUDENT: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Marjorie, for the benefit of the audience, could you identify your position? MS. STUDENT: Yes. Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. Without studying the PUD and without looking at the code, there are ten criteria for insubstantial changes and substantial changes to a master plan. Any change to the PUD document itself, to the text, requires an amendment to the PUD. A substantial change to the master plan requires the regular PUD amendment, as I recall, and the insubstantial change, you know, if it's under these ten criteria, then that would be the insubstantial change that just comes to the Planning Commission. Again, that would be to the master plan only. Page 11 October 4, 2001 If there is anything in the text that needs to be changed, it is a PUD amendment. Staff didn't raise this question with me, so I'm just kind of having to fly by the seat of my pants, if you will, right now. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Before you leave -- MS. STUDENT: I may need to have a cite. I'll just continue it for -- not for an entire meeting or anything, but maybe for a couple of items and have a chance to go over the PUD document with staff and the petitioner. We can do that. I don't want to try and hold everybody up and sit here and figure it out while you're waiting. You could maybe take some other items. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you have another question for Miss Student? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In contrast to your comment about the material changes to the PUD or master plan, Item No. 1 under the substantial and insubstantial definitions says (as read): "For the purpose of this section, a substantial change shall be deemed to exist where there is a proposed change to the boundary of the PUD." Now, I realize that if they're adding docks that they're going to use exclusively for the PUD, they can't lease them out to anybody else because they're restricted in the PUD. So if it seems that they're only accessible through lands of the PUD and they're there to service only the PUD, you're in essence extending the boundary. So that would be what I would like to ask you to look into. MS. STUDENT: We also have some provisions in the code -- I believe it's in Division 1.6 that deals with boundaries when they abut up against water bodies and how the boundaries are construed. If it runs along a water body, it can go to the center line, or if it goes into the water body, you know, you extend the lines a certain way. Those are all things -- I would just have to have a little sidebar here with staff while you took some other items to see if it did have that effect. Page 12 October 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, in view of the fact that we have incomplete staff information, I would suggest that we table this until a time certain, and we can come back to it rather than confuse the issue with more testimony not having the complete set of facts. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The option would be to table it or to move on to another item or two. Excuse me, Marjorie. If we table to another time, another meeting, or we postpone for a couple of items, they could have the discussion and present the information then. What is the feeling of the board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: I would like to make a motion to table it until the last item on today's agenda. If by that time the assistant county attorney is not able to provide a decisive and clear opinion on this, then we would set a date certain in the future to hear it again. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd and a second by Mr. Richardson to table this item until the last item on our agenda to obtain additional information. Is there any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Moving right along to the next public hearing -- the next public hearing on the agenda is BD-2001-AR-1122. This is a boat-dock extension in the Little Hickory Shores area. All those wishing to give testimony today on Page 13 October 4, 2001 this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the clerk of courts (sic). (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Gochenaur. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 20-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 40 feet into a waterway which is about 330 feet wide. The property is located at 267 Third Street West in Little Hickory Shores and contains about 30 feet of water frontage. The project consists of construction of a finger dock -- excuse me -- finger pier with one boat lift on either side. The subject lot is a so-called boat dock lot in Block G, Little Hickory Shores. These plotted lots are residentially zoned to support a single-family home. A conditional use for all lots in Block G has been approved allowing docks as principal structures. A variance has also been approved for this and other lots in Block G reducing the side setbacks to zero feet. No objections to this project have been received, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no questions of staff, would the petitioner wish to present? MR. NELSON: For the record, Ben Nelson representing the applicant. I would be glad to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions of the applicant? Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Having -- oh, okay. There is a question. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It seems like we've had these come up before. There's a lot of these sites along here; right? Page 14 October 4, 2001 MR. NELSON: Yes, there is. This is fairly typical of the design element. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: A bit unusual in that there's no houses associated with any of the lots. MR. NELSON: Right. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The pattern in the past for these, Ross, has been -- there hasn't been one. MR. GOCHENAUR: I can recall one earlier time there was some objections to one of these sites further up, but I guess that all got resolved at the BCC meeting. MR. GOCHENAUR: I'm afraid I don't understand. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, the pattern -- just to clarify, this fits the pattern of the use of these lots that don't have any houses on them. So it's kind of a specialized situation. We don't really have this situation anywhere else, do we? MR. GOCHENAUR: There are other lots -- other waterfront lots that are too small to accommodate single-family homes, but these lots in Little Hickory Shores, Blocks G and H, are the only ones that have the conditional-use approval for boat docks. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. MR. GOCHENAUR: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: With no public speakers, I'll close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approve Petition BD-2001- AR-1122. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd and a second by Mr. Abernathy to approve this petition. Do we have any Page 15 October 4, 2001 discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no discussion I'll call the question. All those in favor state aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All those opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you very much. MR. NELSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The next item on the agenda for public hearing is RZ-2001-AR-1208, Mr. Hoover, with a rezone. All those wishing to present testimony today please stand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a rezone in Naples Park from C-3 commercial to RMF-6 residential. The lot is located on 109th Avenue North, and it's described as Lot 9, Block 2, Naples Park, Unit 1. This is the last commercial lot on that street, and a commercial lot adjacent to residential requires a 15-foot setback on one side and 25 on the other side, and the lot set for zoning is only 50-foot wide. So, basically, it's not a buildable lot. The petitioner is requesting to rezone this to residential so he can build a single-family house. This request complies with the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. Staff recommends approval. Staff hasn't received any opposition to this request. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd. No opposition? No. Do we have any questions? Page 16 October 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER BUDD: Chahram, if this is rezoned as residential, that would make the adjacent lot the last commercial lot. What does it do to that property? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: family house on it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The adjacent C-3 lot has a single- Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It looks like there's one to the east and one to the south that are C-3 commercial, and each is single family; is that right? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Back in your compatibility analysis you talk about the subject property abuts other RMF-6 residential-zoned properties developed with single-family residences. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's not really correct, then, is it? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I should have said there's also C-3s with residential development. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That doesn't really affect the compatibility, though. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, it will not. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why are those other places -- did they get caught in some time warp? Why are there single- family residences on commercial -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I do not know. Those are all single- family homes. I don't know when they were built. I did not research that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. That's all I had. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: If the other residences are on commercial, then what's the functional advantage of rezoning this to Page 17 October 4, 2001 residential? Why don't they just put the single-family home on the existing zoning -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Our code does not allow residential on commercial lots. COMMISSIONER BUDD: It's that time-warp thing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I did not have a chance to research this. What is a setback for a single-family home? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Seven and a half on either side. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions of staff?. Okay. Mr. Hoover, I believe, is here. Would the petitioner wish to present? MR. HOOVER: Good morning, Commissioners. William Hoover representing the petitioners. We've taken this down to the homeowners' association up there quite some time ago, probably four or five months ago in the spring, and we got a vote of -- I would estimate about around 21-1 in favor of this petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have one. Bill, there's some allusion in here to some previous use of this property. Was this previously a parking lot for commercial next door or something like that? MR. HOOVER: No. We were bringing through -- the Planning Commission approved unanimously a commercial building with the variance on Lot 9 and then to the west for an off-site parking petition. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's not this lot. MR. HOOVER: That's these two properties. But the board recommended denial, so we got a continuance. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I see. Now it's coming Page 18 October 4, 2001 back. MR. HOOVER: Basically, they said, "Go back and talk to the homeowners' association." We did that. And so the plan was that my client, who's a builder -- he was, actually, going to put up his own office on Lot 9. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Right, right. MR. HOOVER: But he gave up after the lengthy stuff, and he just went out and bought another building. He said, 'Tll just go ahead and build two single-family homes on here if that works for the homeowners' association and if they like the idea. So we resubmitted it as essentially a down-zone. So I think it's almost what they call a no-brainer at this point. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Hoover -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. We have a question. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm familiar with the previous actions and some of the confusion that came out in terms of what the community wanted and what they didn't want. I appreciate the fact that you came back with this, and I strongly support it. MR. HOOVER: Okay. Thank you. It's been -- it's probably why most of you -- I know half of you aren't familiar with it. It's been a couple years or something now or a year and a half from the time we submitted it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Having no registered public speakers, I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I move that we pass RZ-2001-AR-1208. Page 19 October 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mrs. Young and a second by Mr. Wolfley that we approve this particular petition. Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no discussion I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is CU-2001-AR-1103, a telecommunications tower. All those wishing to present testimony today please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning again. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is one of the four towers that were approved by a Land Development Code amendment in 1999. The first one for one of the four was approved by this board a few months ago. This is Tower No. 2, and the next item is going to be Tower No. 3. Basically, the Florida Department of Transportation -- they are trying to get towers along 1-75 so they can have their communications and the sheriff's department can have their communication equipment installed and also the Florida Highway Patrol. These towers are also going to allow some private cellular phone carriers to have the antenna on those towers. Staff' reviewed this, and they are in full compliance with the requirements of the Land Development Code and the Growth Page 20 October 4, 2001 Management Plan. Staff recommends the approval of this today or a recommendation for approval, and staff has not received any letters or any phone calls in opposition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just one. I notice this one requires or is going to coincide with the removal of one that's close by. Will that land that this other one is on revert back to the way it was before the first tower was built? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. First they have to build the tower with the equipment, and then they dismantle the other tower. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Upon dismantle, though, they're going to restore the property to natural vegetation? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They had a conditional use for the other tower? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They had a conditional use approved maybe three or four months ago for Tower No. 1, and right about --. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm talking about the tower they're replacing. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's an older tower. I don't believe they have the conditional use. That's an older tower that needs to be removed. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Even if they did, would they not need another conditional use if you remove one and replace it? That's my question. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is a conditional use to allow a new tower to be built so they can remove the old tower. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. I think I got that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: A 280-foot tower, is that what Page 21 October 4, 2001 it is? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How far is it from the highway? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is real close to the highway. That was one of the problems we were having when we amended the Land Development Code. However FDOT rezoned the highway property, and our county attorney's office opined that it would be okay if it was approved by a Land Development Code amendment which -- we went to an amendment. The Land Development Code was amended in 1999 to exactly say where these towers can be built, and they are built at the exact location. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right. Here is my problem with this: Generally, when you have a 280-foot stick, you try to allow for a 280-foot fall line. Let's say we have a little disturbance in the Yucatan and it starts coming this way towards Southwest Florida, and it develops into quite a large hurricane. For some reason or another all the towers are all across 1-75. That's a problem for evacuation. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I brought this up with FDOT. Their answer to me was, "This tower is going to be built to a higher standard, and they are not supposed to fall down." Anyway, that's their road. They are responsible for it. They don't want to block it. However, if that happened it's not going to happen before the hurricane. It's not going to affect the evacuation. If it happens during the hurricane, at that time cars should not be on that road. After the hurricane, if that happens they can send a truck and move it to the side. These towers also have what they call a weak point. They fold on themselves. They don't fall down. That was the answer that FDOT gave me. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any further Page 22 October 4, 2001 questions of commissioners for staff?. Before we go any further, I would like to point out to our commissioners -- and specifically the new ones -- this is a conditional-use change, and buried within your packet was the conditional findings of fact that we must have. So please remove it from your packet and have it available. We'll need to listen to all the testimony and then -- let's see -- a finding of fact, the four criteria that I listed here, and as a reminder to staff, it would be good if these were attached to the outside of the packets and that they do change the word "chairman" to "member" because each person does have to sign this. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's on the backside. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, okay. The backside for members. It's multi-purpose now. Okay. As long as you have these ready, because once this is over, we must pass them down and provide them to the secretary for the permanent record. Since we have no questions of staff, I would like to hear from the petitioner. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: Madam Chairman, members of the planning board, my name is Joel Gustafson. I'm an attorney, and I represent the applicant. This particular application and the following application is your opportunity to vote again on this item and the following item. As you may recall back in, I believe, in May when it was here in the year 2000. After going through all of the other stuff, because of the fact it was a new ordinance and going through the other several advisory committees or Environmental Advisory Committee, we landed at your doorstep as part of that process. During that process we went through, of course, the environmental issues, and that ordinance, as you may recall, is site specific. So this particular tower location and the one that's subsequent, the next item on your agenda, Item E, were specifically noted and approved as such. Then in the fall of 2000 you were going through the process of Page 23 October 4, 2001 your twice-a-year modification. You came up with a new ordinance and made these conditional uses. So we're back as a result of a subsequent ordinance being passed after you already -- this board approved it and the commission approved it. But the question you asked as far as those issues as far as its proximity to the highway, this particular tower, for example, is on the rest area on the south side ofi-75. It's as far as you can get, practically, from the structures and buildings in that particular location. It also -- it's replacing a guide tower, which was on the north side. This tower, actually, is a safer tower, and it's further from the actual highway surface than the existing guide tower. The staffs comment as far as the safety and the wind tolerance representations -- we had a number of conversations with staff on this, and it's correct. We beat the hurricane tolerances. But if by chance there is a hurricane beyond, I guess, the perfect storm or something like that, what would transpire from that -- they're designed so that they collapse on themselves. They don't fall over as such. It's the way they're designed. They meet those structural guides. In fact, the last time we had our structural person with us going through all of that. We brought him from St. Louis to go through all of that. Your ordinance requires that it be in the DOT right-of-way. This particular-- in fact, if you remember, we're in a conservation area. You appropriately zealously protected or were concerned about us intruding on any more wetlands than there is. So to make this happen it's required to be in the right-of-way. And, of course, fortunately, in this particular case we have a service plaza at this particular location, and yet we're replacing them on the other side of the street. So the question, I think, to ask is what are the consequences as to the old tower. Is that going to be rehabbed back into wetlands? I Page 24 October 4, 2001 honestly can't tell you what the FDOT plans to do there. Lodestar, in conjunction with DOT, is building this tower, but I would assume that you would -- I believe DOT would be a good steward on that and they would do what would be appropriate for that particular area. We've gone through the process, as you know, of-- the issue here is -- or the particular program that the DOT is putting together for their intelligent highway service system. At the current time, as you're aware, you can't -- if you go to one of those call boxes on 1-75, they aren't really telephones. Those trigger, I guess, a battery type of effect that you can let somebody know where you are. It sets off that type of a signal, but there is no phone line that runs east and west across 1-75. As a result of these towers, there will be a microwave system installed by DOT which will allow them actually to have a dial service for those emergency boxes, plus all the other aspects of that program such as emergency vehicles coming, reader boards, to let you know where the dangerous areas are or what conditions are as they go along and, of course, the speed passes that you can use for tolls. It will all be incorporated in this and the rest of the interstate system that has tolls. So that's basically the program. Of course, the advantage there is if you have a cell phone and you happen to have a real problem-- at least a lot of people have problems on the Alley or a good portion of them with getting any kind of good phone service regularly on it. That's why we have a number of ready, willing, and anxious co-users who want to put a dish on that. Again, the reason for the height is it's a matter of distance. We could have a shorter tower, but you would have more of them. So we feel this is the best way to keep them out of harm's way and take good care of them. Again, you'll see the next one probably 18 miles from this one. I think that's the distance separation. I'll be happy to Page 25 October 4, 2001 answer any questions. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just to streamline things a little bit, would you go ahead and just comment about the second application and how different it is from the first one? Is it only different in terms of location? MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: It's only different in terms of location, correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm not sure. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: It's 240. I'm sorry, 240. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. We take one petition at a time. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: We only vote on one at a time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: As you know, it's the easternmost location just over the Collier/Broward line. It's Collier County on the north side, and this is one that really makes that connection. Mr. Gustafson will be happy to show you where that system work. Scott, do you want to walk out there? MR. SCOTT GUSTAFSON: I'll show the board first. My name is Scott Gustafson. I work for SpectraSite, which is also Lodestar. To my right here, this would be Naples. Over here would be Fort Lauderdale. This is the network of towers that -- some exist and some are proposed. This is in Broward, and this is to be approved and built. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: Back up to it. MR. SCOTT GUSTAFSON: The site that you are approving today are -- is this tower here, which is the 240-foot tower. And then this one which is a replacement tower from the tower that's on the north side. This is the 280-foot tower. What this is doing is this is building, basically, a network Page 26 October 4, 2001 because, again, you mentioned there's no dial tone. But there is going to be a microwave system of dishes on these towers that are going to transmit the dial tone which is going to provide services for the cell phones to work, as well as DOT is going to be using portions of the dial tone. In addition, this site here is going to provide dial tone to a tower on Micosoukee that the DOT has for their services. So as you go across -- this is another one that you approved earlier, too, for conditional use. And there is where there's an existing guide tower that is currently used by DOT and a lot of others. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. As a courtesy to the audience, would you turn that way and tell them which -- point to each picture just so they can see it. MR. SCOTT GUSTAFSON: Sure. Where I am would be the Broward County side. Over there where you see the 1110, that is the Naples side. The towers that we're looking to approve today is this one here, which is our Lodestar Tower 6, which is just over the Broward line in Collier County, and this tower here, which is a replacement tower, Site No. 1107. This is for the 280-foot tower. This is for the 250-foot tower, and there is a service area. There is an existing tower just on the north side of it that this tower is replacing, and this new tower is actually further away from 1-75 than the existing tower. Part of the purpose for this many is because we're trying to send a microwave signal. For that signal to be usable, you have to have it consistently. Also for the services that the DOT as well as PCS and cellular providers are looking to do with their coverages. Basically, it's about 13 to 15 miles in between each tower. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: In Collier County. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have some questions from the commissioners here for you. Mr. Abernathy. Page 27 October 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Now, the more western of the two towers you access -- or maintain that you have a deceleration lane in connection with the rest area; right? MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: That's the most western one. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's what I said. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: Yes. Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Now, the other, what sort of access do you have to that? MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: We've gone over that with both your staff and with DOT. It will be an improved service. It will be grass. It will be an improved service based on the need. The thing they don't want to do -- and you can appreciate this -- is they don't want to build a pull off, paved, curb-cut driveway for the reason that it's limited -- it's a very limited use. There will be people maybe once a week at that site. If you put that pavement in, that kind of invites travelers to pull up on it. So what they'll do is they'll build an improved subsurface, grass it over, and the user or the service people that come out to maintain that -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The shoulder. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: Correct, the shoulder-- will just use the shoulder. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: My other question is, each of these packets has something about a Sun pass in them, and that's a very nice program, but there aren't any toll booths anywhere near these sites. What does that have to do with, this Sun pass? MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: Well, there is no toll booth. The Sun pass is the overall system statewide. As to how applicable it is, that's another thing. Again, remember, you do have a toll booth at each end. The communications or the transmittals of communication as to -- you know, as you come out of any town west of Fort Lauderdale, you go through a toll booth, and as you leave here to go Page 28 October 4, 2001 east, you go through a toll booth. As to the applicability -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The communications are readily available there. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: Well, as to whether you have the communication with the other side, I don't know. We have a gentleman from FDOT which, I believe, would -- it may not be as applicable on this particular road. That's part of the entire packet that FDOT is putting together. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: For example, we have it up and down 1-95, and there's no tolls at all. So the Sun passes won't be applicable there at all. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: When it was in there, I figured it was in there for some persuasive power. In this case it doesn't persuade me of anything. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: All right. That's fair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just have one question since we brought up both of these towers. On your evaluation criteria, Item No. 8, on the first tower you're mentioning that you do have a microwave system for dial tone. I think you stated that earlier. On the second one you don't -- you eliminated that language. I'm just wondering, do you have microwave system for dial tone on both towers like was stated or not? MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: Scott, do you want to answer that? MR. SCOTT GUSTAFSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: the evaluation criteria? MR. SCOTT GUSTAFSON: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: the mike. Okay. So it was just missed on Yes. Step forward and state your name into Page 29 October 4, 2001 MR. SCOTT GUSTAFSON: Scott Gustafson. Yes, there will be microwave dishes on both towers to provide the dial tone signals. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions about either one or both of these petitions? We could consider them together, I guess. MR. GUSTAFSON: Do you want to hear from DOT? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. DOT. MR. RUWINSKY: My name is Rick Ruwinsky (phonetic). Actually, I represent the state technology office. THE COURT REPORTER: If you could speak up, please. MR. RUWINSKY: Rick Ruwinsky with the state technology office. Our interest in these towers is for the statewide law enforcement communications network. We have -- we're developing in Collier County Crystal River, Phase III, of the communication network. We have Phase I and II operational from Key West to Flagler County on the east coast. This particular site is critical for us because it ties Phase I to Phase III. We have -- we'll have both the transmitters and receivers as well as microwaves on that tower. The microwave will link Phase III back to Phase I. That ties the whole system together. Essentially we'll have seamless communication for the law enforcement network throughout the state when it's completed. It will include the Florida Highway Patrol, FDLE, Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Department of Transportation compliance officers. To answer your question earlier about the evacuation, it would be our people that coordinate the evacuation, and without that tower they don't have communications. So it's critical for the evacuation route and the planning that goes into it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of Mr. Ruwinsky? Page 30 October 4, 2001 (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: The only registered speakers I had were Scott Gustafson and Joel Gustafson, and they've already spoken. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Hearing no further speakers from either the public or the presenters, I'll close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I make a motion that we approve -- can we do both at the same time? MS. STUDENT: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 1103 as submitted. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Strain and a second by Mr. Budd that we approve the first conditional-use petition. Do we have any discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Technically, we should be recommending approval. MS. STUDENT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Recommending approval. Each commissioner must remember that they should find it, Item A, consistent with the Land Development Code; B, ingress and egress to the property and the various issues of pedestrian safety, convenience, traffic flow, control, et cetera; C, the affects on the neighboring properties; and D, compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. Do we have any questions or discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Call the question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) -- approve Petition CU-2001-AR- Page 31 October 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. (No response.). CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Please complete your information and pass it down to the secretary. The next item on our list is for CU-2001-AR-1105, the communication tower. All those wishing to present testimony on this particular item please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Commissioners, again, Chahram Badamtchian representing CU-2001-AR-1105, which is another tower for FDOT. This one is located almost at the county line. The height is 240 feet. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?. Any further questions? Would the petitioner wish to present again? MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: We'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No questions of the petitioner. Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: Just Scott Gustafson and Joel Gustafson, but they've indicated they don't wish to speak. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Hearing no further presentation from the public or petitioner, I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I recommend that we forward recommending approval of Petition CU-2001-AR- 1105. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Abernathy and a second by Mr. Budd to approve this particular conditional use. All those in favor say aye. Page 32 October 4, 2001 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman, may I ask a question? It's just a technical issue. You were very specific in going through the criteria on the prior one. Would you want to amend your motion to incorporate that language as far as the criteria? I know as part of our application we responded to it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. I remind us all that it was a conditional use so, as a reminder, each person must check the proper finding. All right. We are on Item F. MS. MURRAY: May I just discuss something with you. Staff informs me that they have the information for the boat-dock petition if you wish to consider it now. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think we placed it at the end of our agenda, so unless there's some overriding reason. MS. STUDENT: I think you have to untable it and go through another motion to move it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you for that observation. We'll move along to 8-F, which is PUDA-2001-AR-881. This is -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Madam Chairman, I have an announcement to make. Marjorie Student, our assistant county attorney, informed me that we haven't advertised this properly. We called it a PUD amendment, and actually it's a rezone from PUD to PUDA. Therefore, we have to continue it until it's advertised properly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So I don't open the public hearing because I haven't had you sworn in yet. I want to be procedurally correct. Page 33 October 4, 2001 MS. STUDENT: Well, it should be advertised correctly for you to consider it. I think while staff is not -- it may operate like a withdrawal until the time -- not a withdrawal of the petition entirely, but a withdrawal of the item before this commission so it can be properly advertised and brought before you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we won't continue it. It's being withdrawn by-- MS. STUDENT: You're not going to be able to continue it because if it's not advertised properly, then you don't have anything to continue. It needs to be readvertised, and I think it will be scheduled for the first one in November. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Pass it over. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let the record reflect that we've withdrawn Item F. Moving along --. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Excuse me. Just to clarify it -- I didn't quite understand what was incorrect about it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let me just make one comment here. I noticed when I was looking through the agenda -- I highlighted the fact that our agenda says this is an addendum to the -- excuse me -- an amendment to the Salvation Army PUD. Our packet very clearly states that it was a repeal and adoption of a new PUD. MS. STUDENT: Let me explain. It was like that just in the agenda item to be corrected on the record, and it wouldn't necessarily be fatal as it appears on your agenda. But I asked Mr. Badamtchian how it was advertised in the newspaper, because that is the issue. And I understand from Mr. Badamtchian that it was advertised in the same way that it appears in the agenda as an amendment. In fact, it is a rezone from one PUD to another PUD and repeals the former PUD. So for that reason it will need to be readvertised in the paper. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you for that clarification. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Right. Page 34 October 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. See, I do read my packets very carefully. Item G, this is SV-2001-AR-1265, the Bridgestone/Firestone sign variance. All those wishing to give testimony today please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is variance request for a sign for a newly built Firestone store on Airport Road. The store is located within the Bed, Bath & Beyond plaza on the comer of Airport and Pine Ridge Road. Our code requires business to have 150 foot of road frontage in order to qualify for a pole sign. This property contains 145 foot of road frontage. Therefore, they do not qualify for a pole or ground sign -- for a free-standing sign. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Did you say pole or ground sign? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Our Land Development Code was amended, and we just removed the language about pole and ground signs. We are calling it free-standing signs. So it's just old habit to call it a pole sign or ground sign. MS. MURRAY: They're interchangeable. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are interchangeable now. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If you can't have one, you can't have the other. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are calling them free-standing signs now. That's why they are requesting this variance to build a free-standing sign. They had applied for a permit, and the sign permit was issued for it, and we had to cancel the permit because on the application they had mentioned having 150 foot of road frontage. Later on during the site development plan process we noticed that the Page 35 October 4, 2001 survey that they had given us showed 145 and not 150 as mentioned on the application. Therefore, we cancelled the permit. In the past several years, the board has consistently denied any sign variances for properties with less than 150 foot of road frontage. Last year one was denied on Airport Road, and the year before another one was denied on U.S. 41. Staff recommended denial of this request. There is no land-related hardship, and there's no reason to approve a variance when they don't qualify for a sign. That concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did the applicant's building permit -- was it submitted by a licensed sign contractor in Collier County? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, it was. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, Chahram, you say that they shouldn't be given a variance to build a sign because they don't qualify for one. That's the very essence of a variance, isn't it? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, Commissioner. But you should have some kind of land-related hardship. with no reason. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: on that, I can agree with that. circuitous reasoning. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You cannot just ask for one Okay. Well, if you base it But saying they don't qualify is sort of I want to make a semi disclosure. I would rather err on the side of an abundance of caution here. I had a couple messages from Mike Davis who wanted to provide some information, but I was unable to actually speak to him personally, although he did leave a message on my voice mail. So that's my Page 36 October 4, 2001 disclosure for this particular item. Do we have questions? Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Chahram, we just readopted the sign ordinance last night. Does this ruling or the recommendation you're making comport with that? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. We didn't do any changes to that ordinance. I believe when in 1999 or the year 2000 we adopted that ordinance there were some problems with the disclosure or something at the board meeting. That's why we are here adopting it, so there wouldn't be any questions about the validity of it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So there's not a problem with anything being grandfathered in here or anything like that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This is brand new, and the ordinance does apply. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of staff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I would like to hear from the petitioner. MR. PICKWORTH: Good morning. My name is Don Pickworth representing Firestone, the leasee on this property. Let me correct one thing that Chahram said. I had at least two conversations with Mike Davis regarding that previous sign permit. It was a lawfully issued permit. There was a suggestion that somehow they snuck in and got a permit they shouldn't because they didn't have 150 feet. Mike has explained to me -- and I'm sure there's others here who know more of the details of this -- that it was based on an interpretation of the issuance of these type of signs at the time that it was issued. The sign wasn't built and, you know, things change. But Page 37 October 4, 2001 that is the explanation I have had, that it's not a case of somebody came in and got a permit, you know, that they shouldn't have gotten. That's at least -- you know, if this continues on to the board, I will have him there to -- if that statement is made again -- to take issue with that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could I just ask a question on that? MR. PICKWORTH: Sure. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then the previous sign ordinance allowed free-standing signs on 145 feet? MR. PICKWORTH: My understanding -- I don't want to put words in Mr. Davis' mouth -- is that the -- I think it had to do with the fact that there are a certain number of free-standing signs including, I guess, these directory signs that are allowed. The center itself is signed to a far less degree than what they lawfully can sign that center. As a result of that, at least according to the explanation I got from Mike, they were able to use their rights under that sign to get a permit for this. As he explained it to me, they changed the interpretation after Blockbuster. At least that's the explanation I got. I'm not going to, you know, put words in his mouth but -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I wanted to make sure I understood your statement. You said that the center that this particular business is in is not signed to its ability to sign. Is that what you're saying? MR. PICKWORTH: That's correct. I mean, Ridgeport Plaza could create more parcels and create more signs. There's no question about that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So this is creating difficulty, then, for Bridgestone/Firestone? MR. PICKWORTH: Well, our concern is this: You know, we are the end parcel. As you know, we've got the Chevy dealer to the north of us, we've got a bank, and then McDonald's immediately Page 38 October 4, 2001 south of us on Pine Ridge Road, and then you've got the entrance into the shopping center. The Chevy dealer, with the way the lot is, is kind of, you know, raised in elevation there. It's a visual problem. I mean, you've got a road that carries a lot of traffic. We're in there. The bank next door has got a -- I don't know what they call it. It's some kind of a free-standing sign out there. Monument sign? I'm not sure what the current terminology is. And, obviously, the McDonald's sign is an older sign and, you know, goes quite a bit beyond what's authorized under the code today. So, you know, we feel that, you know, a monument sign-- a free-standing sign I guess the word is -- conforming to today's code, which would be obviously a lot less expensive than, for instance, the McDonald's sign, which is not going to be injurious to the neighborhood and in any way, you know, create, quote, visual pollution. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You made a statement earlier that at the time this sign was designed, permitted, at some point the code allowed it, and it since has changed; is that how this came about? MR. PICKWORTH: As it was explained to me by Mr. Davis, at the time the original permit was issued it was authorized. For whatever reason they didn't build it, and clearly today they cannot get that permit without a variance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's a good question because we're talking about 150-foot alleged frontage on the application, and the way I read this, because our staff discovered it was 145, they had to pull the permit. So we're talking about whether, A, you've got something that was permitted before or, B, it was a mistake on the permit. I'm not clear on that particular fact. Staff needs to clarify that. MR. PICKWORTH: You can clarify that. That is at variance Page 39 October 4, 2001 with CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. BADAMTCHIAN: the explanation Mr. Davis has given me. It certainly sounds like it. I wish I had the permit here. I do too. I didn't think that they were going to argue that. The site plan submitted with the permit says "road frontage 150 foot." On the application it says "road frontage 150." The permit was issued based on that number. Then during the site development plan -- you know, we do not ask them to provide the survey with the sign because it's custom, but with the site development plan we ask them to give us a survey. They gave us the survey. The survey showed 145. So I'm not saying they purposely told us it was 150. They might have measured it and measured it wrong. But the thing is, we need 150-foot road frontage for a sign, and they have 145, and they told us they had 150. That's one thing. This 150-foot road frontage has been in our code since at least 1991. It has never changed. So this discussion about that it was permitted at that time but it's not permitted now, I do not understand it. We've had this code since 1991 requiring 150-foot road frontage. Regarding that number of signs allotted for that shopping center, we have some PUDs that -- basically they have language saying that they can have so many free-standing signs. But this is not the PUDs. This is straight zoning. We don't have any language saying how many signs they're entitled to. So I'm a little bit puzzled with this discussion about how many signs they're entitled to or what they would have been allowed under the old code or under the old interpretation. We never had any interpretation other than what the code has, that 150 is the minimum required for a sign. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I have a question for our county attorney. With reference to the issue of 145 feet and our Land Page 40 October 4, 2001 Development Code specifying 150, if we grant this variance, are we setting a precedent that we can have a number more come in? What are we actually doing here? MS. STUDENT: I don't think so, because it has to do with the particular facts of each case, and every case involving land is different. So it would have to be an identical situation. I don't think there is that much -- there may be some, but not that much of setting a precedent because each case is different. It stands on its own as it relates to the criteria for granting a variance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: For granting a variance as well as we need to know exactly what the facts are so that we can make our decision on what we perceive are the facts. MS. STUDENT: The facts that are presented based on competent, substantial evidence. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes, Madam Chairman. I just wanted to make a comment. References were made to an opinion presented by Mr. Davis who I happen to know and respect very much. But in the absence of Mr. Davis here today and what might have been, could have been, might have, sort of, kind of, we thought he said -- in my mind it's irrelevant as far as the shopping center having other sign rights. There's nothing in our packet regarding that. There's nothing regarding the permitting process, that the permit was properly issued and pulled because of other reasons. I'm really interested in testimony as far as what we have. The sign ordinance, as I understand, is 150-foot frontage. This doesn't have it. We just approved a sign ordinance last night where the County Commission packed the chambers regarding the sign ordinance. It's an important issue to this county. And all this other testimony -- unless I see more information or firsthand testimony, we're talking about something that's not -- that I can't consider. It's Page 41 October 4, 2001 just loose secondhand information. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. That was part of my difficulty. I want to base this on the facts. Do we have any further question? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, just a general question. In terms of the sign ordinance that we have, there's a process of getting rid of some of the older signs. There's a time limit code enforcement has until they get downsized or brought into conformance to the current code. MS. MURRAY: Yes, you're correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the applicant is saying that McDonald's, which has an outside sign, is restricted, and part of the reason he's here is in order to get his sign. That issue will go away because McDonald's, if it does not fit the ordinance, will have to downsize to be in keeping with the current ordinance. MS. MURRAY: If that is the case -- I'm not that familiar with McDonald's sign other than to know they have a sign there. I'm not sure if it's nonconforming or not. But if it is nonconforming, then in accordance with the provisions of the code, yes, it will eventually have to come down. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So we should look at this in terms of what will be in terms of the application of the entire code as opposed to what's there now in terms of considering this variance. MS. MURRAY: You really need to consider the variance on the merits which were presented before you within the staff report and the conditions of the property, not the conditions of the center itself. It's really important to keep that in mind. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any further questions of the commissioners? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have one of Don. Page 42 October 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can somebody testify here today that $40,000 was spent on this sign? MR. PICKWORTH: We have a representative of Firestone. MR. ROBERTS: Larry Roberts with Firestone. I'm representing Bo Gallegher. He was on the petition. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. ROBERTS: I don't have the knowledge of that much money being spent. The sign was manufactured and is down here, actually, in the city. At the time we had the permit, we weren't able to put the sign up at the time because there was no building on the site as of yet. That was the main -- you know, if we had the building up sooner, we would have been able to have the sign up. I do want to make one statement. It is a hardship. I mean, we're buried at the end of a shopping center. We have one sign on the building, and everybody else has free-standing signs down the road, and we do not. People are finding it hard to find our store. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There is a sign in a warehouse somewhere manufactured for this purpose? MR. ROBERTS: Right. That was done back in '99 when the permit was first issued. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Does that sign meet all of our current -- the current code? MR. ROBERTS: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You hope. MR. ROBERTS: I got the drawings on it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, you've got your drawings. Okay. MR. ROBERTS: It's 13 x 8 foot high. As far as I know, that meets the code. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Except that it's not permitted on this site. Page 43 October 4, 2001 MR. ROBERTS: It's not permitted -- again, that's why we're asking for a variance for this hardship. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're stating your hardship is what? MR. ROBERTS: One, that there's signs up and down the road. Every business down the road has a sign. We're the only ones that don't. Two, that we're on the end of a shopping center buried between, you know, the car dealership next to us, which is about 5 feet higher than we are, and it limits the visibility coming down Airport-Pulling Road. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm trying to find something that relates to the land. Maybe Mr. Pickworth would like to comment because I'm not finding a land-related hardship. That's why I have difficulty supporting the variance on the facts I'm presented. I was wondering if you could elaborate at all. MR. PICKWORTH: Well, the land-related hardship is it is the last parcel to be built. He's at the end of the shopping center, as he said. I mean, we have no -- it's not like there's a big piece of vacant ground next door where the question would be, "Why don't you just get some off of that and make it 150 foot of frontage?" It's just kind of the last remaining parcel. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: speakers? one. Okay. Any further questions? Do we have any other registered public MS. MURRAY: No -- I'm sorry. Larry Roberts was the only MR. ROBERTS: That's me. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: He was the only registered speaker. Okay. Do we have any further questions from the board before I close the public hearing? (No response.) Page 44 October 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that the Planning Commission forward petition SV-2001-AR-1265 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation for denial. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd and a second by Mr. Richardson to accept the staff recommendation for denial of this petition. Discussion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: My fellow board members seem to be willing to strip away any exculpatory comments that the petitioner has made. If you strip both the exculpatory and the inculpatory inferences away from this, the petitioner comes in, and he's got a 145-foot lot, and he wants to put a sign on it that he could put if he had a 150-foot lot. Now, we grant variances much more where petitioners are asking a whole lot more than that. If I have to find a hardship -- and we have found hardships that we have pretty much created out of ether in the past -- I could find one in the fact that he is locked in a bunch of old signs and the fact that some amount of money has been expended on a sign. The petition says that it was $40,000, and there's no evidence to the contrary. When I first read this thing, I thought the inference was that the petitioner had lied the first time around, and if I thought that were the case, I would probably deny it even though he is only asking for 5 feet or it only involved 5 feet. But having heard all of this, I'm not convinced of that, so I would resolve it in his favor. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I would like to state that my biggest concern related to the 5-foot issue and whether or not the permit was Page 45 October 4, 2001 granted erroneously or under false pretenses. I guess my second issue was whether or not we were setting a precedent here. As most of you-all on the board know -- and some of you are new -- I am not a fan of variances, and I struggle each time they come up. I try to relate to the facts. So I guess my effort at coming up with a hardship is this possible last parcel and the fact that it is short 5 feet. So I'm leaning towards voting against the denial, but we have a petition -- excuse me -- a motion before us for denial. Is there any other further discussion? COMMISSIONER BUDD: It's my last effort to preserve my motion. I'm keeping in mind with the motion of denial that this is a recommendation, and we're forwarding it for final action. If this was a final action at this time, I would ask the petitioner if he wanted to withdraw it and reconsider it because I really think their case hasn't been proven. They're just not coming forward with the information. So part of my motion is -- I think it will, in effect, be a wake-up call that when they apepar before the Board of Zoning Appeals they need to be better prepared with elevations, firsthand testimony by relevant people, and get more information in their favor. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have to agree with that. Any further comments? Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Upon my seconding, I certainly agree with everything Mr. Budd has said. But just to refresh the thought that I had before, while we're looking at the facts we have now, we do know that we have a Land Development Code relating to signs that has been readopted, that through the code work is going to cost -- the signs that are there that are nonconforming that are conflicting with his visibility to be repositioned in a way that I think will remove part of the problem he currently testified to. So that's an additional strength for support of Mr. Budd's motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further comments? Page 46 October 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think Mr. Budd makes a good point. If I vote no, it might be a signal to the county commission that some of us at least thought it was a close question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Hearing no further discussion, I call the question and remind you that we are voting for denial of this petition. All those -- when you say aye, you're voting for denial. All those in favor say aye. (Chorus of ayes.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed? (Chorus of ayes.) THE COURT REPORTER: I'm going to need clarification of the voting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: There's a division of the house. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. I'm for denial. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes, for denial. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Rautio, no. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: No. No. Mrs. Young. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, for denial. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Midney. MR. MIDNEY: Yes, for denial. MS. STUDENT: I think it's tied. It doesn't carry. It's 4 to 4. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's 4 to 4. MS. STUDENT: It doesn't carry. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I didn't mark it. I'm sorry. Page 47 October 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER YOUNG: It is 4 to 4. MS. STUDENT: The motion fails. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The motion fails because it's a tie, so we would like you to go forward. MS. STUDENT: Well -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, wait a minute. MS. STUDENT: What we usually have done is tried to -- because the motion for denial failed -- and I don't know if it's an implicit improvement or implicit-- I don't know what it is, but if you try to reframe -- we had this situation before, and we tried to reframe it, you know, the other way to see what happens, and then -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Then if it's a tie, then it goes forward without approval. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. But, I mean, it sounds like it could be an implicit approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll make a motion to approve the petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we second the motion? I can second it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I wonder how this vote is going to come out. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We might as well try it, folks. Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy and a second by myself, which I can do as chair. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I'll call the question. All those in favor starting with Mr. -- excuse me. All those in favor say aye. (Chorus of ayes.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One, two, three -- I'll call it a division of the house. Those opposed? Page 48 October 4, 2001 (Chores of ayes.) THE COURT REPORTER: I'm going to need clarification. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Opposed. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abemathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Rautio, aye. Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Opposed. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Midney. MR. MIDNEY: Opposed. MS. STUDENT: The same. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. The motion is denied, but it goes forward. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Without approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I would strongly recommend that petitioner provide more documents and staff be better prepared before you go before the Board of County Commissioners. Okay. Do we need a break for the court reporter? THE COURT REPORTER: We're almost done; right? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: There's two more. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All these people want to talk about something. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just wanted to make sure if she needed a five-minute break, the court reporter can have it. Moving right along to our original last on the agenda. It's Item Page 49 October 4, 2001 H, PDI-2001-AR-1220, an insubstantial change for Marco Shores PUD. All those wishing to give testimony today on this particular item please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. The oath was administered.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. I'm going to need for it to be quiet. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was contacted by the agent for the applicant, Mr. Varnadoe, and we discussed land planning issues revolving around this application. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a disclosure. Do we have any other discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I discussed it with Mr. Varnadoe. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I have not. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a disclosure that I spoke with him. We never caught up with each other, just briefly, with no real substance this morning, but I would like to err in the favor of caution. Okay. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl with planning services. This is a request for an insubstantial change to the Marco Shores PUD. And for the audience and for the newer members, the Land Development Code defines an insubstantial change. There are ten conditions that this petition met, and it is limited only to a change in the master plan, a map change. There is no text change to the Marco Shores PUD. You have in your packet -- I'm sorry, I don't have a visualizer for the audience. The parcel is located south of U.S. 41 on Collier Boulevard or County Road 951. It is south of the Marco Shores -- excuse me, south of the Fiddler's Creek project. Page 50 October 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You have to close the door so the court reporter can hear. Thank you. MR. REISCHL: It is within Collier County. The main road through the project is Mainsail Drive which is a county road that leads to the Marco Island airport which is also in Collier County. Again, without the visualizer, what I've done is put it today on a proposed map with copies for you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chair, during the lull I want to make a disclosure. I spoke with Mr. Varnadoe regarding this petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. REISCHL: As you get that, the top picture is the way the master plan exists today. The coloring is mine, not the petitioner's. That's just -- I took black and white maps from the PUD. Then the bottom is the proposed that, again, was colored by me and shows the -- I'll give you the little key here. Yellow, obviously, is the roads. Blue are the undeveloped residential parcels, and you'll see the difference in the location and configuration between the two. The green is the golf course, and red is the clubhouse location. The reconfiguration will allow a common entrance to the currently undeveloped parcel. As you can see today, the parcel in the top picture -- in the top picture, the blue parcel to the west will have its own driveway. Then the clubhouse has its own driveway. Then the parcel to the east has its own driveway off Mainsail. The picture on the bottom, they have a common driveway for all of those parcels. They're all accessed before any of the traffic will reach the existing residences which basically front along Mainsail Drive. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Fred, what is the status of that little bitty residential Parcel 2 up there in the northeast corner? MR. REISCHL: That's slated to remain a portion of residential Page 51 October 4, 2001 Parcel 2. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: to that? Undeveloped? So there will be an entrance MR. REISCHL: Yes. You're correct. I did receive approximately six phone calls. I met with people face to face as they've come into the office. I received letters which -- you got some in your packet, and I put some -- I gave some to you today. The concerns that were talked about were that the relocation would alter the views from the existing condos. Again, questions on construction, that construction traffic and a construction mess would cause problems; that fewer than 10 percent of the residents are here, and the hearing should not be heard until more of the residents come to Naples. I heard a few complaints that people were not notified of the meeting with the developer, which is not an official meeting as of today. As you know, the public participation will become a part of it, but as of today that's not a change in the code. They claim they were not notified of the developer's meeting, not of this meeting. Also, that the relocation would put the clubhouse in direct line of the view of their back patios. Now, again, this is still on the other side of the golf course; however, if you look at the -- again, I wish I had a visualizer to point this out -- but on the bottom picture where the clubhouse is being relocated, it's across the golf course from a developed parcel. Now, they are looking at a golf course today, and they'll be looking at a golf course if this change is passed. This is the width of the golf course that they're considering. Because the size of the parcels is not affected, which is the main -- one of the main criteria that makes it an insubstantial change -- it's a reduction in traffic along Mainsail Drive. Staff does recommend Page 52 October 4, 2001 approval. And, again, just to remind you that this is an insubstantial change to the PUD. You are the final approval on this. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have questions of staff?. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Are there any conservation areas? I'm trying to decode your map. MR. REISCHL: This is a portion of the Deltona settlement agreement. This entire parcel is a developable parcel. If they wanted to, they could develop the entire thing. There were tens of thousands of acres, I believe, that were given to the state as part of the settlement agreement. Those are the conservation areas now owned by the state. This entire parcel is developable. There is no preserve areas required or nothing like that. It's an unusual circumstance, but that's how it got there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So this is a joint mitigation situation that predates this being here? MR. REISCHL: This PUD was the result of that settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: When did this PUD first come before the board? MR. REISCHL: '84, I believe -- '81 -- 1981. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the fact that they started construction and so forth have permitted them to have an ongoing PUD, you know, the issues we've dealt with in terms of-- MR. REISCHL: For sunsetting? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- sunsetting? MR. REISCHL: That's right. This will not sunset. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: One of the-- when we had this description at our first Land Development Code amendment cycle last month, I was persuaded that the reason it's good to have sunsetting and give them another cycle of three years is that that Page 53 October 4, 2001 gives we and all the approval agencies an opportunity then to apply the current code to the existing project, not what was originally brought in place, which in this case would be back in 1980 or '84. MS. STUDENT: It's been amended several times. I can't tell you how many times, but probably five or six times since 1981. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The PUD? MS. STUDENT: Yeah, the PUD. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Which was probably from 1981. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. MR. REISCHL: And, again, it resulted from a settlement, an out-of-court settlement, between several environmental intervenors as they're called, Deltona Corporation, the State of Florida, and the Army Corps of Engineers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I was here at that time. That's when I first came to Florida. It was rather exciting. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What we have here then is a newly submitted PUD for us to consider which starts another three- year window. MR. REISCHL: No. This is only a change to the master plan. The PUD is exactly the same in words. That's why you were just given the old copy of it. The only change in this is the change in the map. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Do you see that? That doesn't strike me as insubstantial. You're moving these things around. MR. REISCHL: That's defined by code. That's how the code defines it. (Noise from audience.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Now, audience, please. Mr. Richardson, are you through with your questions for the moment? Mr. Strain has some. Page 54 October 4, 2001 MR. REISCHL: stories over parking. comer. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a couple questions to start out. The residential parcel that's being moved that's in the view of the existing residential there, what's the height of the building that will be allowed in that residential parcel? MR. REISCHL: The residential --. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think it's labeled "two." I believe it's -- I can look it up, but it's three The high-rises are in Parcel 1, the southwest COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My second question is, on your coloration that you gave us, there's a -- on the top, the '94 -- I believe it is -- PUD you show a utility site. The utility site is removed on the new submittal. Is that utility site for residential? MR. REISCHL: No, it's for water treatment. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are you aware that there's a clause in the new LDC that says if you move anything that is nonresidential it cannot be considered insubstantial? And if so I wonder how staff viewed that. I can cite the section if you would like. MR. REISCHL: I believe you. Utilities are used for residential. That was --. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, let me read the section. (As read): "There is a proposed increase in the size of areas used for nonresidential uses to include institutional, commercial, and industrial land uses" -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Slowly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- "except preservation, conservation, and open space, or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land use." Page 55 October 4, 2001 I understand you're moving Parcel 2, but if you move those utility parcels, it would seem to me that you're moving a nonresidential land use that would trigger substantial change to the PUD, not an insubstantial. MR. REISCHL: In my analysis the utilities are used for residential. They would not be required if the residential was not there. It's not a commercial -- it's commercial in the fact that the utilities make money on doing this, but it's not open to the general public or commercial in that sense. being there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's necessitated by the residential The 81-6 PUD that originated with this site did call that a utility site and included it in calculation for its utilities sizing, and it labeled residential as well. Since they separately labeled it in the PUD and it was approved that way, I just -- Marjorie, you may have to help here in trying to help me understand how the utility site can be defined as a residential site in this case. MS. STUDENT: Well, I'm going to sit here if I may because I didn't want to drag this big book up there and collapse the podium. This is what the section says. I'm going to have to defer to staff again because we rely on staff-- and perhaps Miss Murray can shed some light on it -- to do interpretations of this code as it relates to, you know, strictly land-use matters as opposed to other legal matters like constitutional law and things like that. And what it says, as he read, and I'll read it again (as read): "There is a proposed increase in the size of areas used for nonresidential uses to include institutional, commercial, and industrial uses except preservation, conservation, or open spaces, or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses." The question then becomes how would staff interpret a separate -- if that information is correct, a separate site that is a designated utility on the master plan, and would that be considered a Page 56 October 4, 2001 nonresidential use under this language or as contemplated by this, or is there some kind of ancillary use to serve a residential facility? So I need to defer to the current planning manager on this point. MS. MURRAY: Unless the PUD says otherwise, we would opine that that utility is there to serve the residential uses of the property, and it would be considered an accessory use to the residential uses. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Does that satisfy, Mr. Strain, your questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I understand that. It just seems -- I mean, residential and nonresidential I thought we were pretty clear. You either live in it or you don't. You don't live in an industrial site. MS. MURRAY: It's an accessory use to the residential structure. It wouldn't be there. It's not a commercial use. It's to serve the residents of the area. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could I just -- Susan, just a matter of clarification. If this were viewed as a substantial change - - it's my hypothetical -- would this have been submitted to a more intensive review by other agencies or other staff or groups in the county? MS. MURRAY: If it was substantial, it would -- the final decision would rest with the Board of County Commissioners, and yes, it would be subject to a different set of reviews. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The general problem I have here is this seems to kind of fall in a little bit of gray area between substantial and insubstantial. To a layman, which really I am, I look at this and see a whole bunch of stuff going on. There's a lot of things being moved around. It certainly seems very substantial Page 57 October 4, 2001 to me. If that were the case, then I would, you know, have appreciated more staff review from our experts to make sure that what we're doing is really going to be supported. MS. MURRAY: That petition -- the purpose of that petition and the purpose of the criteria in the code is essentially to determine if it's substantial or insubstantial. In our opinion, we are coming forward to you saying the requested amendment is considered an insubstantial change by the criteria we evaluated in the code. If you do not share that opinion, you do have the final say in this, and you're welcome to vote that way, and I would suggest -- I'm sure Marjorie would agree -- that you state very clearly for the record why you disagree with it. MS. STUDENT: I'd like to state one other item for the record. If you look at how the insubstantial changes are to be reviewed, there are criteria for the -- the only difference between an insubstantial and substantial change is how many levels of review it goes through. But you still are bound by the criteria for rezoning that are in the code when you look at this substantial change. It's not like there's no criteria there. It's just that it doesn't go to the Board of County Commissioners after it goes to you, and the Planning Commission has the final order authority on that. But you still have criteria which is the same for an original application to utilize in making your determination on whether or not to approve the petition. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But what I think is missing -- I agree with what you said, Marjorie, but what I think is missing is the expertise of the rest of the ordinance -- of the county organization to really take a look at this. I just think we're being denied that opportunity, and my feeling is that -- and we'll hear from the applicant. My feeling is that they're really doing some major changes. MR. REISCHL: IfI could interject or answer that. This was reviewed by environmental and by transportation. It went to other Page 58 October 4, 2001 review agencies that would see if this was a PUD amendment. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, we don't have those criteria and responses and so forth that we normally see or that analysis. MR. REISCHL: I don't normally include review comments in my staff report. I incorporate them in or write them in, but I don't give you the responses that the reviewers wrote. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Since everybody grabbed their code books, it would appear that Mr. Budd is reading quickly from the code book and has a comment or two to make. COMMISSIONER BUDD: The only comment I want to make was in regard to the issue of substantial and insubstantial. I think we're going to hear a lot more on that, and that's going to be a key point on this thing. For our own purposes as planning commissioners and for the public's input, I think it's important to realize that substantial and insubstantial is not a matter of opinion, whether it's major or minor, big or small, a lot or a little. That's not what substantial and insubstantial is. There's very specific language in the code, 11 specific criteria under the zoning section on what is technically substantial or insubstantial. Mr. Strain brought up one issue that, if his assertion was found to be true, would clearly make this a substantial change. But in our correspondence that we got from the public -- and I expect some of the testimony we're going to hear is going to address that issue of substantial and insubstantial. The only relevant criteria in making that determination is in an opinion relevant to this code. Again, from the correspondence, and I expect from a general inclination, there's going to be a strong assertion that it is substantial. As one commissioner ifs only going to matter to me if it's relevant to the criteria in our code. MS. STUDENT: Okay. I just want to state for the record that, really, the only difference here is the number of bodies it goes Page 59 October 4, 2001 through. Everything else is the same. If it went to the board, I guess under the code it would be treated like a new application if it were a substantial change. But the review criteria are the same. They are found on page 2:233 for rezonings generally which we apply to PUDs and 2:24 ! which are the criteria for the PUDs. Those are the criteria to guide you in making your determination as to whether or not to approve this petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are those enumerated here? MS. STUDENT: That's if you find it's insubstantial. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We don't have those right at our fingertips. MS. STUDENT: I'll be happy -- if you bear with me, I can read them into the record. I have them here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is it a possibility -- MS. STUDENT: Or somebody could make some copies. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I think that making copies would be easier to have in front of us, specifically, and we obviously have a number of people that stood who were sworn in, and we have a presentation by the petitioner. So during that we could listen to what's being said to us and have copies made. Does that feel good to the rest of the commissioners? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Because we can proceed on without taking too much time. THE COURT REPORTER: very shortly. I'm going to need to change paper CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Well, why don't we take a break on behalf of the court reporter so she can change her paper. We will take about a seven-minute break. We'll take a recess. Thank you. Page 60 October 4, 2001 (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Everybody in their places and positions, please. We are ready to reconvene. I believe staff has finished its presentation, and we now have the petitioner who would like to speak. Mr. Vamadoe. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, George Vamadoe of the law firm of Young, vanAssenderp, Vamadoe & Anderson for the petitioner, WCI Communities, Inc. WCI is the contract purchaser of the undeveloped resident tracts in the Marco Shores golf course community, which I'll call Marco Shores hereafter, and the golf course. Also here today to answer questions or address the Planning Commission we have Margaret Perry, a planner with WilsonMiller; Dan Johnson, an engineer with WilsonMiller, who were the engineers and planners of the project; A1 Moscato, a division president of WCI; Wanda Cross, who's the vice president and project manager on behalf of the project; and Pat Bradshaw of Bradshaw & Gill landscape architect firm doing the landscape design of this project. Mr. Richardson led me into my next issue. It was kind of maybe a brief history of this project that does have some history. Mr. Midney, I'll move so you can see me. It's going to be kind of difficult here today. I've got a lot of exhibits, and I've got my own Vanna White, Margaret Perry, who's going to have to move around a little bit so the audience and the Planning Commission can see them, so just bear with me. It will take a little longer, but I want everybody to understand the presentation so that if you do have questions at least we're all dealing with the same subject. The history of the project, I think, is important. This project dates back to -- the original PUD was done in 1981. We've got an aerial somewhere, Margaret. Hold it back here, Margaret. Turn it to Page 61 October 4, 2001 the side so we can all see it. I need to be able to see it a little bit better. You can see what's -- north is to the top, State Road 951 is on the left. The airport is on the far right. What you see cleared on that was cleared in the early '80s and then dredged and filled and the golf course built by Deltona. When Deltona had its problems with permits in the late '70s or early '80s, the State of Florida and the federal government ended up with a settlement agreement, so-called, being entered into by Collier County, the State of Florida, Deltona, and environmental intervenors whereby Deltona deeded some 15,000 acres to the state. In return for that they got some development rights on various properties around the area. This is one of them. This is specifically vested in that settlement agreement as far as environmental and as to density and intensity. The other areas, of course, include the other parts of Marco Shores Fiddler's Creek and some land on Isle of Capri, etc. This is about a 321-acre site. After that time, development took place with several developers. Margaret, turn that around here. These people in the audience will know where these are, but the board won't. This is Tropic Schooner in this area here and here. This is the Mainsail condominiums which is a series, I think, under-- they're all called Mainsail, I think, 1 through 4 maybe. You have Fairways Villas I and Fairways Villas II. There's the golf course in this area coming down and going over here and back around. There's some undeveloped tract here at this location in here and over here. This is the maintenance facility. There's also some utility sites -- Florida Water Service has both a water treatment and a sewage treatment facility on the project. In 1994 -- the PUD was amended, I think, at least twice. In 1985 it was amended, and it may have been amended subsequent to that. In 1994 there was a substantial amendment to the PUD. The '94 PUD amendment did not change any of the criteria or regulations Page 62 October 4, 2001 with regard to the developed parcel. Obviously, they did not try to change the application of any standards to the existing condominium development. It did update the PUD as to the undeveloped tracts. That PUD document also had several major changes. There was a four-acre commercial tract which was deleted. Density was reduced by 400 units or about 20 percent. It allowed for high-rise parcels in Tract 1, which is the tract down in this area here. It increased open space by about 15 acres, and it changed the routing of the golf course or golf tract. No development has taken place on those undeveloped tracts of the golf course since 1994, so the aerial fairly reflects what's on the ground today with regard to those parcels. The golf course is still in the pre-'94 plan as shown on the reported plat. The development tracts as they appear on the pre-'94 tracts are, as I said, still -- you can see still see them clearly. You can still see the development tract in this location. As Mr. Reischl explained, the purpose of this amendment is a master plan change, and even though Mr. Reischl went through it, before I go through what the changes are, I think I'll explain what they aren't. There is no change to the PUD text, so there's no change to the number of units allowed. There is no change to the allowed uses. There is no change in the heights of the buildings, no change to the setbacks. We weren't changing the basic criteria. We're simply making a map change. It reflects a relocation and reconfiguration of the residential parcels and the golf course tract. Basically, we're going back to the basic location where these tracts were prior to the '94 amendment. Margaret, why don't you hold up our proposed -- this is kind of a large rendition of what Fred Reischl passed out. As I said, the relocation basically reflects what's on the recorded plat now and what's in the pre '94. Parcel 1, which is this parcel down in this Page 63 October 4, 2001 location here, is the parcel that allowed high-rise tracts to have some very significant setbacks. All buildings have to be set back 500 feet from Mainsail Drive and 500 feet from the nearest existing residential unit. Parcel 2, which is the low-rise parcel, which is -- we called all of this Parcel 2 just to delineate what we're talking about as far as development standards. As you see it became linear in shape with the golf course on both sides of the two main parcels, this one and this one. It also allowed us to move the vast majority of the low-rise units away from the airport. If you remember, there was a big development parcel in this area right here. With the airport here, it allows us to move them over in this area away from the airport, which we think would reduce the number of complaints and potential conflicts with the airport. The golf course tract, which I'm sure you're going to hear about, is right now on Mainsail Drive in between one of the Fairways condominiums and Tropic Schooner right in this location. We're moving it over here internal to the golf course and away from Mainsail Drive. These changes allow it to have a common entrance, one entrance, to the undeveloped parcels or the main parcels. We still have this little small five-acre tract -- three-acre tract up here. It also allows us to move the maintenance facilities, which is located here, over to its location here away from residential. The original PUD application did not contain the movement of that maintenance facility. It was moved -- we got with staff and changed the application on a later date in response to concerns from residents. If that's going to cause this to become a substantial change, then we won't move it, but I'm telling you it's being moved for everybody's benefit, and I hope and trust that the residents would say they want that thing moved. It's not very -- where's that aerial that's kind of oblique? Again, Page 64 October 4, 2001 forgive me for taking this much time, but I am trying to -- there is an oblique aerial of the site. Margaret, let me look at the date on this. It was taken in '96, so it reflects probably all the units on it with the exception of a couple of buildings in Fairways II. You can see in this location that some of those are still -- this is the so-called maintenance facility. It's got a water tank. It's part of the water management system for irrigation. It's got machinery and the usual stuff you find. It's right on the main road. Perhaps -- I want to use a conceptual master plan, but I think I can demonstrate some of these changes and discuss some of the issues better fi'om this. This is conceptual in nature, but all the proposed development on here does reflect what would be within the project boundaries of the new development tracts we're talking about. I think you can see all the layouts we're talking about. We end up on the eastern side, instead of having development in this area, with nothing but golf courses. You can see the common entrance here. I think that there are some benefit to the existing residents from these changes, and I'm sure we're going to have some questions that we can hopefully respond to. First, the project entry for the main part of the undeveloped units moves to the west over here. I think that has some benefits, first, with that construction traffic for the low-rise development. Previously, the entry was in this area. That construction traffic will no longer be passing along Mainsail Drive in front of all the existing residential units. That construction entrance is now going to be in this location here, so as the trucks come -- this is only one entrance for this project mainly or only because it's surrounded by state land. We talked about all that land surrounding it as part of the 15,000 acres of Deltona. This property has got a surveyed line around the edge of the property, and you can kind of see it on here. On the inside you're allowed development. On the outside it Page 65 October 4, 2001 belongs to the state, and it's part of conservation lands administered by Rookery Bay, and you can't touch it. So we're limited to one entrance into the project. But I do think it's a substantial benefit that the construction traffic for the low-rise parcel and also the construction traffic for the golf clubhouse, which is going to be updated and a new clubhouse -- rather than construction traffic coming in front of the Fairways I and Mainsail and being adjacent to Fairways II, that will be moved and come down to this location for the relocated golf clubhouse. Second, the relocation also ensures that in the future traffic -- all site traffic going to the golf club or going to those residential units in the low-rise will not pass in front of the existing condominiums on Mainsail Drive. And as a long-time resident of Collier County who happens to live on Crayton Road, I can tell you I would applaud any change that would reduce the traffic in front of my neighborhood. We have an increase in open space of about 8 1/2 acres mainly because of the changes in the development scenario that are proposed. I think upgrading the clubhouse facility, providing new and upscale residential units is going to raise the property values for everybody in this project. Obviously we're going to be redoing the golf course to something in keeping with what WCI has on its other golf courses in Collier County, which are, of course, very nice. Finally, WCI met with representatives of various condominium entities on site. I know that some people feel they were excluded from that. Please accept my apologies. It certainly wasn't the intention to exclude anybody from that meeting. We've received written questions from some -- one of the condominiums, Tropic Schooner, and we have responded in writing to that, and I would like to make that part of the record, please. I have copies if any of the Planning Commission members would like to see those. I know that we don't take time to read this stuff as we go along, but that's for the Page 66 October 4, 2001 record. They had questions -- I'm not trying to say that I know all their questions, but they had questions about buffering the existing residential from the entry road and the new development. Margaret, hold that up. As I understand it from talking to residents, we're talking about this road here and how we are going to buffer ourselves from Tropic Schooner, Fairways II, and Fairways I and what they'll be seeing as they look out the back of their units. Although there is a significant separation between any of our development and their development -- I think the closest development is about 350 feet building to building. That is in excess of a football field. WCI has committed to adding a landscape buffer. If you-all excuse me, I'm going to step over here where the audience can see that. Mr. Strain, can I borrow your microphone? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It doesn't work. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It only works for the camera. It doesn't work for the audience. MR. VARNADOE: I think everybody's going to be able to hear me. I've got a big mouth, and I've been accused of that several times. WCI has committed to a landscape buffer along the east side of this entry road and along the north side of this road. Boy, is my hand steady or what? Damn, George, you're getting old. The idea of putting the buffer there was that we would not be blocking existing views of the golf course from Fairways I, Fairways II, or Tropic Schooner. We would be blocking views of the entry road and partially blocking views of the residential units that would be across the road from those units. At the top of this, you can kind of see a so-called cross-section. This is a depiction of an existing Fairway I, Fairway II unit that's two story. You can see that we're going to be redoing the golf course. Page 67 October 4, 2001 The golf course is actually going to be bringing in a lot of dirt to get some mounding and rolling effects on the golf course, and then the road will actually be -- the entry road here will actually be below the golf course in this area. Mr. Taft can talk about it later if he needs to. You will not actually see that road from their condominium units. The idea is to kind of mimic the views they have now, that is, golf course and then vegetation, which is what they look at today. There have also been some questions about the proximity of the golf course clubhouse, which is in this location, to the units and does that cause any problems, and what's going to be seen there. It's 400 feet from the nearest Fairway -- I think this is the Fairways I unit here -- to the edge of the golf course tract. And that building on that -- although the building hasn't been designed, the building, as WCI always does, has a circular entry in the front, and the building is towards the rear of the tract. So we think that the nearest unit to that golf clubhouse is going to be at least two football fields, 600 feet. So it's a substantial distance with not only the landscape on the golf course, but also the landscape buffer I talked about along here. What we're proposing is a Type B buffer, but one that allows for the clustering of trees and shrubs with vistas and filtered views of the golf course for the units that are going to be located in this area. A typical Type B buffer, for those who aren't used to county standards, has 1 tree every 25 feet, and it tells you how tall the trees have to be when you put them in, and then shrubs underneath that. It ends up with a very military looking buffer. We want the flexibility to cluster those trees and shrubs so it provides a more natural look or meandering look as opposed to a straight-line boulevard type of look. We tried to provide continuous views of the golf course to the existing condominiums, but also provide screening of the entry roads in our future development. Page 68 October 4, 2001 I don't think I want to go a lot further. I want to have time to, of course, respond to questions and issues that are raised by the audience. Margaret Perry is here to address any questions there may be on whether the amendments meet the development code requirements you were asked to look at, and we can certainly hear her if we need to. There's one item -- two items that I want to address. Although they don't specifically have to do with the PUD amendment, I ask your indulgence while I put this on the record. We've had meetings with Tropic Schooner and their representatives. That's the large condominium development on this location. They have expressed concerns about what's going to happen with the drainage association because when we met with representatives, WCI said, "We're going to put this drainage association back in place and implement what's required." The deed restrictions for this project require a drainage association -- and they're the deed restrictions that go to all the property that everybody owns in there are subject to, including us. The drainage association was put in place to manage the overall water management system for the project. The South Florida Water Management District permit requires the same thing. As Mr. Richardson noted, 1981 is a long time ago. This has never been fully implemented. The method of assessment is convoluted and probably antiquated. They had asked us to commit that we would not try to come up with a system that would overly burden the existing condominiums in there, that they would not be required to pay more than the share they would have under the original plan in the event we are going to have more lakes or bigger lakes or different lakes than originally contemplated, and we're certainly happy to make that commitment. We've also committed to work with them to revise the method of Page 69 October 4, 2001 assessment to a more simplified method and probably would suggest strictly an acreage assessment which would put more of the burden on the golf course and less of the burden on the residential units. The one that's there now -- I won't try to go into it -- puts more of the burden on the residential and less on the golf course. Because there are deed restrictions, it's going to take the cooperation and agreement of the majority of the unit owners that are there to come up with a better plan, and we commit on behalf of WCI to work with everybody to come up with a plan that's fair and doesn't overly burden the existing unit owners beyond what they are subject to today. The second thing is that Tropic Schooner has two buildings that don't show on that plan, but they're in this general location right in the comer down here very, very close to the property line. One is, I think, a rec building, and the other one is a little maintenance building. They were concerned that we might have a lake or development very close to them. For the record, we commit to provide enough buffer so that we don't -- they don't step out of the door of their rec building and fall into a lake or whatever we'll be setting back from that property line. So with that if you have any questions, I'll be happy to respond to them; otherwise, I think we ought to hear from the public. Please leave us an opportunity to respond to the issues or questions they might have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a couple of questions. One question I have -- just want to clarify is, you said there is a drainage association that's going to be reactivated? MR. VARNADOE: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And the purpose of that? MR. VARNADOE: The purpose of the drainage association was to maintain the drainage facility for the entire project so that Page 70 October 4, 2001 there's one system of drainage for the entire project. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You need to maintain them, and you're not worried about increased stormwater at all -- MR. VARNADOE: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. VARNADOE: No. -- or the retention? We'll be building another lake to provide the stormwater for what we're going to be building. Once that's in place, the requirement under the deed restrictions that exists is for one association to maintain the entire system, and the residents were rightly concerned that more of the burden didn't fall on them as a result of what we're doing, and that won't happen. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're going to spread out the sharing of the drainage? MR. VARNADOE: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mine was a matter of, I think, density. It looked like -- my eyes are not that good, but it appears that the PUD is planning 1,580 units? MR. VARNADOE: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How many exist between Tropic Schooner and Mainsail now? MR. VARNADOE: I think there's over 500 units built. I think it leaves right at a thousand units for the undeveloped tracts. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How many units does WCI intend to construct? MR. VARNADOE: That hasn't been totally determined, but it certainly can't be any more than that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It doesn't look like it could be. Are those quads or duplexes or what? MR. VARNADOE: Right now-- and they're still in design, but those are designed as four-plexes at the present time. What you're Page 71 October 4, 2001 going to end up with is five high-rises here. You'll probably end up with six to seven hundred units in this location here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Did WCI acquire the golf course? MR. VARNADOE: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And you're going to be reconfiguring that? MR. VARNADOE: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abemathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Varnadoe, did I under -- let me start over. MR. VARNADOE: Don't trick me now. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If we find that this is an insubstantial change and administrative finality to MR. VARNADOE: to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: MR. VARNADOE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: approve it, that gives a certain it. That's it. Am I right? Subject to any aggrieved party appealing it They can appeal? All right. Then did I further understand you to say that if we were to think that this is a substantial change because of that utility facility, the moving of it, that you would be willing to leave it where it is? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir, but I don't want to leave my answer like that. I don't think that's in the best interest of the community, and I'm not talking about WCI. If that's the outcome of this hearing, then I would ask-- and I haven't talked to the client-- I would ask WCI to come back and do another PUD amendment to move that. I think it's in everybody's benefit to get that down to the east end of the property and away from Mainsail Road. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Page 72 October 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Varnadoe, you've indicated several statements that had the word "commitment" in it. You committed to someone that there will be a modified Type B buffer in one area. You talked about a commitment to change the assessment charges so that it's more equitable. I'm just going to ask staff-- if I'm interpreting that correctly -- if these commitments then would become part of the committment section of the PUD. MR. VARNADOE: Let me -- I'm not trying to -- let me respond, and then I'll let them respond from there. As to the buffer, we put a notation in that regard on the PUD master plan that, obviously, becomes the approved master plan. That is part of the PUD at that point in time. I'll let staff respond as to the legal effect of the commitments that we're making with regard to the drainage association. This is not mentioned in the PUD. It's not part of the PUD. It is one of the big issues for residents down there, and I think that they wanted to hear on the record WCI's position with regard to that drainage association, and I told them I would make those statements, Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Where I'm headed is we've just gone through a big deal about public participation, as you know. In the new ordinance that we've passed on up to BCC, we've had quite a more extensive procedure for the public to be involved at early stages and throughout the process. Part of what we identified that needed to be tweaked in that was that there was a commitment section that when the developer or applicant has these meetings, which are manadated now under the new ordinance, that the commitments, in fact, would have to be written down and brought forward as part of the process to the approving bodies. I'll come a little bit in the middle here. I'm hearing commitments, but I'm not sure it's going to get appropriately reflected Page 73 October 4, 2001 in the PUD, and if it is in the PUD, then it really moves it more to a substantial change. Because it says you're not going to have any changes to the PUD language, yet I would like to have some way for these commitments to have a better remembered and a better enforcement vehicle. I think the PUD amendment would be the best way to do that. So that's my concern. MR. VARNADOE: I understand that, and I don't want to get into -- I'm not trying to get into a debate with you, but I certainly understand your point. There is nothing in the PUD today about the drainage association. So any amendment with regard to that doesn't appear appropriate. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I just used that as an example of something you said. MR. VARNADOE: I understand. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: There may be other commitments that you've made to people in this room or to people out there that's not part of the record. MR. VARNADOE: Some of those commitments are always going to be external to the zoning process and the PUD process in this instance. With regard to the buffer that you were talking about, I was merely showing you that it does become part of the record and is reflected on the master plan. It will become part of the PUD amendment. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't want to argue about this. My point is, you say that some of the commitments made in the future will not be part of the record. I contend that if you follow the new ordinance they will be part of the record. MR. VARNADOE: I guess you and I disagree on that, sir. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm not sure the word was "commitment," Mr. Richardson, as much as it was contacts to the information that was discussed. So we'll keep that one for future Page 74 October 4, 2001 discussions, but I certainly do sympathize with what you're saying given past experiences you've had. Mr. Strain had some questions. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got two questions. The first one is, Mr. Varnadoe, in '94 you did a plan amendment, a PUD amendment at the time. Contrary to the differences here, you've received letters of objection on this particular plan amendment, but in '94 on public record it was stated there were no objections. You did a great job in '94, and I'm just wondering why there's a difference between the actions in '94 and the actions now on the objections you're seeing now. MR. VARNADOE: I think, Mr. Strain, you're going to have to listen to those objections and see what they are. I'll tell you that to the best of my ability, as you know from working with me, I try to work out with the residents their objections. In fact, we met with some of them this morning and tried to answer questions and concerns. I think we're better to hear the objections and questions and then try to deal with them here as we always do. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The other question I have is, the approved PUD, which is the '94 version, Section 503(A)5 has a couple of sentences that I would like to read, and then maybe you can explain to me how this plan addresses those. MR. VARNADOE: I would be glad to. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: (As read): "Tracts TU and E1 as depicted on the PUD master plan on Marco Shores Unit 1 plat are not owned by the petitioner and are developed or under development. These tracts are currently contiguous to the golf course. Petitioner agrees that in any reconfiguration of a golf course these tracts will continue to have an equal or greater amount of contiguity with the golf course tract as described in the record plat of Marco Shores Unit 1." MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. Page 75 October 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Could you explain how the movement now is to help fix that? MR. VARNADOE: Absolutely. Tracts TU and E1 are Fairways I, Fairways II, and Tropic Schooner. At the time we did the amendment in '94, we did not have a golf course alignment, if you would. We simply defined it as a golf course tract. Those people were contiguous to the golf course, that is, as my Funk & Wagnell describes it -- they border on or were abutting the golf course. And what we've done is make sure they continue to abut or border upon the golf course as you can -- let's do our master plan -- I'm sorry, the conceptual plan. Sorry. As you can see, this is Tract-- I think it's Tract T. I don't know whether it's T or U, but I think this is Tract T, Fairways I. They continue to abut the golf course. U continues to abut the golf course. Tract E-1 continues to abut the golf course here, here, and over here. So we've been very cognizant of that. I was the author of that language, and there was some concern about -- that they were going to not have golf course views, and we wanted to make sure that they did. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And your definition of contiguity, then, is linear, not depth. MR. VARNADOE: Absolutely. That's exactly what the dictionary describes it as. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How narrow do you think that could be before it wouldn't be plotted? MR. VARNADOE: Well, you're doing a golf course. What's the normal width of a golf course? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you could have a cart path at 11 feet and still be part of the golf course. MR. VARNADOE: I don't think that's -- we certainly haven't done that. Page 76 October 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know you haven't. I was just asking about your definition. MR. VARNADOE: No. I think it's a practical man's definition, and that is, if you border on a golf course then, you border on a golf course now. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions of Mr. Varnadoe for the moment? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. Madam Chair, as the LDC provides, I want a chance to respond. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Our first registered public speaker -- I would like to remind you that if you were not sworn in, please bring that to our attention when you approach the podium, and we'll call two or three names and ask that you just sort of come up and line up over here so we can move quickly. The first public speaker. MS. MURRAY: These names are tough. Excuse me. Jean LeFebvre would be the first public speaker. Then Jarig and Jila Wiglama would be on deck, please. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One thing that would be very helpful for our court reporter is to state your name, say where you live, and spell your name. That would be very helpful. Come on forward the two or three names that were just mentioned. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Miss Murray, how many do we have? MS. MURRAY: Twelve. MS. LeFEBVRE: And I have an hour? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No, not quite. THE COURT REPORTER: Your name? MS. LeFEBVRE: My name is Jean LeFebvre, and I live on Marco Shores at the Fairways I. Page 77 October 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Spell it. MS. LeFEBVRE: L-e-F-e-b-v-r-e. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MS. LeFEBVRE: I'll bet you don't have it right. I wouldn't want to be in this gentleman's shoes that was just up here a few minutes ago because there's no way that this is going to be accepted by all of us easily. I'm concerned-- I've been there six years. I live right across from where the golf club is going to be or is proposed to be. If this map is accurate, it says an inch is about 200 feet. Well, the way I look at it it's going to be about 200 feet behind me. Where I used to sit -- for six years now I've been sitting out looking at a beautiful golf course at night and the stars; that's all going to go away. I don't even know how much impact we have here. If we all say we don't want it, does that make it go away? And if not, then at least I would like it to be as livable as possible. I have concerns that there would be things like streetlights -- am I going to be looking out at streetlights? I'm not sure I want that road behind us. The gentleman says it takes traffic away from the front of the condo, yes, and it puts it right in the back of the condo, which is where I am all the time. I mean, my car is at the front. I just would like -- one more thing also. It says here insubstantial. Well, I'll tell you, I don't see much insubstantial because this is going to affect us tremendously. Everything is being changed. I just hope that there's some sort of a compromise that can happen, and we can get some of the issues taken care of at a later date. I don't suspect any of that is going to happen now. I mean, I don't know. This is the first I hear of it. But those that are looking out for my interests in the condo association, now do your thing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Next speaker. Page 78 October 4, 2001 MR. WIGLAMA: We're a husband-and-wife team. Is that all right? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Speak one at a time. Go ahead. Say who you are, where you live, and spell your name. MRS. WIGLAMA: Good morning. My name is Jila Wiglama, and we live in Unit 215 in Fairway I. We just recently bought the house -- the condo as an investment for our-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Spell your name. MRS. WIGLAMA: Jila, J-i-l-a, and the last name is Wiglama, W-i-g-l-a-m-a. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MRS. WIGLAMA: You're welcome. We recently bought this condo as an investment for our future, but when we heard about this new development, which we didn't know anything about until a couple weeks ago, it got kind of scary because we didn't know, you know, how far this back road is going to be from our backyard and if we will have our privacy still and if the club facilities will be located in the back of our backyard. And also, like, you know, we don't want to sit in our backyard in the evening and see the cars going back and forth and the lights as he mentioned and also the hazards of the fuel and all that in the air. We like to enjoy our house, but this movement or this new development is kind of scary to us. We don't want to lose the value of our property because that's what we've planned on for our future or for our retirement. We would like him, you know, to be more concerned about our point of view as well, someone who just invested what they have for the future, and see our interest in it as well. At least, you know, let us know about what is going on. Not just all of a sudden we here this and that is going on, and we had no idea. We don't know how much it's going to affect our association, our Page 79 October 4, 2001 monthly fees, our water if they're putting in new lakes, how it's going to work out. It's all unknown to us, and it scares us, and we want answers, please. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. WIGLAMA: My name is Jarig Wiglama, J-a-r-i-g W-i-g-l-a-m-a. I'm also the state health inspector here, and I will be inspecting that clubhouse one of these days, I believe. My sympathies and my -- I echo exactly what Jean said earlier and my wife. We've been there just a couple of months now, and we had to work pretty hard and save a lot of money to get in there. Now that we're in there, we just received all this information, just within a week, about these developments. We heard rumors prior to that. We heard rumors that somebody was going to come in and buy us out and all sorts of things. I'll try to narrow it down, but when we sit out on our little lanai there and look out there across the golf course, I can just envision this clubhouse that's going to be about a football field away from me. It seems to me it's going to squeeze that Fairway No. 4 a little bit even tighter. I've already witnessed golfers out there in their golf carts sober or whatever coming over by our area. I've seen golf balls banging off of trees and heading over in our direction. Now, with this squeeze of the golf course, is it going to bring them over a little tighter into our place? Are we going to have golf balls banging in and out of our place? I've seen a lot of intoxicated drivers out there. Is it going to squeeze it even tighter? Do we have to deal with this every day when we look out there? I'm just concerned about the value. I'm concerned about the quality of life that we're going to have, and I'll just leave it to somebody else to pick it up from there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Next speaker. MS. MURRAY: The next registered speaker is Page 80 October 4, 2001 Ellen Fernandez followed by James Williams. MS.FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Ellen Fernandez, F as in Frank, e-r-n-a- n-d-e-z. I am a property owner and a permanent resident of Fairways II at Marco Shores. My property is a unit that backs up to the 18th green, and I'm on the second level of that development. I'm here in reference to the proposed WCI development that affects our property on Mainsail Drive. A group of the owners in Fairways II have met informally with some of the WCI representatives, and we have asked very specific questions. And in response to some of those in Fairways I who are new owners who feel like they have not been informed quickly enough about this development, then I would urge you also to go directly to WCI because you will get your questions answered. There is no reason to be afraid about it at all. Do go and ask. That's the only way you're going to find out. When we first found out about this, we went directly -- actually down to the Marco Shores Country Club and found out some information there. Our condo association president, Jean McKinley, has also been very instrumental in making sure that we have the information. I would like to just go over just a few of the questions that we asked. This is not limited to all of the questions, but we talked about median enhancements, landscaping, and some minor illumination that would certainly only enhance the property. I must admitted that Collier County, unfortunately, has not done a very good job of keeping the medians clear and cutting it. We have to wait until the grass grows about four feet high before we even get a cutting out there. That has just happened this year definitely. Also, we talked about the construction phasing, including the golf course renovation, the four-plex condos, the high-rise phasing, and also enhancements to the entry. Page 81 October 4, 2001 Further, we talked about the relocation of the maintenance facility. Those of us in Fairways II, particularly those that are near the pool area which look directly-- almost directly into the maintenance facility have expressed that they feel very grateful to WCI for wanting to move that facility because they're looking directly at the water tower, and it's not the best view in the world. So that should certainly enhance the property. Further, we talked about the construction traffic concerns, which Mr. Varnadoe directly addressed and, also, the environmental considerations. It's my understanding there has been some discussion here about the public -- basically the utility facility, which is only on the maintenance area for the golf course. To me that can only enhance the entire area. And if the considerations are made and the commitments that are made that I'm hearing here today are done properly, then I feel that it can only enhance our property value on Fairways II. I've owned my property for three years. I bought it under construction. I, in consideration and also getting my further questions answered with WCI, am fully in agreement with the developer. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: James Williams followed by Janice Williams. MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jim Williams. I'm the president of the Commons Association and the president of Mainsail IV Association, which are across the street from Fairways I and II. Our concerns for many years have been drainage which we haven't had. We haven't had any control over that since 1994 at the time that the Anteramian Development Company bought the golf course. We have had problems with drainage. We've had problems with easements coming from the course across the street into the lake, and nothing has ever been resolved. Page 82 October 4, 2001 We feel that a drainage association being reactivated with this development is going to enhance not only the golf course side, but also stop some of the pollution that's going into that lake, and there is a lot of pollution going in there. The movement of that clubhouse can only enhance the entire area. If you live there and you're there 12 months out of the year like I am and you get 240 or 250 golfers a day up and down that street and a certain number of beer cans and McDonald's wrappers and all the other things that they decide to dump on their way to and from the course, you would appreciate the fact that it's going to be now down at the other end, that their access is going to be through their own property to that golf course. Moving of the maintenance facility will be beneficial to all parties. Just getting it down to the east end away and getting rid of a lot of that tractor noise, mower noise, and everything early in the morning for the residents. We are also seeing an increase in property value at Mainsail. Three months ago properties were closing there in the neighborhood of one hundred and eighteen to a hundred and twenty thousand dollars. I know what's happening because we have to approve all sales. I've just seen two close within the last three weeks, one for 129,900 and one for 131,500. Does that say that people are viewing what's going to happen positively? I think they are. The drainage association definitely needs to be revised. We've talked about this for years and just hope that this will improve and go on with the development. Most recently Florida Water has just been really cracked on by the DEP for failure to monitor drainage. It was amazing to me that after all these years, within the last 30 days they've drilled 6 shallow wells on that golf course to monitor the quality of the drainage. So there's a lot of positive things happening, and we feel that the development by WCI in that area will be beneficial to everyone that lives in that area. Page 83 October 4, 2001 Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Janice Williams followed by Jamie Greusel. MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Janice Williams. I'm on the board of directors at Tropic Schooner condominium. We have 240 units out there. We're situated on 19 acres of land, 23 buildings. We are one of the largest developments on that road abutting Marco Shores Country Club. I think we have a very large interest in what's going on here. Not all of our owners are happy about this project coming in, and I won't give you my opinion, but a great percentage are overjoyed with it. e will lose something out there. We will lose the peace and tranquility. The acre of land that we're viewing is wonderful. I've lived there for nine years. It's a pretty spot to be. But change is going to come, and we must accept change. If it has to change, most of our owners fully accept and support this development. It can only bring good things to us out there. We have been in discussions with WCI and their attorneys. We submitted a letter with 12 items -- 12 or 13 items, and they've been presented today for the record. We are pleased with that. Some of the items haven't been answered sufficiently to our concerns, but we are still working with them, and we feel that we can work that out. The only thing is or biggest concern is this Marco Drainage Association. We are members of it with Mainsail and Fairways. The deed goes back to -- I believe it's 1982 when we were -- I think it was July of'82 when we took it over from Deltona. There was an agreement with Deltona. We took the property, and also we took three sections in our bylaws relating to the Marco Shores Drainage Association. I can tell you we do not understand it. We have all read it. We don't know what our responsibilities are. We don't know what our Page 84 October 4, 2001 percentage of sharing of costs would be. The document is so complex we have had attorneys look at it. We feel that maybe those sections could be rewritten. We would like to work with WCI and maybe adjust our deed. It would be a big process for us to go through. I don't know if it would be possible, but we would be all striving to meet that end. WCI's attorney made a commitment this morning to the Planning Board that they would, yes, in fact, look into the issue and working with us and maybe give us a pro rata expense for it. We're on 19 acres. The full development is going to be 330 acres. If we had 19 percent of the total or however it would work, we would not like to see us paying for more lake maintenance than we are right now for one lake. We pay approximately $2,000 a year to maintain and prepare that lake. It's a living lake. It supports fish, alligators, birds, and so forth, and we would never want to lose it. We're kind of happy with communications with the WCI attorneys. We can only -- we'd like it to remain the same. And we wish WCI didn't come in. But on the other hand, our property values have escalated so since this news has gone out. I mean, you would have to be very foolish not to want this development to come in. If we have to have a change, this is a good change. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Jamie Greusel followed by Martha Smith. MS. GREUSEL: Good morning. I'm Jamie Greusel. I am counsel to Tropic Schooner. When I registered this morning to speak, it was obviously before the presentation. Subsequent to that presentation I did meet with Mr. Varnadoe, and I would like to state for the record that Tropic Schooner's concerns have been adequately addressed. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Martha Smith followed by Pam Gruber. MS. SMITH: Good morning. Page 85 October 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe this is the lady that needs to be sworn in. MS. SMITH: Yes. (The oath was administered.) MS. SMITH: Good morning. It's still morning. Okay. My name is Martha Smith. I am vice president of Fairways I at Marco Shores. We are here this morning to talk about changes. The owners of Fairways I are not here to dispute the rights of the developer or the present or future owners or to develop the land that is already approved for residential development. What we're here for is to receive information and express concerns regarding the proposed changes to the PUD and the revisions of the master plan. I do want to make a comment about the hearing, though. I understand some of the developments down there were notified before Fairways I. Our hearing notices were dated September 14th, 2001, and received by some units owners on the 17th or later. Others were sent to the wrong addresses, old locations, or no notice was received at all. The board of directors and unit owners of Fairways I were not invited by WCI to the preliminary meeting on August 22nd at the country club to preview the proposal for the future development. So at best there has been less than three weeks for us to study the consequences of the proposed changes. The second thing I would like to talk about are -- some of our concerns are declared map changes and the modified use of insubstantial. Number 1, the new relocated 25,000-square-foot clubhouse that is to be situated behind the existing condos, Fairways I. The existing clubhouse is accessed off the main road at present and buffered from surrounding developments. Number 2, a two-lane road proposed behind existing condos. The existing condos have Mainsail Drive in front. Presently traffic flows in front of the nonliving areas of our Page 86 October 4, 2001 development. The proposed plans do not decrease the current traffic. The plan is to divert future traffic off of Mainsail, and the result is the addition of hundreds of cars using the road behind Fairways I, including construction traffic. There is a potential of a thousand cars using a single entrance and exit from Mainsail and State Road 951 with no secondary road or exit roads that exist. A guardhouse with a main entrance in close proximity to an existing condo. Third is our environmental concerns. There is a quote, "The Environmental Advisory Council did not hear this petition because an environmental impact statement was not required." That's according to the August 23rd, 2001, report by the community development environmental services. Question. Regardless of any subsequent large tract relocations and reconfiguration changes, no environmental impact study needs to be revisited. Accepting a study of seven years or older, how can this be consistent with today's goals of reducing short- and long-term environmental impacts? What evidence is being submitted that the proposed relocations and reconfigurations do not create an environmental impact? How was this decision made that the removal of vegetation, relocation, and the addition of a road is not an environmental impact? And is this consistent with federal, state, and local regulations? Would the submission of an environmental study be accepted at a state level? Now, we would like to submit our requests. Number 1, we request that a hearing be rescheduled and no decision be made today. There seems to be some details left unanswered. Number 2, zoning concerns to be addressed because of new roadways and uses of a new and relocated clubhouse. Number 3, an environmental -- updated environmental impact study be submitted addressing short- and long- term changes. And, No. 4, provide a reasonable timeline between the meeting notice and the hearing to allow for increased participation of Page 87 October 4, 2001 owners. MS. MURRAY: MS. GRUBER: owner at Fairways I. We hope you will consider our requests. Thank you. Pam Gruber followed by Jean McKinley. My name is Pam Gruber. I am an original CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Your spelling. MS. GRUBER: G-r-u-b-e-r. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. GRUBER: I've recently been appointed to our board just within the last few weeks due to some of our owners selling and another one recently passing away. So all of this is new to me being on the board. Martha and I have scampered. As we said, we didn't get notification of that first meeting with WCI, so we've been scampering to get all the information out to our owners. We heard back and talked to a lot of them. Some of them are here today. But we certainly haven't had time to get feedback from every one of them. So I'm not really here to talk to you as a board member. I'm here to talk to you as an owner. I've been there six years. The brunt of what is happening out there is going to be behind Fairways I. They keep saying they're doing us a favor by taking the traffic off of Mainsail. Well, Mainsail is the main road. We're used to hearing the traffic. We're used to hearing the trucks. Now all the trucks and all the traffic is going to be right behind Fairways I. Some of it will go to Fairways II. The majority will be behind Fairways I. We are looking across a small fairway at a 25,000-foot clubhouse. They are also putting in, as I said, a road which is going to impact noise, traffic noise, both in front and behind our condo, and it's only 350 feet. They can buffer as much as they want, but I can still hear a car or quite a few cars. I'm concerned about the environment. We have a lot of animals out there. It's a very pristine area. There are abutting areas out there in the development against Page 88 October 4, 2001 the mangroves out there. I don't know what environmental effect that will have on the mangroves out there. I certainly don't want to look out and see them dead in five years because nobody studied it. There are so many changes going on right now. Insubstantial is a word that, you know, I find laughable. This is very substantial. You're moving so many things around. You're causing changes to the environment. You know, I can't understand why this hasn't been studied. They say it has been environmentally. I don't know where those results are. I haven't seen them. As far as changing roads, putting in new roads, to me that's a substantial change. I don't trust these words "commitment" and "intent" and, "yes," we'll do this and that and the other thing. I would like to see something in writing about what they intend to do. And I really -- to say I don't want it in my backyard, I don't think any of us do. If I lived on Mainsail across the street, I'd be jumping up and down right now, of course. They're going to take the clubhouse from where it is, and they're going to dump it in our backyard. They can try and hide it as best they can, but we're still going to hear the noise. We're still going to see the lights. We're going to be greatly impacted by this. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain would like to ask a question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You had said you're one of the original buyers? MS. GRUBER: Original owners. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: About how long ago was that? MS. GRUBER: Six years -- five or six years. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you bought -- the building was only created about six years ago? MS. GRUBER: '94. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The original plat for that property Page 89 October 4, 2001 did have more invasive site work across from your building originally, and they changed it in '94. MS. GRUBER: In '94 when Antaramian bought it.'? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. MS. GRUBER: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: He actually helped it be less impact for you at that time. MS. GRUBER: Well, we saw his plan. His plan was very -- what should I say -- it was -- he had the high-rises going in on Parcel 1. He had the other buildings going in behind Tropic Schooner and that parcel back there. He had incorporated the entire community. He kept the main road on Mainsail. He kept the clubhouse as it was. He was going to redo the clubhouse. He was going to put in a nice gated -- not gated; I shouldn't say that -- a nice area in the front. He was going to put in, like, some kind of canoe ramp or something down there on the lake. He was going to incorporate the whole area. Now WCI is coming in, and they're putting in the whole area. Behind us it will be gated. We're not using that clubhouse. That is for their members only. We're not even going to be using the golf course because it's private unless we want to join. You know, so they're not doing anything for our benefit. They're doing it for their own. And they're putting everything and consolidating everything where it is now because they want to have a gated community, and they want to have it private. They don't want to put the other condos back where Antaramian had it behind Tropic Schooner because they won't have their gated community because they can't gate us off in my opinion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Jean McKinley followed by Harry Poulos. MS. McKINLEY: I'm Jean McKinley. I live at Fairways II. Page 90 October 4, 2001 McKinley is M-c-K-i-n-l-e-y. We at Fairway, the people that I have talked to at Fairways II, all have a very positive attitude about WCI building the golf course and the facility in the back of us. We would be delighted. Since I am in the first building of Fairways II next to the maintenance area, it would be to my and to my neighbors' advantage to have that moved. Not only is the view not pleasant since so many trees died that lived there before, but there is often a smell of gasoline. There's equipment back there. They store their fertilizer, which often you can smell, and it seems to me that moving that maintenance area back by the airport would be a great advantage. As I said, we're all very positive about it and feel that WCI, whatever they put up, is very top scale. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Harry Poulos followed by Patricia Sulima. MR. POULOS: Good morning. My name is Harry Poulos, P-o- u-l-o-s. You know, I don't know how many in the room remember Gene Sarratin (phonetic), Esquire, who was there for the opening of the first club. They're now going to remodel it. Before Gene passed away, I had a chance to talk to him and, someone commented, "This club is a little too small." He said, "Don't worry. They're going to build a bigger one." I'm quite elated that it's going to happen. I think that many people in this room must have visited the 'WCI Community. I haven't, but I've heard a lot of good things about it. I've heard some pro and some con here. You have to remember one thing. We that live there will be the salesmen for WCI to sell their property which are quite -- four times as many units as we have there now. They're more concerned to compliment us or to make us happy. I'm pretty sure if they're good salesmen that's what they'll do. But I don't have to tell them. I think they're doing their job. Actually, they've demonstrated that ability in their past communities. But remember one thing. We have to sell their properties Page 91 October 4, 2001 because we live there. That's how Marco Island was built, and I was there for the opening of that. I was there when the Mackle brothers were discussing that the clubhouse that they built is too small and some day they're going to build a bigger one. I wish they were here to see this. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Patricia Sulima followed by Richard Skokowski. MS. SULIMA: Hi. I'm Pat Sulima, S-u-l-i-m-a, and I'm a resident of Fairways II in the third building on the 18th fairway. I can only concur with what my neighbors said. We really feel it's going to be an advantage for WCI to come in. And as far as the traffic is concerned where we are, we've put up with a lot of people going to the airport, going to the clubhouse. It will be a little quieter. Sure, we're going to put up with some construction for a year or so until that construction is completed behind us, but I think it will only be good for us. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Richard Skokowski. That's your final speaker. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. SKOKOWSKI: Good morning. My name is Richard Skokowski. That's S-k-o-k-o-w-s-k-i. I see it's nearing lunchtime, so I'll keep it brief. I'm in favor of WCI coming in and building. It's going to enhance all of our values. Everything they said in the positive is good. Fairways I, I can see their point about saying, "I don't want to see the golf house back the -- the club back there." I don't blame them. But by the same token you can't please everybody. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Mr. Varnadoe. MR. VARNADOE: Sorry, Madam Chairman. I didn't mean to hold up proceedings. I think we've heard -- and I tried to take some notes -- the pros and cons, and I appreciate both of them. I think as Mr. Strain pointed out, a couple of the speakers, Ms. Gruber and Ms. Page 92 October 4, 2001 Smith, bought when the prior plan was in place when they had even more development behind them and a road right next to them going back to that property. As I have indicated, this plan shows the entry road is going to be a minimum of 200 feet from the nearest residence. It will be below the level of the golf course. They will not be able to see that Type B buffer there. One gentleman-- a couple speakers have mentioned the clubhouse and the proximity. Their scale is different from mine. What I would like to do to kind of put that to rest so Mr. Richardson will be happy that it will be a real commitment is to put on the plan that the golf clubhouse building will be a minimum of 600 feet to the nearest Fairways 1 building. So there would be two football -- at least a two football field separation from building to building. Folks, that's a long way. As far as any impacts from those buildings, if you look at our conceptual plan, the closest units to that clubhouse are units that we're going to be trying to sell for a lot of money. We can't have activities going on in that clubhouse -- because that will be built first -- that detracts from people trying to live in close proximity. Everybody knows with these clubhouses you have the grand entry in the front. But all the activities in the golf clubhouse are in the back because that's where the carts are and the pro shop and the restaurant overlooking the golf course and the meeting rooms. There's nothing to the front other than some grandiose entrance that makes a statement, and I don't mean that in a negative way, but makes a statement for the project. I'm not going to take any more time, Madam Chairman, unless you've got questions or your board does that they would like to address. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I want to make sure I understand you correctly. You're willing to put on the master plan map a statement Page 93 October 4, 2001 about the 600 feet distance from Fairways I? MR. VARNADOE: Building separation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Building separation. Okay. That makes it a portion of the document. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Varnadoe, WCI is a quality development. We've seen that time and time again, so my comments are not meant to detract from what I'm sure will be a quality project. With our new public participation plan -- and I keep coming back to that because what we have here is kind of a poster child for why the new public participation plan will really keep a lot of this sort of thing from happening in the future, because you will have had -- if you follow the ordinance -- and I'm sure you would -- you would be having public meetings that would be recorded. And although you weren't at our meeting last night, there was a section added that there will be -- any commitments made by the developer during these sessions will be written down and made part of the proceedings. What I'm having a little trouble with is that we have kind of a floating set of commitments. I'm sure WCI has good intentions and will do everything that they say they're going to do, but the staff and, you know, the county really has no way to check off to make sure that you did what you said you were going to do if it's not part of the record in some way. Now, we've got some things on the record, but I wrote down just as they came along, you know, a dozen items that were mentioned by various people that represent what you might have said to them, but now are not anywhere in our documentation for the county to be able to say, "Did you actually phase the construction? Did you put in the landscaping like you said you were going to do? Are you going to move" -- you know, some of these things that you said you're going Page 94 October 4, 2001 to do. So I'm just wondering if there's some way we can help resolve that. The other missing piece is the lack of communication with Fairways I. At least that's how they represented it. You know, there again, with new public participation we wouldn't have had that opportunity to miss it. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. I understand all that. That's all very nice. Fairways I was invited. I think Mr. Laing -- MS. SMITH: No, he was not. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. UNIDENTIFED FEMALE: No. MR. VARNADOE: He's not the president? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. THE COURT REPORTER: Your name. MS. SMITH: My name is Martha Smith. I am the vice president of the board of directors. Robert Laing is in close contact with me, and he was indeeed not invited. In fact, I notified him of what was going on. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. VARNADOE: All right. Whether he was or not I guess I was misinformed. The sum and substance of it, Mr. Richardson, is I'm dealing with the law as it existed then. We did try to reach out to the community. We intended to reach out to the community both verbally and in writing with regard to their issues. We will continue to do that. I think the major commitments as they relate to the development are in the master plan or on the master plan. We tried to indicate that. If there is something else that you think that should be on that master plan, I'm happy to do that. Anything we said here today is -- I've been doing this for longer than I care to admit, and the only thing I've got going for me is my credibility. When I stand up here and say Page 95 October 4, 2001 something, if the client doesn't do it, then I don't represent them. But we have tried to put the major commitments as they relate to PUD matters on the master plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because it is an insubstantial change versus any other substantial change that would be placed into the document. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain, I know, is waiting. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Marjorie -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Marjorie, are you going to talk on the record? Are you having a sidebar? MS. STUDENT: Yes. I was having a sidebar with Mr. Varnadoe. I guess I need some further amplification maybe from staff and Mr. Varnadoe about putting the changes on the map. If it's stuff that explains the map, that's okay, but I just have to say if it amounts to amending the PUD on the map, I have a problem with that without going through the process. That's all. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I'm still not clear here whether we resolved the issue of substantial or insubstantial, so we may have to discuss that just a little more. MR. VARNADOE: We can do that. There are no building separation requirements in the PUD. As you know, that's not a normal PUD thing. You have setbacks from property boundaries. And, of course, those are in the PUD, and we're going to live with that. All I was simply trying to do was respond to this question of whether the clubhouse is going to be 300 feet or 600 feet from the nearest building, and I was simply suggesting we put a notation on the map that it's going to be 600 and try to do what Mr. Richardson says and calm some of the concerns down that people have. I'm trying to be responsive here and not cause problems. Page 96 October 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now, would that be-- MR. VARNADOE: If there are any further questions for me, I'll be happy to answer them. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a couple. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just so I understand it, George, the road that's going to be put in, you are going to buffer that road against the Fairways I building. So they'll have an adequate buffer of some type, I'm assuming? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And then the other issue that they brought up was the streetlights. Do you intend to put streetlights on that road? MR. VARNADOE: There will be some illumination on that road. The PUD has a requirement that those be directed away from residential properties at the current time, and we will live with that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we need -- Mr. Budd, did you wish to speak? COMMISSIONER BUDD: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we need more clarification from the staff?. MR. REISCHL: On what question? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: On the issue of substantial or insubstantial. Since we took the time to -- MR. REISCHL: My office says that it's an insubstantial change. It's a reconfiguration or relocation without changes in acreage. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Reischl, just let me be argumentative for a moment. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How unusual. Page 97 October 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, just to perhaps correct my misunderstanding. PUDs, at least in some aspects, have as part of that process a list of commitments that are made to support that PUD. There's a commitment section,- development commitments. I'm just struggling with if we're now coming up with another grocery list of commitments that have come out as a result of good-faith efforts between WCI representatives and the public, I'm just really trying to protect staff. I don't think that then makes this an insubstantial document. I think it really moves it more towards a substantial change. MR. REISCHL: Substantial change? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Substantial rather than insubstantial. If we were, in fact, going to give the staff the tools to follow up on these commitments, in fact, we would just like to see -- I would like to propose that this be considered substantial and be moved back into the process now that we have, in effect, the new public participation ordinance virtually in effect-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: "Virtually in effect" meaning that it will be in the very near future. As this process will initiate itself, it very well might then satisfy all our problems because that document does clearly state how these commitments are to be dealt with and made part of the record. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson, I want to respond just a moment as the chair. I understand what you're saying; however, we cannot hold hostage projects that are going through a system if we have changes that are going to be enacted to our Land Development Code and to our ordinances. As a firm believer in the rules of law in this country, I have to take exception to the fact that this is virtually accepted because it has not gone before the Board of County Commissioners. So we cannot put ourselves in a position, in my Page 98 October 4, 2001 opinion, of holding items hostage. If that's the reason we would choose for changing this to substantial versus insubstantial, I would have to vote against it. I believe -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would certainly not want to-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would certainly not want to hold anyone hostage these days; however, I think that the commitments that are be stated would be a sufficient reason for this to be put in the substantial category. And if it turned out that we had a code that caused them to go through a different procedure, whatever the code is, the code is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. Miss Student, I believe you wanted to make a legal comment. MR. REISCHL: While she's talking, if I can just be clear on what staff analyzed was an insubstantial change. It was relocation and reconfiguration. We didn't analyze any buffers or anything like that, just for the record. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All right. Miss Student. MS. STUDENT: Okay. What I wanted to read into the record was the section that deals with language changes just so everybody is clear (as read): "Language changes to a previously approved PUD document shall require the same procedure as for amending the official zoning atlas," which means a rezone. And I do know that there can be commitments made on the record, I believe, that don't necessarily find their way into a document, and staff-- I don't think staff could shed some light on how those would be enforced. If it is a problem, I don't know if there can be private documentation that these things could be put in, but those are a couple of concerns that I wanted to put on the record. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Miss Murray. Page 99 October 4, 2001 MS. MURRAY: I'm not sure I can shed a lot of additional light. Some of the commitments I heard were related to drainage easements and whatnot that really don't have anything that's enforceable by the county. I mean, that was a deed restriction, and we don't deal with those. They don't end up in PUD documents, and we don't enforce them. Commitments about buffering are perfectly acceptable on a PUD master plan. Buffer areas, conservation areas, that sort of thing are very typical on a PUD master plan. The commitment for a separation of the building, usually you deal with those within the text of the PUD document itself. I will offer this opinion that the PUD document has already been adopted with setbacks for structures, and it sounds like what Mr. Varnadoe was proposing was merely a clarification of the location of the clubhouse structure on the master plan with a distance requirement. I have a mixed opinion on that, but I'm tending to lean towards that it would be acceptable to staff. It's really merely a clarification of location, which actually helps all of us in our review process. With the master plan, we tend to be very general. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, in answer to Mr. Richardson's concerns, I don't read the code the same way he does. There are 11 indicia of whether change is substantial or insubstantial, and no matter how strangely we may feel about it, if it -- if this duck doesn't have one of these 11 legs, then it isn't a duck, and we can't just call it that because we want to. The question is whether -- what our interpretation is of No. 4 of the proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses. That's the nub of the question. We'll discuss that, I guess, later. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just as a follow through, Item 11 says, any modifications -- and I'm paraphrasing -- of the PUD document. It seems to me that some of the things we talked about would modify the development commitment section of the Page 100 October 4, 2001 PUD document. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it says -- you have to go on and finish the sentence: Which impacts any consideration deemed to be a substantial modification in 1 through 9 above." So if it ain't one of those, it's still not a duck. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Quack, quack. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd, I think you wanted to comment. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'm prepared after you close the hearing to make or consider a motion with the assumption that this is an insubstantial change. If that is a linchpin item in the mind of other commissioners, then maybe we should hear a specific motion to consider or not to consider this insubstantial. I'm in agreement with the county recommendation, and I'm willing to proceed with that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wasn't it applied for as insubstantial, so shouldn't the motion -- I mean, I don't think it's our decision to make that. It's our decision to approve it as submitted or not. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I agree. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, if we find it's insubstantial, Mark, it seems to me implicit, and that is our finding, that this utility item is a residential land use. We would also almost have to find that in order to maintain -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the other side of the coin is that the utilities site has been now designated or told to us to be a maintenance facility for the golf course. If it's a maintenance facility for the golf course --. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Those are two different things, aren't they? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just the maintenance -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah -- Page 101 October 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is it a main facility for the golf course, George? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm talking about a water plant that -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, that's what staff said and George -- THE COURT REPORTER: Wait a second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time. MR. REISCHL: That was my misunderstanding. The water tower confused me. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let's clarify that point because it's important to me also to meet those 11 criteria. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This helps it is what I'm getting at. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. MR. VARNADOE: It functions as a maintenance facility for the golf course and the residential tract, but the main purpose is a maintenance facility for the golf course. We have a water tower on there that supplements the water management system for the entire area. But as I told you, that wasn't part of our original application. If that's going to make you say it's substantial, I don't want that considered, and I will deal with that at a later date. We need to get on with this. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Where I'm coming from is if it's part of the golf course in servicing it or the maintenance it, it becomes part of the recreation area then, which is not something that is applicable as far as one of the triggers. So, you know, it may be fine then to leave this in there and change the PUD. MR. VARNADOE: I think you heard everybody say, "Let's move that." COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But I'm trying to find a way to see Page 102 October 4, 2001 the -- MR. VARNADOE: And I agree with you. I mean -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It should be moved. MR. VARNADOE: Our-- THE COURT REPORTER: Wait, wait, wait. MR. VARNADOE: Excuse me. I'm sorry, ma'am. t is not a -- there are utility sites on the site, Florida Water Service. They're at the far east end. This is not that. This is in conjunction with the residential and recreational aspects of this project. So it's not a nonresidential from my perspective, but that's just my opinion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Certainly it comes closer to being a residential use than the other things that are cited here which are institutional, commercial, or industrial. It certainly doesn't sound like one of those. MR. VARNADOE: I can certainly affirm you it's none of those, sir. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: None of those. Do we have any further questions of staff or of petitioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: None whatsoever. I'm going to close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of this board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that's predicated upon my assumption that staff's interpretation that the disputed parcel is an accessory use to the residential, so my motion is consistent with the insubstantial assumption of this petition, and that is that we recommend approval of petition PDI-2001-AR-1220 with the assurances as to the distance of building separation and assurances on buffering that were stated by Mr. Varnadoe and restated by Susan Murray. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second it. Page 103 October 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd and a second by Mr. Abernathy to approve this particular petition. Discussion, please. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just one thing, Madam Chair. It seems that the practical man's definition failed and we go with the definitions that are in the document. I would just like to admonish WCI -- that's the wrong word. I would like to encourage WCI to go forward with what you have been doing, and that is trying to contact them and meet with the community and particularly the Fairways. Now, again, you may not be able to satisfy everyone, but I really think that everything you can do to help continuing to be a good neighbor is going to be helpful to this whole process. And when we do get the public participation plan, I wouldn't have to ask that question because I'll know you would have done it. So with that I support the motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other statements you would like to make? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm basically convinced that we can keep it in the insubstantial. I certainly have learned a few additional items today. I always appreciate people pulling out their code books and looking very carefully, because we do not want to make mistakes here. We want to be able to go forward with what our code does say as it exists now, and I feel comfortable that WCI is going to make every effort to try to work out some of the other details that we have. So with that, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you, and thank you-all for attending and being such a polite audience. We have one Page 104 October 4, 2001 more item, so clear the room quickly. We'll take a five-minute break to clear the room. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ladies and gentlemen, we are back in session. We are considering our tabled item which was placed at the end. Our first item was BD-2001-AR-1198. We are back in this public hearing, and I believe our county -- our assistant county attorney would like to state something. MS. STUDENT: I think you need to maybe do a motion to bring it back to the table. COMMISSIONER BUDD: So moved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd and a second by Mr. Abernathy to untable this. We are now back in public hearing officially -- oh, excuse me. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney, for the record. Questions came up about the construction of language in the PUD document and the settlement agreement relative to private docks being that there's any accessory uses on Parcels 1 through 4. This parcel line isn't in the water. First of all, the language is "on the parcel." It doesn't say "solely within the parcel" or "solely in the parcel." It says "on." And we have other situations, RSF-3, for example, where docks are accessory uses, and the zoning line if they're situated on the water goes along the waterway, yet all these properties enjoy what's called common law riparian rights. Part of the common law riparian right is the ability to wharf out, if you will, and get to navigable Page 105 October 4, 2001 waterways. So it will be my opinion that the fact that this goes a little bit beyond that parcel line for all the reasons stated doesn't present a problem. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Yovanovich -- oh, do we need a staff presentation? No, it's your turn. MR. YOVANOVICH: You were just about to get to me. For the record, Richard Yovanovich representing the petitioner. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Senior brain freeze, sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's okay. I would like you to take notice that there's nobody here in the audience opposed to this, which is something that is unusual for this area. I think you-all have seen me come before you on other occasions where we've done boat docks in the same area, and there's been representatives from the area expressing concerns. We have done, I think, a very good job of educating people in the area. We met with the residents -- even people who aren't adjacent to this, but people who usually come here and speak -- and showed them what we had planned to do. We even got the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association to recommend approval of this subject to our recording the deed restriction clarifying that the only individuals who could utilize these facilities are owners or their tenants of residential units within the Regatta. We have made that commitment. They have reviewed and approved our deed restriction, which we will get executed and recorded, so we stipulate to that condition. I have Todd Turrell here and Tim Hall if you have any specific questions regarding the proposal. I just wanted to help Mr. Wolfley by showing the distance. There's quite a bit of distance between where the 245 ends, and it does include the boat that may be there. So there's ample navigability to address safety and navigation. These are criteria that we have to Page 106 October 4, 2001 comply with. We don't have to meet every one, but the calculation is 25.6. It's a little over 25 percent into the waterway. But I hope that that is acceptable to you and the other members of the Planning Commission. It was acceptable to the community. It concurred because we ended up sliding the finger pier out -- in a little bit. It used to be straight out, and it was shorter to move it to accommodate some concerns. That's why it's out like that. Unless you have any specific questions, I hope that the staff report is complete. You've seen the application. All of that is part of the record. We were -- under the PUD, it actually says a minimum of 74 is permitted. We have scaled back to a maximum of 56. So we have -- it's a maximum of 56. I hope we can be rewarded for our efforts in working with the community and having them not be here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That is quite a reward when it comes to this particular area and these particular issues. I think you've done an excellent job from what I see. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a quick question. The fingers that goes out -- whatever you call that -- how close is that to the docks on the other side? That seems to be the closest area. MR. HALL: It's -- THE COURT REPORTER: Your name, sir. MR. HALL: Sorry. Tim Hall of Turrell & Associates. From the outermost dock to that, it's 93 feet. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Stay in one place. MR. HALL: It's 93 feet. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the innermost docks run the closest, but that would be something like 80 feet, I suppose. MR. HALL: Yes, sir. That was done to allow appropriate backing distances for the boats on both sides. That's one of the reasons that the finger pier is not straight up and down. The Barefoot Pelican condominiums have a lease which allows boats up to, I Page 107 October 4, 2001 believe, 38 feet, and in order to accommodate the appropriate backing distance, if they did put a maximum-size boat in there, we shifted the finger pier out a little bit to allow more room for them to navigate. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And communications have been made with those folks as well? MR. YOVANOVICH: We wanted to let everybody and anybody know what we were doing. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And they had no objection to it? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We had a neighborhood meeting, and those who attended got to see the full presentation. They were very pleased. Ross mentioned there were three letters. I don't know where they're located, but they're obviously not here so ... COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, they were on the third floor waiting for us to show up. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I was just going to comment that I think we've been here long enough. They can read the sign over there and have found the supervisor's training room, so they should be here. That's my opinion. Any questions from this end? Any further questions at all? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that the Planning Commission approve Petition BD-2001-AR-1198 subject to the stipulations listed in the resolution. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. Page 108 October 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Budd, a second by Mr. Abernathy to approve this petition. Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no discussion I call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. That is the last of our public hearings. Item No. 9, old business. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any new business? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a question. MS. MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I'll give you the question first. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You partially answered the question earlier, but I wanted to expound on it a little bit. I mentioned to Marjorie that at some point I thought it would be good - - there's so many new members on this board -- that we have some kind of workshop or training session to go over a series of things, not just the -- I think it's important -- the county attorney's office has an excellent presentation on the Sunshine law, which I think all the new members could benefit from. At the same time I would like to discuss openly with staff some concerns I have about packages and the way we might be able to improve on things so there would be less questions coming up at these meetings that are -- I don't know how you want to call it -- known up front a little bit more. So I know you had scheduled a workshop or you told me there's going to be some kind of thing the next time. Is this going to be as involved as what Page 109 October 4, 2001 I'm talking about, or is it going to be something different than that? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, we're hoping. And to answer your question, I believe it was the 29th of September that I was on the board for two years, and I've been waiting for my orientation. We made a major effort. Mrs. Young was very successful. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: One year ago I made the same suggestion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We've had a number of changeovers, as you know, with staff changes and that type of thing, and so we kept moving forward with a positive attitude, and it is set for the 18th of October. I believe there's a couple set of documents that have been produced that I have been carrying around that you should have been given and Mr. Midney and Mr. Adelstein. If they don't already have them, make sure they get them. That's why I was so concerned that your medical issue would keep you from being here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. My wife -- she's going to be in surgery. It's going to be hard for me not to be there. MS. MURRAY: My question was kind of related to that. You don't know this yet, but you have a very heavy agenda on the 18th of October. It involves Comprehensive Plan changes as well as our regular agenda. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If I'm not there, will it be shorter? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes. MS. MURRAY: Possibly. You may want -- I know this is a sore subject, but you may want to consider -- I will make a concerted effort to try to keep the agenda a little clearer when we do have this workshop. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Let's try this question. I don't have a calendar in front of me. We do have Land Development Code in the normal cycle coming up in November; is that not correct? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. Probably towards the end of Page 110 October 4, 2001 November. I'm sorry. I don't have any schedule or calendar with me. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: They gave us the new revised special stuff, and they didn't give you a -- MS. MURRAY: I just didn't bring it with me. I can only carry so much. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Abernathy, what is the first date in November? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: One of November; Thursday, November 1. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How does that fit for those of us that are here? We're missing Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could I suggest -- I don't have my calendar either. I apologize for that. Maybe we can e-mail Susan our available dates or maybe, on the other side, the dates that are difficult, and maybe she can sort it out that way based on that. MS. MURRAY: I would be willing to do that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. Maybe on the 18th, if that's possible, we could actually carry on a discussion in the open, not just e-mails, of when we would have this. Would that be good? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chairman, I'm trying to facilitate finding a date. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We do have, then, two hearings in November for the Land Development Code. MS. MURRAY: I believe you do. I just don't know the dates off the top of my head. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All right. In deference to Mr. Strain, who obviously is a well-informed board member on all the details and mechanics of our particular charge, let's go ahead then and try to let Susan know by e-mail or a telephone call when your dates are available. We would like to have it in November as soon as possible so we do not allow this. I remember the motion being made, I believe Page 111 October 4, 2001 by Mr. Budd, that we absolutely were not going to change this, so I guess we can change our mind. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The supermajority. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Supermajority. MS. MURRAY: I honestly did not know they were loading up the agenda with all these items until yesterday, and I apologize. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Just as a matter of curiosity and logistics, who loaded that agenda? MS. MURRAY: My staff. Unfortunately, I'll blame this on the comprehensive planning staff because it's their items that are making your agenda so full. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Comprehensive, okay. MS. MURRAY: They are the comp plan amendments which, as you know, can be very long. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I look forward to those. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That will be entertaining for sure. So we will shoot for coming to a conclusion and hopefully will have some dates available to us when we talk in public on the 18th. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just to support Mr. Strain's point in asking a question of what would be involved in it, they'll have their presentation, but I feel that's our opportunity to have any kind of discussion we want to have. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: times I've sat in on the board, yes. that way. It's been that way in the past I would hope that would continue MS. MURRAY: In the interim, could I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MS. MURRAY: I'm going to hand out my business cards to the two new people that probably don't have them with my e-mail address on them. I am encouraging you -- and Mr. Richardson is an excellent example because he always e-mails me his questions before Page 112 October 4, 2001 the hearing or after the hearing sometimes -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Sometimes. MS. MURRAY: -- and asks about comprehensive planning issues or interpretation issues of the code or procedural issues, whether this is the correct procedure or not. I have a lot of difficulty with coming to these meetings and having my staff pulled out into the hall to read books and pour over our code. I would rather do that ahead of the meeting for you-all if you have those kind of questions. If you're concerned that this is not the proper procedure, I would rather know about it ahead of time. What happens is inevitably the rug gets pulled out from underneath a lot of people's feet in this forum, including my staff and including the petitioner and the public who comes here when those issues are raised. If that is a question and your input is -- I love working with you guys. We really value your input. We do not plan in a vacuum. I value the public's input as well. We take heavily into consideration what you say and your opinion. I guess I would ask for the same respect back to my staff. If you have a question about whether or not this is even a proper procedure, I ask that we not make each other look like idiots in the public, that we are supportive of each other. I will make a comment for the record that I am very supportive of this board in the public when I talk to the public -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Even when it's not deserved. MS. MURRAY: -- about what a great group this is. I'm a very sincere and honest person. I hope you will respect that. I'm not trying to smooze you. I do make those comments in the public, and I just would appreciate the same back. It's difficult in a public forum to have those kind of things happen. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: In response to that, I would like to say that I do not under any cirumstances want the public to think that Page 113 October 4, 2001 we're solving problems by e-mail and that they just are taken care of and not actually mentioned on the record. In some cases I think we will have to be very careful about making that statement because -- I am still distressed at last night's statement by staff about the excavation. I recognize I have more of a responsibility to review a few things, but I truly do not want to feel like I e-mail two pages and then it's just forgotten because I didn't bring my copy. I didn't want it to carry on any longer with the Land Development Code last night than it did. I just do want to make the statement that, A, we don't want to feel like we're doing things that the public can't have access to or we're solving problems via e-mail, and that we do make our meetings here run more smoothly and actually get some of those answers to the questions that we asked, and we can ask them -- even ask a better question so it's easier for the public to understand. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I understand your comments, and since I'm a new member, I've been kind of vocal lately, and some of the issues brought up today were brought up initially by me. It was not brought up as an attack on your staff or trying to undermine anything you-all have done. In fact, I've probably worked with most of your staff longer than you have. I like everybody in the department. I think they're doing an excellent job. But part of the problem I had this time, and I think you're aware of it, is I didn't have the documents I needed to do the research in a manner that allowed me any time to contact anybody ahead of time. When I was down at the county scrambling for money to get documents that were referenced in our package, I got them, but then when I got back home to try to read them in the evening, I found out I only got one side of a two-sided document copied. So I still couldn't use it. So I went down on my own time and pulled them myself and made the copies so I would have a complete package to read. Then I Page 114 October 4, 2001 read them -- I couldn't read them until the night before, and I didn't get a chance to e-mail you and then receive an e-mail back. I don't even get e-mails every 24 hours with the way it's set up. I don't have time to tie in. So please don't take it offensively. I did not mean it that way. I'm just trying to make sure the record for the county's liability is as perfect as it can be and everything is on the record. That's my intent. MS. MURRAY: I appreciate that, and I don't take anything personally. I have very high standards about meetings and public forums and professionalism as do you, which is obvious, and I appreciate that. So it's not taken as a personal attack at all. I just want it to be more of a facilitation of communication. I pointed out to Commissioner Rautio that I do maintain a list throughout our meeting of things that you bring up. If you're missing items in your agenda that you just realized, obviously, the night before the meeting and you can't contact me, may be some organizational tools that you would like to see changed in the agenda. I keep a running list for my staff's presentations in ways that I think they could more clearly communicate to you, their analysis both verbally and in writing, as well as any pictures they show you so that you can be clear on where, you know, our position is and what our interpretation of the code is. I do do that at every meeting, and my first priority when I go back is to contact my staff via e-mail or in person and list it out and make sure that they, hopefully, next time do a better job. But, as we all know, it's an ongoing process. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Susan, could you add to your list that we would like to have some water up here? MS. MURRAY: Yeah, you told me that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And maybe a sandwich. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Sorry. That would be an expenditure. Page 115 October 4, 2001 Water, I think, is relatively free. Any other comments under the new business section here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Number 11 on the agenda is public comment. I don't see any public out there. There is no comment. had no addenda, so we have no discussion for Number 12, so I just need to entertain a motion and a second to adjourn. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Move to adjourn. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We are adjourned. Thank you. We There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:33 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOYCEANNA RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY MARGARET A. SMITH, iRPR Page 116 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DMSION October 10, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 TURRELL & ASSOCIATES, INC. 35384 EXCHANGE AVE SUITE B NAPLES, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2001-/~-1198, MIRALIA Dear Applicant: On Thursday, October 4, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2001-AR-1198. A copy of Resolution No. 01-23 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Planner H RG/Io Enclosure CC: VANDERBILTL PARTNERS 5551 Ridgewood Drive Naples, FL 34108 Land Dept. Property Appraiser Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) ~ Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File PHONE {941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier, fl.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 01- 23 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2001-AR-1198 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 ali counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of tke 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 225 -foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 245-foot boat dock facility, as shown on Exhibit A, in a PUD 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 Richard D. Yovanovich, representing Vanderbilt Partners, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Parcel 1, of Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (Exhibit B). be and the same is hereby approved for a 225-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 245-foot boat docking facility, as shown on Exhibit A, in the PUD Zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. 2. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. 3. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. 5. A sewage pumpout station shall be provided in accordance with Special Condition 17 of Florida Department of Environmental Protection Permit #112363039, last revision, July 17, 2000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2001-AR-1198 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 4th dayof October ,2001. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: JOHN ~. DUNNUCK, III Interim(J~dministrator Community Development and Environmental Services JOYCEA~NA J. RAUTIO, C~AIRMAN Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjorie09I. Student ~ Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2001 -AR-200 I/RG/Io COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION October 10, 2001 NELSON MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC. BEN NELSON, JR. 10530 WILSON ST. BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 REFERENCE: BD-2001-AR-1122, GARARD, JEFF B. PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Dear Applicant: On Thursday, October 4, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2001-AR-1122. A copy of Resolution No. 01-25 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Sincerely/,~ Ross Goch~,naur Planner RG~o Enclosure CC: JEFF B & ~ GARARD 13105 Vanderbilt Drive ~405 Naples, FL 34110 Land Dept. Property Appraiser ~ Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier, fl.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 01- 25 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2001-AR-1122 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 20-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 40-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-4 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Ben Nelson, Jr., representing Jeff Garard, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 15, Block G, Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, as described in Plat Book 6, Page 2, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 20-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 40-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. 2. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. 3. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. 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. o The dock shall be field-adjusted to minimize impact on mangroves. IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2001-AR-1122 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 6~:h dayof Oel-oho_r , 2001. ATTEST: JOHN M.~)UNNUCK, III ExecutiveVSecretary Community Development and Environmental Services Interim Administrator COLLI~ER COUNTY PL/~I~G COMMISSION JOYCE~qA J. RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marj~rie 2el.~ Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2001 -AR- 1122 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION December 10, 2001 YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP, VARNADOE & ANDERSON, P.A. GEORGE L. VARNADOE 801 LAUREL OAK DR., # 300 NAPLES, FL 34108 REFERENCE: PDI-2001-AR-1220, Marco Shores Golf Course Community Dear Mr Varnadoe: On Thursday, October 4, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. PDI-2001-AR- 1220. A copy of Resolution No. 01-29 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Principal Planner FR/Io PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Enclosure CC: WCI COMMUNITIES, INC. Land Dept. Property Appraiser Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier, fl.us PDI RESOLUTION NO. 01- 29 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER PDI~2001-AR-1220 FOR INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO MARCO SHORES PUD FOR PURPOSE OF REVISING THE MASTER PLAN BY THE RELOCATION AND RECONFIGURATION OF RESIDENTIAL PARCELS ONE. AND TWO AND THE GOLF CLUB (CLUBHOUSE) TRACT, 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 No. 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission is authorized by the Board of County Commissioners to grant insubstantial changes to PUDs in accordance with Subsection 2.7.3.5 of the Land Development Code of Collier County, and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected 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 approving PDI-2001-AR-1220, for insubstantial changes as shown on the revised Marco Shores PUD Master Plan (Exhibit "A"), for the Marco Shores PUD, Ordinance Number 94-41, for the relocation and reconfiguration of Residential Parcel One and Residential Parvel Two and the Golf Club (Clubhouse) Tract for 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 Subsection 2.7.3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code, and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given 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 George Vamadoe, Esq., of Young, vanAssenderp, Varnadoe, and Anderson, P.A., representing WCI Communities, Inc., be and the same hereby is approved for making the noted minor design changes to the Marco Shores PUD Master Plan (Exhibit "A") having the effect of revising the Master Plan by the relocation and reconfiguration of Residential Parcel One and Residential Parcel Two and the Golf Club (Clubhouse) Tract. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number PDI-2001-AR-1220 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 /,~-h day of Ocrohor ., 2001. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORID, A.. 'JOYCE~NNA J. , JOHN M. DUNNUCK, llI InterimAdministrator Community Development and Environmental Services Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Maxj 0ri~M~ Student Assistant County Attorney PDI-2001 ~AR-1220 851 ii iZ GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY PUD MASTER PLAN Prepsred For: WCl Communities, Inc. EXHIBIT "A" Wils Miller