CCPC Minutes 09/04/2003 RSeptember 4, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, September 4, 2003
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission
in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on
this date at 8:30 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN:
Kenneth Abernathy
Mark Strain (Excused)
Dwight Richardson
Lora Jean Young
Lindy Adelstein
Brad Schiffer
Paul Midney
Russell Bud
David Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Environmental
Services
Ray Bellows, Planning Services
Fred Reischl, Planning Services
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney
Ed Kant, Transportation Operations
Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services
Stan Chrzanowski, Planning Services
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2003, IN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE; INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZE~D BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A
MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN
ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE
CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A
MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL
MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A
PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF
APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 17, 2003 AND JULY 18, 20037
5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS: JUNE 10, 2003 AND JUNE 24, 2003
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BD.2003-AR-3884, Richard Larsen, requesting approval of a boathouse to be constructed on an existing dock.
Property to be considered is located at 330 Egret Avenue, further described as Lot 11, Block S, Conner's Vanderbilt
Beach Estates Unit 3, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 8~qNNN~ East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
NAPLES Ross Gochenaur)
B. PUDZ-2002-AR-3011, Dwight H. Nadeau, of R.W.A., Inc., representing A.R.M. Development, Corp., of S.W. FL.,
Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known As Tucany
Cove PUD for a residential development for a maximum of 425 residential dwelling units generally located on the East
side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately IA mile South of Irnmokalee Road (C.R. 846) in Section 26,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 78.07 acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
Ce
Do
ge
PUDA-2002-AR-2475, J. Gary Butler, PE, of Butler Engineering, Inc., representing Bayswater Falling Waters LLC,
requesting a rezone from "E", Estates, and PUD, Falling Waters PUD, to increase acreage of the existing Falling
Waters PUD from 134.04 to 161.54, change density from 6 dwelling units per acre to 4.95 per acre, and show a
change in property ownership, for property located south of Davis Boulevard and west of the proposed aiignment of
Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 8, Township. 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
161.54+ acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
PUDZ-2003-AR-3607, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., representing
Barton and Wendy McIntyre and Joseph Magdalener, requesting changes to the existing Nicaea
Academy PUD zoning. The proposed changes to the PUD document and Master Plan will eliminate the
uses of private school and assisted living facility and allow for a maximum of 580 residential .dwelling
units. The property to be considered for this rezone is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard just
south of the Crystal Lake PUD (RV Park), in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County Florida. This property consists of 119± acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
PUDZ-2002-AR.3495, Kenneth E. Griffith, AICP, of Johnson Engineering, representing V.K. Development Corp.,
requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Wentworth Estates PUD. The
current PUD is known as Lely Lakes PUD and consists of residential and commercial use. The proposed PUD will
consist of mixed uses for a maximum of 1,499 residential dwelling units, 85,000 square feet of commercial uses, 18-
hole golf course and associated amenities. The property to be considered for this rezone is located on the southwest
side of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) approximately 1-1/4 mile southeast of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and
Rattlesnake Hammock Road (C.R. 864), in Sections 29, 30, 31 and 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East and Section
5, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1558.49_+ acres. (Coordinator: Fred
Reischl)
PUDZ-02-AR-3158, Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, of R.W.A. Consulting, Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of
Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, representing Eeo Venture Wiggins Pass, LTD, requesting a rezone from "C-4"
General Commercial district to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as "Coconilla" PUD for 112 dwelling
units with a maximum height of 225 feet over parking and a marina basin containing 52 wet slips for property located
on Vanderbilt Drive, at the western terminus of Wiggins Pass Road in Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
(Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
Gt
PUDZ-2003-AR-3860, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., and Richard Yovanovich, of
Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, representing Gateway Shoppes II, LLC, requesting a rezone from "RSF-3" and
"PUD" to "PUD" Planning Unit Development known as Henderson Creek PUD by revising the PUD document and
Master Plan. Increase acreage from 45 acres to 82 acres, change from a residential to a mixed-use community, change
density from 7.8 dwelling units per acre to 7.66 c%nsisting of 360 residential dwelling units within areas designated
"R" on the conceptual Master Plan of which a minimum of 200 must qualify as affordable housing; and add
commercial uses for a maximum of 325,000 square feet of gross leasable area. The subject property is located on the
east side of Collier Boulevard and south side of U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail) East, in Section 3, Township 51 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 82± acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
PUDZ-2001-AR.955, William L. Hoover, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., requesting a rezone'from "A"
Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Wolf Creek PUD for a residential project for a
maximum of 732 dwelling units on property located along Wolf Road, approximately ½ mile west of Collier Blvd
(C.R. 951) and 3/8 mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road (C.R. 862) in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 147.69+ acres. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi)
CU-2002-AR-3537, Nick Stewart, of Stewart Mining Industries, requesting Conditional Use "1" for earthmining in
the "A-MHO" Rural Agricultural - Mobile Home Overlay zoning district pursuan, t to Section 2.2.2.3 of the Collier
County Land Development Code for property located in Sections 18 and 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
2
10.
11.
12.
13.
J. CU.2003-AR-3954, Jerry C. Neai, P.E. representing R.H. of Naples requests a conditional use #1 of the Agricultural
District for the purpose of Earthmining. The property to be considered for the conditional use is located at U.S.41
East from C.R.951 to Greenway Road, thence North to Maratee Road, then East to end of road, in Section 7,
Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County Florida. This property consists of 42.33 acres. (Coordiriator: Mike
Bosi)
K. PUDZ-02-AR-956, Thomas E. Killen, representing Naples Elks Lodge 2010, requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD
for the Radio Square PUD, adding medical office as a permitted use, amending the landscape requirements, and
providing for shared parking, for property located on the southwest corner or Radio Road (CR 856) and Donna Street,
in Section 1, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of approximately 9.4 acres.
(Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS:
PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
ADJOURN
CCPC AGENDA/SM/9/4/03
September 4, 2003
1. Chairman Kenneth Abernathy called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM.
Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
2. Roll Call was taken and a quorum was established. Mr. Strain was not
present.
Addenda to the Agenda - Item 8F is continued to the October 2® meeting. Mr.
Budd moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Mrs. Young seconded.
Carried unanimously 8-0.
Approval of Minutes - July 17, 2003 - Mr. Budd moved to approve the
minutes of July 17, 2003. Mr. Adelstein Seconded. Carried unanimously 8-0.
Minutes of July 18th, 2003. Mr. Budd moved to approve the minutes of July
18th, 2003. Mr. Adelstein Seconded. Carried unanimously 8-0.
5. Planning Commission Absences - Sept. 18, 2003. No response.
6. BCC Recaps- none.
Chairman's Report - Schedule for the 2003 Cycles are:
Wed., Oct. 22nd
Wed., Nov. 12th
Thurs., Nov. 13th - 9:00 AM
Thurs., Nov. 20th - 8:30 AM regular meeting with LDC Amendments to follow.
8. Advertised Public Hearings:
BD-2003-AR-3884 - Richard Larsen, requesting approval of a
boathouse to be constructed on an existing dock. Property to be
considered is located at 330 Egret Ave., Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit
3. Collier County, Florida
Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy.
Disclosures - none.
PETITIONER:
Ashley Lupo, Rotzel & Andress, representing the petitioners Richard & Nancy Larsen.
They are requesting approval of a boathouse to be constructed over an existing legal
permitted dock which was permitted in 2002. An aerial map was displayed of other
properties and the side canal. The petition meets all 6 criteria with no objections
submitted.
STAFF
2
September 4, 2003
Ross Gochenaur - Planning Services - states the petition meets all criteria and has had
no objections, letters or telephone calls.
This will be constructed on the existing pilings of the permitted dock.
Mr. Richardson expressed his opinion of clearing up the issue of permitting of boat
docks with a separate action of having a boat house come to them and hopes it will be in
the 3rd cycle of the LDC Amendments.
Mr. Gochenaur said there is no LDC Amendment that is going to change the current
language.
Mr. Schiffer stated the Planning Commission voted to have it on the 2nd cycle and
submitted the language for the 3rd cycle.
Mr. Gochenaur stated it had been decided not to amend the code language.
Mr. Richardson was disturbed that this was not followed through on.
Mr. Schmitt - Administrator Community Developmental & Environmental Services
Division - answered that he has limited the number of amendments coming into the 3rd
Cycle because of the quantity and volume of amendments the Commission will be
dealing with. Such as the Eastern Lands Amendment, the Design Criteria, the
Environmental Criteria, the Rural Fringe Amendments, and the Amendments to 3.15 of
the LDC. He felt they will be faced with an enormous task in the next few months. Also
met with one of the Planning Commissioners on the issue of docks and understands their
desires. He is aware of a movement in the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay area to limit or
eliminate any opportunity to request a boathouse. This is being discussed with the
Commissioner in that area and the Associations in the Vanderbilt area. To tie the issue of
a boat house and a boat dock, he can not prevent someone to ask for a boat dock on the
premise that some day they may want a boathouse. He knows that is the desire of the
Commission, but no justification to change the LDC to require it.
Mr. Abernathy stated they wanted to eliminate the
verbiage they presented would eliminate that problem.
trying to get deprivation of "view" back as the criteria.
problem. Mr. Schiffer said the
Mr. Abernathy stated they were
Mr. Schmitt answered there is too much subjectivity in what they define as "view" and
that is what set-backs are for. Mr. Abernathy felt it was inadequately protected.
Mr. Schiffer stated it was voted to submit it into the 2nd cycle, aborted in the 2nd cycle
and now it is not in the 3rd cycle. They have the right to submit it and why isn't it
presented.
The concern is they have no ability to disapprove it because the way it is written, if they
have a legal dock they are guaranteed to have a legal boathouse. They would like to view
the boathouse "alone" and now do not have that ability. Minor rewording would give
them that option.
3
September 4, 2003
Mr. Abernathy would like to discuss this further under "Old Business".
SPEAKERS
Dyrel Delaney - Huron Avenue - speaks in opposition of the boathouse. The general
feeling and atmosphere and focus of Vanderbilt Beach are to not have any more
boathouses. He feels it is all wrong for the community. The pilings and roofs are put in
and then it becomes a boathouse which interferes with the view and general character of
the community.
BJ. Boyer - President of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Assn. - they tried to
get the wording of the Code changed months ago and voted against boathouses. She
displayed a picture of pilings put in this particular boathouse months ago. The dock had
been redone and then the pilings put in at that time.
Mr. Schiffer mentioned it is obvious that pilings were put in to solely support the
boathouse structure and not the dock.
Ms. Boyer did not know the answer. She showed another picture taken yesterday at 5:00
PM and appears that the deal was already done. She tried to contact the family east of the
dock who lives out of state. She never reached the appropriate owners and would not
know if they would oppose the dock because of view or not.
Ms. Ashley rebutted and stated that the pilings discussed were put in at the time of the
construction of the dock in 2002 at permit time. There is no contract existing at this time
until this process has gone through first.
Mr. Greg Ork - pilings were put in all at one time - with the idea of installing for a
future boathouse. It is more economical to do at that time than to come back again later.
If the boathouse is not approved, the pilings are taken down.
Discussion followed on the different pilings, height of pilings and them supporting or not
supporting the dock, and the drawings.
Mr. Gochenaur mentioned they do not require an exact drawing showing everything on
the dock. They are concerned about the 4 pilings that dictate the setback and the
protrusion limits. There is nothing in the Land Development Code or the Building Code
that says a dock can't have tall pilings in anticipation of a boathouse. It is cheaper to do
it that way and the petitioner is perfectly within his rights to do so. They have every
expectation of meeting approval when the petition meets all 6 of the criteria currently in
the LDC.
Joe Schmitt mentioned they are trying to establish policy, and would recommend the
Commission put something together and forward through him or present it to the Board
of County Commissioners. They have to enforce the LDC and the petitioner has every
right to construct a dock in anticipation of a boathouse. Ms. Boyer presented her
4
September 4, 2003
testimony and also the Homeowners Assn. has already approached their County
Commissioner and asked a complete overlay of the area to prohibit boathouses. That is a
separate issue - this is the riparian rights of an individual. He is puzzled as to where all
the questioning is going.
The Planning Commissioners need to vote according to what the law is now even though
they would like it changed. There are no restrictions on the height of pilings. If not
approved, they get cut down.
Hearing is closed for discussion and motion.
Mr. Budd moves the Planning Commission approve petition BD-2003-AR-3884
subject to the identified staffs stipulations in accordance with the current
regulations enforced in Collier County. Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Carried 7-1 -
Mr. Schiffer opposed.
Be
PUDZ-2002-AR-3011 - Dwight Nadeau, of RWA Inc. representing
A.R.M. Dev. Corp. of SW FL. Inc. requesting a rezone from "A"
Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as
Tuscany Cove PUD for a residential development for a maximum of
425 residential dwelling units generally located on the East side of
Collier Blvd., approx. ¼ mile South of Immokalee Road consisting of
78.07 acres.
Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy.
Disclosures - Mr. Wolfley talked to the Council for the Petitioner.
PETITIONER
Mr. Rich Yovanovich - representing the Petitioner - this petition was heard before the
Planning Commission and forwarded to the BCC for discussion. The concern was about
traffic on 951. They are attempting to mirror the six lane. The majority of the traffic will
head north to Immokalee road. They will work with Mr. Kant to install the appropriate
devices. They also agreed to phase the project in which the first year they would be
limited to 200 building permits and then on the annual anniversary of the adoption of the
PUD they would be allowed to pull 20 permits per month. In the meantime there had
been a change of what had been transmitted to DCA for the concurrency management
system. They believe the phasing, forcing traffic to go north and the reduction of units
addresses the concerns of the Planning Commission and hope to move forward for
approval. Livingston Road is scheduled to open in 2004 which should also take some
relief off 951. One other issue is the PUD still has 5 foot sidewalks and has not been
changed to 6 feet.
5
September 4, 2003
Mr. Yovanovich mentioned this came back to the Planning Commission from the Board
of County Commissioners because it was different, with changes, from what the Planning
Commission had considered previously, and the BCC wanted the Planning Commission
to hear what was being proposed because they valued the input of the Planning
Commissioners. They get building permits for up to 200 units within the first year of the
project, then they would be limited 20 building permits per month until the road begins
(951). They will CO the units before the road begins.
Mr. Schmitt mentioned the proposal for concurrency management is within one year of
the issuing of the Local Development Order, which is the approval of the Site
Development Plan, or the approval of the final plat. Within one year of the final plat, the
capacity has to be able to handle the traffic put on the road.
They may not have a Certificate of Occupancy in the first year - building permit yes- but
not Certificate of Occupancy. From final subdivision plat, to drawing a building permit
to Certificate of Occupancy is up to the builder as to how long it takes.
Mr. Schmitt said it would take 12 months from final plat of approval to the actual roofs,
be on the ground, Certificate of Occupancy being issued and residents occupying the
facility. By the time the facility is occupied, the road is completed.
Mr. Ed Kant - Transportation Operations Director - they are looking at a number of
months from an actual construction start. If it would start within the next 12 months,
there would be a number of months before the actual rooftops are going to be available
for occupancy. The particular section of 951 (Collier Blvd.) is currently on the work
program to begin in fiscal year 2005. It is his prediction that the development would
dovetail with that roadway.
Traffic signals and accesses were discussed in the various areas.
The FPL lines will come down the west side of the canal, cross over, and down the west
side of Collier Blvd. and will have to move when it is six laned.
The road is in the work program and scheduled to be under construction in fiscal year
2005, and if not changed, the developer is able to plat in the next 13 months.
Mr. Yovanovich stated concurrency doesn't say the road has to be built before a trip can
go on it, just currently has to be within the three year of the five year work program. You
treat it as it is built. They will live with whatever the concurrency management system
is.
Mr. Kant mentioned the signals will be Vanderbilt (existing), Wolf Road, at school and
Crystal Lake and Immokalee Road. He would have to study the plans where the U-Tums
would be made.
Mr. Wolfley asked that the 6 foot sidewalks stay. Mr. Yovanovich answered they have
to stick to the 5 feet.
Mr. Dwight Nadeau representing the petitioner also answered that their would be a
conflict going to the six feet because the potentially required 23 foot driveway distance
from the garage would not be accommodated. The sidewalk must be 6 feet off the
6
September 4, 2003
internal rights-of-way which is a DOT standard of safety. Three feet in would be the
sidewalk, and then 20 foot front yard setback. The five foot has been passed. The streets
are not required to have bike lanes but have a 10 foot shared pathway associated with the
canal.
The five and six foot sidewalks and 23 foot driveways were discussed at length.
Fred Reischl - Planning Services - certain requirements and criteria in the LDC have to
be met.
Mr. Richardson asked about the throat distance being 75 feet instead of 100 feet. Mr.
Nadeau stated the requirement for the throat distance is 75 feet, but if more than 30 trips
are generated per day, it jumps to 100 feet. The bridge alone across the 100 foot wide
canal would provide the adequate spacing distance.
No Speakers.
Hearing is closed for discussion and motion.
Mr. Budd moved to forward petition PUDZ-2002-AR-3011 to the Board of County
Commissions with a recommendation of approval subject to the stipulations of the
unit count being reduced to 375 units, the right-of-way being restricted to north exit,
200 units limitation in the first year, 20 per month in the second year and a five foot
sidewalk. The Five foot sidewalk will allow the 23 foot driveway for parking.
Mr. Adelstein seconded.
Motion carried 7-1. Mr. Richardson with the dissenting vote.
Break - 9:50 AM
Reconvened - 10:05 AM
Ce
PUDA-2002-AR-2475 - Gary Butler, Butler Engineering, Inc.,
representing Bayswater Falling Waters LLC, requesting a rezone
from "E" Estates ad PUD Falling Waters PUD, to increase acreage of
the existing Falling Waters PUD from 134.04 to 161.54, change
density from 6 dwelling units per acre to 4.95 per acre, and show a
change in property ownership, for property located south of Davis
Blvd. & west of the proposed alignment of Santa Barbara Blvd. in
Collier County, FL consisting of 161.54 +/- acres.
Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy.
Disclosures - Mr. Richardson spoke with Bruce Anderson.
PETITIONER
7
September 4, 2003
Bruce Anderson - representing the Applicant Falling Waters Bays Waters LLC. Has
met with Falling Waters residents, and Cope Lane and County staff in what was proposed
and hope that all the previous questions have been answered. This is a PUD Amendment,
with no increase in the number of homes that are already approved to be constructed
within the Falling Waters Development. That number will remain at 799 homes. The
Amendment seeks to add 5 acres of developable land and 22 1/2 acres of conservation
land.
He displayed color coded maps of the area and the designated acres in discussion. The
existing approved dwelling units will be spread out over the five acres being added.
There are already 25 acres of conservation land south of Cope Lane. Conservation lands
that are being added to the PUD are subject to a conservation easement given to the State
of Florida Southwater Management District and prohibit residential development on the
lands subject to the easement. Adding the conservation land provides the County and
residents of Falling Waters additional enforcement to make sure the lands are maintained
in their native condition and free of invasive exotic plants. In response to concerns, the
developer has agreed, but not required to do so, that if the amendment is approved as
presented, they will construct another pool in or near the Magnolia Falls area and built on
the additional five acres of developable land being added. The entry road at the Guard
gate will be widened to two lanes. No homes or any other buildings will ever be
developed on the 22 t/2 acres. Additional commitments; no later than the time of turnover
to the property owner Association from the developer, the title to the conservation lands
will be conveyed to them, subject to the Conservation easement. At time of turn over,
the developer will be responsible to pay the real estates taxes for the conservation parcels.
Cope Lane is proposed to continue to be used for construction traffic until completion of
the project estimated in 2 V2 years. After that, use of Cope Lane would be discontinued
with a new asphalt overlay applied by the developer of Falling Waters to Cope Lane from
County Barn Road to the Falling Waters access point.
Gary Butler - representing the petitioner - Cope Lane has been extended to the
driveway of the original PUD and the road thickness is one inch. They are adding
another overlay because of the increase of traffic over the next two years. They are
willing to extend an extra 10 feet. They will be moving their construction access farther
to the West 600 feet in the final phase.
Basically Cope Lane is owned by the residents, not the County.
After construction is finished Cope Lane will not be utilized for access, emergency or
otherwise.
Mrs. Young asked if they were adding additional tennis courts or additions to the
clubhouse. The answer was "no".
Mr. Richardson asked abut the number of units - Mr. Butler responded there are 602
actually built, and working on an additional 80 which are approved at this time.
The project received unanimous approval from the EAC.
SPEAKERS
8
September 4, 2003
Maggie Cobeaga - Cope Lane - she has 2 V2 acres and access to Cope Lane. She stated
it is a very narrow street and can not pass the trucks. If they continue to use the street it
will be ruined. She sees people on her property and stated they do not need any more
apartments. She doesn't object to progress, but feels there are too many apartments. She
also stated they were going to fix the street and it has not been done. She was not sure
what the trucks are hauling.
Gary Butler stated they were hauling fill in - not out. All material on site is being used
on site. They have not used the road in the past month, but will be using it in this
development. They have fixed portions of it and will put another overlay over the entire
length of road they are using for the next 2 years when they are finished.
James McQuire - 5900 Cope Lane - moved in recently and mentioned the road is very
narrow and cannot pass on it. If they start a new development he feels they need to
widen the road. There is a lot of underbrush and vegetation blocking the sides of the
road.
Mr. Butler stated they could schedule the trucks at different times if that would help the
residents on Cope Lane and have the underbrush cut back within the next 2 weeks. He
will also fill any pot holes that are there and that may develop due to the truck traffic.
Hearing is closed for discussion and motion.
Mr. Budd moved to forward petition PUDA-2002-AR-2475 to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of approval including the additional
stipulation by the petitioner such as building another pool and the extra lane at the
entry and additional trimming of Cope Lane. Seconded Mrs. Young.
Motion carried unanimously 8-0.
De
PUDZ-2003-AR-3607 - Hoover L. Hoover, Hoover Planning & Dev.
Representing Barton & Wendy McIntyre and Joseph Magdalener,
requesting changes to the existing Nicaea Academy PUD zoning. The
proposed changes to the PUD document & Master Plan will eliminate
the uses of private school & assisted living facility & allow for a
maximum of 580 residential dwelling units. The property to be
considered for this rezone is located on the east side of Collier Blvd.
just south of the Crystal Lake PUD (RV Park) in Collier County, FL.
Property consists of 119 +/- acres.
Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy.
Disclosures - none.
PETITIONER
9
September 4, 2003
Bill Hoover - Hoover Planning representing the petitioner - property is 119 acres in
size on the east side of Collier Blvd approx..8 of a mile south of Immokalee Road. The
westerly 40.7 acres is within a residential band surrounding the Immokalee Collier Blvd.
Activity Center. Approx. 1/3 of the sites in the residential density band permit 7 units per
acre. The balance of 2/3 permits 4 units an acre. They wish to amend the NICEA
Academy PUD which currently permits up to 600 students at a private school on 5.3
acres and 10 residential units which would be replaced by 580 condominiums on a
density of 4.87 units per acre. North of the property is Crystal Lakes RV PUD, south
several parcels zoned agriculture, including some along the westerly Bristol Pines PUD,
east is agricultural zoned land in the rural fringe receiving area and west across Collier
Blvd is the affordable housing complex Brittany Bay PUD. Traffic currently would
generate 556 AM peak hour trips, 185 PM peak hour trips and approx. 2,100 week day
daily trips. As proposed they would generate 205 AM peak hour trips, 262 PM peak hour
trips and 2,900 weekday daily trips. The difference would be a major reduction of 351
AM peak hour trips, increase of 77 PM peak hour trips and a gain of 823 daily trips,
Equivalent of 82 single family homes.
The level of service on 2002 counts is "E" or "F". They have not shown plans on
phasing yet, but in building 580 units they will meet concurrency. Construction is in
fiscal year 2005. They still need their site development plans, building permits and
environmental permits. Units wouldn't be up before fiscal year 2005.
Mr. Wolfley asked if there is a contract buyer or is Mr. Hoover the developer. Mr.
Hoover stated the owner, Joseph Magdalener, has a portion of the westerly 15 acres under
contract and Jacob Nagar has an accepted contract on the property including the westerly
15 acres, so is proposing to buy out Joseph Magdalener, who has the westerly 15 acres
under control, as well as Bart Maclntyre who owns the remainder of the 119 acres. Mr.
Wolfley asked if that is the developer of Sapphire Lakes, in which Mr. Hoover stated it
was, and he will be the developer of this property.
Fred Reischl - Planning Services - the analysis is the same as the first time it was
presented.
Ed Kant - had several meetings with the developer. The issue with Tree Farm Road he
stated has been resolved. He would have preferred to have access and access off the
southern parcel off Tree Farm Road to minimize the number of connection points off
951, but cannot do anything to make that happen. He would have hoped for cooperation
from the property owners in seeing the value of it, but find no reason to withhold
approval.
SPEAKERS
Kathleen Stock - 1446 Davila Street - her concern is the access point north of her, but
what is going to guarantee them that as they develop the project, that they will not use
Tree Farm Road. To use that access point, they would have to build a bridge over the
10
September 4, 2003
canal. How can they develop the project without the bridge in place? One resident is
blocking them, and will not give them access.
Jeff Davidson - Engineer - he agreed not to use Tree Farm Road access for the
construction.
Mr. Reischl stated the Master Plan does not show access from Tree Farm Road, only
from 951. If they ever wanted to use it, they would have to come back to the Planning
Commission to change the PUD. He answered a question by Mr. Abernathy that even if
it were for a couple of months of use to build the bridge over the canal they would have
to come back to the Planning Commission or someone could call Code Enforcement if
they do that.
Public Hearing is closed for discussion and motion.
Mr. Budd moved to forward Petition PUDZ-2003-AR-3607 to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of approval and there will be no use of Tree
Farm Road. Seconded Mr. Wolfley. Motion carried unanimously 8-0.
Eo
PUDZ-2002-AR-3495 - Kenneth Griffith, of Johnson Engineering,
representing V.K. Development Corp. requesting a rezone from
"PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as
Wentworth Estates PUD. The current PUD is known as Lely Lakes
PUD and consists of residential & commercial use. The proposed
PUD will consist of mixed uses for a maximum of 1,499 residential
dwelling units, 85,000 sq. feet of commercial uses, 18-hole golf course
& associated amenities. The property to be considered for this rezone
is located on the southwest side of Tamiami Trail East (US41) approx.
1 ¼ mile southeast o the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and
Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Collier County, FL. Consists of
1,558.49 +/- acres.
Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy.
Disclosures - Mr. Budd met with the petitioner and Mr. Hagan.
- Mr. Schiffer met with the petitioner and Mr. Hagan.
Bruce Anderson - representing V.K. Development Corporation of Wisconsin -
contract purchaser of the property. Property is zoned PUD known as the Lely Lakes
PUD and is 514 acres now owned by the State of Florida and utilized as part of the
Rookery Bay Reserve. It allows 10 acres of retail commercial uses and 749 dwelling
units and includes a Hotel Resort Village with 150 rooms, related commercial uses,
restaurants, meeting uses and recreational uses. The Collier County Comprehensive Plan
allows a density of 3 units per acre, the PUD amendment application eliminates the Hotel
11
September 4, 2003
Resort Village uses and seeks approval for a maximum of 1,499 dwelling units which is
as density of 0.9 7 units per acres when including the state owned lands that have been in
the PUD boundaries, or a density of 1.45 units per acre if excluding the state owned
lands. The density is less than half of the 3 units per acre that the Comprehensive Plan
allows on the property. The PUD Amendment continues to include 10 acres of office and
commercial uses on US 41. The team has met with the Florida Dept. of Environmental
Regulations and Rookery Bay staff to try and establish good neighborly relations and
communications before filed with Collier County. They wish to keep up the
communications and offer an educational program to the residents of the development
about the mission and special nature of the Rookery Bay Reserve.
They are aware of the comments submitted by the Conservancy which were presented to
the Environmental Advisory Committee, which were considered and rejected
unanimously. A response to their letter has been written by Chris Hagan.
His client has agreed to pay half of the road impact fees for the entire project when the
first plat is recorded. They are estimated at approx. $3.5M. These funds will be in the
Counties hands earlier than required. He has also agreed to pay $392,800 for road
improvements for surrounding transportation network which payment is in addition to but
not creditable toward the road impact fees.
Chris Hagan - Johnson Engineering - Extra copies of his letter was distributed.
(Enclosed) He also stated the Developer is working with the residents, neighborhood,
conservancy, the civic associations, the South Florida Water Mgt Dist., Corp of
Engineers, and the Storm water Mgt from the County. They are making many
improvements to the neighborhood such as drainage, easements and many more.
In meeting with the Conservancy, they have tried to address their concerns and also work
on a water quality monitoring program.
They have reduced their initial building heights from 130 feet to 100 feet.
They have established a gopher tortoise preserve on site and an eagles nest being
preserved per the Federal and State permits with no development in the primary zone.
Three minor and clarifications to the PUD language were made and were made part of
the record. (Enclosed) These had been discussed with Fred Reischl from Planning
Services. (It was also read into the record).
He displayed the proposed plan drawings and rendering. It will have a Mediterranean
feeling for the overall project. Extensive wetlands and uplands will be on site.
Improvements will be made along Southwest Blvd. There had been some concerns with
the neighbors of how the traffic will be handled on the second entrance. Extensive
landscaping will be done, enclose the drainage system and tie into the Lely area storm
water improvements, to help with the drainage problems. As soon as traffic warrants, a
signal will be installed if and when FDOT approves it.
It will be a golf course community. The taller buildings will have a view of Rookery Bay
but not from the public waterways or boardwalks.
Mr. Abernathy stated he has a problem with the "mid-rises" being 100 feet. He would
like to see them at 75 feet or move away from the border of the preserve.
12
September 4, 2003
They have followed the Counties standards and current Ordinance. Mr. Abernathy feels
the closer to a preserve, the more stringent he feels about developments. He would like it
reduced to 75 feet with all the add-ons or move them away from the Preserves and keep
the 100 feet.
The director of planning for VK Development mentioned the reason for the mid-rises and
golf course in that particular area is to minimize the density so as not to overlook roofs.
Views will be open and not obstructed. They have 100 feet of residential space and
above that, a standard roof and above those 10 feet 7 inches. Total living space is 100
feet total. It will be a courtyard effect and openness for residents and Rookery Bay.
There will be a total of twelve buildings, 225' in width, and 6 units per floor with
swimming pools, tennis courts, underground parking and pleasing to the eye.
If they reduced it to 75' it would look like a Chinese wall - long and narrow and not
appealing and reduce the density.
Mr. Hagan mentioned if it is brought down, it will create a suburban sprawl. He
displayed the site line map.
Bruce Anderson mentioned the height they are asking for approval on is the same as the
height of the Heritage Bay project. They are not willing to reduce the project.
Mr. Hagan said they did a site line along US41 also. He again displayed a map showing
the vegetation along US41.
Mrs. Young brought to everyone's attention the fact that other property developments in
the area are two and three stories for the most so why is VK Developers overbuilding.
Mr. Adelstein asked about the garages and sidewalks. No garage door should be closer
than 23 feet from the sidewalk on the front entry garages.
Sanjay Kuttemperoor answered a question concerning having approx. 350 members of
the golf course, but no decision has been made yet on private and public. Also a lengthy
discussion followed on roof elevations.
SPEAKERS
Tad Bartareau - Works for Florida Dept. & Environmental Protection at Rookery
Bay Reserve - They have met with the developers in the past months and aware of the
letter from the Conservancy. The buildings are in an area where they plan to have an
access restricted in perpetuity. They are not near their new environmental learning
center. The trade-offs for environmental of having a higher building was a positive. He
felt it was the best project they have on their boundary. There will be no wetlands
impacted in the particular area the buildings will be built. He talked about the water
quality, historical sloughs and restoring flowways. The monitoring requirements are part
of their Environmental Research permit and all being addressed. It is a model project.
13
September 4, 2003
The water quality water management and retention ponds were also discussed. He also
stated he believes the buildings will not be visible from the public use of Rookery Bay.
Esther VanLar - Imperial Golf Course Blvd. - she is a real estate agent and told a
little about VK Developers and the family. She is originally from Brookfield, WI. They
build high end communities in the City of Brookfield and are thought of very highly.
Vincent would work with the neighbors and city on any problems personally. He is a
former Professor of Mathematics, Physics and Nuclear Engineering. He has developed
land to protect the environment. They contribute to the community and are committed.
Howard Taylor - Director of The Greenwich Group - the main issue to focus on is
the quality of what is being proposed. Being a Naples resident, the comparison to many
other projects would be such as Bonita Bay - Medittera. He knows the Kuttemperoor
family and agreed with the previous speaker. The family follows through on everything
they say they will.
Bob Murray - Chairman of the East Naples Civic Assoc. - members met with the
Kuttemperoor family looking at the first renderings of Lely Lakes. They were very open,
clear, direct and open to concerns raised. One was the mid-size buildings and visual from
41. They felt they would be a good Developer for the community. They have been very
responsive in any questions raised. There is a water pipe along Southwest Blvd for
drinking water which has been reported as asbestos and been there since 1950. He would
hope the family and the County could replace it. No one has been negative on the project
to his knowledge.
Brad Cornell - Audubon Society - their concern is the density is too great for the area.
It should be lowered with the proposed density and compatible with the area. Water
retention proposed to treat the storm water is not adequate. A study done by Harvey
Harper in 1994 says it is not true that wetland retention provides adequate water quality
treatment. They support monitoring. Consideration should be also given to reducing
wetland loses. Gopher Tortoise is another concern for them. Five tortoises per acre are
too dense and encourage disease and provide stress for the animals. Two to three animals
per acre is more appropriate.
He wants to applaud the developer for going to great lengths to address environmental
issues with their development, but encourage them to go a bit further on some of the
issues he mentioned.
He suggests Rookery Bay be the amenity and not the golf course.
He has not met with the developer.
Glenn Forbes - 24 resident of Collier County and 13 years of Trail Acres - he has
attended meetings and has been impressed. His main concern is the children. The 240
homes in Trail Acres have not been addressed. He read an e-mail into the record of
which a copy was not accessible. The letter addressed traffic concerns, a gate open only
for emergency, their build out creating more trips and safety measures for the children.
The project would be detrimental to their way of life and the safety of their children as
14
September 4, 2003
they are walking, playing and going to school and catching school buses. He suggested
they have security locks and open only in emergency situations.
The golf course and 500 units proposed will be roughly 800 people; in which he
discussed how many trips it would be through their neighborhood. He feels this is as
important as gopher turtles, snakes, high rises, and views and feels they are being
violated. He lives on 4th Street and Southwest Blvd. There are 6-8 school buses in the
morning. He didn't know they had to have two entrances to the project. His concern is
approx. 3,000 cars going up and down Southwest Blvd.
Michelle Penrod - 157th Street - Trail Acres - resident of 14 years. She has called the
developer several times and they have called her to ask what would make them happy.
They went along with the sidewalks, the street light at the end of the street, and have been
willing to do everything they have asked for including paying for a street light if
transportation will approve it. Will improve value of their homes, and if they do what
they say they are going to do, she has no problem with it. They have discussed putting an
area where the parents and children can meet at the bus stops instead of being all over the
street. Sometimes it is flooded out, and they have been willing to work with them.
Mr. Abernathy noted they will stop for an hour lunch after this petition for those
that are waiting in the audience for another Item on the Agenda.
Brent Lacey - Senior Transportation Planning/Gladding Jackson - their analysis
they conducted based on the methodology they were required to apply indicate there will
be additional traffic on Southwest Blvd. No where near the 3,000 suggested, but could be
1,500 daily trips - with increased density it could double or increase. He discussed peak
hour volumes - 60 additional trips - during construction - no trucks allowed. Concerns
of the children mentioned earlier, the developer has indicated they will put in sidewalks
and make improvements on the roadway for safety. The residents main concern was the
lack of a signal light at 41 - when it meets warrants, the developer has agreed to pay for
the intersection improvements, improvements on Southwest Blvd, and the design and
installation of the traffic signal also.
This will be a gated community and gated on both ends.
Mr. Abernathy was concerned about the peak hour trips discussed. Mr. Lacey
mentioned they are stating approx, a total of 600 daily trips.
Edward Kant - Transportation Operations Director - When improvements are made
the street will be brought up to current county standards. This is a county maintained
road. When "warranted" the developer has agreed to install the traffic signal at US 41
and Southwest Blvd. Doesn't mean the signal will come out when developer has started,
or when it is completed. It is a State Road and they will control if and when it will go in.
FDOT may or may not approve it. They are reluctant to add signals to the state system
due to cutting down capacity.
15
September 4, 2003
They have reviewed the TIS - all the numbers etc. There will be more traffic on 41 and
Southwest Blvd. There will be intersection improvements made by the developer. He
discourages yellow blinking lights - they are ignored by residents when they see the light
on a daily basis.
David Williams- Johnson Engineering- Dr. Harper has revised the 1994 report and
made more specific to the SW Florida area - the Sept. 3rd letter to Mr. Abernathy they
outlined report calculations on determining if the site would be producing more pollutants
after development than before development. It shows they are producing fewer
pollutants.
Russell Dancer - Senior Consultant for the Phoenix Environmental Group - He has
been involved in over 2,000 developments in the past 2 years and work with
developments to reach a happy medium.. He stated this project far exceeds that and has
been told by the developer they are not to adversely impact Rookery Bay. They have
done extensive work with Rookery Bay staff and met several times with the Conservancy
and tried to meet everyone's concerns. They have analyzed wetlands on property,
assessment technical in nature, analyzed the uplands, preservations, and looked at the
animal species (gopher tortoises). They have established, with help from Rookery Bay,
and Tallahassee, the VK Development Grant. It is an environmental grant which is a
development grant for $374,000 to be used for resource management and environmental
education for Rookery Bay, staff and visitors to the area. This will help with removal of
exotics and enhancing the wetlands on site and off site. They are addressing County wide
issues and preserving a total of 298 acres. They are restoring natural flowways. He
discussed the power lines on the property.
Vincent Kuttemperoor - VK Development - he introduced his family and mentioned it
is a family business with family values. He has established a residence in Naples in
January and owns a condo in Parkshore. Being from Wisconsin, he knows everyone does
not know what their standards are or what they stand for. He wants to work with
everyone and make them all happy if possible.
He will do what it takes for Southwest Blvd. and will make a commitment to make the
street safe and sound for all the children.
Building heights are an issue, but certain densities are needed to make the project
feasible, but will negotiate. He proposes to cut off one floor which will be 90 feet instead
of the 100 feet height. He will sacrifice one floor in every building reducing the density
of 72 units.
Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - reminds the Commissioners this is a
rezone and the decisions are made based upon objective criteria that relates to
compatibility and other issues that are referenced in the staff report. Also any
infrastructure needs are based upon the impacts of the development, and not "lets make a
deal".
16
September 4, 2003
Mr. Schiffer asked about the impact fees in which Mr. Anderson answered they will pay
the impact fees along with the $190,000 for transportation improvements. He asked
about the 55' height and setback of 25' for the Clubhouse or golf courses. It is the
maintenance building. Mr. Schiffer asked to have it stated "no building 55' is within 75'
of the property line."
Under permitted uses they need to add "office use."
Fred Reischl - Planning Services - their analysis has been found consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. The consistency
analysis is based that it is urban coastal fringe, which in the Growth Management Plan
and a transitional area, is to provide for the transition between the very low density to the
south and the 4 units per acre to the north. At three units per acre, the GMP considers it
transitional. They recommended approval of the higher story buildings because they
were not maxing out the site in using one unit per acre rather than the maximum of three,
and incorporating Mr. Bartareau's comments.
The hearing is closed for discussion and motion.
Mr. Budd moved to forward Petition PUDZ-2002-AR-3495 to the Board of County
Commissioners with recommendation of approval with additional stipulations
being:
l)
Z)
3)
4)
5)
6)
there be a 23' front yard setback on the front loading garage areas,
the building height be reduced to 90 feet
the total unit count be reduced by 72 units
no 55' building within 75' feet of the property line
add "office retail" to permitted uses - as long as it doesn't contradict the
GMP within the PUD uses
the stipulations read into the record by Chris Hagen (attached)
Seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
Mr. Abernathy still didn't feel comfortable with the 90' height and doesn't have
anything to do with integrity.
Mr. Adelstein has a problem with the height also. He feels more comfortable with the
75' as Mr. Abernathy does.
Mr. Richardson is impressed with the sincerity of the developer and also with Mr.
Abernathy exerting a principle. He feels there is a balance and go with the 90'.
Mr. Schiffer likes that they did an analysis on site lines and you can't see the building
from certain areas.
Mr. Budd has a problem with setbacks more than he does with the height.
Mrs. Young is impressed with the integrity and honorability with the family and
builders. She thinks 75' would be better but they have gone out of their way to work
with everyone on other issues.
Mr. Midney stated the 90' is a comparable compromise he can support. He asked about
water quality monitoring.
17
September 4, 2003
Mr. Reischl will include in the PUD that they require it and have the monitoring by the
District.
Motion carries 6-2. Mr. Abernathy and Mr. Adelstein voting "no"
The meeting will reconvene at 2:15 PM.
Recess - !:20 PM
Reconvened - 2:15 PM
Ge
PUDZ-2003-AR-3860 - D. Wayne Arnold, Q. Grady Minor & Assoc.
& Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson,
representing Gateway Shoppe's II, LLC, requesting a rezone from
"RSF3" &"PUD" to "PUD" Planning unit Development known as
Artesa Creek PUD by revising the PUD document & Master Plan to
increase the acreage from 45 acres to 82 acres, change from a
residential to a mixed use community, change density from 7.8
dwelling units per acre to 6.4 units per acre consisting of 300
residential dwelling units within areas designated "R" on the
conceptual Master Plan of which a minimum of 200 must qualify as
affordable housing; changing the name from Henderson Creek to
Artesa Point; and add commercial uses for a maximum of 325,000 sq.
feet of gross leaseable area. The subject property is located on the
east side of Collier Blvd. & south side of US41 in Collier County, FL.
Consists of 82+/- acres.
Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy.
Disclosures - none.
Mr. Rich Yovanovich - project known as the Henderson Creek PUD. They created a
sub-district that would have allowed commercial development on the property closest to
951 & residential development behind it. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment lagged
behind the proposed development - thus going through the PUD first. It allowed for
construction of up to 360 dwelling units, to be phased. The first phase an apartment
complex and second phase owner occupied for sale affordable housing which is being
brought back today. The comprehensive plan required a minimum of 200 affordable
housing units. They will all be affordable housing units in the plan.
They have now gone to a 100% for sale owner occupied project. Not greater than 4 units
per building thus reducing the density to 280 units.
Adding commercial, the intent is to be a regional retail - not Publix shopping center.
One of the users would be at least 1,000 sq. feet of use. Intent is to attract wholesale;
Costco, BJ's, Home depot, Loews etc.
Have addressed concerns of the neighbors to the best they can, with no major issues.
Mr. Richardson asked about "non-regional" retail entities.
18
September 4, 2003
Wayne Arnold - Grady Minor & Assoc. - showed map of exhibits, highlighted
residential, commercial and road access. Affordable housing is going to be principally
attached single family- 4 plexes. Maximum height limitation of 35 feet for residential
and commercial, except any type of architecturally entry features on the commercial.
They are providing for interconnection to the activity center commercial from the loop
road system. This was encouraged by the transportation staff and has no problems with
it.
Mr. Abernathy asked about the acreage numbers - some is made up of the roads, and a
portion of the conservation area included.
Mr. Schiffer asked about the parking lot - Mr. Arnold stated it is going to be commercial
parking. Mr. Shifter asked why they couldn't interconnect the 3 out parcels - there will
be a frontage road behind them and limited to the access points on Collier Blvd. with no
direct access to 951.
Mr. Arnold stated they committed to provide an 8 foot high wall on top of berm with the
wall being 6 foot in height along the residential and chain link possibly for the preserve
area. There was concern for water containment for the mobile park. He again showed
the map providing for a small collector swale to collect any water that falls on the berm
and channel it back into their system. They feel that is an adequate solution.
Parcels 1, 2, 3 & 4 could be gas stations, convenience store, bank etc. that would not be
regional attracters of people in the immediate area.
Mr. Wolfley asked about sidewalks and bike paths. Mr. Arnold stated the Habitat for
Humanity has purchased the residential portion and will be the developer of the
affordable housing units and their plans do include sidewalks.
Mr. Adelstein mentions they will insist on one car garages in the project.
Sam Durso, President of Habitat for Humanity for Collier County - they will do the
single stall garages for each unit. It is basically the same house they have built in the past
- 550 in Collier County. They want to build a single story house as it is easier to build
without volunteers. He described the homes. They will have a Homeowners Assoc.,
escrow for landscaping and maintain the landscaping. They will build 220 in less than 2
years with volunteers.
Mr. Schiffer asked about the minimum of a 20 foot radius of the roadway.
Dean Smith - Grady Minor & Assoc. - the radius is for the turnouts for the
intersection. Discussion followed on the turn lanes and intersection.
Mr. Schiffer asked about the density. Mr. Arnold answered that the open spaces are such
as lakes, residential area and other preserve areas equaling 47 acres total. The 280
divided by 47 is the projects density.
Mr. Ray Bellows - Planning Services - reviewed the petition and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and recommended the changes discussed. The Environmental
Advisory Council reviewed it and recommended approval also. Neighborhood
information meeting was held and no significant oppositions to what were being
proposed.
19
September 4, 2003
The hearing is closed for discussion and motion.
Mr. Adelstein moved to recommend forwarding petition PUDZ-03-AR-3860 to the
County Commissioners for recommendation of approval, and that each house has a
one car garage. Seconded Mr. Budd. Carried unanimously 8-0.
PUDZ-2001-AR-955 - William L. Hoover Planning & Development,
Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Agricultural to "PUD" Planned
Unit Development to be known as Wolf Creek PUD for a residential
project for a maximum of 732 dwelling units on property located
along Wolf Road, Approx. V2 mile west of Collier Blvd. and 3/8 mile
north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, Collier County, Florida, consisting
of approx. 147.69 acres.
All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy.
Disclosures - none.
Robert Mulhere - RWA - representing the petitioner -project was shown on screen
of the location. (Northwest quadrant of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Blvd.) They
are proposing 591 units. Project is 147 acres and net density is 4 dwelling units per acre.
It will be a mixture of multi and single family units. 370 multi family and balance single
family. Had two public meetings, one for benefit for Island Walk residents. Concerns
were addressed concerning height limitations etc. The have committed to construct the
north-south leg of Wolf Road shown on a map displayed. Wolf Road was not in the
plans in the beginning. Access and different roads were shown and discussed. Wolf
Road will provide access for others in the future, but for their project will allow the
residents to go north and west without impacting the intersection.
Ed Kant - Transportation - stated they have been working with five different
developments in the past three months and Loop Road serves Mission Hills - with access
pieces into the Wolf Creek PUD. He showed on the map the areas the road will serve
and other areas that are connecting with proposed roads and a school. 951 are
considered a controlled access facility. There is an opportunity for a traffic signal at
Wolf Road. He discussed and showed on the map other areas for possible signals.
The widening of 951 is programmed for fiscal year 2005 - construction to start in spring.
Their project will be started within one year.
Mr. Mulhere stated it would take 6-8 months to plat the property and will meet current
concurrency and be consistent with the proposed.
Mr. Mulhere mentioned added standards that have been added to the PUD not in the
Commissioners packets. They have met with staff and revised the PUD to add the
standards.
It will be 23 feet from garages to sidewalk. They will meet Land Development Codes.
20
September 4, 2003
Single family is 20 feet. There was some confusion as to all the setbacks according to the
Commissioners packets and the new standards. Mr. Mulhere will provide the
Commissioners with a list of the standards he was referring to.
Mr. Wolfley asked about any landowners in the area. The answer was shown - 1) there
is a modular home 2) there is a trailer and residents moving shortly 3) a home for sale
owned by an excavator and realizes he is in a transition area.
Mike Bosi - Planning Services - there was one letter of objection from someone from
Island Walk concerned about after hour parties and noise with that type of residential
development, but there is a stipulation that any three story buildings & multi-family
buildings are to be 150 foot from the Island Walk border and also the space configuration
of how the Master Plan has the single family residences abutting the Island Walk
community. No other objections. Staff has no problem with the attached housing. He
can include that with the PUD when they send it the Board of County Commissioners.
The PUD development standards have been reviewed and found consistent with the
Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code.
Hearing is closed for discussion and motion.
Mr. Adelstein moved to forward petition PUDZ-2001-AR-955 Wolf Creek to the
Board of County Commissioners for recommendation of approval including the new
development standards. Seconded by Mr. Budd. Carried unanimously 8-0.
I. CU-2002-AR-3537- Nick Stewart, of Stewart Mining
Industries, requesting Condition Use "1' for earthmining in
the "A-MHO" Rural Agricultural - Mobile Home Overlay
zoning district pursuant to Section 2.2.2.3 of the Collier County
Land Development Code for property located in Collier
County, Florida.
Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy.
Disclosures - Mr. Budd met with the petitioner and their representatives.
- Mr. Schiffer had a telephone conversation with Pamela Stewart
representing the petitioner.
Jeff Davidson - Davidson Engineering - the project is over a 200 acre sand mine
excavation. This is a specialized material and limited quantity of it in Collier County.
The lake is more than 200 acres located on a 228 acre parcel. It is located one mile south
of State Road 82 about one mile west of State Road 29, NW of Immokalee.
Nick Stewart - President of Stewart Mining - the sand is a very coarse silica sand
product used for manufacturing of concrete sand, for golf course sands, and asphalt
products. He had a sample for viewing. It is dredged, run through a processing plant,
graded, sorted and has different granular sizes. They will serve concrete plants
21
September 4, 2003
throughout the different counties, and works with beach erosion. If they were to
encounter materials undesirable or unfeasible to mine, they would discontinue mining
and leave the natural land. They own the property under an LLC.
In sand mining business, an 85 foot lake is quite common. They have encountered lime
rock at 100 feet.
Mr. Adelstein asked to have the "fetch system" explained.
Stan Chrzanowski - Engineering Services - in the excavation ordinance they have the
"fetch formula" which fetches the distance that wind blows across the surface of a lake in
a given direction. It says it is the fixing of the depth of the lake they are allowed to dig.
Too deep of a lake is not going to overturn properly. He talked about dimensions and
formulas. They have done a lot of research and not sure the "fetch formula" applies to all
lakes of all shapes in all areas of the County. Mr. Stewart wants to violate the "fetch
formula" and convinced the County that this will not be a problem in the area, based on
the formula in this instance. Violate does not mean a bad thing, he is working with the
County.
A lengthy discussion continued on the normal temperature cycles and the lake being
anoxic.
The Immokalee well field is 3 miles from the site with no problems.
Jeff Davidson said they are intending to construct a typical water management berm and
also put a liner in the berm.
The County permits on this type of property are not the only kind of permits they need to
get - they have to have an environmental resource permit from the State. Water quality
issues were addressed, sloping requirements, littorals, and any impact to water. They will
be monitored and annual reports will be done.
Mr. Davidson mentions one of the transportation recommendations requested they put in
a certain pavement thickness and road width. They would like to modify it with the
minimum pavement being 22 feet and stabilize the road with recycled asphalt.
Hearing is closed for discussion and motion.
Mr. Budd moved to forward petition CU-2002-AR-3537 to the Board of Zoning
Appeals with a recommendation of approval with clarification of the 22 foot access
road with the option of either or asphalt milling surface and other conditions
recommended by staff. Seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously 8-0.
CU-2003-AR-3954 - Jerry Neal, representing R.H. of Naples requests
a conditional use #1 of the Agricultural District for the purpose of
Earthmining. The property to be considered for the conditional use is
located at US41 East from CR 951 to Greenway Road, North to
Manatee Road, then East to end of road n Collier County FL.
Consisting of 42.33 acres.
22
September 4, 2003
Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy.
Disclosures - none.
Jerry Neal - representing RH of Naples - petition is to finalize an excavation that was
permitted with a conditional use that has expired. The project is almost finished. He
showed the boundaries of the site on the map. Road leading into it has been paved and a
mm lane put in. Fill is being removed for project down the road which is a Habitat for
Humanity project. Lake or water that will remain will have large plantings versus the
strip areas on east side of project. Wider strip will be on the west side as was in the
beginning completed with 50 feet on the northeast and south and 130 feet on the west.
Mike Bosi - Planning Services - has not received any written correspondence
concerning the conditional use application.
Two neighborhood meetings were held and concerns were addressed. Trucks cannot
leave site until 8 AM and will have 8 hours of activity.
Mr. Adelstein asked how they could operate without a permit for 2 years. Mr. Bosi
answered they had operated beyond the timeframe of the conditional use; the new
conditional use is in after the fact and would apply the normal conditional use fee of
$2,000 which will be $4,000.
Hours of operation were not discussed at the neighborhood meetings. Explosives and
dust from the site were the concerns. They were also concerned about safety issues with
children.
It would help if Code Enforcement's number is given to the neighbors as to what has
been agreed to, which would be pro-active rather than reactive.
There is a fence on the north and east and a berm and ditch on the south side with a berm
on the west side and a small ditch. They will get the materials out two months after
approval and then divide into 5 acre lots.
Marjorie Student - had a concern about the Code Enforcement notification and
wondered if the Commissioners wanted it as a stipulation of the conditional use. If it is
made part of the document - would need to know if the standard feet of 500 would be
used.
Ray Bellows felt it should be up to the petitioner to fulfill as an advertising notice.
Mike Bosi indicated this is for only 12 months and will clean up the rest of the fill and
restore the property back to the required state dictated by the LDC. The neighbors feel
they have been impacted negatively and want the applicant to complete the original intent
and design of the original site and restore it so they can enjoy their neighborhood as they
see fit.
SPEAKERS
23
September 4, 2003
Neil Morales - Attorney for Homeowners in area - he would like the Commissioners
to deny the petition. The Petitioner has not been respecting the law and is violating the
trust of the homeowners and County itself. First major violation is the expiration of the
conditional use permit in March 2001. At no time did they ask for an extension before
the conditional use was expired. They did not talk to the homeowners about extending it.
They continued to violate the law with LDC 35712 - setback requirements. He has
misrepresented the 50 feet - it is only 30 feet. Second problem is the blasting issues. He
read letters into the record from homeowners. (Letters were not provided) They stated
damages due to blasting leaving cracks in the foundation and garages and sounding like
earthquakes. Trucks taking up the whole road were another issue along with the dust.
Other violations were: no annual reports, no records of ground water monitoring, and not
adhering to safety concerns.
The informational meetings were very technical. The permitting issues are about trust.
There is only one week's worth of blasting reported and are very sparse.
Stan Chrzanowski - Planning Services - three years ago they set up a system with 800
excavations and noticed this conditional use expired and was turned into the planners in
which they told the developer to come in. Two months ago Mr. Morales came in and told
them the excavation was within 50 feet of the property. They shut it down because they
went further than the excavation permit allowed. They said they would get a conditional
use up to date and a mitigation plan. At this point they need to get the lake to conform to
the excavation ordinance.
If not approved, it will look like it does at this time.
Ray Bellows - Planning - County has taken steps to monitor situations such as these.
Hearing is closed for discussion and motion.
Mr. Budd moved to foreword Petition CU-2003-AR-3954 to the Board of Zoning
Appeals for recommendation of approval subject to the staffs stipulations (eight
items listed) with correction of Item #8 that the starting hours of operation be 8 AM
and not 9 AM.
Discussion followed on future blasting and contacting the neighbors. If there is
damage done to property, Mr. Neal said the neighbors should contact them so
Insurance company can investigate.
This was made part of the motion.
Seconded by Mr. Richardson. Carried unanimously 8-0.
PUDZ-02-AR-956 - Thomas E. Killen representing Naples Elks
Lodge 2010, requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD for the Radio
Square PUD, adding medical office as a permitted use, amending the
landscape requirements, and providing for shared parking for
24
September 4, 2003
property located on the southwest corner or Radio road and Donna
Street in Collier County FL, consisting of approx. 9.4 acres ....
All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy.
Disclosures - none.
Mr. Adelstein mentioned there are no signatures of all the owners, and if changes are
made, without all owners consent he feels they would have a right to sue them. He
doesn't feel they can go forward with the Petition.
Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - questioned Mr. Reischl about the
signature situation. There were some changes that would affect the parcel that was not
owned by the applicant. That situation has changed. She stated an example. She
understands from staff that there were no changes, only affecting the parcel that is owned
by the entity that Mr. Killen represents and there is no impact or changing on property
that is owned by the applicant.
Mr. Adelstein states they are giving the use of their parking spaces to the applicant, and
a conditional use that has to be represented voice to do it. He is considering the
ownership of the Elks Club. There are 11 owners.
Mr. Reischl said the way he understood it is the only change is to parcel tract C; office
condominium that fronts Radio Road, the landscape buffer, which was suppose to be 20
feet was reduced to 10 feet. The change was made in the PUD so what was physically on
the ground is what the PUD reflected. The change is in wording and not what is actually
there.
The site plan was different than the PUD. Now they want the PUD match the as-built
permitted condition of building "C". The Elks were directed to go forward with the
petition by the County Attorneys office in order to correct it.
Another change he missed was to reduce the building height from current 35' to 25'
They have no problem to change it back to 35 '. The shared parking agreement is
between Tract A and Tract B, owned by the same party. The PUD will now reflect what
is built on the ground.
Mr. Budd mentioned they do not need the signatures of the owners of Parcel
"C" of which there are 11 - there are no substantial changes to the property and their
rights are not being affected. There are corrections to reflect the as-built condition on the
building height on the front yard buffer median.
Tom Killen - Architect and Planner Naples Elks Lodge - their new building was over
budget and Parcel "C" was sold off for income. When it was built, some things were
missed including County Planning. PUD was not modified then because the Elks did not
own the land and it possibly would be an Industrial Park. They have requested the
following revisions for the Elks to complete their project:
- Clean up so it is all legal.
25
September 4, 2003
- Landscape buffer revision between Tract A and C is presented at request of County
Planning because delay in requiring a D-cell lane on Radio Road. Decision to alter the
front & rear landscape buffer of Tract C and asked to modify to make buffers legal.
- Deletion of 80% opaque requirement of Tract A. Replace with standard 25 foot
landscape buffer.
- An additional sidewalk included.
- Reciprocal parking covenant exists between Tracts A & C. (Shared parking)
Showed a map of area and discussed parking on the various tracts. (Overage of 66 cars
for office building use)
If sold for another use, they would have to get a PUD Amendment.
Mr. Schiffer noted he had a conversation with Tom Killen concerning the above issues.
He was absent from the room when asked for disclosures.
He didn't feel there would be a problem for parking because of the arrangement.
Staff finds it is consistent with Growth Management Plan and compatible with the
neighborhood.
Hearing is closed for discussion and motion.
Mr. Schiffer moved to approve Petition PUDA-2001-AR-956 with staff conditions.
Seconded and carried 7-1. Mr. Adelstein abstained because of a conflict of interest.
10.
11.
12.
Old Business:
Mr. Schiffer asked about the issue of Boathouses being in the 2nd Cycle which
was promised to be in the 3rd Cycle. It will be brought up at the next meeting.
New Business: - None
Public Comment: - None
Discussion of Addenda: - None
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:30 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Kenneth Abernathy
26
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
September 12, 2003
Joseph K. Schrnitt, Administrator
Community Development & Environmental Services
Trish Morgan, Deputy Clerk
Minutes & Records Department
CCPC Resolution 2003-12
Enclosed please find one CCPC Resolution 2003-12 as referenced
above, approved by the Collier County Planning Commission on
Thursday, September 4, 2003.
Please sign the document and return it to the Minutes & Records
Department, as it is a part of the official record.
If you should have any questions, please contact me at 774-8406.
Thank you.
Enclosure
CCPCRESOLUTION 03- 12
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2003-AR-3884 FOR A
BOATHOUSE 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 (LDC)
(Ordinance 91-102, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of laarticular
geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat
docks; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has
held a properly noticed public hearing and considered the advisability of a 36-foot by 20-foot
boathouse to be built on an existing 48-foot by 20-foot boat dock in an RSF-3 zone for the property
hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 2.6.21 .; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has given all interested parties the opportunity to be heard, and
considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Conmfission of
Collier County, Florida, that:
Petition Number BD-2003-AR-3884, filed on behalf of Richard I Larsen, for the property
hereinafter described as:
Lot 11, Block S, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit #3, Section 29, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 89, of the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida,
be, and the same is hereby approved for a 36-foot by 20-foot boathouse to be constructed on a ~
48-foot by 20-foot boat dock in the RSF-3 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to
the following condition:
All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the LDC,
must be removed from the subject property prior to issuance of the required Certificate of
Completion and the property must be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in
perpetuity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution 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 ~ 7~
day of 4r~/,aTZ/-Er~z q,~, 2003.
ATTEST:
/~ospph K. Sch~t .... .~_ -
(~C/ffrn.muni. ty Development and Environmental
~rvices Administrator
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
(~l:~oved asl~ Form an0rLegal Sufficiency:
Patrick G. White
Assistant County Attorney
B D-2003-AR-3884/RG/lo
MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
.... 'FORM 8B
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME~FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAMI::
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
DATE ON WHICH VOlE ('K'CURRED
COUN'FY
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE
THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISJJlON, AUTHORITY, OR ~IOMMI~rEE ON
~,'HICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
· CI1 Y ~ COUNTY ~ ~ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
NAMI~. OF I:K)LITICAL SUBDIVISION:
MY POSITION IS:
: ELECTIVE ~J~ APPOINTIYE .
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented
with a voting conflict of interest under Sectio,~ !12.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although
the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure .required by law.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.~'t43, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN fi'om voting on a measure which inures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special
gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either case, you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the
special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether
~nade by the officer or at his direction. ~'
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
· You should complete and file this form (before ~naking any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorpora[e the form in the minutes.
· A copy of the form should be provided immediately lO the other members of the agency.
· The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest.
[ I(;R~.I x|l II1.~/,, PAGE
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
· You should disclose orally the nature of your ¢onflic! in the measure before participating.
· You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the persbn responsible for recording the minutes
of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
1, ~Q..]a~ ~ , hereby disclose that on
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
,190~ :
inured to my special private gain; or
inured to the special gain of
, by whom I am retained.
(,b)
The measurebe~re myagencyandthenatureofmyinterestinthe measureisas ~ilows:
Having practiced law for 42 years it becomes difficult not to accept a
statement made on a legal document, and my belief tha~ there is no
alternative but to comply with its requirements. The county could decide
to change this rule but until they do, there is no alternative but to
follow those that are presently before us. The document in questions
was an affidavit that stated "note: signatures of a~l owners are mandatory"
A majority of the owners did not sign this document. Mr. Reichl from
staff decided we could go forward with this PUD without the necessary
signatures. I believe he was wrong. His actions could bring a lawsuit
from one of these owners who did not sign the document and did not agree
with the County Planning Commission decision. Each member of Collier
County Planning Commissioner who voted on the change could be made a party
to this suit. This could require the retaining of an attorney and possiblf
having to pay damages. To me, being sued having to hire an attorney, and
possibly paying damages, is a conflict of my interest.
°7_//i/ 0.3
Date Filed
~ /
Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §!12.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFF1CE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
CE FORM 8B . 10-86
9/5/03
I Lindy M Adelstein abstained from voting on Petition PUDA-2001-AR-956 radio square
PUD for following reason.
The affidavit (see attached) stated that the signatures of all owners are mandatory and, in
fact, the signatures of all owners were not affixed to the document. There are, I've been
told, 11 of them, I explained to the members of the County Planning Commissioners that
I did not feel that we could hear this agenda item under these conditions. I further stated
that if we approved something that one of the owners did not agree with, that owner
could personally name us in a lawsuit seeking damages. The principal planner Fred
Reischl stated that he felt we could go forward. Marjorie Student was not asked for her
opinion, and she did not give one.
I do not believe that Mr. Reich is an attorney, and there was no agreement of his position
by Marjorie Student.
I practiced law for 42 years and felt there was a possibility that one of these owners, in
fact, could sue and named each of us. I have certainly seen stranger things. I believe that
Mr. Reischl should have continued this matter and require the petitioner to, in fact, have
this document properly executed.
Being sued is in conflict with my interest, and could cost me money for attorneys' fees
and possibly additional fimds if the owner was successful.
For the reasons I have just stated I feel I had facing the right to abstain from voting on
this issue.
Lindy M Adelstein
10.
HAS ANY PORTION OF THE PUD BEEN SQLD AND/OR
DEVELOPED? ARE ANY CHANGES PROPOSED FOR THE AREA SOLD AND/OR
DEVELOPED?
XXXX Yes. No. IF YES, DESCRIBE: (ATTACH
ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY).
Tract 3 was sold to a Developement Company
AFFIDAVIT
We, Exalted Ruler &Chain-mn of Trustees being first duly sworn,
depose and say that we are the owners of the property described
herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing;
that all the answers to the questions in this application, and all
sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and
made a part Qf this application, are honest and true to the best
of our knowledge and belief. We understand this application must
be completed and accurate before a hearing, can be advertised. We
further permit the undersigned to act as our representative in any
mattersrega~ding ~h~s--Pet-it-ion.
SY~V~R~ OF AGENT
State of Florida
County of Collier
~_ The foregoi~q_Application ~s acknowledged bg~e me this
7~ day of ~ , 200-/ by ~g~m~J///~ , who
personally known ~ me of who nas produced / - '
./~~~~~~ as identification and who did (did not)
~take a~oath.
(Signature)
PUD\DO APPLICATION
NOTARY PUBLIC
Commission # C~
3
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
September 12, 2003
Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator
Community Development & Environmental Services
Trish Morgan, Deputy Clerk
Minutes & Records Department
CCPC Resolution 2003-12
Enclosed please find one CCPC Resolution 2003-12 as referenced
above, approved by the Collier County Planning Commission on
Thursday, September 4, 2003.
Please sign the document and return it to the Minutes & Records
Department, as it is a part of the official record.
If you should have any questions, please contact me at 774-8406.
Thank you.
Enclosure
~ ES_? l S 2003 ~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CCPCRESOLUTION 03- 12
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2003-AR-3884 FOR A
BOATHOUSE 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 (LDC)
(Ordinance 91-102, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat
docks; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has
held a properly noticed public hearing and considered the advisability of a 36-foot by 20-foot
boathouse to be built on an existing 48-foot by 20-foot boat dock in an RSF-3 zone for the property
hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 2.6.21.; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has given all interested parties the opportunity to be heard, and
considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of
Collier County, Florida, that:
Petition Number BD-2003-AR-3884, filed on behalf of Richard I Larsen, for the property
hereinafter described as:
Lot 11, Block S, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit #3, Section 29, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 89, of the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida,
be, and the same is hereby approved for a 36-foot by 20-foot boathouse to be constructed on a ~
48-foot by 20-foot boat dock in the RSF-3 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to
the following condition:
All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the LDC,
must be removed from the subject property prior to issuance of the required Certificate of
Completion and the property must be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in
perpetuity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution 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 ,.~ 7~ day of -,('('~aT/-Coc~,~, 2003.
,r
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
KENNETH L. AB~HAIRMAN
ATTEST:
~C°o~.Phxg6rviceUsnitAYdn~ie~:IrOaPtomrent and Environmental
~oved ah ~ Form anC~Legal Sufficiency:
Patrick G. White
Assistant County Attorney
BD-2003-AR-3884/RG/lo
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Comm!~nity Development and Environmental Services Division
Planning Services Department · 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, Florida 34104
September 15, 2003
RICHARD I LARSEN
5840 W. JEFFERSON
DETROIT, MI 48209
REFERENCE: BD-2003-AR-3884,
LARSEN, RICHARD
Dear Mr. Larsen:
On Thursday, September ~, 2003, the Collier County Planning
approved Petition No. BD-2003-AR-3884.
A copy of Resolution No. 03-12 is enclosed approving this use.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 293-2911.
Ross Goc~enaur
Planner
RG/Io
Enclosure
CC:
RICHARD I LARSEN
Land Dept. Property Appraiser ~
Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI)~''~''''~
Customer Service
Addressing (Peggy Jarrell)
M. Ocheltree, Graphics
File
Commission heard and
Phone (239) 403-2400 Fax (23% 643-6968
CCPC RESOLUTION 03- 12
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2003-AR-3884 FOR A
BOATHOUSE 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 (LDC)
(Ordinance 91-102, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat
docks; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has
held a properly noticed public hearing and considered the advisability of a 36-foot by 20-foot
boathouse to be built on an existing 48-foot by 20-foot boat dock in an RSF-3 zone for the property
hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 2.6.21 .; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has given all interested parties the opportunity to be heard, and
considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission
Collier County, Florida, that:
Petition Number BD-2003-AR-3884, filed on behalf of Richard I Larsen, for the property
hereinafter described as:
Lot 11, Block S, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit//3, Section 29, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 89, of the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida,
be, and the same is hereby approved for a 36-foot by 20-foot boathouse to be constructed on a
48-foot by 20-foot boat dock in the RSF-3 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to
the following condition:
All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the LDC,
must be removed from the subject property prior to issuance of the required Certificate of
Completion and the property must be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in
perpetuity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution 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 ~ 7~
day of .,,('C/aT/-Er./~ ~,~;~, 2003.
ATTEST:
/~os~ph K. Sch~tt .... .~_
(oCfrn~,~rvicmeUsnii[mDi;~.~IrOaPtomrent and Environmental
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
KENNETH L. ABERNATHY,-~HAIRMAN
~tl~oved asI tp Form an~Legal Sufficiency:
Patrick G. White
Assistant County Attorney
BD -2003 -AR-3884/RG/Io