CCPC Minutes 04/15/2004 RApril 15, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, April 15, 2004
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: Russell Budd
Mark Strain
Lindy Adelstein
Paul Midney
Dwight Richardson
Kenneth Abernathy
Brad Schiffer
Robert Murray
ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Dev & Environmental Services
Ray Bellows, Chief Planner, Zoning & Land Dev. Rev.
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney
Kay Deselem, Dept. of Zoning & Land Dev. Review
Ross Gochenaur, Dept. of Zoning & Land Dev. Review
Fred Reischl, Dept. of Zoning & Land Dev. Review
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 15, .2004, 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 ALLOTI'ED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
NOTE: The public should be advised that two (2) members of the Collier County
Planning Commission (Dwight Richardson and Bob Murray) are also members of the
Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee. In this regard, matters
coming before the Collier County Planning Commission may come before the Community
Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee from time to time.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 4, 2004
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MARCH 12, 2004 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT MEETING; MARCH 16, 2004
WORKSHOP
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BD-2003-AR-5104, Felice Ciai, represented by Michael Hawkins of Turrell and Associates, requesting a boat dock
extension of 15 feet from the required 20 feet for a total protrusion of 35 ft into the waterway. The property to be
considered for the extension is located at 175 Sunset Cay, further described as Lot 86, Port of the Islands (The
Cays) Phase II, Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. The property consists of
0.28 acres. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
B. BD-2004-AR-5153, Ruediger Brunsberg, represented by Ben Nelson, of Nelson Marine Construction, requesting a
boat dock extension to allow a boat dock facility protruding a total of 60 feet into the waterway. Property is
located at 195 San Mateo Drive, Southport on the Bay Unit 1, Lot 31, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
C. DRIABN-2003-AR-4987, Richard K. Bennett, represented by Donald Pickworth, P.A., requesting to abandon the
Twelve Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The applicant has elected to'abandon the DRI because
the PUD project as approved no longer meets the requirements to qualify as a DRI in Collier County. The subject
site is located on the north side of Davis Boulevard (SR-84) and the south side of Radio Road (CR-856) in
Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Collier County Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
D. CU-2003-AR-4003, Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus, Inc. represented by Terrance Kepple, of
Kepple Engineering, Inc., requesting Conditional Use #1 of the "E" zoning district, to allow a "Church or other
Place of Worship" for property located at 1235 San Marcos Boulevard, in Section 31, Township 49, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.86 acres. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem)
E. PUDZ-2003-AR-4332, Colonnades Medical Park, LLC, represented by Richard D. Yovanovich, of Goodlette,
Coleman and Johnson, P.A., and D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a
rezone from "E" Estates to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for a project to be known as the
COLONADES AT SANTA BARBARA PUD, to allow development of a maximum of 35,000 square feet of mixed office
uses. Property is located at the northwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, in
Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.83__. acres. (Coordinator:
Kay Deselem)
F. PUDZ-2003-AR-4575, Benderson Development Company, Inc., represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole
Montes, Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known
as The Bosley PUD for a maximum of 303 multi-family affordable housing dwelling units for property located
approximately one-quarter mile south of the intersection of 1-75 and Immokalee Road, in Section 30,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 20.23 acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
G. PUDZ-2003-AR-4674, Collier HMA, Inc., a Subsidiary of Health Management Associates, Inc., represented by
Margaret Perry AICP, of WiisonMiller, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel & Andress, requesting a rezone
from "A" Rural Agricultural and "TTRVC" Travel Trailer Recreational Vehicle Campground to "PUD" Planned
Unit Development to be known as Collier Regional Medical Center PUD for a maximum of 260,000 square feet
of hospital and related uses and 80,000 square feet of medical office and related uses. The property is located on the
east side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 3 miles north of Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41) and
approximately four miles south of 1-75, in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 60_+ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
9. OLD BUSINESS
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
13. ADJOURN
3/25/o4/ccPc Agenda/RB/sp
April 15, 2004
1. Chairman Russell Budd called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM and Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
2. Roll Call - A quorum was established,
3. Addenda to the Agenda - Mr. Bellows stated someone would like to hear Item D
Conditional Use for Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus, Inc. Church first on the
Agenda due to time constraint.
Mr. Richardson moved to hear Item D first. Second by Mr. Abernathy. Carried
unanimously 8-0.
4. Planning Commission Absences - Mr. Budd will not be attending the joint meeting
on April 20th. Mr. Midney will be late.
5. Approval of Minutes - March 4, 2004 - Mr. Richardson moved to approve the
minutes of March 4, 2004. Second by Mr. Strain. Carried unanimously 8-0.
6. BCC Report-Recaps - March 12, 2004 Community Redevelopment Meeting-
March 16, 2004 Workshop - Mr. Bellows reported the BCC approved the plat for Little
Palm Island and also the rezone of the Amerisite project subject to CCPC stipulations.
7. Chairman's Report - None
8. Advertised Public Hearings:
D. CU-2003-AR-4003 - Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus,
Inc., represented by Terrance Kepple, of Kepple Engineering, Inc.
requesting Conditional Use/41 of the "E" Zoning district, to allow a
"Church or other Place of Worship" for property located at 1235
San Marcos Blvd., in Collier County, Florida consisting of 4.86 acres.
All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd.
Disclosures:
Mr. Strain spoke with a lady living in the area opposed to the
project. Received an e-mail asking to review the site.
Mr. Abernathy received an e-mail asking to review the site and he did.
Mr. Richardson received a copy of a fax from Mr. Payne expressing his
opposition.
Mr. Budd received an e-mail and voice mail message - no direct
communication.
Mr. Adelstein, Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Murray received a fax from Mr.
Payne and a call from a lady.
PETITIONER
April 15, 2004
Terranee Kepple, representing the Petitioner - this is a conditional use for charts in
the estate zoning District. The site is on San Marcos Blvd. approx. 3/4 miles north of
Radio Road between Livingston and Santa Barbara Blvd.
The site was originally approved for conditional use. The application and approval was
in 1996. The neighbors were not pleased at that time with the results of the approval and
filed a law suit against the County and Church in appeal. The court upheld Counties
decision on the Conditional Use approval and an appeal was filed by the neighbors. The
appeal was turned down and the original conditional use was approved as approved by
the County and upheld. Time extensions were held at the time the church was raising
funds paying off the property and raising funds for the building. An SDP was filed in
1999 and approved in 2001. Building permit submitted - and ready for pick up when the
County found Conditional Use had expired. Permit was not issued. Building permit was
then canceled as a matter of record in January 2004 by the County.
Had a neighborhood informational meeting regarding the site - several (13-14 people)
attended and had concerns. Most were not able to be addressed by revisions of the site
plan. General concerns were they did not want the facility at that location.
The Church had already purchased the property and gone through the permitting and CU
and felt they needed to proceed with the new Conditional Use.
There were concerns about glare from lighting in the parking lot and unauthorized people
using the parking lot, (hours the church was not open) so agreed to put the lighting 12
feet high and agreed to a gate at the entry to prevent cars that were not authorized.
Through the staff report, it was noted the compatibility of the building with stucco and
roof matching the neighborhoods. They had no problem with the stucco but not sure that
a tile roof would be appropriate, but would provide asphalt shingles compatible with the
neighborhood. Metal tile roofs are available - not heavy like regular tile.
Compatibility issues were a concern - and Mr. Kepple felt they belong in neighborhoods
and not in commercial districts - more in a quiet setting. Does not affect the
neighborhood by noise and light like a commercial project. Usually only a Sunday
service and midweek would be in early evening hours. Services are indoor - no outside
loud speakers or music affecting the neighbors. Services held during off peak traffic
would have minimum traffic impact.
Safety for children - required to install a sidewalk in front of site.
Landscape and buffering will be provided. Large buffer area to the east would remain in
native vegetation.
In staff report - church should not cause impact on less intense areas. He agreed that
estate zoning is a fairly non-intense Zoning. Entering San Marcos Blvd. from Radio
Road there are two large mobile home parks with approx. 15-20 units per acre, being
quite dense. They need upgrading and could use sidewalks in front of their projects and
hoped the County would look at those roads in the future.
There is minimal impact on water and sewerage as the area is on wells and septic
systems.
Parcel could be split into two tracts for residential for two single family homes. By code
they are at or below impact that the water use and septic systems use is.
Mr. Abernathy noticed the headquarters for the denomination is out of California and
wondered if a congregation exists in Collier County.
Mr. Kepple said they have approx. 75-100 members.
and is able to provide buffering for the neighbors.
April 15, 2004
This site was affordable for them
Mr. Richardson asked about outdoor recreational areas.
There are none planned. No daycare is planned other than the normal baby room during
services. Mr. Richardson asked about basketball courts -Mr. Kepple stated if the
neighbors wanted something of that nature, it could be worked out.
Mr. Strain asked about the parishioners again and asked how many resided in the San
Marcos Blvd. area. Mr. Kepple responded none did.
Mr. Strain referred to the map and asked about the existing vegetation.
Mr. Kepple mentioned the exotic vegetation will be cleared and retain the native
vegetation.
Mr. Schiller asked about when they applied for the building permit had the conditional
use expired?
Mr. Kepple stated it had not but during the permit review process.
Mr. Murray asked about the caretaker structure and presence. He asked if he intended
to live there.
Mr. Keppel's stated there is no plan for a caretaker. Phase I will be the multi-purpose
building - running north and south and parking. Phase II would be the main church itself
as the congregation grows. It was put there, as many churches do have a caretaker live
on site. There are no plans at this time
Mr. Murray referred to the map asking about a particular area.
It is a swale. The property line to the parking is between 15 & 17 feet and a hedge with
trees along the property line.
Mr. Adelstein asked when the property was purchased.
It was purchased just before it went to the conditional use process in 1996.
Mr. Abernathy noticed the sir names of the officers of the Mother church are all
Hispanic. At the neighborhood meeting the attendees were non-hispanic. He asked if the
membership of the 75 current members is Hispanic. Mr. Kepple responded they are. He
wanted to make sure they didn't have a nimbi undercurrent being disguised as traffic or
something else.
STAFF
Kay Deselem - Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Review - She had letters that
came in after the staff report and handed them out for the record. None of the letters
were in favor of the Conditional Use.
April 15, 2004
Staff recommended denial and stated reasons. Finding the petition for conditional use for
the church at the location would be incompatible with the area being inconsistent with the
GMP policy 54, therefore inconsistent with the overall GMP and not subject to approval.
She provided an in-depth analysis in the staff report addressing their concerns. There
was a conditional use approved in 1996 and quoted portions of the staff report prepared
for the conditional use in support of it. Staff had based their recommendation on the fact
that the neighborhood had not been developed. To put the church in at that time, prior to
the more intense residential development, would be appropriate conversely to a wait until
after the neighborhood developed, may not be appropriate. Contention is it has
developed and no longer appropriate. There is a structure under construction south and
north and both previously vacant lots to the south and one immediately adjacent to the
south of that. The neighborhood has changed character. The other issue is traffic. The
roadway is a one way in and one way out. The church traffic would come in from Radio
Road - through the existing neighborhood to get to the church and no alternative.
Churches are appropriate in most residential neighborhoods, but the way they are set-up
they are more collector-ish - roadway - not a local road going into a single neighborhood
with one way in and one way out.
She didn't imply churches are only in commercial districts - staffs intentions are in
accordance with the GMP and the LDC - churches can be appropriate in residential
districts - but not particularly in this area.
The Conditional Use - page 4 - definition talking about relationships to neighborhood
staffs intention is a compatibility issue now and no longer appropriate because the
relationship to the neighborhood is negative and provides the findings in support of that
recommendation.
Mr. Murray asked if San Marcos is a County owned road. Kay stated she thought it was
but a local road.
Mr. Schiffer asked if the plan for permitting was supplied prior to the conditional use
expiring. Kay didn't recall but close if not after. The SDP was submitted a month before
it would have expired, it was actually approved after it expired. Unless a concurrent
submittal for the building permit and the SDP, it could have been submitted a month
early. Staff would not issue something that is in violation of the zoning. They would
have had a Certificate of Occupancy prior to the conditional use and then they would
have been okay.
Kay stated if they would have constructed it in the time frame they originally had, then
they could have gone forward and had their church. Once existing, it is treated in a
different fashion because it is there. There is a certain time frame in the LDC to construct
something by conditional use, but once it is there it has allowances as a permitted use.
Litigation was over by 1997 and got a conditional use extension after that time. They had
fair time. They did not submit an SDP until several years after the litigation was over.
Kay mentioned some of the statements Mr. Kepple made concerning the commitments
they made aren't in the conditions, and if approved, revisit those conditions to be added.
She also stated churches "can be" okay in residential zones if they meet the test of
compatibility and conditional use as defined. Not necessarily all appropriate but they
"can be." Mr. Kepple implied they would only be appropriate in commercial zoning
districts and that is not what staff is saying. She had checked and did find churches in
April 15, 2004
residential areas, but for the most part, they are on a road that functions at a higher level.
Not the only roadway into a subdivision traveling ¥4 of a mile through residential uses to
get to the church.
Transportation analysis looked at the relationship to the arterial and collector roadway
network which is Radio Road. The local roadway issue is a compatible issue.
Transportation doesn't have standards for significant tests and is geared to the arterial
roadways.
Mr. Richardson stated they do not have any criteria they can site that would cause the
petitioner to be denied based on transportation.
Kay reiterated the reasons for denial are staffs professional analysis of the issues of
compatibility, Growth Management Plan and the definition of Conditional Uses.
Mr. Richardson stated the problem is it does take churches a long time for fund raising,
and seems they operated on good faith on what the County permitted them to do under a
conditional use in a prior period. Through the technicality of the timeframe in which it
took them to do their business, they yanked the curtain out from underneath them and
senses unfairness.
Ray Bellows responded conditional uses for churches do have problems with fund raising
but that is why the County issues extension periods for those conditional uses. There is a
given period of time that after a while staff can no longer support it. This is where they
find the petition today and was the concern when it was originally approved that they
have to move quickly. They knew that area would be growing rapidly.
Mr. Richardson did not see a lot of intense building in the area.
Mr. Murray commented that he visited the locality and found to the north is a new home
that is not reflected on the rendering they have. He stated the community is beginning to
build up and the insertion of the church would not blend well. It's unfortunate they
couldn't move more quickly and effectively to get the church in place. It would seem to
be out of place and San Marcos is very narrow. A lot of traffic entering along the trailers
where the people would walk along side the road would be an issue. This church would
be suited elsewhere.
Mr. Budd stated the Commissioners' not trying to stifle any useful dialogue and would
like them to save their closing statements until the end of the discussion.
Mr. Strain has been involved in the Golden Gate Master Plan for over a decade and this
was a big issue and resolved issues such as this by limiting conditional uses. This would
not be acceptable in Golden Gate and one reason they instituted conditional uses because
too many churches from outside the neighborhoods were coming in and establishing
themselves on inexpensive land bringing in congested traffic from outside. Even though
it is an estate zoning, would the Golden Gate Master Plan have any bearing on this.
Kay responded it is treated differently and analyzed by the Comprehensive Planning staff
and they deemed the designation of this parcel would allow for conditional use.
6
April 15, 2004
Page 3 and 7 of the staff report - staffr¢commends approval on Page 3 and denial on
page 7. Kay stated that is a typo. They are recommending denial.
The aerial photographs are dated 2002 - 2003 and most current - and homes are under
construction now and not shown.
SPEAKERS
Scott Keller - Resident of St. Clair Shores on San Marcos Blvd. - He is requesting the
Commissioners follow staffs denial. Not appropriate area for Church. He can't imagine
putting a church through an area where there are many children with traffic. There is no
light or sidewalk and their taxes would go up if' they were to pay for it. The community
is not the same character it was 8 years ago. Many new homes are going up and now a
church (commercial property) next to them? It is a changed character neighborhood.
There will be problems on the road if the church is there.
Mr. Schiffer asked if he knew there was going to be a church when he bought his
property. Mr. Keller did not - he heard a year ago about the church.
George Smith - he is also in denial - doesn't fit the area - County maintained road and
dead end. Children walk up and down the road - no way to put sidewalks in without a lot
of'problems. He agreed with the previous speaker.
Margaret Dornbusch - 1228 St. Clair Shores Road - kitty corner to the property. Her
biggest concern is traffic. They have a mixed neighborhood of nationalities. That is not
the problem; traffic is the problem and what it is going to do to their family
neighborhood. Does not need a commercial property. Road dead end - is a lime rock
road and will deteriorate. They like the area being country style and do not need a church
or any other commercial endeavor on the road. She had 40 signatures on a petition.
John & Marilyn Collins - traffic has been covered. The area is not served by County
sewer or water and that number of'people on a septic tank would be detrimental to the
people in the area and not environmentally sound. John & Marilyn talked about another
development that had been turned down. If there is any extended traffic due to the
church being there, the people will use their road as a turn around. They don't need any
more traffic.
William Clark - been in the area for 25 years and live on the dirt road at the end, is
maintained by the county and grading it all the time. The road impact would be too
much. One way in and one way out -is a safety issue with many children in the area.
First meeting they went to 8 years ago was denied and said then it was not a good place
for a church.
No comments by Petitioner.
Rev. Al - discussed that it has been tough to get their church started. Traffic is not going
to have an effect on the area - only 35 cars now but the church will grow. Tried to buy
other properties and found this one to be the best qualified for a church. He went through
the process needed for plans, permits and SDP. Has taken over a year and doing
April 15, 2004
everything within the Codes and within the law. He didn't feel it was fair. He has been
patient but asked the Commissioners to consider the Conditional Use.
Hearing was closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Abernathy moved to forward the petition recommending denial. In support of
the motion the reason is the County requires it to be subject to the Conditional Use
process. They have seen many churches approved - and the problem churches
perceived to cause in their neighborhoods is compatibility. He looked at the site,
and didn't feel the road was too narrow - but there are houses all over and not the
case when the process started. Kay summed it up when she stated it has been
overtaken by events.
Second by Mr. Murray.
Mr. Strain looked at this as neighborhood commercial. It is used to supplement the
neighborhood. If not serving the neighborhood, why stick it in someone else's
neighborhood and will support the motion.
Mr. Richardson felt the applicant has been kicked around for a long time and understand
the extensions etc. but feels churches belong in residential neighborhoods. He is puzzled
by the position the commissioners are taking. The County should be standing by its
earlier decisions as the congregation has gone forward with their plans. He realized they
haven't raised money fast enough but not un-typical. With its history it should be
allowed to go forward and will vote against the motion.
Mr. Budd stated he agreed with Mr. Richardson.
Motion fails as the vote was 4 "for" and 4 "against". Those voting "for" the motion
to be denied were Mr. Abernathy, Mr. Murray, Mr. Strain and Mr. Midney.
Mr. Adelstein moved to approve the Petition for Conditional Use. Second by Mr.
Schiffer.
Motion is subject to the representations made by the petitioner: Kay gave the following:
Gate on the parking lot - facility will be fenced.
· No outside services or speakers
· There will be sidewalks.
· No day care
· No outside recreational area unless the neighbors ask for it.
· Will retain all native vegetation with removal of exotics. (Need to specify what
vegetation will be retained, where and how much.
· Lights - fixtures and structure
· Allowance for other than tile roof, but compatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. Kepple gave the following clarification: · Agreed to gate the entry - not fence the entire site.
· Building to be stucco - to look like a normal home.
· Roof- Colored metal roof- shingle roof
April 15, 2004
· Retain native vegetation in east part not being developed.
· Land Development Code requires a Type "B" buffer - 5 foot in height.
Mr. Schiffer asked if the church could fall under the 2.8 architectural standards. The
elevation and horizontal differences were discussed by Mr. Kepple.
Motion fails as the vote was 4 "for" and 4 "against." Those voting for the motion to
recommend the conditional use were: Mr. Adelstein, Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Richardson
and Mr. Budd.
Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney noted the staff will defer to the BCC their
opinions will hold sway. The comments raised and conditions in the second motion
should be brought to the Boards attention for their full consideration on their part.
BD-2003-AR-5104 - Felice Clai, represented by Michael Hawkins
of Turrell and Associates, requesting a boat dock extension of 15
feet from the required 20 feet for a total protrusion of 35 feet into
the waterway The property to be considered for the extension is
located at 175 Sunset Cay, further described as Lot 86, Port of the
Islands, Collier County, Florida.
Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd.
Disclosures - none.
PETITIONER
Michael Hawkins representing Mr. & Mrs. Clai - owners of 175 Sunset Cay, Port
of the Islands -requesting a 15 foot extension from the allowed 20. Will protrude 35
feet into the waterway. Waterway is approx. 340 feet wide. Setbacks, with the dock,
have been exceeded to eliminate any impacts to navigation or view. The project has State
and Federal permits and congruent with other extensions in the area that have been
granted. To the West there was a 36 foot extension granted and 2 lots to the East- one 66
feet granted. The decking area is minimized.
Mr. Abernathy asked what was east of their dock. It was a barge.
STAFF
Ross Gochenaur - Zoning & Land Dev. Review - project meets all criterions and
recommends approval. No objections.
Hearing was closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Murray moved to approve the dock extension as presented. Second by Mr.
Adelstein. Carried unanimously 8-0.
9
Be
April 15, 2004
BD-2004-AR-5153, Ruediger Brunsberg, represented by Ben
Nelson, of Nelson Marine Construction, requesting a boat dock
extension to allow a boat dock facility protruding a total of 60 feet
into the waterway. Property is located at 195 San Mateo Drive
Southport on the Bay, Collier County, Florida.
All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd.
Disclosures - none.
PETITIONER
Ben Nelson - representing Mr. Brunsberg - application to place a boat lift on an
existing 44 foot dock to accommodate second boat and meets all the eleven criteria.
The present boat is 25 feet and proposed boat is 35 feet.
Mr. Adelstein wondered if they could extend out for the second lift if they would be
parallel on the other side.
Mr. Nelson responded the original dock was located to the south legally and is within the
25 foot setback. Can't build anything further south parallel to the existing dock without
infringing upon the riparian rights of the adjacent neighbor. DEP would require a 25 foot
setback and is already within the 25 feet. They looked at that possibility and is not
possible and would require more dock space. Most unobtrusive way.
DEP would require a waiver from the neighbor - considering the width - the next lot is
80 feet wide and not sure the typical dock being 30 feet wide, most people would object.
The Hinckley draws 3 foot of water. The inside of the lift is at 3 feet now. If a boat lift is
added, and a 40,000 pound lift is 2 foot thick, 5 feet of water is needed.
Mr. Murray asked about the photo. Showed the shallow water. If the dock is extended
out for another boat - what would it give him?
Mr. Nelson mentioned the navigational channel isn't in the picture which is quite a
distance to the east. They are trying to do the least impact environmentally and sensitive
to the navigational hazard aspect.
STAFF
Ross Gochenaur - Zoning & Land Development Review - the project meets all
criteria and recommends approval. Received 2 letters of complaint from occupants of the
condominium on the opposite side of the waterway. They did not give any substantial
evidence to contradict what the petitioner is telling them and no reason to change staffs
recommendation of approval.
Hearing was closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Strain moved to approve BD-2004-AR-5153 with staff's stipulations. Second by
Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously 8-0.
10
April 15, 2004
BREAK- 9:51 AM
RECONVENED - 10:02
Ce
DRIABN-2003-AR-4987, Richard K. Bennett, represented by
Donald Pickworth, P.A., requesting to abandon the Twelve Lakes
development of Regional Impact (DRI). The applicant has elected
to abandon the DRI because the PUD project as approved no
longer meets the requirements to quality as a DRI in Collier
County. The subject site is located on the north side of Davis Blvd.
(SR-84) and the south side of Radio Road (CR-856) in Collier
County, Florida.
All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd.
Disclosures - none.
PETITIONER
Don Pickworth - representing Centex Homes and the owner of the property,
Richard Bennett, trustee of a land trust.
This is a petition for the abandonment of a DRI. First one in Collier County. Will see
more in coming years as threshold of Development of Regional Impact has increased.
The staff report summarizes what the petition is for and the reasons. Mostly to abandon
the DRI because by legislative feint, the project no longer has regional impacts. At the
time Twelve Lakes was done in 1987 the threshold was 1,000 units. They are established
by the State of Florida and pegged to population. 250,000 is the cutoff, and after that the
threshold goes to 2,000 residential units. So they are no longer DRI's. Project is not
developed and is vacant land. A year ago they went through amending the PUD for
Twelve Lakes with bringing the project into line with the Counties current development
standards. They doubled the amount of preserve area in the project. The PUD stands
today with the abandonment of the DRI just being a housekeeping item.
Mr. Midney asked if it would have any practical impact on what the developer will be
allowed to do in the future. Answer was "no".
Mr. Strain asked Marjorie Student if the abandonment of the DRI also remove the DO?
Answer was "yes".
In the DO there are commitments to the ADA - he asked if he was still abiding by those
commitments in the ADA or incorporated into the PUD.
Mr. Pickworth stated the Commitments in the ADA are incorporated into the PUD - in
some instances more stringent in the PUD. He discussed the concurrency management
system being subject to that system - but it's the one that was in effect in Collier County
in 1996 and is no longer in effect. Has talked with transportation already.
Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - stated when that happens with other
DRI's they may have to come in and have their Development Order amended to reflect
their new concurrency management system.
11
April 15, 2004
Mr. Murray referred to Section C - consisting of 400 residential units - thought it was
1,000 units. Wondered if it was a housekeeping issue.
The development is 1,000 units and has not changed was the response by Mr. Pickworth.
In 1987 it was originally 1,300 units - then changed to 1,000 in the '90' s.
STAFF
Ray Bellows - Chief Planner - staff has reviewed in conjunction with the Regional
Planning Council and DCA. DCA has not recommended any commitments of the
Development Order be carried over into the PUD Document. The PUD was recently
amended to address the double service concerns and development commitments.
Staff is recommending approval.
Hearing was closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Murray moved to recommend approval of the abandonment of the DRIABN-
2003-AR-4987 Twelve Lakes DRI. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously
8-0.
E. PUDZ-2003-AR-4332, Colonnades Medical Park, LLC,
represented by Richard Yovanovich, of Goodlette Coleman and
Johnson PA and D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor &
Assoc., PA requesting a rezone from "E" Estates to Commercial
Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for a project to be known as the
Colonnades at Santa Barbara PUD, to allow development of a
maximum of 35,000 square feet of mixed office uses. Property is
located at the northwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa
Barbara in Collier County, Florida.
Disclosures - Mr. Strain had a discussion with Mr. Wayne Arnold. Issues were on the
uses.
Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd.
PETITIONER
Rich Yovanovich - representing petitioner - planner on the project Wayne Arnold
was in attendance along with one of the owners of the property.
The property is on the northwest comer of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway. In
2001 a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was made to the Comp Plan to allow for office
development on the property with stipulations and requirements in the Plan. Buffering
and setbacks are the requirements and are in the PUD documents. Would allow up to
35,000 square feet of office use. Through the processes they have had discussions with
neighbors and especially the two parcels to the north owned by the Cirou family. Met
with them - and will be changes to the PUD Document to accommodate the requests they
had for revisions.
He summarized them as follows and will present a copy for the record.
· Along the northern boundary they will do a berm wall combination - run from
property line east 25 feet past the 35 foot buffer ends.
12
April 15, 2004
· Continue with a chain length fence. 5 feet on their property and will plant a
hedge on the north side of concrete wall and fence that they would maintain at
their expense. Need to make that revision to the PUD document.
· Construct a temporary fence that would screen the site work construction prior to
construction on the property.
· Include in the PUD a provision that would prevent any uses from operating
beyond 9:00 PM.
· Provide a note on Master Plan - if uses change from the residential uses - they
would provide for interconnection.
· Will keep the water on their property and if any standing water for 7 days they
will treat the water for mosquitoes.
· One revision - the family had a concern about one big building of 35,000 square
feet-they agreed no building would be greater than 25,000 square feet. If
exceeded, would be at least two buildings on the site.
· Locate dumpster's appropriate distance from their property.
· Lighting can be shielded from their property.
· Explained that the levels of things that are in the nuclear medicine are
insignificant and do not stay on the property over night.
Have addressed all their concerns and will have revisions to the PUD to incorporate the
concerns. Staff will have a copy of the letter to make changes.
Mr. Strain asked for a copy of the letter. He met with the representative of the owner
and talked about some uses. The Golden Gate Master Plan had tried to limit the uses to
offices and glad that is happening. Concern on #9 - uses - engineering being one -
would like to see him consider striking. Engineering fim~s have surveyors that start early
in the morning.
Mr. Yovanovich responded the SIC book provides for a separate classification so would
delete the surveying and leave the engineering services. Code 8713. (Strike)
Stipulations - the addition of joining properties changing from the uses they are currently
at were addressed in the Golden Gate Master Plan Committees' meetings. They
restricted any additional uses alongside those facilities. By an interconnection,
encourages someone to argue there should be another GMP change so they can change
their properties designation. He disagreed with this. It is inconsistent with the policies
in the GMP and the wishes of the neighborhood.
Mr. Yovanovich said they wouldn't have an issue in the future if the GG Master Plan
ever changed.
Mr. Strain disagreed and would ask that it be struck if there is a stipulated motion.
Mr. Richardson asked about the chain length fence.
The neighbors are concerned about security. Have obligation to put a hedge in front of
wall and fence that would reach height of the wall or fence in a year. It will be green in
color.
STAFF
13
April 15, 2004
Kay Deselem - Zoning & Land Development Review - Staff recommends the petition
to be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan and recommending approval as
the PUD document contains limitations of development.
SPEAKERS
Talitha Cirou - she was happy with the outcome o£th¢ meeting they had with Dr. and
Mr. Yovanovich. She has no objections to the contents of the letter. She touched on #9 -
egress - #4 - states: The PUD Master Plan will identify a potential interconnect for
properties to the north.
Her family's reason for having that statement in the letter is being residents for 20 years;
they have fought having the corner become commercial. They feel it is in their best
interest as they are being forced to succumb to the growth of the corner and the 6 lanes.
There will be more traffic and more commercial across the street. They have a 4,000
square foot home and want to continue to raise their family and live there as long as it is
livable. If outside influences force them to move or sell, she wants the stipulation in the
PUD Document.
Mr. Strain stated there are buffers, hedges and fences being put in to protect the
neighborhood, and if she is suggesting changing or needing an interconnect for some
potential change - then don't penalize the people for putting in the hedges, and buffers
and fences.
Talitha responded she intends to live there as a single family home resident as long as
humanly possible. But with the other changes going on she was not sure how long it
would be a pleasurable place to live. She is not saying she is going to change anything.
Mr. Strain stated she is the reason all those stipulations are being done. He stated to put
something in the plan to potentially destroy what the intentions are to be done, is
counterproductive. If they put an access point there - means someone anticipated it
happening and an argument is going to be argued by an attorney that may buy her
property, saying it was always that intent. He didn't think that was the intent of the GG
Master Plan.
She feels she has a right to protect her family in the course of a situation where it may not
be feasible living next to the proposed commercial buildings. Even with the wall, they
may not like living next to it. They have to live there to see if they like it and in the case
of 10-20-30 years down the road, she would like it to have been said, if she wants to sell
her property, she would like to make enough money on the sale of her property to move
somewhere else. She stated she has a right to protect herself now and for the future
Mr. Richardson made an observation given they do not put the stipulation in; it doesn't
keep it from happening, meaning the GG Master Plan could change. Events could
overtake and in some future zoning action could take place that may require an
interconnection. There is opportunity for interconnection as he looks at the plan at some
future point. Protect what the Master Plan calls for now but not foreclose future
commission actions.
14
April 15, 2004
Mr. Strain stated there is another action going on at the intersection 1-75 and Golden
Gate Parkway. Once you change the context of the neighborhood it will affect other
properties, therefore the attorneys have a right to say this could be commercial. Basing
things on speculation is not their job. GMP does not allow that change and would vote
against it.
Kay recognized this as an issue and can see some merit if, in fact, the GMP is ever
amended to allow the property to be added and want some interconnect. May put it in the
wording of the PUD document rather than changing the Master Plan and in such a
language it would be subject to review and approval for the location of it as part of the
SDP. Only appropriate if the GMP is amended. The buffering is in place to protect the
residential units but things can change and would allow for a safer access if the parcel to
the north would be allowed to go down and use the access off Golden Gate Parkway.
Mr. Strain asked the County Attorney if it weren't put on the Master Plan, but included
language in the text of the PUD, would it provide a better or stronger argument legally in
the future for potential change to the north.
Mr. Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney - he wanted to hear Mr. Yovanovich's
opinion first.
Rich Yovanovieh is trying to work with the neighbors that they are protected now and in
the future. Can state that Mrs. Cirou is not arguing they would be entitled to a change to
the Master Plan, but can state on the record, that they cannot use the potential future
interconnection as a basis to argue a legitimate change or a basis for change to the PUD.
That is not the intent. If things change, they would be looking ahead and to address
interconn¢ction. Stating on the record that it is not being used for that basis as a spring
board to changing the Comp Plan to the north, and is protecting the County and giving
Mr. White and Mr. Strain some assurances.
Based on Mr. Yovanovich's comments, Mr. White, understood it to be acquiescence, to
including it in some form of the text in the PUD document, he would recommend and
advise them that it would be legally appropriate to do so. They are attempting to
constrain future boards to consider the appropriateness of rezoning at a subsequent date.
It is appropriate and staff could look at it in the future in the event of other applications.
If there is a change in the future they will have to talk about it and figure out how it
works with their site plan and may not be possible; but possible with the interconnect, if
later there is a change in the comer.
Hearing is closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Strain moved to recommend approval for Petition PUDZ-2003-AR-4332 with
the stipulations provided by the applicant in his letter dated April 14, 2004 with the
following corrections:
1) Chain length fence will be green in color.
2) Maintenance of the hedge that will go around the chain length and the
concrete wall will be by the owners of the Colonnades.
3) The PUD document text will identify potential interconnection points to the
properties to the north, and
15
4)
April
The use 8713 and the principle uses will be amended as a use.
15, 2004
Second by Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously 8-0.
F. PUDZ-2003-AR-4575 - Benderson Development Company, Inc.,
requested by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., for a
maximum requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development to be known as the Bosley PUD for a
maximum of 303 multi-family affordable housing dwelling
units for property located approx. ¼ mile south of the intersection of
1-75 and Immokalee Road, in Collier County, Florida.
Disclosures -
Mr. Strain received a derogatory e-mail from a Michael Drosovich
representing the holding corporation who was against the project and
against the people that live in affordable housing.
He also spoke with Bruce Anderson and Bob Duane about a conflict in
their transportation impact statement that they hopefully will clear up
today.
All the Commissioners received the e-mail.
All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd.
PETITIONER
Bruce Anderson -law firm of Roetzel and Andress - project planner Robert Duane
of Hole Montes and Assoc. The urban area of Collier County desperately needs more
affordable housing. This project addresses that need in a location abutting an activity
center boundary. They can choose to live close to their jobs, a grocery store and county
parks. They agree with all staff's stipulations. A deviation request has been submitted
to allow the project to allow a sign with another residential project within the activity
center. There is also a revision to the traffic impact statement. His client has had
discussions with the Strand Property Owners Assoc. and reached an agreement with them
for phasing the units over a two year period.
Read into the record the following: My client agrees to not pull building permits for
more than 180 dwelling units during the first year after approval date of the Bosley PUD
by the County Commission, or the construction of the six lanes of Immokalee Road have
been constructed at the intersection of Strand Blvd. whichever occurs first. The
remaining units, which are estimated to be about 123, would be eligible to receive
building permits, on the earlier to occur, of the first anniversary date of the approval date
of the Bosley PUD, or completion of construction of the six lanes of lmmokalee Road at
its intersection with Strand Blvd. Further, ifa planned extension of Veteran's Memorial
parkway is competed, the foregoing dwelling unit phasing limitation would no longer
apply.
Mr. Robert Duane - representing the petitioner - the proposed project location is
close to 1-75 and was shown on the map. It is north of the planned location for Wal Mart
and access will be through Strand Blvd. and Summer Lakes (multi-family under
16
April 15, 2004
construction) into the Bosley PUD and back south into Strand Blvd. If the subject
property does not develop with Summer Lakes, the access could then be the alternate
access. 20 acres with 303 dwelling acres is being proposed. 15 units per acre and
requesting 8 units per acre bonus above the base density of 7 units per acre. A good
location for affordable housing. 137 units will be at 60% of the median income, 151
units at 50% of the median income, and 15 units at 40% of the median income being 3
bedroom units.
Requested a deviation of the signage. Off site signs are allowed by the Land
Development Code but only to be located 1,000 feet of the project where the off site
premise sign is so noted. The PUD is approx. 1800 feet from Immokalee Road and
requesting the offsite sign be placed at the intersection of Immokalee and Strand Blvd.
If Summer Lakes does not marry up with the Bosley PUD, the size of the sign is
increased from 12 to 16 square feet. If the two projects are one and the same they will
stay within the 12 feet allowed in the LDC. Justification was given being the subject
property of 500 dwelling units, being safety, health and welfare issues to let people know
on Immokalee Road that two communities are developing. Also for police and fire to be
able to identify the two communities. Sign would be placed a minimum of 10 feet from
Immokalee Road right-of-way or Strand Blvd. Would be located in Donovan Center
where the client currently owns.
Traffic - Ted Teresh - Metro Transportation Group - conducted a traffic study for
the project. Original study submitted to staff assumed a townhouse condo type land use.
Being a rental community he revised the trip generation analysis. Peak hour increases
slightly as a rental community. In the morning peak hour 25 additional trips - evening -
30 additional trips. Doesn't change the overall analysis and impact on the LOS. They
will be subject to the new concurrency rules that have been adopted by the County at the
time of SDP. Will do another traffic analysis. During the original analysis Livingston
Road was not open.
Mr. Schiffer asked if they were going through private driveways - and are they
dedicated streets.
Mr. Duane responded Strand Blvd, is a public right-of-way but the access through
Summer Lakes is through private access easement. The map was referred to and
different accesses were shown.
Mr. Richardson asked about Veteran's Parkway. Mr. Duane mentioned there will be a
road shortly off Livingston that will take the Strand to 1-75.
He asked what the Breezewood PUD is - it is a Commercial Planned Unit Development.
A small stripe is zoned Agricultural and not included because his client does not own it.
The properties will not have a gate. He asked what their position is in connection with
the County Park.
Fred Reischl - Zoning and Land Development Review - when they did the conditional
use for the park, discussion was held in connection with Wilshire Lakes. The park does
not want to connect for the same reason - an unmonitored access during concerts and
events. He heard it was going to the Advisory Board - and heard nothing from Ms.
Ramsey.
17
April 15, 2004
Mr. Schmitt had no idea where it is today. This is 2 separate PUD's and would have to
have an agreement. He felt it would be desirable to have an access for the density that is
going to be in both communities.
Mr. Murray asked about the phasing - will the same formula prevail that was presented
with low, very low etc.
Mr. Duane answered- proportional.
Mr. Sehiffer asked what the buffer on 1-75 side is. He had a concern with projects built
along 1-75 and hate to see buildings along the right-of-way.
Mr. Duane answered whatever is required by code. (10 foot wide type "A" Buffer)
Could the preserve be put along 1-757 They are not impacting any of the wetlands and
met the native vegetation requirements.
Discussion followed between Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Duane concerning the buffer area and
protecting the rural aspect ofi-75. Mr. Duane stated he cannot provide a 50 or 75 foot
buffer on a project of this size - he would end up losing buildings.
Mr. Strain asked about the Fish and Wildlife and conservation plan protecting species.
Issue is being discussed now in Collier County and wondered if he would add language
to that as in similar locations in the PUD or the Land Development Requirements at the
time of submission. He is referring to page 11-Item E.
The trip rate generation from the ITE manual is 5.69. Was the apartment trip rate number
used? It would be 6.29. Does it affect the 3% threshold?
Mr. Teresh stated they are still under the 3% impact assuming the 6 lane improvement.
Under the apartment land use it would be 2.8%.
Mr. Abernathy thought the access through the Donovan PUD (Summer Lakes) was a
done deal.
Only if the two projects develop under the same ownership according to Mr. Duane. If
under different ownerships, they have the option to consider the alternate access to the
north which was discussed previously.
Summer Lakes is 140 multi-families in 20 acres. Staff says it is compatible.
STAFF
Fred Reischl - Zoning Land Dev. & Review - strip to the East - spoke to family owner
and told them it was two narrow for most residential uses, single family homes would be
okay - will have a hard time with access and she asked about beekeeping and livestock.
State paid her fair market value of portion of land they took for 1-75 and left with
remnant parcel. Showed area on map.
He found it consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Compatibility was looked at
with affordable housing and extreme depths in urban area - behind a Wal Mart Super
Center and being adjacent to 1-75, the considerations were taken into account and were
compatible.
18
April 15, 2004
Mr. Reischl spoke with Mr. Patrick White on the deviation of the sign. His concern was
the legality of words in one PUD affecting what will happen to another PUD.
Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney - had many conversations with the
different parties about those issues. His concern is similar to Mr. Reischl's. There are
limitations to what a PUD can do offsite. Deviation pertains to a section of the Code
2.5.5 - off premise signs for directional purposes. Mentioned there is a criterion and one
deviation is to expand that distance and can only be obtained and sought by way of a
variance. Written permission will be obtained, but the process to follow should be done
through the variance process and not the deviation process. However, this request can
operate from this PUD. This provision is intended to harmonize and follow regulations.
If a variance request it will conform to the standards of that PUD. The developer can
make that commitment. This is probably a commitment they can make offsite, but the
oral deviations had been discussed, cannot be considered today. The 4.13 text is fine,
anything beyond that - be in accordance with 2.5.
Mr. Reischl continued in stating they had over 100 people in the informational meeting
and had scheduled another meeting with the Strand Board, their manager, transportation,
and affordable housing. The compromise was on the northern access.
SPEAKERS
Amy Taylor - Collier County School District - the school district supports all
affordable housing unit efforts. Places are needed for their teachers and support staff to
live and important to have the opportunity. The Immokalee Road area and Golden Gate
Estates area is one of the fastest growing areas in terms of school age children. They are
accommodating the growth through new schools. Laural Oaks Elementary and North
Naples Middle School and Barron Collier High School will be in this area serving the
children from this PUD. She talked about the different schools and did spot rezone to
Big Cypress Elementary. Elementary School I off Livingston - new school will be
opening in fall of 2006. Good timing to accommodate the new students.
Richard Miller - Fairway Court in the Strand - registered & licensed professional
civil engineer in Florida-his concern is traffic at intersection of Immokalee and Strand
Blvd. The numbers show Immokalee will be upgraded when widened to 6 lanes.
Problem with the intersection is the funneling effect going to 1-75. Lights close and no
availability to increase the capacity of Immokalee Road without lengthening the bridge.
He has no problem with the request. He would like to recommend to the BCC their
priority should be to have the bridge lengthened.
Joe Foster - Member of affordable housing for Collier County - President of a
recently formed non-profit Collier County Housing Dev. Corp - he is in support of
the Bosley PUD application. Have a lack of affordable housing in Collier County. He
supports the 303 units of affordable housing and projects such as this are desperately
needed in the County.
19
April 15, 2004
Mr. Anderson addressed the deviation request. He disagreed with Mr. White. The PUD
is an appropriate and legal place to have the stipulation. They are asking for an offsite
sign. Can't be in the other PUD or it wouldn't be offsite. He requested they approve the
deviation.
Mr. Strain reiterated they are looking for a sign not on their property but in a location on
this PUD's property? He is confused - to get it clear - he stated - they want a sign on
someone else's property and permission to put it there assuming they allow them to.
Mr. Anderson agreed.
Mr. White said it is a rule that exists in the section he mentioned that is applicable for
the off premise type of sign. Only to the extent that there is an increase to the area and a
commitment to certain architectural standards consistent with that PUD's requirements.
4.13 is not objectionable. That is not sufficient to get the signs they are asking for. They
are asking for a slight increase in the area of the conditions stated and making a
commitment to comply with the architectural standards of the existing PUD.
A lengthy discussion pursued concerning the sign issue.
A stipulation can be made that 4.13 presented be included and have a fight at another
level at another time.
Mr. Reischl wanted a clarification. This will allow the sign but if they want the 16
square feet and more than 1,000 feet, it will be a separate variance.
Mr. White stated 255, 2512 in subsections establishes a limit of 12 square feet in the
area, height limitation, distance separation with the sign and that's why the variance will
be sought separately.
Hearing is closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Strain moved to recommend approval of PUDZ-2003-AR-4575 with the
following stipulations:
1) The Phasing will be as stipulated by the applicant's representative, Bruce
Anderson,
2) The language of the signage 4.13 as proposed by the applicant be accepted
with the caveat that provided a future variance is obtained,
3) That 5.3 E is modified to include LDC changes that occur at the time of Site
Plan Approval.
Second by Mr. Adelstein.
Mr. Richardson asked that the portable housing commission recommendation
which included the comment - that a pedestrian connection to the County Park
bordering the South property be explored to be included as part of the motion.
Mr. Strain and Mr. Adelstein agreed.
Mr. Schiffer asked if everyone was comfortable that the property between 1-75 and this
property probably won't be developed and will stay in its natural state. He felt it will
probably remain as is.
Consensus was that nothing can be done about it.
20
April 15, 2004
Mr. Midney was happy to see more affordable housing in the County and that
community attitudes have changed. Motion carried unanimously 8-0.
G. PUDZ-2003-AR-4674, Collier HMA, Inc., a Subsidiary of Health
Management Assoc., Inc., represented by Margaret Perry AICP, of
Wilson Miller, Inc. and R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel & Andress
requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural and "TTRVC"
Travel Trailer Recreational Vehicle Campground to "PUD" Planned
Unite Development to be known as Collier Regional Medical Center
PUD for a maximum of 260,000 square feet of hospital and related
uses and 80,000 square feet of medical office and related uses. The
property is located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (CR 951) approx.
3 miles north of Tamiami Trail (US 41) and approx. 4 miles south of 1-
75 in Collier County, FL.
All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd.
Disclosures - Mr. Budd- Communication with Mr. Tim Perry, General Counsel for
HMA
Mr. Strain - Discussion with Mr. Anderson
Mr. Richardson - Communication with Mr. Perry.
Mr. Murray - is an advocate
PETITIONER
Bruce Anderson - Roetzel and Andress - introduced Tim Perry General Counsel for
HMA and Randy Holly - director of construction and design. They are in agreement
with staffs stipulations in the report except the requirement of a 10 foot sidewalk. LDC
only requires 6 feet and already been approved as such for the Verona Walk project
abutting 951 .It Is rezoning property that is rezoned agriculture and TTVP to PUD and
consists of 60 acres on the east side of the intersection of Collier Blvd. and Lely Cultural
Blvd. Plan is to open a new 100 bed hospital. LDC defines the hospital as an essential
service that can be approved as a Conditional Use in every Zoning district in Collier
County. 10 of the 60 acres are located in the mixed use activity center and remainder in
the Urban Fringe.
Margaret Parry - Wilson Miller - brief overview of the Master Plan for Collier
Regional Medical Center:
· Site is approx. 60 acres located on east side of 951- 3 miles north of US 41
· Lands to north and east of subject property are zoned agricultural and vacant.
· To the South - TTRV properties contains the Kountree Kampinn RV Resort and
agriculturally zoned properties that are vacant, and contains single family homes.
· To the west are PUD zoned properties including CR Meadows PUD, Edison
Village and Lely Resort.
· Main access is planned at signalized intersection of Lely Cultural Parkway and
Collier Blvd. Secondary access planned north of the location. Exact location not
21
April 15, 2004
determined and working with transportation staff in which will be determined at
the SDP approval process.
· Intcrconnection to properties to north and east as number 2 is indicated on the
Master Plan. Exact location to be negotiated.
· Changes made: location of 3 utility easements for CC well sites per the
recommendation of the Collier County Utilities Division.
· Planning staff asked for increased buffers to the north - Type "A" required and
applicant agreed to Type "B" - 20 foot wide from Collier Blvd. to FPL easement
and 15 foot wide Type "D" Buffer east of FPL easement to project boundary.
· LDC requires 6 foot masonry wall when non-residentially zoned properties are
located to residentially zoned properties. Can be waived for good cause shown.
· Representatives of Wilson Miller and HMA met with the owner of Kountree
Kampinn to go over different buffering options. The owner's preference is
increased landscaping buffer berm as opposed to a concrete wall. Indicated to
Ray Bellows in letter in December.
· Would like to amend Master Plan to clearly define the buffer. Would be similar
to the buffer to the north, 20 feet wide, Type "B" with double hedge row plants.
Change language in 2.8 D of the PUD - to make it clear.
· In agreement with staff's recommendations with exception noted.
Different options of a berm were given the owner of the Camp Resort and had decided to
have a buffer berm.
David Wilkinson -Wilson Miller - berm will be 4 feet in height - maximum height -
elevation needs to be maintained for Water Management System - a perimeter berm.
Making that part of the landscape berm. Will slope it back to property line in accordance
to the LDC.
Mr. Abernathy asked about #8 - Page 8 - talked about the drainage problems and
mitigating sub-surface drainage generated by development activities as condition of
approval. The EAC report was looked at and should be concerned. Asked about the sub-
surface drainage.
Mr. Bellows responded it should just say surface drainage.
Nail markings is a nail in a tree for elevation looking at biological indicators. The
surveyor surveys in the elevation.
Mr. Strain had questions: · Site plan - on map - 18 acres of open space - on right summary table needs to be
corrected to be consistent.
· Berm and landscaping to south already addressed.
· Page 2 - #5 - diagram - wall on top of berm or slope? Margaret responded -
Intent is no fence or wall.
· 2.6 General Permitted Uses - 6 foot setback property to the south - will be
revised.
· Page 6 - 4 Item B - stipulation on changes at SDP - is consistent with LDC.
22
April 15, 2004
· 2 impacted roadway segments - how being addressed for impact?
.left Perry - Wilson Miller - problem is green time is provided to through movements -
south - delay calculates in the analysis - LOS is due to the signal timing. Some
improvements are planned and constructed and will improve the LOS. Some
improvement has incurred since the opening of the improvements of Davis Blvd. and
951. Long term 2008 - or 2010 will be improved by the States widening of 951 and the
interchange improvements that the DOT has planned.
Don Scott - Transportation - Collier Blvd. from Davis to 41 is in 2006 and is in the
timeframe. They have been discussing how their project is going to join with theirs.
They are talking about taking it through and up to the ramps. Just starting design right
now.
A gate was discussed - one is not planned at the hospital.
Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - stated the revised PUD came to her
yesterday and that stipulation was not corrected concerning the gate and is a standard
stipulation and should not be in the PUD.
STAFF
Ray Bellows - Chief Planner - Zoning & Land Dev. Review - staff reviewed petition
and found consistent with transportation element and environmental elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. Project fills a regional need for services for medical facilities in
that part of the County. Traffic study does not go into trips providing emergency services
but because a lack of facilities in that area.
It complies with the Comprehensive Plan elements. With the additional landscaping
buffer it would be compatible with the adjacent land uses.
Staff concern is overall traffic impact with actual trips in and out and traffic circulation
system of the area in regard to emergency services and staff felt it was an appropriate
location.
Mr. Anderson stated he anticipates the Administrative appeal pending will drag on for
another year.
Mr. Schmitt stated they can continue with the SDP review process and submit building
plans after re-zoning if approved. Can submit simultaneous review for project.
Mr. Murray asked about the sidewalk issue. He asked why the County was requiring
the differences.
Mr. Bellows stated it was an LDC requirement for sidewalks of a certain size - don't
think the transportation staff had much leeway in negotiating a separate size. They can
ask for that as a deviation and would not object to the 6 foot sidewalk.
Mr. Anderson stated the LDC asks for 6 foot sidewalks.
23
April 15, 2004
Mr. Schiffer asked if the 10 foot is if you put one on one side of a cai-de-sac.
Mr. Schmitt responded 10 was sidewalk in combination with a bike path and he thought
that was why it was asked for in this instance.
Mr. Schmitt said Verona walk has already had their PUD approved.
The sidewalk would go on the hospital side of the road. Right-of-way for the expansion
of 951 was discussed.
Don Scott stated there is no fight-of-way on the east side of 951 - would go into the
canal - that's why they are looking on the other side. Don't know the details of the
sidewalk requirements.
SPEAKERS
Carol Grimes - resident of East Naples and Director of Community Relations for
Terracina Grand - located on Davis Blvd. - assisted living etc. facility.
Strongly recommends the rezoning of this PUD. When residents are sent off for
emergency services, they wait a long time. Also during season it takes an extremely long
time to get from their facility to the hospital. Physicians and care managers have shared
numerous times that they need a hospital at that end of town. On behalf of the 180
people and herself she recommends approval of the petition.
Heyward Boyce - resident of Marco Island for 24 years - speaks for a retirement
community in Marco and many are very enthusiastic with half the distance of a hospital
from Marco Island. He is glad the LDC allows the usage at that location and urges
approval.
Tammie Nemachek - Director for Economic Development Council - fast track job
creation is a project that is anticipating 300 new jobs with an average wage of $43,000
providing a direct earning impact to Collier County of $13M. Significant impact for
Collier County and ADC supports the project.
Ken Drum - had to leave - but wanted everyone to know he supports the project.
Bea Bluestein - lives in Terracina Grand - been to several meetings on the hospital
project. Being a patient at the downtown hospital and waiting etc. she strongly
recommends they approve the project. They all know how important the project is to
improve time for them and to improve care. The longer they wait for care; things get
worse, not better. They have the Certificate of Need and she hopes they approve the
change required.
Bruce Anderson gave Mr. Bellows, for the record, a letter of support from Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County.
Hearing is closed for motion and discussion.
24
April 15, 2004
Mr. Murray moved to approve the Petition PUDZ-2003-AR-4674 Collier Regional
Medical Center with the stipulations provided by Commissioner Strain as cited
earlier. Second by Mr. Strain.
The stipulations are as follows:
1) Subject to the EAC stipulations in package.
2) 6 foot sidewalk will be provided in lieu of a 10 foot
3) Type "B" Buffer and Type "D" Buffer will be installed along the north side
consistent with testimony given today.
4)
5)
No wall on the south side - instead the landscaping buffer will be increased
and a berm added. A 20 foot Type "B" buffer will be used with a double
hedge. Will be amended in Section 2.8. D of the PUD.
6.4. B will have language added to provide with consistency with the LDC at
the time of site plan approval.
6) Modified 2.11.B2 to address the Berm landscape design, and
7) Delete Section 6.3.L
Everyone agreed they were glad the hospital is coming to Collier County.
Mr. Abernathy wanted it to be known that his vote in favor of it does not require him to
make any findings about delays at NCH. It has been a community asset for 50 years and
obvious they need another hospital out East without beating up on NCH.
Mr. Murray commented NCH is a fine organization - serves the community it is
occupying and chose to provide services elsewhere. This hospital organization provides
services here - very happy and will work for everyone in the community.
Mr. Budd appreciated that seldom has so little been spoken by so many in the
worthwhile support of a petition.
Motion carried unanimously 8-0.
9. Old Business: Mr. Strain asked about a timeframe on a Court Reporter. Mr.
Schmitt responded it will be in the 2005 Budget. It was not budgeted this year. He has to
forecast the expense and the Budget demand with the Clerk of Courts in regards for the
demand for the services. Also has to budget for it. It is a significant increase over
Manpower Services by 3 to 4 times the cost. It will be a service in the '05 budget.
10. New Business: None
11. Public Comment Item: None
25
April 15, 2004
12. 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 12:15 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Mr. Russell Budd
26
!: Rpr 14 04 02:59p Habitat ~or Humanit~ 239
HABITAT FO, R HUMANITY ..OF COLLIER C°UNTY' INC.
COMMITTGG
Sam Dumo, M.D.
President
Peter Manlon
V. P. Operations
Mary Ann Ourso
V. P. Family Services
Robert Hammoncl
Treasurer
Tom Schneider
Secretary
DIRECTORS
J. Wesley 81ackv~ll
V.P. Selection
J. Douglas Burke
V.P. Development
Robert Caliga
V.P. Neptes
Construction
Wdliam Karnsay
V, P. Immokalee
Construction
Oouglas L Rankin
Assistant Secretary
W, Wallace
June Barakelt
Karen Bleckwell
Joseph Boll
Count Darling
Rick Deal
Davi(t EUI$
Jose Grande
Karen Gu;IKnecht
Sally Hell
Jane Hazell~eker
William Hoglund
Don Lein
James Loskill
C. John Miller
John Paalman,
Mark Rheln
Michael
Mary Strutz
George Walnscott
April 15, 2004
Collier County Planning Commission,
As President of Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, I fully support
HMA's request for rezoning, resulting in much-needed health care
facilities in East Naples.
To date, I represent more than 600 families in Collier County, including at
least 300 in E~t Naples neighborhoods less than five miles from the
proposed hospital site. Most of these families are considered very low-
income and lack health insurance. They require iadigent health care in
their neighborhood and HMA is committed to providing that care.
In addition to a need for care, there also is a great need for jobs in East
Naples. Many Habitat homeowners would be grateful for jobs that take
them just a few miles from their home, providing them with more time to
spend with their families and in their neighborhoods.
As the East Naples corridor continues to grow in leaps and bounds, it only
makes sense to provide all the facilities necessary for a happy, healthy,
safe and self-sustaining community. HMA will help to provide all these.
Again, I encourage you to approve HMA's request for rezoniag. This step
is an important one towards a healthier future for all Naples' residents.
Samuel J. Dmo, M.D.
MAIN OFFICE: 11145 Tamiami Tmtl East Naples, FL 34113 (239) 775-0030 * Fax (239) 775-0477
Im,~d~ol~ K'I ~[4t49 tg~tq'~ RRT.44RR * Fax' (23g~ 657-9044
Kevin G. Coleman
J. Dudley Goodlette
Kenneth R. Jolmson
Richard D. Yovanovich
Harold J. Webre, III
Edmond E. Koester
Linda C. Brinkman
Craig D. Grider
Gregory L. Urbancic
Matthew L. Grabinski
GOODLETTE COLEMAN & JOHNSON, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT I~AW
Northern Trus! Bank Building
4001 Tamiami Trail North
Naples, Florida 34103
(239) 435-3535
(239) 435-1218 Facsirmle
Writer's e-mail: rS, ovanovich,[a'gcjlaw.com
April 14, 2004
Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail
Mr. Steve Cirou
Cirou Glass & Shutter Co.
4473 Arnold Avenue
Naples, Florida 34104
RE: The Colonades at Santa Barbara
Dear Mark:
At your request, I am writing to summarize the results of the meeting between our clients that occurred on
April 5, 2004. At that meeting, our clients discussed the matter set forth in your Mark Leavitt's March 2,
2004 correspondence to me. Our clients agreed to the followipg proposals:
1. A berm and wall/fence com,b, ination will be/6elh~t[r~c(ed along the northern property boundary at a
total height of seven feet (7). A concret~Cblock,wall will be constructed from the eastern boundary
of the property westward to,twenty-five ~eet (25) past the portion of our client's property that has a
required th rty-five foot (35) buffer. A~hain link fence will be constructed from the end of the
concrete block wall to the western bouddary. The fence/wall combination will be constructed five
(5) feet on our client's property. A hedge will be constructed on the north side of the wall and
fence that will reach the height of the wall and fence within one (1) year of planting.
2. At the commencement of site clearing, a temporary fence will be constructed along the northern
property boundary which will provide screening from the construction on our client's site.
3. A provision will be included in the PUD document that prohibits any uses on the property having
operating hours beyond 9:00 p.m.
The PUD MeO,(!r=-~4~ will identify a potential interconnection point for properties to the north.
The site will be designed in a manner that will prevent water from our client's property draining
onto the property located to the north.
6. Any standing water which remains on our client's site after a seven (7) day period will be treated
for mosquitoes.
5.
Mr. Steve Cirou
April 14, 2004
Page Two
7. Our client will agree that a minimum of two buildings must be constructed on the site so that no
one building can contain 35,000 square feet.
8. The dumpsters on the property will be located an appropriate distance from the properties to the
north.
9. Lighting on the property will be designed in a manner to prevent the lighting from spilling on to the
properties to the north.
10. We are enclosing a letter from our client's physicist explaining the use of the nuclear medicines.
As we discussed, the use of nuclear medicine will in no way be harmful to the properties to the
north.
Based upon our clients agreeing to the above proposals, it is our understanding that the Cirous will not
oppose our PUD and will not attempt to reduce the permitted square footage of 35,000 square feet.
Thank you for meeting with our clients on April 5, 2004. Our clients believe that the meeting was
productive and that everyone's interest has been adequately protected by the above agreements.
If this letter does not adequately summarize the agreement reached at the Apdl 5, 2004, meeting please
let me know immediately.
If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact
me.
Very truly yours,
Richard D. Yovanovich
RDY:smc
cc: Zanos Grekos
S:\DATA\WPDATA\LIT~GATE\Colonades\4-6-041eavi~t-d°c
P.02
Apr-08~-~2:35P
From:
REGENCE HEART AND MEDICAL CENTER
ZANNOS G. GRFKOS,MD.
Irma Josie, A.R.R.T.(R),(N), C.N.M.T ~-~
Licensed Nuclcar Medicine Technologist
To:
Concerncd Citizens
I would like to assure you ef the safety measures required in the use of diagnostic
radioactivc materials. The'Florida State Dcpartment of Health issues a license to
a facility and all uscs of radioactive materials must be approved by thcm. There arc
regulations and inspections imposed by the State of Florida to ensure the safe use of
radioactive materials and all other aspects involving radioactive materials. Each facility is
required to establish emergency procedures in the use of diagnostic radioactivc materials.
The radioactive materials used in diagnostic imaging are safely cleared from the body by
natural proccsscs and presents the same amount of radiation exposure as in a simple X-Ray
or (CT) scan-
Thc Dcpartment of Transportation regulates Ihe transportation of diagnostic radioactive
materials and the required:training of drivers and tcchnologists in the safe packaging, and
labeling of radioactive materials.
All proccdurcs performed in our imaging facilities are for diagnostic purposes only- Individual
doses are ordered on an "aS nceded basis" through a Nuclear Pharmacy that delivers the dose
and removes the waste dali),. Only a small amount of scaled radioactive material is kept at
each facility for instrumcn! calibrations, and pose very little radiation risk.
Thc Florida Department of Health requires that each facility demonstrate compliance with dose
limits for individual members of the public. The facility is required to make surveys of radiation
levels in areas occupied by the general public and insure that radioactive materials released in
public areas where infrequent exposure to diagnostic radiation may occur are within the levels
established by the Department. Each licensed facility must maintain records of surveys sufficient
to demonstrate compliance with the dose limit for individual members of the public until thc
department terminates thc license.
Diagnostic radioactive materials used in our imaging facilitics pose little threat to lhc gcncral
public but arc of great diallnostic value to the physician. Millions of nuclear medicine exams are
safely performed each year, It is our desire to decrease the distancc thc average patient has to
travcl to obtain these services.
Please don't hesitate to cnn/act me if you have I'urthcr requirements.
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Community Development and Environmental Services Division
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, Florida 34104
April 23, 2004
Nelson Marine ConStruction
Ben Nelson Jr.
10530 Wilson Street
Bonita Springs, Fl. 34135
Re: Petition No. BD-2003-AR-5153, Ruediger, Brunsberg
Dear Mr. Nelson:
On Thursday, April 15, 2004, the Collier County Planning
Petition No. BD-2003-AR-5153.
A copy of Resolution No. 04-04 is enclosed approving this use.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 213-2911.
S inc er. et~, .~-
Senior Planner
RG/sp
Commission heard and approved
Enclosure
CC: Bmngsberg, Ruediger& Barbara
195 San Mateo Drive
Bonita Springs, Fl. 34134
Land Dept. Property Appraiser
~.~.Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI)
Customer Service
Addressing (Peggy Jarrell)
M. Ocheltree, Graphics
File
C
(239) 403-2400 Fax (239) 643-6968 or (239) 213-2916 www.colliergov, net
CCPC RESOLUTION 04- 04
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2004 -
AR-5153 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON
PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on
all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as
are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (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 40-foot extension for a boat dock from
the 20-foot length allowed by LDC § 2.6.21. to authorize a 60-foot boat dock facility in a PUD Planned Unit
Development 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 fo Collier
County, Florida that;
Petition Number BD-2004-AR-5153, filed on behalf of Ruediger and Barbara Brungsberg by Nelson
Marine Construction, for the property hereinafter described as:
Southport on the Bay Unit One, Lot 31, as described in Plat Book 15 Page(s) 51-53 of the Public
Records of Collier County, Florida,
be, and the same is hereby approved for, a 40-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length
otherwise allowed by LDC § 2.6.21., to authorize a 60-foot boat docking facility in the PUD
Planned Unit Development zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following
conditions:
Corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be provided to Collier County prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
Reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be installed at the
outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the furthest
into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion.
Page 1 of 2
At least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as
possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Completion.
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 / ~' *3. day of ~ ~-1:~,.,2~ ,2004.
ATTEST:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COIdg/TY, FLORIDA ~
RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN
Community Development and Environmental
e$o/vices Administrator
~ti ~i~d Legal Sufficiency:
'p-a't/ick~G~ Whi~'
Assistant County Attorney
BD-2004-AR-5153/RG/lo
Page 2 of 2
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Community Development and Environmental Services Division
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, Florida 34104
April 23, 2004
Turrell & Associates
Michael Hawkins
3584 Exchange Ave.
Suite B
Naples, Fl. 34104
Re: Petition No. BD-2003-AR-5104, Felice Clai
Dear Mr. Hawkins:
On Thursday, April 15, 2004, the
Petition No. BD-2003-AR-5104.
Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved
A copy of Resolution No. 04-05 is enclosed approving this use.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 213-2911.
Sincere~ /~
Ross Gochenaur
Senior Planner
RO/sp
Enclosure
CC: Felice & Gianna Clai
2440 Millcreek Lane, Apt. 203
Naples, Fl. 34119
Land Dept. Property Appraiser
~4~linutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI)
Customer Service
Addressing (Peggy Jarrell)
M. Ocheltree, Graphics
File
C
e r C 0 /-I ~ t y
Phone (239) 403-2400 Fax (239) 643-6968 or (239) 213-2916 www. colliergov.net
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 04-
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2004-
AR-5104 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON
PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such
business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (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 15-foot extension for a
boat dock from the 204oot length allowed by LDC Section 2.6.21. to authorize a 35-foot boat dock
facility in an RSF-4 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-5104, filed on behalf of Felice and Gianna Clai by Tun'ell
and Associates, for the property hereinafter described as:
Port of the Islands (The Cays), Phase II, Lot 86, as described in Plat Book 21,
Page(s) 1-4, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida
be, and the same is hereby approved for, a 15-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length
otherwise allowed by LDC Section 2.6.21., to authorize a 35-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-4
zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions:
1. Corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be provided to Collier County prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
2. Reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be installed at the
outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the furthest
into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion.
Page 1 of 2
o
°
At least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as
possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Completion.
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 / ~ ~ day of /3qpn24 ,2004.
ATTEST:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANN1NG COMMISSION
RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN
!i~r~e~i huKnitSyCDhem~tlop~ent and E~vironmental
~ 'ces Administrator
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency:
Marjo~ M. Student
Assistant County Attorney
BD-2003-AR-5104/RG/lo
Page 2 of 2