CCPC Minutes 07/15/2004 R
July 15, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, July 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 (Excused)
Kenneth Abernathy
(Excused)
Brad Schiffer
Robert Murray
Robert Vigliotti (Excused)
Dwight Richardson
(Excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Environmental Services
Ray Bellows, Chief Planner, Zoning & Land Dev. Review
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JULY 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 MAYBE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HA VE 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 VERBA TIM 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 - JUNE 3, 2004 REGULAR MEETING AND JUNE 17,2004 REGULAR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JUNE 22, 2004 REGULAR MEETING AND JUNE 29, 2004 SPECIAL MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: BD-2004-AR-5693, Todd and Jeff Holmers, represented by Robert Davy, requesting a boat dock
extension of 36 feet beyond the 20 feet permitted by Code to create a dock facility consisting of two
slips, each having one boat-lift protruding a total of 56 feet into the waterway. The property is located
at 267 3rd Street West, Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat, Lot 18, Block G, in Section 5, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
1
B. Petition: BD-2004-AR-5697, Robert Davy, as agent and owner, requesting a boat dock extension of 36
feet beyond the 20 feet permitted by Code to create a dock facility consisting of two slips, each having
one boat-lift protruding a total of 56 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 267 3rd Street
West, Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat, Lot 19, Block G, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
C. Petition: BD-2004-AR-5699, Robert Davy, as agent and owner, requesting a boat dock extension of 30
feet beyond the 20 feet permitted by Code to create a dock facility consisting of two slips, each having
one boat-lift protruding a total of 50 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 267 3rd Street
West, Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat, Lot 20, Block G, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
D. Petition: V A-2004-AR-5798, James and Connie Adams, property owners, represented by Richard Rundle,
requesting a 1.98-foot variance from Section 3.5.2.E of the Imperial West PUD (Ordinance 82-80), which
requires a distance between principal structures of 20 feet or one half (112) the sum of the heights of the
adjacent structures, whichever is greater to 18.02 feet on the east side of Lot 46. The petitioner also requests a
four foot variance from the distance between principal structures of 20 feet or one half (112) the sum of the
heights of the adjacent structures, whichever is greater to 16 feet on the west side of Lot 46. The subject
property is located at 1155 Imperial Drive, further described as Lot 46, Park Place West, in Section 15,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, recorded in Plat Book 17, Page 32-33,
consisting of 6283.46 square feet (.14 acres). (Coordinator: Michael J. DeRuntz)
E. Petition: PUDZ-2003-AR-4046, Waterways Joint Venture IV represented by Dwight H. Nadeau, of RWA,
Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural and "PUD" Planned Unit Development (known as
Hibiscus Village PUD) to "PUD" to be known as Summit Place in Naples PUD for a residential
development consisting of 394 dwelling units. Property is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard
(C.R. 951), approximately 1/4 mile north of Wolfe Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of98.42± acres. (Coordinator: Robin Meyer)
F. Petition: PUDZ-2003-AR-4250, Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District and Waterways Joint
Venture IV, represented by Karen Bishop, of PMS, Inc. of Naples, and Richard D. Yovanovich, of
Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning
district to the Mixed Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district, to allow development of a fire
station with a 135-foot high communication tower and a 75-foot high training facility, and sixteen (16) single-
family attached dwellings (including townhouses intended for fee simple conveyance including the platted lot
associated with the residence) and customary accessory uses. Property is located on the west side of Collier
Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 340 feet north of Wolfe Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of9.38± acres. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem)
G. Petition: PUDZ-2003-AR-5087, Collier County Board of County Commissioners represented by Stephen
G. Sposato, AICP of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., requesting a rezone from "PU" Public Use to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development to be known as the Collier County Government Center PUD. The project will
consist of a maximum of 996,799 square feet of building area for permitted and accessory government
center uses. The project is located at 3301 Tamiami Trail East. The project is in Section 12, Township 50
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 55± acres. (Coordinator: Michael Bosi)
H. Comprehensive Planning Evaluation and Appraisal Report, (E.A.R.) - A Seven Year Evaluation and
Appraisal Report for the Growth Management Plan Transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs.
(Coordinator: Randy Cohen)
9. OLD BUSINESS
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
2
12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
13. ADJOURN
eepe Agenda/RBlsp
3
July 15, 2004
1. Chairman Russell Budd called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM and the
Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
2. Roll Call- a quorum was established with Mr. Midney, Mr. Abernathy, Mr.
Vigliotti, and Mr. Richardson being excused.
3. Addenda to the Agenda- Russell Budd said that he believed that Item F (PUDZ-
2003-AR-4250) would be rescheduled. The petitioner is requesting to move to the
second meeting in August. This was confinned by Rich Y ovanovich (agent for
the petitioner), who said that they needed time to let the community (specifically
those affiliated with the Summit Place proposal) get a better feel for their
proposal. There was discussion with staff over whether there would be enough
time to prepare materials for the August meeting. It was decided that, if needed,
any changes would be placed in a memo attachment to the staff report.
Lindy Adelstein moved to approve the Addenda to the Agenda. Second by
Mark Strain. Carried unanimously 5-0.
4. Brad Schiffer-Asks how they should vote with only five commissioners present.
The issue was clarified by Mr. Bellows & Ms. Student. It will take three votes for
an item to be passed.
Planning Commission Absences-- There were no known upcoming planning
commission absences. Robert Murray had a previous lunch engagement he
needed to leave for by 11 :30 AM. Russell Budd says that they may need to leave
slightly before 11 :30 AM if they are at a good stopping point. They would re-
convene at 1 :00 PM.
Lindy Adelstein- says that he was under the impression that the meeting would
be resuming at 1:15, and that he gave that infonnation to people who were
interested in being there for discussion of the EAR. Russell Budd says that they
will start at 1: 15 if it looks like people are still missing at 1 :00. Lindy Adelstein
approves.
5. Approval of Minutes-June 3, 2004. Lindy Adelstein makes a motion to
approve. Second by Robert Murray. No discussion. Carried Unanimously 5-0.
Approval of Minutes- June 17, 2004. Motion by Lindy Adelstein. Second by
Brad Schiffer. No discussion. Minutes carry unanimously 5-0.
6. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Report-Recaps-- Ray Bellows
confirms that there was no meeting on July 13th to report on.
7. Chairman's Report - None.
Page 2
July 15,2004
8. Advertised Public Hearings
A. Petition: BD-2004-AR-5693, Todd and Jeff Holmers, represented by
Robert Davy, requesting a boat dock extension of 36 feet beyond the
20 feet permitted by Code to create a dock facility consisting of two
slips, each having one boat-lift protruding a total of 56 feet into the
waterway. The property is located at 267 3rd Street West, Little
Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat, Lot 18, Block G, in Section 5,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
B. Petition: BD-2004-AR-5697, Robert Davy, as agent and owner,
requesting a boat dock extension of 36 feet beyond the 20 feet
permitted by Code to create a dock facility consisting of two slips,
each having one boat-lift protruding a total of 56 feet into the
waterway. The property is located at 267 3rd Street West, Little
Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat, Lot 19, Block G, in Section 5,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
C. Petition: BD-2004-AR-5699, Robert Davy, as agent and owner,
requesting a boat dock extension of 30 feet beyond the 20 feet
permitted by Code to create a dock facility consisting of two slips,
each having one boat-lift protruding a total of 50 feet into the
waterway. The property is located at 267 3rd Street West, Little
Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat, Lot 20, Block G, in Section 5,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
Russell Budd: I have discussed with Mr. Gochenaur, who is representing the staff on
the next three agenda items, that it would probably be reasonable and appropriate, as we
have a single representative on the first three petitions, that we could set the stage for all
three agenda items (because they deal with a lot of the same issues), then address each
individually and take specific motion on the item that I have identified first.
Disclosure: None.
All those testifying for the first 3 petitions were sworn in by Mr. Budd.
Page 3
July 15, 2004
Petitioner:
Robert Davy-He is the owner of two of the lots up for discussion and is a
representative for the 3rd. (Mr. Holmers). He clarified that he was legally allowed to
represent Mr. Holmers. This was verified with the Clerk of Courts. Mr. Davy bought all
three lots, and sold one to Mr. Holmers. He says he has DEP approval on all three lots.
He has the numbers available. The anny Corps of Engineers approved it also. There has
been conditional use for these lots as only boat dock lots in Little Hickory Shores. The
variance 99-26 removed the side lot set back requirement, so that you can dock 2 boats,
side to side on the lot. He has included a landscape plan on Lot 20. There are three small
lots on 3rd street. He showed a map of the area, including the lengths of other docks
along his street that he thinks are 48-50' long. He is asking for a 50' dock on lot 20, so
that he can have an equal depth to another dock on the street, because the land tapers in
where his lot is. On the other two, he is asking for 56' because those lots taper back with
a riff-raff sea wall, which was approved. There is about a 6-7' taper with that riff-raff, so
you would need a little additional length to make it even. Mr. Davy was made aware of
an objection about the kind of boats he owns-both pontoons. He says, contrary to
belief, he is not trying to start a business, just to fix up the lots and sell them.
Ouestions of Petitioner:
Mark Strain: Wants reassurance that he will not lease or rent from his lots.
Mr. Davy says he has no plans for this.
Brad Schiffer points out that one boat is registered in someone else's name.
Mr. Davy confinns this and says it has been this way for years. They are fishing friends.
Brad Schiffer asks if two cars can be parked on each lot.
Mr. Davy: Says yes, two will fit, usually only one is there.
Brad Schiffer says there is no room for both vehicles.
Mr. Davy says there is room.
Robert Murray: references p. 5 of 10. He asks how we know that there are no sea grass
beds.
Mr. Davy says that the staff didn't find any and that this hasn't been an issue.
Brad Schiffer: How are these built on a zero property line?
Mr. Davy: Right on it.
Page 4
July 15, 2004
Brad Schiffer: Can they be side by side?
Mr. Davy confinns that this is a possibility. It depends on the lot.
Mr. Davy requests the opportunity to respond to any objections that may be brought up.
Russell Budd agrees.
Staff:
Ross Gochenaur: Confinns that environmental staff has checked for sea grass beds, but
did not find any. Staff goes out on any request for a boat dock extension. I think the
issue is clear. If you have any questions, I can answer them.
Robert Murray has a question about the "boiler plate" phrasing that requires
identification on the pilings. Because these lots are unusual, is there any way that these
lots can realistically be identified?
Ross Gochenaur: No sir, there isn't. In this case, there is a street address, but the street
address applies to every boat dock lot on either side of the street. The addressing
department has been in contact with code enforcement to come up with a better
identification of these lots. If they come up with a better way to identify them, we would
expect property owners to comply.
Mark Strain: I want to verify that there is adequate parking on the lots. I have been
there, and I want to verify that you have no consternation about available parking.
Ross Gochenaur: No, sir, I do not.
Brad Schiffer: (references appraisers aerial view of sight) Points out red line that is
property line from property across the way. Are we allowing people to build docks on
other people's property?
Ray Bellows: The property lines you are seeing here are not accurate. They are shifting.
The overlay calibration is not exact. I wouldn't judge any setbacks or encroachments on
this aerial.
Brad Schiffer: But, again, I can see where it follows along on the coast line, we aren't
that far off. That is private property for someone. The survey isn't showing that property
line. Have people in the past been building on other people's property?
Russell Budd: When a dock is constructed, the contractor is required to submit a spot
survey, the facility is required to meet the repairing lines and the applicable setback, so
every dock submitted in the county has to submit that survey. If it's not on their property
and it doesn't meet their setbacks, in the case where 7.5 or 15 foot setbacks apply, it has
to or they won't approve it.
Page 5
July 15, 2004
Brad Schiffer: but can't you see my concern? You see docks that are obviously
extending past property lines?
Russell Budd says that they have to rely on expert testimony that says that that property
line is not accurate, and the procedure of submitting surveys that show it is in the
property lines.
Brad Schiffer asks if it is relevant to know how far away from the property line the dock
IS.
Russell Budd says that it is relevant to know that the surveyor will be required to attest
that the construction stays within the property lines.
Brad Schiffer: Asks how deep the channel is at the level where the docks come out.
Ross Gochenaur: I can't tell you. It appears that the facility meets the percentage for the
entire waterway width. It appears that there is well enough navigable water for boats to
get by.
Brad Schiffer: when we measure, are we concerned with the depth of the water, or just
the fact that the surface water from. . .
Ross Gochenaur: We are concerned, but we don't require a survey that covers the entire
waterway width. The cost is prohibited. We ask that they only show to the end of the
proposed facility. At that point we use aerial photographs, or the petitioner provides
expert evidence that the channel is of a given width or depth.
Advertised Public Speakers:
Emilv MaI!:2io: Has lived in Little Hickory Shores for 35 years. She represents the
property owners in this petition, as she did last year when Mr. Davy wanted boat houses.
She acknowledges "awesome power" of board, and asks to give background info. This is
a residential neighborhood. She confinns that these lots are to be used for boat docks, but
that there used to be set backs. Mr. Davy was (unfortunately) successful in securing a
zero setback. She shows a magnified picture of the area on the visualizer. The reality is
that, with the zero set back, both sides of the street will be crowded with boats-all
touching one another. She says that the county's decision to approve the zero setback
was unconscionable and that they are stuck with it. The boat dock owners have more
privileges than regular lot owners. Home owners cannot build on the zero lot line. It is
my understanding that a variance is to be granted for a land related hardship. Only as
much as is NEEDED should be given. Her water depth on her dock is often 2' and they
manage to get by with a 24' boat. She says the wording in the 3 applications is repetitive.
Each request is for two boats to be used on the dock. She shows a picture of the lot he
owns on the south side of the street. She is concerned that if he owns six boats, he will be
Page 6
July 15, 2004
starting a business. She says this request is a farce. She claims he is only doing this to
increase the value of the property, not to actually use the boats. Mr. Davy does not even
own one ofthe boats in its entirety. There are other boats in the area that have extra boats
not registered to the property owners. Variances should be granted for real hardships.
Mr. Davy can tell you that he's going to sell those and I'm going to move that, but it
doesn't have to happen! Once he gets that variance, it is tied to the land and he can use it
to get more money for the lot. I don't think that that is the purpose for the variance. The
waters in the channel are very shallow, and yes, it runs right in back of those docks, and
you can not use all 460 feet. All the boats that go through take the same route, which is
right past where the boat docks are. They are going to need 6 feet. If they are going to
build that much, where are they going to go with this boat once they launch it? In
conclusion, I would like to say that I am not opposed to someone with a legitimate
hardship, however, I would ask you to please look at this for what it is, which is an
attempt to make the property worth more.
Russell Budd: Ma'am, we've exhibited extreme leeway, if you could summarize your
comments, please.
Emily Maggio: Just because someone came in and got something they may not be
entitled to, does that mean that the domino should fall and.. .they all...
Russell Budd: Thank you Ma'am.
Robert Murray: Ma'am, if you'd be kind enough to put that photo up, the one that's
relative to the... I'm interested in the location. There's that rectangular object there... is
that a dock or...
Emily Maggio: That is someone that was also cited for having these canvas covers, and
it has since been removed.
Robert Murray: but that is a dock, and that is somewhere in the property line of that
property.
Emily Maggio: Yes.
Robert Murray: And along that line, that's all mangrove, is it not?
Emily Maggio: It used to be.
Robert Murray: This is not a recent photograph?
Emily Maggio: They've disappeared sort of. What can I tell you?
Brad Schiffer: Mark, here's the concern, I know it looks like a lot of parking... I think
the property lines have shifted down, when I was out there, and I went by last time when
we were looking at the boathouses; these people were parking all over the right of way.
Page 7
July 15, 2004
The problem with that is that the neighbors have to drive down this row of cars and
trailers and everything else parked there. If you look at the dimensions of this sight, he
doesn't have the room to put two cars on the sight, he does have the room to park in the
right of way.
Emily Maggio: I have a picture at home. There was a day that there were three trucks
parked all over the place on Mr. Davy's lot. This aerial caught them parking in the right
of way. We are under assault. We are under assault, here.
Brad Schiffer: I agree with her. The other thing to remember IS that there IS no
sanitation here.
Doug Fee: (North Bay Civic Association) We do try to speak out on issues that have a
domino effect. We believe that these three dock extensions would have that effect.
What we have on this picture is a commercial marina. These lots are zoned C-4. This is
Bonita Beach Road. On that corner, there is a re-development of that property. There is
going to be a 75' boat storage facility-which is needed in the area, but what you have
here, is a tremendous amount of boat traffic that will be using this facility and coming
down through these waters in order to get to the backwaters. We don't know what the
amount of dry storage will be, but every day you will have a lot of traffic. I'm now going
to put up a color photograph. This is the channel you will have boats traveling through.
They'll be coming around this bulk head. You notice these are very shallow waters. I
have numbered these. If you grant this extension out, are there going to be other lot
owners coming in right after these extensions are granted, you have 33 lots-some on the
other side, but when you talk about the width (a 25% factor), I believe that you shouldn't
be including this part coming up to the mangrove because it's extremely shallow, so this
part, which is darker, is the navigable channel. To summarize, you have a property line,
you have a public channel that a tremendous about of boats are using, and any extension,
especially at 50'... there could be a safety issue with that, especially, too, if more lot
owners come in for extensions.
Russell Budd: Doug, as I'm looking at this, and there is the 48-50' dock to the west, I
see a lot of deep water in front of it, and the docks that we are looking at today, I see a lot
of deep water out in front of them, and, true, up channel, it gets narrower, but each and
every petition stands on its own merits, and that logic that if each neighbor gets it, the
next one gets it to, would imply that zoning on Marco Island would apply in Sarasota. At
some point, conditions change, and I don't see a narrow waterway in front of the three
docks that we are considering this morning.
Doug Fee: Like I said, it's a matter of, if it's appropriate on these lots, will it be
appropriate on lots top the east, where the channel does curve around...
Russell Budd: Each petition stands on its own merits, and at some point, it will not work.
Doug Fee: I do live in this area, and there are a tremendous amount of boats that go
through there, and if someone hits on of these extensions... I'll leave it at that.
Page 8
July 15, 2004
Final Comments bv Applicant
Robert Davy: As far as me owning 6 boats, I don't know where Mr. Maggio came up
with that. I own 2 boats and that's all I'm every going to own. The 30' reference she
made there to the application that was an AVERAGE length of the boat. So, it might be
an 18' boat or a 32' boat. Who knows? That's an average. Also, on the photograph that
was up there, you pointed out the deep water out there, this brown indication is the
shallow area we have to deal with when we moor those boats. That small dock Mrs.
Maggio mentions on lot 20... it did have a dock there, but it was more or less a fishing
dock, or a place where they would place commercial fishing boats at one time, but there's
no way I could even get a pontoon boat in there, especially at low tide. Another thing I'd
like to point out is section 2.6.21.2.1 which says that the boat is considered part of the
dock. The photograph is an example. You can see how the boat sticks out slightly in
back of the dock. Technically, he's in violation there, but I'm trying to avoid that. I want
to make sure that I have enough length that my boat doesn't stick out into the waterway,
and that I could service my engine if I needed to. Here's another photograph that shows
the neighbor to the east, back towards Mrs. Maggio's house, you can see the width of the
water that dock you are looking at is a 50' dock, okay. It's the least he could do to get his
boat in there and moor it safely, and I have asked for the same thing. And yes, I bought
these lots to improve them and to resell some of them. I'm not trying to hide that. I've
improved them with underground electric. I've improved them with water. There's
plenty of room for parking, and another thing you mentioned all the boast and trailers and
trucks... That is down at the Bonita Boat Owners Association, they have a boat launching
facility there, and there are always cars and trucks parked there with boat trailers, and I
want to call your attention to that fact that we don't need boat trailers; all we need is the
lift. Our boats are there all the time; we just park our cars and go. We don't pull trailers
down there or anything like that. As far as three trucks parked on my lot at one time, the
only thing I can think of is if we had maintenance there or something, but I never had
that.
Russell Budd closed public hearing. Motion by Lindy Adelstein to approve BD-
2004-AR-5693 subject to staff recommendations. Second by Mark Strain.
Brad Schiffer: The concern I have with this lot, is that there is only the ability to park
one car on it. I have a concern allowing two boats and one car. It does require people to
have to park in the right of way.
Mark Strain: County code is two slips, and one car. If we change that for these people,
we may want to look at changing it elsewhere...
Patrick White: Just a note for the record, any right of way violations are a code
enforcement matter, and certainly something that I would encourage any of the neighbors
if they are having those problems to make the necessary calls, and I believe that
appropriate action will be taken.
Page 9
July 15,2004
Mark Strain: But the Sheriffs dept. would handle citations within the right of way.
Brad Schiffer: But, Mark, that requirement comes from a commercial marina, doesn't it?
Mark Strain: No. For every slip, you have to have one parking space for two wet slips,
one parking place for five dry slips.
Brad Schiffer: And where would that be applied?
Mark Strain: Anywhere. First of all, I believe that the lot can hold two cars.
Brad Schiffer: If they are in the right of way.
Mark Strain: No, they don't need to be. I was there, I didn't park in the right of way, I
pulled up on the lot, and there was another guy pulled up right next to me.
Brad Schiffer: But I'm judging by the photo, and I would say that they are 15' deep by
3' wide.
Mark Strain: Nine feet per parking space is pretty wide. You can fit almost three cars
on that lot.
Brad Schiffer: Yeah, but they're sticking out on the lot. Anyway, I don't want to argue.
There being no more discussion, Russell Budd called the question on item BD-2004-
AR-5693. It carried 4-1 with Brad Schiffer dissenting.
Russell Budd called the question on BD-2004-AR-5697. Lindy Adelstein made a
motion to approve BD-2004-AR-5697 subject to staff recommendations. Second by
Mark Strain. Motion carried 4-1 with Brad Schiffer dissenting.
Russell Budd called the question on BD-2004-AR-5699. Lindy Adelstein made a
motion to approve BD-2004-AR-5699 subject to staff recommendations. Second by
Mark Strain.
Discussion:
Brad Schiffer: This one does have the parking, so you'll notice a favorable vote
Mark Strain: What it boils down to is that these are handy lots for access to the beach
by people, and I would encourage more of these to be used in Collier County, we would
have a huge problem solved in this county if we had more, and I'm glad these people are
using them. I think we should be using them.
Brad Schiffer: Oh, I support the access, but I think it should be done with sanitation and
a lot of other things.
Page 10
July 15, 2004
Russell Budd called the question. Motion carried unanimously 5-0
D. Petition: V A-2004-AR-5798, James and Connie Adams, property owners,
represented by Richard Rundle, requesting a 1.98-foot variance from Section
3.5.2.E of the Imperial West PUD (Ordinance 82-80), which requires a distance
between principal structures of 20 feet or one half (112) the sum of the heights of the
adjacent structures, whichever is greater to 18.02 feet on the east side of Lot 46. The
petitioner also requests a four foot variance from the distance between principal
structures of 20 feet or one half (112) the sum of the heights of the adjacent
structures, whichever is greater to 16 feet on the west side of Lot 46. The subject
property is located at 1155 Imperial Drive, further described as Lot 46, Park Place
West, in Section 15, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,
recorded in Plat Book 17, Page 32-33, consisting of 6283.46 square feet (.14 acres).
(Coordinator: Michael J. DeRuntz)
All those wishing to testify for petition V A-2004-AR-5798 were sworn in by Russell
Budd
Disclosures: None
Petitioner:
Connie Adams: My name is Connie Adams. I was here two weeks ago requesting a
variance in Park Place West to build a home with a two foot variance to the east side for a
bay window to keep the integrity of the rest of the homes on that street, and to stay within
the ten foot setback lines to build our home.
Questions of the Petitioner: None
Staff:
Michael DeRuntz: At the last meeting, the commission moved to table this petition for
further infonnation. Assistant attorney Marjorie Student had a concern about the use on
these lots. The staff has researched this further, and what has occurred in this location, is
that the property did have a PUD zoning on it, Imperial Place, and this PUD allowed for
multi-family clusters and zero lot line homes. The homes that were built along the street
were approved as cluster homes, and each of them were to meet the twenty foot setback
requirement that was established in the PUD document. Marjorie has reviewed the staffs
research on this and has concurred on the findings, and if you have any questions, I
would be glad to try to address them.
Questions for Staff:
Brad Schiffer: Exhibit three. What is that? And, aren't those the dimensions that the
property should be built out at?
Page 11
July 15, 2004
Michael DeRuntz: That is a subdivision master plan that was incorporated in the
records and, as you can see, they are trying to meet the twenty foot setbacks, which are
identified on each of the lot lines, and what has occurred, you can see that the homes
began to shift down to the east when the lots in this area here were built, they did not
follow that pattern and the result of that is that, even though they have the twenty foot
setback between the structures, the existing lot 46 is now pinched. They could build a
home on there, but it would not be comparable to the other homes in the area, and still
meeting that 20' separation between the structures- and that is the purpose for the
variance before the board.
Brad Schiffer: What is the staff recommendation?
Michael DeRuntz: The staff is recommending approval.
Robert Murray: As I recall, Commissioner Strain made a recommendation that the
issue was... The error was in lot 45, that we seek to move towards lot 45, using that
space. Perhaps Commissioner Strain can explain. . .
Mark Strain: At that point we were talking about mitigating the loss of distance by
moving the building, but then it got into advertising issues and concerns of then by
moving in that direction, maybe that neighbor would have to come in and be addressed
separately... (Robert Murray starts to say something) No, we continued to find a
discrepancy between that PUD that called for multi-family housing, and this is single
family, and there was no prevision in documentation that allowed that, but apparently
now that has come to light and is all straightened out, so I think, all of that got worked
out.. .
Robert Murray: okay.
Brad Schiffer: I do have a concern. Lot 47, you agree was built exactly as it should
have been?
Michael DeRuntz: Yes
Brad Schiffer: So there really is this 10 foot setback that started to develop really
occurred 43, 44, & 45, right? So don't you think it would be fair to have 46 slide over
and away from 47? The problem I have is that the people who built 47 honored the
setback that this plan shows, and it is not fair to pinch them for doing what was right.
Michael DeRuntz: Well, the application for the home is the site plan that is on exhibit 5,
and the application was submitted as such. They are trying to build a home that is in
compliance with the surrounding area, it was there choice to place the building in the
place where it is now.
Page 12
July 15,2004
Brad Schiffer: But if you owned 47, would you have any reason to believe that there
wouldn't be a 14 foot setback on your side?
Michael DeRuntz: They would assume that each of the buildings would have a 20 foot
separation.
Brad Schiffer: As per this drawing, you'd expect 14', correct?
Michael DeRuntz: yes, sir.
Mark Strain: I have one question. In our deliberations, we consider staff
recommendations. My problem is with recommendation number two. To me it's a little
onerous in this particular case. Would staff lose any sleep, if this was to be approved
eliminating #2?
Michael DeRuntz: No.
Russell Budd Closed the public hearing. Mark Strain made a motion to approve V A-
2004-AR-5798 with staff recommendation #1. Second by Robert Murray.
Discussion:
Brad Schiffer: It's not fair to really... The person who does it right should not be
punished... is there any way we can slide this? They want 4' on that side, is there a way
we can make that 2'? It's kind of splitting the baby, but it really is sad to watch people
who follow the rules get less use of their property than those that don't.
Mark Strain: By following the rules you mean the guy on 47...
Brad Schiffer: The guy on 47 is the one who's going to end up with a building next to
his post, and he's the guy who did it right.
Mark Strain: But didn't the guy on 45 follow the rules as well?
Brad Schiffer: No. Somewhere this 10' setback came up, and there's no basis for that,
right?
Michael DeRuntz: Uh, that's a condition that was an amendment in the covenants of the
subdivision that they placed in there with the concept of the 20' separation, and they just
split it 10 and 10, but the PUD doesn't identify that.
Mark Strain: No, and the splitting is just something they came up with. Theoretically,
they could have put in zero and made the other guy go to 20.
Page 13
July 15,2004
Ray Bellows: There is a private covenant with the homeowners association to keep the
10'. If we were to force the issue to reduce it on the side closer to lot 45, you are making
this property owner be in violation with the homeowners' association, which creates
private, civil issues with the homeowners association. The plan you see before you is
centered on the lot, it dopes meet the PUD required setbacks, therefore we are
recommending approval.
Brad Schiffer: But the homeowners association-all these other properties would be in
violation of it-everything from 47 up.
Marjorie Student: I just wanted to say that quite a number of years ago I did research
on deed restrictions and zoning, and while I realize our code says that we don't enforce
deed restrictions and get involved in them, there is some case law-my recollection being
in the area where there are restrictions on land use and covenants vis-a-vis, an ordinance
that is problematic if the federal government puts a person in the position of violating
their private covenants. It has to do with the impainnent of the obligation to contract.
So, I don't know how that would all play out here, but that is a concern.
Ray Bellows: And the application request 8' to be the setback, so we are in effect,
violating that anyway with the motion as is.
Mark Strain: The bay window, a lot of times is an exception...
Ray Bellows: Ifit goes to the ground, it's setback...
Marjorie Student: Again, that's just a concern, and again, the cases I saw were in the
area of prohibited land uses by a local government and prohibited land uses and
restrictions.
Brad Schiffer: But here's the problem. If the homeowners association did come up with
a new requirement, it violates her approved site plan. Again, all I'm trying to do is
maintain honoring the person who did it right. Again, it isn't fair that the person who
didn't do it right has better use of their land. I don't think the applicant is wrong. Don't
misunderstand, she's doing everything perfectly. It's that they started down at 43
messing it up, and it got to be where she's pinched in the center, and again the proposal I
have is just split it. Instead of making it...
Russell Budd: Mr. Strain, do you have a motion? Are you swayed by Mr. Schiffer's
argument, or does your motion stand?
Mark Strain: Oh, I like Mr. Schiffer's argument, the problem is, that I don't think that
is overwhelming in regards to Marjorie's thoughts on this...
Marjorie Student: Well, that was just in passing, and I believe it was in a slighting
different area, so. . .
Page 14
July 15, 2004
Brad Schiffer: But, Marjorie, we are reducing it to 8 feet anyway, so, in other words,
the motion would cause the same event. Also, how would we know that? How do we
know that they did that? How do we know about the deed restrictions anyway? Is it in
our report?
Ray Bellows: We have the president of the homeowners association here. The
infonnation was passed on in the letter actually that was on exhibit 6 where it says that,
"The ARC recommends waiving the 10' side setback restriction on one side (pennitting
an 8' setback), to allow for a bay window." So, this is coming from the Homeowners'
Association. They have this 10' setback requirement.
Brad Schiffer: But people have expressed wrong setbacks throughout this whole
process, so, I don't know if they think that there IS a 10' setback... anyway I think that
it'd be kind of splitting the baby if we could slide it two feet over and not punish the guy
that did it right.
Russell Budd: That's a great suggestion, Mr. Schiffer, but if the motion maker doesn't
modify his motion, we are going to take action on the motion and second.
Mark Strain: Michael, the recommendation from the homeowners is at 10'. Is that
what they are saying they approved?
Michael DeRuntz: yes.
Mark Strain: Which means if there are any deed restrictions, the Homeowner's
Association would then be the party that would have to enforce those, or, by that letter,
maybe they have already waived the right to enforce them.
Michael DeRuntz: Exhibit 6, they are recommending approval of that bay window.
Mark Strain: See, that's my concern. If we change it, and it goes against that
recommendation, we may not be doing anything good for the applicant, as I believe Brad
has a good idea, I just don't know how to do it today in a manner that is beneficial to
know that we can move forward that way, and so I'm just going to leave my motion as it
is at this point.
Seeing that there were no more topics for discussion, Russell Budd called the
question. The motion carried 4-1, with Brad Schiffer dissenting.
BREAK: 9:55 AM
RECONVENE: 10:05 AM
Page 15
July 15, 2004
E. Petition: PUDZ-2003-AR-4046, Waterways Joint Venture IV represented by
Dwight H. Nadeau, of RW A, Inc., requesting a rezone from" A" Rural Agricultural
and "PUD" Planned Unit Development (known as Hibiscus Village PUD) to "PUD"
to be known as Summit Place in Naples PUD for a residential development
consisting of 394 dwelling units. Property is located on the west side of Collier
Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 1/4 mile north of Wolfe Road, in Section 34,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 98.42±
acres. (Coordinator: Robin Meyer)
All those wishing present testimony for petition PUDZ-2003-AR-4046 were sworn in
by Russell Budd
Disclosures:
Mark Strain: Mr. Stout and I spoke numerous times; I received several e-mails from
Mr. Stout. I received another e-mail from a lady, but I don't remember her name. I've
had lengthy conversations with Richard Y ovanovich, trying to research the various
concerns that I had, but I think that's it.
Robert Murray: I have e-mails that I have read. No conversations.
Lindy Adelstein: I have e-mails that I have read.
Brad Schiffer: What was in the packet are the e-mails I received.
Russell Budd: I have the same e-mail receipts.
Petitioner:
Dwight Nadeau: I am representing the petitioner in this rezoning request. What we
have today is a... The summit property is approximately 1.25 miles south of the
intersection of Immokalee road and Collier Boulevard. It is on the west side of Collier
Boulevard. Weare proposing to re-zone these 98.42 acres through the addition of 40.6
acres to the existing Hibiscus Village PUD. The PUD will be renamed to Summit Place
of Naples consistent to the development of the Summit Place in Naples sub-division that
exists within the 57.82 acre PUD. This is a general exhibit of where the project is located
along the west side of Collier Boulevard. This particular photo shows the existing
subdivision in this location here, this is the phase II property 40.62 acres. The project has
gone through significant review by staff. I commend the staff on working with the
petitioner. This petition is a little odd because this developer has been working with both
the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District as well as Elias brothers communities
to provide for shared benning access, pond site, a whole myriad of things that have gone
on in the background that have allowed us to get to you today, now I can tell you without
a doubt that this project, as proposed to you is not dependant upon any off site
Page 16
July 15, 2004
improvements, given that, phase I subdivision is constructed. The units are going up.
This is what the PUD looked like as Hibiscus Village. (He placed a map on the
Visualizer.) The proposed 40.6 addition as, I said before, is this area up here which will
add 163 more units. We are not exceeding the density rating system of 4 dwelling units
per acre. I would like to make mention that waterways development, Richard Davenport
and his partners are a steward to the community because they are providing affordable
housing proj ects on other lands. This would more be considered to be entry level
housing. The product type is going to be a single family B-simple attached dwelling unit.
They are town houses, effectively, in 4 and 6 unit buildings. The property will be
subdivided and the lot upon which the individual unit lies will be conveyed B-simple
along with the unit. This next exhibit is an example of how there is interconnectivity
related to the project. We have the primary access location as defined by the Collier
County Transportation Division along Collier Boulevard. Additionally, working with the
other land owners as well as Collier County Division of Transportation, access to that
proposed fire station would be from off site lands that we will be bringing to you in the
future. Additionally, the 16 units that are controlled by Waterways Joint Venture as a
part of that adjacent PUD would take access directly from the Summit Place Circle
Property. Therefore, the 16 units are not a consideration today; however the subdivision
as proposed can stand on its own merits. The water and sewer stubs for those 16 units are
in place, but they will not be turned on. The buffers are in place-associated with the
existing summit place phase I subdivision. The PUD you see before you will have 27
acres of conservation area. It will include enhanced and created wetlands (as well as
uplands) to provide the eco-tone that the Water Management District is currently in the
process of reviewing. We have been through two or three reviews. Weare re-submitting
and we are anticipating a September governing board date for this 98 acre project. There
are a couple of things that I need to go through in the staff report. I believe Mr. Meyer
handed out the 11 x 17 PUD document as well as some cross sections. The PUD
document that was attached in your staff report was modified only to show and to clarify
the location of the proposed Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District Station to the
South as well as the units. Only the land use changes are depicted in the master plan in
your PUD. We could adopt with or without the PUD being depicted...
Mark Strain: I like the PUD that is in the package now because it is not as specific, and
since that PUD isn't here today, I think it'd be better not to get into that kind of
specifics. . .
Dwight Nadeau: That's absolutely fine. The cross sections that were also included also
comply in entirety to the PUD master plan that is in your staff report. In regard to your
staff report, I have a couple of items that I need to bring to your attention. In the
requested action on your cover, the very last sentence says that the proposed change to is
the elimination of side yard set backs for accessory structures. That is only where
associated with preserves and lakes where there is a required green space-a 20 foot lake
maintenance easement that goes around the lakes. You are not pennitted to build in that.
Therefore, the green space is provided in the rear yard by virtue of that 20 foot lake
maintenance easement. In the preserve condition, there is a 25 foot setback for principal
structures from preserve boundaries. So, those lots that don't front on lakes or preserves,
Page 17
July 15, 2004
the have the required rear yard setback. Second point is in the PUD document, on page
26 in your staff report, section 2.15. This is merely a correction of a citation. In the
bottom third of the paragraph, you'll see the name, "Summit Place of Naples," and then
below it you'll see section 6.12b. That citation should be 6.11 b. This was a result of
moving some things around when making modifications when working with staff. The
other citation correction will be on your page III-l related to section 3.3b3 signage. Of
course we are complying with the land development code as far as signage. 6.11 should
read 6.10. In review of the staff report, I believe that Planner Meyers has done a
wonderful job, and I would like to read a couple of the staff report into the record. It
states, "The development of the subject property is timely and consistent with the
FLUE of the GMP. Furthermore, the proposed amendment to add 40.58 acres and
163 dwelling units to the existing residential PUD will not adversely impact any level
of service standard. Lastly, the revised development standards in the PUD are not
intended to support the fee simple ownership of the single-family units in this
development." Another statement in relation to the existing and proposed land uses,
"The subject property is proposed as an expansion of the already approved
residential development, at the base density allowed in the County's Comprehensive
Plan, the landscaping and buffering requirements in the LDC will mitigate any
impacts between this use and abutting uses."
Mark Strain: Aren't these already a part of record, and you are adding them into the
record?
Dwight Nadeau: Yes, but I think these are some compelling statements that show we
are in full compliance with the land development code. We asked for a number of
deviations. All of which were acceptable accept for one-the lake slope break. What
we'd like to do, is, while we agree with staff to forgo that deviation at this time, we'd like
to have the opportunity to work with the water management district prior to the board
meeting to see if we can provide the engineer compelling evidence that you don't have to
go to 10' down-based on his County sampling of water fluctuation varying between 4-
6' and 6' in the coastal areas. For safety sake, they want the slop break at 10'. If we
could come to a happy medium with engineering principles and data where it could be
somewhere between 10-7' maybe we'll get there. I just wanted to put that on the record
as well.
Robert Murray: The rezone findings. It starts on p. 2 #9. It says two stories or 35'?
That's an either or?
Dwight Nadeau: Well, the product that is being proposed and developed in the
subdivision is a two-story town home. The height limitation, I really don't know how
high the buildings are. They may be about 30'.
Robert Murray: So, I take that as no greater than 35'?
Dwight Nadeau: That is accurate. Yes, commissioner.
Page 18
July 15, 2004
Robert Murray: On table 2, III. The minimum side yard 0 or 6 feet. I need to
understand that.
Dwight Nadeau: Of course, with Commissioner Abernathy's desire to have 6' setbacks
between units and to provide for 12' separations rather than 5's and 10's we've seen
before. Weare identifying that there is going to be no setback as referenced in the note
sections on the following page, where these simple units are contained within one
building, so there would be no side yard setback between units that are attached. The
side yards would apply to the outside of the primary building.
Robert Murray: Okay, you've just made the statement that the fee simple ownership is
equal to the building structure, correct?
Dwight Nadeau: Well, the lots will be the width of the unit, but they will have the
required front yard and rear yard.
Robert Murray: And that will be in fee simple ownership. . .
Dwight Nadeau: And that will be in fee simple ownership as well.
Robert Murray: Okay, at some point I would like to look a little bit further at the
visualization of the setbacks. Looking at section IV 16.3, my note to myself is, "final
planning of site development plan application." I was trying to tackle the issue of
platting. It wasn't clear to me what you wanted to do. In fact, I thought he issue was left
open there. You want to do a PUD. Then, with the individual. .. it wouldn't be platted,
because it's all one structure, correct?
Dwight Nadeau: No, actually, these are as detennined by Mr. White in opinion, that
these are considered more single family attached units than they would be multi-family.
Thus, with the deviation that was supported by staff related to the site development plan
process, that only applies to multi-family buildings, thus these being single-family
attached, we go directly to Platt.
Robert Murray: So you do not have the site development process.
Dwight Nadeau: We do not.
Robert Murray: Okay. VII 3 J-optional, depends upon circumstances...
Dwight Nadeau: Oh, that's standard boiler plate language as it comes out of
transportation. We can strike that because we are providing for interconnectivity.
Robert Murray: Alright, and VI 4 H. The H is at the bottom of the page. My question
has to do with in perpetuity. Is it in perpetuity...?
Page 19
July 15, 2004
Dwight Nadeau: Absolutely, the conservation areas and the common areas... well, the
conservation areas will be platted and dedicated to Collier County as well as the South
Florida Water Management District without responsibility of maintenance.
Robert Murray: So are there ever cases where it is not granted in perpetuity?
Dwight Nadeau: Not to my knowledge.
Robert Murray: So the boiler plate should reflect that infonnation, or is that a given in
law?
Marjorie Student: That's in the comp plan. That is more or less a given.
Robert Murray: Go back up to "c" on that same page. It says, "and averaging 25 feet
from the landward edge of wetlands." When you use the tenn "averaging", especially
when we speak of about 15 feet above, this is when I need to understand more clearly..
Dwight Nadeau: Again, these are stipulations that are generated by staff. However, I
will explain it to you. Collier County has adopted the South Florida Water Management
District's rules for reviewing projects. Part of the rules in volume 4 of their rules, they
require an average 25 foot buffer around wetland preserve. Okay, but it can't be any less
than 10' or 15' unless you provide a structural buffer, and a structural buffer could be a
benn. What they are trying to do is prohibit untreated water and structures from going
into the preserve, so this is basically a regurgitation of language from district rules
Robert Murray: I appreciate your explanation. That gives me the knowledge I need.
Let's see now, the question in F, The pedestrian sidewalks, and bike paths, Water
Management facilities, Etc. Given the new standards for pathways and so forth, and
taking into consideration the setbacks. . .
Dwight Nadeau: This particular project doesn't fall on a side where a greenway or
pathway is proposed. The greenways are proposed on the east side of the 951 canal
across Collier Boulevard from this project. There will be a 6 or 8' sidewalk that will run
along the frontage of the property, but that will be a part of the Collier Boulevard
improvements.
Robert Murray: So there are no sidewalks to the internal of this project?
Dwight Nadeau: Oh, internally to the project, we are fully code compliant. There are
sidewalks on both sides of the street.
Robert Murray: And that takes into consideration all of the required setbacks and so
forth?
Page 20
July 15, 2004
Dwight Nadeau: Oh, yes sir. And it is also one of the defining components of how you
have your driveway linked, so that you can have the 23' parking space in front of the
garage.
Robert Murray: Okay, now I did find on page VI 5, 6.9. "Accessory structures may be
constructed simultaneously with and following.. ." I just wondered if there was any other
language. My note to myself is that if there is new language, let's see the original
language. Is there any change in that language?
Dwight Nadeau: No that's pretty much boiler plate as well. I believe that it is self
explanatory. If it isn't, I'd be happy to elaborate.
Robert Murray: No, I just wanted to know ifthere had been any change whatsoever.
Dwight Nadeau: No
Robert Murray: That ends my need for questions at the moment.
Mark Strain: Has 3 questions for staff. In the PUD, II-3. That's the page. 2.6b. Staff
did not recommend approval of this deviation, and based on your comments, I'm sure the
commissioner is probably going to follow that, and it's going to be worked out possibly
between engineers and the county BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, but on
the PUD we don't want to, Ray, at this point, I think 2.6b at this point is not applicable.
It's here, so it's subject to approval.
Ray Bellows: Yeah, this is the deviation requested by the applicant. Staff is denying,
but based on your action today, we will have it removed.
Mark Strain: Okay, because, previous PUD's, if you denied it, you didn't even put it in.
Ray Bellows: It depends on the planner involved and the time. Sometimes we have the
time to have the revisions made and time to have the document to you, and other times
we are still working with the applicant to make other changes, and not all the changes are
made, so we have to list it in the staff report.
Mark Strain: Okay. On II-5, 2.10d, "a portion of the club house may be used as a
pennanent sales facility..." You mean a temporary sales facility, "until such time as the
project sells out."
Dwight Nadeau: That is accurate, commissioner. While they will have the opportunity
to re-sell units within the subdivision. But it is a temporary use.
Mark Strain: On the Development Standards Table, 111-3, "distance between
structures." What does your copy say?
Page 21
July 15, 2004
Dwight Nadeau: The document that I have in front of me is staff s document. The 15'
was struck out and is twelve feet, underlined. I wrote the 15' in, it is my assumption that
planner Meyers tried to make it consistent with the 6' side yard setback to make it twelve.
I can live with 15.
Mark Strain: That's what I was getting at, because you got a lot of your buildings
constructed out there, right now. Further down, under minimum distance between
structures, you had ten, now you're going to twelve, are you going to spread those
finished building apart if there. ..
Dwight Nadeau: Of course, twelve would be consistent with the side yard setbacks, so I
have no objection to the 12.
Mark Strain: On VI-4, item D on that page. "The PUD shall comply with the guideline
and recommendations of US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission," and Collier County. I'd like to see inserted, regarding
potential impacts to listed species. I don't know what Collier County is going to modify
in the future in regards to language, but I'd like to make sure that... this has been
requested of all the other PUD's lately, and no one has objected.
Dwight Nadeau: Conservation Commission (comma) and Collier County?
Mark Strain: Correct.
Dwight Nadeau: Thank you.
Richard Yovanovich: In response to one of Mr. Strain's clarifications, if! can. On 2-5
regarding the use of the clubhouse as a temporary sales facility. Mr. Davenport is also
developing the project immediately across the street, which is Bristol Pines, which is
going to be an affordable housing project. He has already disclosed to his residents in his
declaration of covenants and restrictions that he would be utilizing that sales facility to
market and sell the Bristol Pines project. So if we can clarify it to all us to sell not only
this project, but Bristol Pines, we are not interested in a general real estate office, but just
the two projects that are near each other in that vicinity. We'd like to clarify that. And,
again that has already been disclosed in the declaration of covenants and restrictions, so
that isn't coming as a surprise to anybody.
Marjorie Student: I would just want to make sure, and maybe staff can help here, that it
would in no way be construed as some kind of commercial endeavor then that might run
afoul of the comp plan. I can tell you in the past, that I have no problem of temporary use
for sale, but when it comes to re-sale, that begins to look more like a real estate office
then marketing of the project, then I do have some concerns about that type of use and its
consistency with the comp plan, and whether it's commercial or not.
Ray Bellows: Would this be on a temporary basis until Bristol Pines is up and running?
Page 22
July 15, 2004
Richard Yovanovich: We don't anticipate having a sales center across the street at
Bristol Pines
Ray Bellows: So this will be a full time facility for Bristol Pines?
Richard Y ovanovich: This will be to market both the other phases of Summit Place and
Bristol Pines across the street.
Marjorie Student: Again, my concern is the commercial use where the comp plan
wouldn't allow it.
Richard Yovanovich: And we aren't intending to have any commercial use...
Mark Strain: Richard, here's what I'm suggesting. When we come down to making
stipulations. My suggestion is to change the verbiage to make it a temporary sales
facility. I'll let the temportation be up to staff when you come through and try to get an
occupational license.
Richard Yovanovich: Well, Mr. Strain, I already have a sales center.
Mark Strain: Well, if you have a sales center that has an occupational license that you
can sell off site real estate as well as the onsite, based on your PUD language, then that's
fine. That's something staff can detennine. I just want to make sure it's not pennanent
and that you don't have a real estate center there forever. That's my concern.
Richard Yovanovich: I wanted to make sure that people knew what we were going to
be doing in that sales facility, and nobody said to us, "You didn't tell us you were
planning on selling Bristol Pines product." I wanted that on the record.
Mark Strain: But your disclosure would have had to take care of that, otherwise, your
residents would have their own actions...
Richard Yovanovich: Correct, but I wanted the Commission...
Ray Bellows: I'm not sure that I am completely supportive of the idea that a single,
private development can market real estate and other developments throughout the
county and not be considered some type of quasi-commercial type of operation, or a real
estate office. We are talking about two different projects. I would need time, and we
could detennine this before the board of Commissioners, whether that is in fact a
legitimate use of the club house.
Mark Strain: The stipulation that I am considering won't have any impact on what you
have to do Ray, but that's where I'm trying to get with it...
Page 23
July 15, 2004
Richard Yovanovich: I misspoke when I said, "club house". We have a separate sales
facility, not he club house. We want to be able to use the separate sales facility for both
projects and not the club house.
Ray Bellows: That helps, thank you.
Lindy Adelstein: Page 10, last paragraph, ".. .because the properties are only 26' wide,
any side yard requirement would constrain any development in the rear yard will be
extended so that the back yards will be unusable." Why?
Dwight Nadeau: Meaning, that we are 26', Ifwe apply development standards beyond
that, you may only have a 10' area you could build your accessory structure on. I believe
what staff is trying to say is that there is not enough room to apply development
standards.
Lindy Adelstein: Ifwe have a building that is 26' wide, behind it there is a yard.
Dwight Nadeau: That' accurate.
Lindy Adelstein: Okay, so you are saying I can't put anything in that yard?
Dwight Nadeau: Oh, no. We aren't saying that at all. He's saying that the development
standards, if we applied development standards on the nits that are 16' wide- lets say
the interior units, they can use the rear yard or the accessory structures. But, he's saying
if you apply the development standards, it may render them useless. So, it would reduce
the size of the lot width, which potentially would reduce the width of any proposed
accessory structure. And, of course, if I didn't state it correctly, Mr. Meyer could state it
as well.
Lindy Adelstein: then I can assume that I could put a pool in that back yard?
Dwight Nadeau: Yes, that is accurate.
Lindy Adelstein: Because the way it reads, that they could be unusable, I didn't
understand what you were trying to bring up.
Brad Schiffer: Dwight, this concern over building of screen patios. Is there anything in
this revised PUD that is allowing people to do what they could not do before?
Dwight Nadeau: No. The previous PUD, the 02 ordinance provided for the screen
enclosures that are being pennitted by the county at this time. This is just. . .
Brad Schiffer: No they didn't..,
Richard Y ovanovich: I think what happened. I think there was an ambiguity as to
whether or not we could do extended lanais under the old language. What we're
Page 24
July 15, 2004
attempting to do now is to clarify any misconception that we could not do extended lanais
for these units. So, yes, there have been some revisions to the language to make it
absolutely clear that we can do these extensions.
Brad Schiffer: Where is that revision?
Dwight Nadeau: It's just merely in the development standards table, commissioner. It
is specifically defined as accessory structures.
Mark Strain: The table has changed in regards to setbacks for accessory structures.
Richard Yovanovich: It makes it clear that accessory structures have to meet this same
side yard setbacks as principal structures. That was the issue-whether or not we were
able to meet the same setback requirements.
Brad Schiffer: The version I have has underscores in it. Has everything that has been
changed been underscored, or have other things been added?
Mark Strain: In fact, one of my questions for staff was why we didn't get a strike
through in this case, and I didn't realize this until I pulled up the old Hibiscus PUD and
started comparing them page to page and realized that there are changes between the old
one and this one, and I think we've fleshed a lot ofthem out here today, but...
Dwight Nadeau: Commissioner, it was detennined by staff that the old ordinance would
be repealed in its entirety.
Mark Strain: That's fine, but, I mean, I don't care how old it is. A strike through would
have been helpful.
Brad Schiffer: The minimum distance between structures on accessory structures...
Why would you want to increase that? For example, someone might ant to build a trellis,
and you know, townhouse, people own the back yard, and they can build gardens and
nice stuff out there. Why would you limit the ability of someone wanting to build a nice
trellis or something out there? You know the difference between structures also means
between the accessory structure and the principal building.
Richard Yovanovich: I think what that's intended to mean, Mr. Schiffer is that you
can't have a building closer than 12'. It can be 0 or 6, but it has got to be 12'. That's
what we're talking about, the accessory structures from building A to building B has also
got to be 12'. Not internally within the building, but other buildings.
Brad Schiffer: But that also is the distance between that building in the back yard and
the main building itself. Would it not apply there also?
Richard Yovanovich: I don't believe so. I don't believe we have to separate...
Page 25
July 15, 2004
Brad Schiffer: For example on a single family lot, you can build a separate building in
your back yard and this separation is applied there...
Richard Yovanovich: No, we are not allowing any detached accessory uses. Does that
help explain it?
Brad Schiffer: That's not allowed someplace else? Another thing is, what is that fence
requirements? There's a section on fencing, but I don't really get a height. There's a lot
of buffer conversation, which would be 6-11. Is there somewhere a fence height
detennined?
Richard Yovanovich: We don't identify fences or walls other than... no there are no
fences or walls referenced. We would comply with code.
Brad Schiffer: Ok.
Richard Davenport: The homeowner's assoclatlon document does have extensive
restrictions on fences. There shall be no fences in the front yard, any house on the lake is
required to use an aluminum picket fence to improve visibility no higher than 4 feet,
because we don't want to mar people's views of the lake that they've paid for, and
anyone off the lake is allowed to use a vinyl covered chain link fence, again, no higher
than 4 feet, and they have to have at least a 40 foot gate so that people with mowers can
get in there.
Staff Report:
Robin Meyer (zoning and land development review): I'd like to clarify that last
statement on the requested action. What I was referring to there was the whole issue we
just discussed. Is the fact that one of the major changes between Hibiscus and Summit
Place was a clarification on the part of the applicant to change the requirements for
accessory structures in the rear yards to not have side yard setbacks, That was the reason
they could not develop them before. I apologize that it wasn't clear. With regards to the
PUD document, this is my first PUD, and I have learned a number of things along the
way, especially hear at the hearing today, and I apologize for not putting the strike
through and underline in there, that was simply something I wasn't aware of. What I had
gotten was a document already halfway through the process.
Brad Schiffer: Can I ask Robin a question? (Russell Budd nods) Let's go back there.
It's really the concern of some of these letters. In the old PUD you would not be able to
build screened patios in the back of your property?
Robin Meyer: Correct, there are side yard requirements for accessory structures.
Brad Schiffer: So, it is this revision that is allowing people to build the screened patio?
Robin Meyer: Yes.
Page 26
July 15, 2004
Brad Schiffer: But there are screened patio pictures in there?
Robin Meyer: There are screened patio pictures. They were allowed to bond those on
the advice of the County attorney under the assumption that they would be approved.
Brad Schiffer: So, answer to the question that I really asked Dwight is that this revision
is what's allowing screen patios. So, this is more liberal than the one prior to it.
Joseph Schmitt: Commissioner, if I could clarify, the previous PUD was not clear and
its interpretation by staff was that it did not allow it. I don't think that we ever got to an
official interpretation stage, but the petitioner's position was that it did allow it. The
agreement was that because this PUD had to come in for a PUD amendment, that it
would be clarified in this PUD. So, it was not that it didn't prohibit it, but it was that it
wasn't clear. When Richard Y ovanovich and I met many months ago in regards to this
PUD, Mr. davenport was allowed, based on his own risk, to build some units out there
with those accessories in place pending the results of this public hearing, and of course
the public hearing from the Board of County Commissioners.
Brad Schiffer: What's the old language?
Richard Yovanovich: There was a question about what were the side setback
requirements for the internal units? Because, we were doing a single family project that
include the dirt versus your typical condo. So we went in and we verified that there were
no side setback requirements for the individual units, ok? We always thought that it
meant not only for the principal structure, but that it also applied for the accessory
structure. Staff didn't read it our way, so we are coming in and making it crystal clear,
that not only the zero setback for side for the principal, it also applies to the accessory
structure. You will be hearing from the individual who originally raised the concern
about that, and I think the concern has been alleviated regarding that. It's a very popular
option for people to extend out their lanai, and we just want to make sure that they can
continue to do that.
Mark Strain: Besides the issues you just spoke of, on the version you have in front of
you, they have changed quite a few others on the development standards table to reflect
the fact that they now have a 26 foot wide attached single family fee simple home,
because before there, and you can see by what's in front of you, that wasn't necessarily
addressed. But, yeah, I mean there are things that are working. It's just that there are a
lot of changes; it's just that you didn't see them all.
Brad Schiffer: But how would we know that there were? The packet we had, obviously
you were smart enough to go chase it out, but, I mean, you are not supposed to play
"Where's Waldo" with these things, I don't think...
Mark Strain: But, I think they are trying to bring up to speed the Development
Standards table that they are really going by, versus the one that was not quite so clear in
the prior PUD. . .
Page 27
July 15, 2004
Robert Murray: I'd like to understand, if there are no setbacks, and someone wishes to
build a screen house. They are on their lot line, so to speak? (Robin Meyer: Yes) The
persons adjacent, they are on their lot line. Who owns the screen if it's dead center on?
Robin Meyer: Well, you'd come up right to your lot line and then you stop. And he
comes up to the other side of the lot line...
Robert Murray: So then you have a space between?
Robin Meyer: Well, in theory you could have a space in between, or you could have the
screens touching one another. It depends on how you want to build it.
Robert Murray: So how maintenance would be accomplished, etc? I visualize the
pictures in the packet, and this is so much better to see. I have a number of questions.
Staff didn't agree with the language and now is in support ofthe changed language?
Robin Meyer: In which one are you talking about?
Robert Murray: I'm talking particularly about the extensions-the setbacks.
Robin Meyer: Actually, staff, as far as something being requested by the property
owner, is not something that is an issue for us. It's an issue for the property owners that
have purchased under the old standards. Now I understand that that is something that has
been worked out, but were they to come in and request this now, it seems to make
reasonable use of the property. If you take a 26' wide rear yard, you take 6' from either
yard, you are only leaving 16' to do anything. You have this narrow little corridor that
makes it really hard to really do anything as far as a structure, and it really makes it seem
unreasonable to focus all of the development within that.
Robert Murray: So the county wouldn't object if someone were to build a half wall and
extend a screen from there, so there would be some privacy. There's a concern with
someone looking into someone else's home. So, no problem with obstruction with the
association. Would the builder be concerned with that as well?
Robert Murray: Well, the builder is requesting it.
Robin Meyer: The builder is requesting these changes.
Robert Murray: A solid wall?
Robin Meyer: Well, I don't know what the builder is requesting. They are just simple
requesting the ability to build within that rear yard.
Robert Murray: Page 5, sentence ending with, "appears to be consistent." So the staff is
taking the position that is consistent with that. (Meyer: yes) Page 6, the force main will
Page 28
July 15, 2004
be ready, correct? (Meyer: yes) That's what I'm hearing. (Meyer: yes) And then, page
6 as well, the EAC report, as well, we were to receive something from the EAC today.
Robin Meyer: Yes, well I never got to my presentation; this was taken before the EAC
and they had no issues with it.
Robert Murray: No issues, okay. Transportation. On p. 10 it says under neighborhood
meeting that transportation will address the issue raised...
Robin Meyer: Actually, there is more detail under transportation analysis. They did
review this, and based on the projected expansion of Collier Boulevard, there will be
adequate capacity of Collier Boulevard to handle this traffic.
Russell Budd: Robin, it might be appropriate to get back onto the conclusion of your
report.
Robin Meyer: Thank you, yes. I would like to at least go through here very quickly. I
think Mr. Nadeau did a great job in summarizing. I would say with the deviations, if our
engineering commission can be satisfied, that's fine with us, we simply denied that one
based on their recommendation, and would be happy to work out a compromise on that
one, if it can be worked out. There was a citizens meeting held for this on Sept. 3, 2003,
obviously, no one really lives in this area, so we had just a few people from Vanderbilt
County Club come to hear what was going on, other than that, very little. The main
controversy as reflected in my staff report is the issue. We have 200 and some units that
were approved in the vision of some of the people, that they could not build in their rear
yard, and that is now being changed. There are some concerns regarding that, and I think
they are valid concerns, but from a zoning perspective, it's not really taking anything
away from the development, and it's not going to adversely affect anyone other than the
view, so I have concurred with that recommendation. Other than that, I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
Brad Schiffer: Looking at the old PUD, they were allowed to build single family units,
two units together and multi-family units. But these units are townhouses, right?
Robin Meyer: They are townhouses.
Brad Schiffer: So how were they building them before they had this approval?
Robin Meyer: Well, actually, I can answer that. There was the detennination that these
townhouses with single family ownership, are pennitted within Collier County code.
Brad Schiffer: With fire walls in between them and everything else, as a townhouse
has?
Robin Meyer: Yes. There was quite a bit of discussion regarding...
Page 29
July 15, 2004
Re2istered Public Speakers
Len Stout: I am a future homeowner at Summit Place. I bought my unit in October of
2002, and it should be ready sometime later this fall. I did have a concern about the
extension. Subsequent, to my raising the concern, I researched several different
properties-some have zero lot lines where portico construction in the rear is
commonplace, more recently, I was at a home in N. Naples in the 5-8 hundred thousand
dollar range, and I believe there was only 10 feet between the homes, but the home I was
in, there was a home right next to it, and beyond that, they put a 20' screened, cement,
patio extension. So, when I look at that, I see, well, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
You see your patio however you wish it to be, and I feel, at this point, that my objections
have been resolved. A lot of people like these things. I see a lot of them being built. I
just think there's a... especially when I saw this $600,000.00 home with a 20' extension
right next door, I mean, I could look right into their patio, and they could look right into
the house I was in, so Ijust don't feel it's an issue.
Brad Schiffer: Just a quick question, Len. Some of the e-mails were from people who
couldn't attend, and they sort of put the burden on you to make these points.
Len Stout: They sure did.
Brad Schiffer: Are you going to be tarred and feathered now?
Len Stout: No, they fully agree with me. I kind of started the ball rolling and they knid
of hopped on my tail.
Mark Strain: Mr. Stout, I want to thank you, because you brought a lot of this to
everybody's attention months ago, and your tenacity has provided the outcome today, and
also has helped with the one that didn't get heard today, and it will probably be better
when it does come forward, so thank you.
Len Stout: Thank you.
Richard Y ovanovich: I just want to clarify one thing. Everybody who has bought a
unit in there has had the opportunity to do an extension. Some chose to, and some
didn't. It's been disclosed. It was not a shock to anyone. I'm glad we had the
opportunity to work with Mr. Stout to relay the concerns of the people he represents.
Russell Budd closed the public hearing.
Mark Strain made a motion to recommend approval of PUDZ-2003-AR-4046 with
the following staff recommendations:
1. Support staff's objection to the deviation of the side slope, subject to further
review by Stan Krysnowski of the Collier County engineering staff, and for
Page 30
July 15, 2004
possible recommendation by him to a compromise or a change in that side
slope deviation before the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
meeting.
2. Clean up the language in the PUD as recommended by Commissioner
Murray.
3. The sales center language will reflect that the sales center is temporary.
4. The minimum distance between single family attached is to be 15' and not
12'.
5. 6.8.d The addition of Collier County to the list of agencies concerning
species preservation.
Second by Robert Murray. Being no discussion, Russell Budd called the question.
The motion carried unanimously. (5-0)
There was discussion over whether or not Item G should begin due to the time and the
concern that people had been told that it would not be discussed until 1:15. It was
decided that it would begin, and then continue after lunch.
G. Petition: PUDZ-2003-AR-5087, Collier County Board of County
Commissioners represented by Stephen G. Sposato, AICP of Agnoli, Barber &
Brundage, Inc., requesting a rezone from "PU" Public Use to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development to be known as the Collier County Government Center PUD. The
project will consist of a maximum of 996,799 square feet of building area for
permitted and accessory government center uses. The project is located at 3301
Tamiami Trail East. The project is in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 55± acres. (Coordinator: Michael Bosi)
Russell Budd swore in all those wishing to testify on PUDZ-2003-AR-5087.
Disclosures: None.
Petitioner:
Stephen Sposato: Good morning and thank you. I'm here on behalf of Collier County,
and Skip Camp is here. He's the facilities management director. Thank you for the
opportunity to make this presentation. Weare here to review the PUD for the Collier
County Government Center. Let me give you some background and then describe the
project. The site was acquired in 1960's to move the county seat from Everglades City to
where we are today. It's home to 5 constitutional offices, and it's 55 acres. The current
zoning is public use. The DRI was approved by the regional planning council and the
board in 2000, and the process with the DRI is to look at large projects and evaluate
impacts on more substantial and regional issues. The DRI approved a master plan with a
build out approximately 1 million square feet. The County had to pay an architectural
finn to work with them to develop the campus and to allocate space and buildings to meet
the growth of the county. Weare proposing to implement the DRI through the PUD
Page 31
July 15, 2004
process. The PUD process, of course includes more site specific, more design related
issues that the DR! does not address. The land use intensities, major access issues are the
same as presented in the DRI. I have the master plan over here on the wall; you can see
the major components of the master plan. They include a pedestrian corridor, a
redirection of major traffic flow connecting airport to US41, a series of parking decks.
The main fonn of the campus is as it is now. There are several exhibits that are in the
PUD document. Exhibit A is the PUD master plan, showing that structure. Of
significance is Exhibit B, which shows maximum building heights. As you can see,
there's a gradient from the residential areas along this border, 35 & 50 & a maximum
110. The building that we are in right now is in the high 90's as well as the court house
building. Building H, has a specific height restriction of 5 stories or 75 feet. Exhibit C
shows the future traffic circulation plan. It goes over what I said about the major traffic
loop from US41 to Airport Road. That identifies, like, classification, the other roads in
the PUD. There are specifications for each one of those. Exhibit D is the landscape plan,
and we sort of inventoried the different areas-the different perimeter buffers, and made
specific recommendations to that issue. Kristen Petry with Pergola will make a brief
presentation that's abutting the residential area. We had a community meeting on this
project. Significant issues were building height, specifically building H, and because of
that, we did lower the height to 75 feet or 5 stories on that building. Another issue had to
do with access-specifically The Glades and Palm Drive. There is a significant concern
about traffic that enters the government center from that side of the campus. The County
has been working with the residents for awhile on that project, and I think Don Scott is
here and available to answer questions regarding that. We have a recommendation from
the staff for approval with 6 deviations. They primarily deal with signage issues.
Because of the nature of the types of uses-the meetings, the services, the types of
activities and just the size of the campus, we are asking for flexibility regarding directing
people where to go on the campus. The other deviations have to do with security, given
the facilities management director the ability to approve walls and other like things
regarding public safety. There is also a deviation regarding sidewalks. Weare asking, in
accordance with the circulation plan, we are asking for that to be the policy for the
sidewalks rather than the requirement to have sidewalks on both sides of the road for a
local type road.
Robert Murray: I'm concerned. On US41, there is a bail bond building and then
there's an area where occasionally vehicles are parked in anticipation of an auction and
so forth. Quite frankly, it's ugly. I'm just wondering, is there going to be a structure
there?
Skip Camp: There is going to be a structure there, and we are going to be doing some
landscaping at the end of that project which starts this fall.
Mark Strain: Over by the church, you have a proposed parking garage. Directly north
of that, it shows a grass area, which it shows as not a part of the complex, yet I know it is
a part of the complex, so did you miss it, and should you include it as a part of your PUD
so we don't forget it?
Page 32
July 15, 2004
Skip Camp: The property belongs to the church. The County is leasing it in a joint
effort where we use it during the week and the church uses it on the weekend, and the
church uses it as a parking lot.
Mark Strain: How do they get in there? They have to come through county property
then?
Skip Camp: No, they actually have a direct connect.
Mark Strain: Not for the piece... I just saw a man go all the way down and around to
get in there. Right there, that green grass area. You can't get into it without going
through County property, and that's why I thought it was county property. I'm parked
there right now.
Skip Camp: It definitely belongs to the church. Weare just leasing it.
Mark Strain: Okay. We are leasing it with an access to our property. It's a C-3 use
connected with a principal structure that isn't being used...
Brad Schiffer: We own parcels across the street. Across airport, across 41 ?
Skip Camp: Weare leasing the old Barnett Bank building, is that what you are asking?
Brad Schiffer: I mean, this is all we own, what you show? There's noting across the
street?
Kristen Petry: Good morning, everybody. I am going to be talking about the buffer that
is on the property line that separates the government complex from The Glades
residential community. And usually what we try to do when we have a landscape
renovation is to simply look at what is existing. I'm going to focus your attention on the
first board which represents our existing condition. I think a terrific thing to do is to
photograph what you have because that is the absolute reality of what is there, and
sometimes you can really see things in a photograph that you don't always see when you
are standing there looking at it. For instance, sometimes I think it's more possible to see
where we actually have our masses of planting and where the plant masses break down,
and where we have holes that need to be plugged in. Basically, the photo shows that
there are trees, which are primarily oak trees with a couple of Black Olives. They are
roughly 50' on center, and there is an existing Fichus tree that's maintained at this point
at around 3' all around. We see the slope that comes down into this significant existing
swale that's there. Plain grass slope. What I get in looking at this is that I have these
gaps that are in between these oak trees, and that probably the fichus hedge isn't doing
much to separate the two uses from each other. Looking at it in a visual way, I think
about what I can do to make this more in line with what we in Collier County are used to
seeing. What they have is a layering of heights and a layering of colors and textures, and
that's what we tried to achieve with this buffer. Building on what I was just talking
about, through the magic of AutoCAD and Computers these days, it's possible to take
Page 33
July 15, 2004
your photograph and overlay graphics on top that would indicate what we think our
planting should look like in about three years time. What I suggest is that we plug in the
gaps between the existing oak trees with new oak trees that would grow and that would
fill in up above and be our high level planting story. In front of the hedge, toward the
Glades side, what I propose would be drifts of Dwarf Schefflera and Crotons. The reason
for that is that I think these are plant materials that are appropriate to the use. It is very
shady over there. I think these start to create the look that we are used to seeing in
Naples. Then, there's the ground cover in front. In front of the larger shrubs, it creates
our lowest ground story. So, the Philodendron Xanadu is our lower story. What that
brings us to is the necessity of creating a planting plan. This is the document that the
guys usually build by. It directly correlates to what I have been talking about. This
shows the existing oak trees and the planned new ones, the Dwarf Schefflera, the Croton,
and the Philodendron Xanadu. In that way I think we are accomplishing what we set out
to do which is to separate the two uses, to create something with appropriate plant
materials, and to create something that is visually pleasing. With that I would open it up
for any questions that you might have for me.
Robert Murray: Having to do with line of sight, I see some tall building.. Where are
you taking the pictures from?
Kristen Petry: I'm standing on the Glades side, looking out.
Robert Murray: So this is what they would see?
Kristen Petry: Yes, and what I did was actually walk up on one of the second floor
units and knock on the door. No one was home, I didn't want to scare the wits out of any
of them, but I wanted to look, to see what these people see. Where are the canopies of
these oak trees? And from those second story units, your eyes are looking right out into
those canopies. The line of sight-those canopies are physically over your head when
you are standing there on that second floor unit looking out.
Robert Murray: Is that representative of that area you think entirely?
Kristen Petry: Yes, I do.
Robert Murray: And you believe that within 3 years we would see that.
Kristen Petry: Yes, with correct maintenance, this is absolutely critical. We would
need correct fertilization and irrigation.
Lindy Adelstein: I have to say I think this will do a good job and I think this will be
very pleasant for us. Literally, the beauty and the County commission offices will not be
as visible as they have been.
Brad Schiffer: Are there any walls, fencing. . . ?
Page 34
July 15, 2004
Kristen Petry: At the moment, no.
Brad Schiffer: Will there be?
Kristen Petry: I'm going to turn that over to Steven.
Stephen Sposato: That's one of the deviations, to request a deviation from the wall
requirement where you have a residential abutting a non-residential, commercial
institutional.
Stephen Sposato: We did a cross section of the canal that is between this side of the
Glades and the campus. This is a cross section. To this side is the elevation of the lawn
on the Glades side and it kind of slopes down and this is the bottom of the canal and it
goes back up. I highlighted this in here; this is basically where the property line is. This,
you can see edge of pavement, and this is an example of the elevation where the parking
area starts on the government complex side. And, then this is what Kristin did a cross
section again of how the layering works. We tried to achieve a wall using landscaping
material, which in the long tenn, we think will be a more pleasing buffer, and less
institutional than if we built a solid wall.
Robert Murray: Is that slope as severe as it appears to be.
Kristen Petry: It is.
Stephen Sposato: It's more severe on the government complex side.
Robert Murray: Don't we have a problem with irrigation then-with water running
away from the plants?
Kristen Petry: Well, the simple answer, yeah, is that water runs down hill, but some of it
will seep in. The plant material there, particularly the oak trees is surviving on the
irrigation system that is there, and I dare say if the irrigation system were updated there
would be enough percolation down into the ground to support the plant material that we
are proposing. The other thing is that if the irrigation system were not adequate, the sod
would not be living. That's the first thing that goes, particularly with the hot weather
we're having, and the little amount of rain that we have been having.
Stephen Sposato: Excuse me, but you are absolutely correct. We went ahead and
completed this project in advance. We did it last month. There were a number of trees
that did die and we are replacing those. Weare going to have to keep a very close eye
on this. We do know that there is a potential problem there, and we will keep that
landscape in shape.
Robert Murray: But you don't intend to change the slope angle?
Stephen Sposato: No, sir, we don't. But, we do plan to maintain that landscaping.
Page 35
July 15, 2004
Brad Schiffer: When you said there's a canal. Is that a water body or a drainage
canal. .. ?
Stephen Sposato: yes sir, it's a canal. It's a water management canal.
Brad Schiffer: Our property is draining into that, not the neighbor's property.
Stephen Sposato: Correct, we don't discharge directly into that canal.
Brad Schiffer: But the slope... you know with the...
Stephen Sposato: Everything drains internal into the site through the lake system and
then is discharged to the canal down stream.
Robert Murray: I just want a confinnation from the young lady, that you are
comfortable, predicated on the, that it will sustain.
Kristen Petry: Yes, it will sustain.
Staff:
Michael Bosi: One thing, just to get the staff presentation satisfied. There was one
amendment to the PUD document that you have in hand, and that was based upon
conversation that was initiated last week at the direction of Diane Flag with the direction
of Joe Schmitt. That relates to the sidewalk deviation. We understand that this is a 60%
complete project, and to implement the current regulations within the land development
code can be problematic based upon the exiting developments at the time, but we are
going to allow the deviation up into a point. We have coordinated with Skip Camp, and
the new language will say that, "At the time the site development submittal for the new
County Commission building and the parking garage associated with the new County
Commission Building, all vehicular and pedestrian transportation systems internal to the
project, shall be brought into compliance with subsections 3.2.8.3.17 and 3.2.8.3.18 of
the Land Development Code, or successor provision, in effect at the time of submittaL"
And what that's going to do is require that sidewalks will be implemented on both sides
of the streets on all of the internal transportation systems and CDS administrator Schmitt
really felt that we as the government center- the land use that really has the most
interaction on a daily basis with the public. This is an example of where the pedestrian
networks really need to be highlighted and implemented, with the context of
understanding the space limitations, until certain improvements are arranged, and we
thought that this was a compromise the facilities management could live with, and that
CDS and the planning commission can live with, because at the time of the new County
Commission building, the transportation systems and pedestrian systems in particular are
going to be brought up to speed. A further clarification that the applicant had questioned
me on... Within the staff recommendation for the project, I recommend approval with
the 6 deviations that are listed. The wording states, "except for the deviations," and that
Page 36
July 15, 2004
may have conveyed that staff was not supporting the deviations that are included with the
PUD document. That was not my intent. The staff is supporting the 6 deviations
requested by the applicant. On a final note, this was a unique PUD rezone, because the
intensity of the land use and transportation- that's a vested nature with the approved
DR!. The task of the rezone exercise was to craft the development standards that are
going to promote the greatest degree of compatibility with the adjacent residential
property and the adjacent overall area. I believe that the applicant has done that to the
greatest extent with the landscape buffers, and the eventual improvements upon the
sidewalks and transportation system, and with that, staff is supporting the rezone action
as presented. I will accept any questions.
Lindy Adelstein: Weren't you going to present another change in order on development
commitments, page 13.
Michael Bosi: There was a conversation yesterday with Lindy Adelstein, not
commissioner Adelstein, because he was acting un. ..
Lindy Adelstein: No, I'm talking about the one in which the government complex
reaches 750,000 square feet
Michael Bosi: I believe that was included within your passage.
Lindy Adelstein: There was a change.
Brad Schiffer: I don't have a 4.58, if that's what you're referencing III your
deviations... I stop at G on 4.5
Michael Bosi: The additional handout that I provided to you. ..that was not included,
that was added in the last week. . .
Brad Schiffer: Okay, I see it...
Lindy Adelstein: Okay, let's stop this here and pick up after lunch. I want a discussion.
LUNCH BREAK:
RECONVENE:
11:27
1:15
Russell Budd reconvened the Collier County planning commission meeting. A
quorum was established.
Michael Bosi: There was one point that Lindy Adelstein pointed out. A revision to an
existing transportation document, and that was in the PUD document 4.5 under the
transportation heading, "G". It talks about the build-out ofthe Collier County government
center reaches 750 square feet of total building intensity including parking structures, the
County shall change the Harrison road entrance from a right in, right out condition to a
Page 37
July 15, 2004
one way condition. I revised that language with, "into the government center," just for
more specificity as to where this change would occur.
Lindy Adelstein: And it's 750,000
Ray Bellows: The square footage... I think it's our opinion that it should be excluding
parking decks. The parking decks don't add any intensity...
Michael Bosi: Square footage of the occupied building.
Ray Bellows: Whatever the traffic generator, office space would be...
Michael Bosi: Okay, very good.
Mark Strain: So, what's the total square footage of building space excluding parking
garages?
Michael Bosi: 900 and.. .
Mark Strain: Oh, so that 900 is exclusive of parking garages?
Michael Bosi: Yes, sir.
Mark Strain: Yes, sir.
Michael Bosi: I did want to mention on the height of building H, the original PUD
document had included 90 feet, we thought that that would create incompatibility issues,
and we are comfortable with the now proposed 75 feet with the 5 story limitation. As I
pointed out in the staff report. A like zoning category would only require a setback of 50
feet for a building of that height. The distance between building H and the property line
is 110 feet from the property line. We felt that was an appropriate height based on the
standards in the LDC and that actual separation between the property line and the health
building.
Robert Murray: The signs. I know that we want to have freedom to put them out as
many as we need, and also temporary signs... Do we do that with malls, flea markets, or
any outdoor movie, or any other large facilities?
Michael Bosi: They are entitled to those signs. They are required to come into
community development, environmental services to obtain a temporary use pennit for
those individual signs. Based upon the number of events, Skip has requested to be
exempt from that pennitting through the temporary use pennit and allow the placement
of signs to the size requirements that are contained within the deviation.
Robert Murray: Could I go to the DR! dock, please?
Marjorie Student: It's not up for...
Page 38
July 15, 2004
Michael Bosi: The DRI was included within your packet. ..
Marjorie Student: But he may have some questions about the interplay between the
two.
Ray Bellows: The PUD zoning that's included with this petition is increasing intensity,
so, therefore, there is no substantial deviation that the DRI, and no amendment of the DRI
IS necessary.
Robert Murray: Okay, then I'll just ask the question, and I won't use the tenn, "DRI."
In a certain document it says, "Affordable housing requires a reanalysis before phases III
and II are affected." Will we have such a reanalysis of that? Also, Palm drive and
Harrison road, have we solved the road traffic problem? Also, have we (page 8) " C.O.'s
are no longer required." You wouldn't file any kinds of pennits to show the activities?
Michael Bosi: We would go through the nonnal pennit like everyone-a pennit and a
C.O. Absolutely.
Robert Murray: And with regards to the fines. We would not fill any documents out?
Michael Bosi: Not with regard to the smaller signs. We would for all of the regular
signs. But if they meet the requirements for directional signs. . .
Robert Murray: Okay, I understand it now.
Mark Strain: Did you attach the DRI to this document?
Michael Bosi: It was contained within the distribution packet.
Mark Strain: I have an ordinance number 04 blank, and I'm assuming that's the PUD
ordinance that we are going to discuss today, and I have development order, but the DRI
document usually is rather huge, and I just didn't find that.
Robert Murray: What I referred to... that's the development order, I apologize.
Mark Strain: Well, that I do have, but that's not a DRI, that just incorporates the DRI.
The DR! document itself, I haven't seen.
Michael Bosi: The development order that incorporates the DR! is what I included with
the packet.
Ray Bellows: What we're referring to was the DRI development order.
Mark Strain: Okay. Back to the PUD. Item 4.5g. My separate question- It says,
"From a right in, right out condition to a one way condition." Is there any preference on
which way that is? Is it in or out?
Page 39
July 15, 2004
Michael Bosi: It's in.
Mark Strain: You want to clarify that?
Michael Bosi: Yes.
Mark Strain: In your staff report, it says that "staff believe it to make a finding of
consistency with the overall GMP, that PUD document must include one clarification to
the zones of building height proposed by the PUD document to address compatibility."
Did that get into the PUD?
Michael Bosi: Yes, that was the clarification for the 5story max. We had originally
went down to 75 feet, but then we further wanted to clarify the 75 feet with a maximum
of 5 stories. That was included within the document, but, unfortunately, I neglected to
put that in the staff report.
Lindy Adelstein: In the past, we have had a certain assurance, probably because the way
Mr. Camp has been running this, that any contractor coming into the complex would not
enter using Palm Drive at the Harrison entrance. I wonder if there is any way that we
could get some assurance that that will continue.
Skip Camp: Procedurally, we will continue to do that kind of management. We have
signs all over the complex directing commercial vehicles to 41 and Airport. We will
continue to do that. It serves the Glades well and our contractors well. I think we
probably have 5 directional signs now leading them to 41 and Airport.
Lindy Adelstein: Subject to that condition, couldn't there be anything else said to make
sure that this does go forward? Beyond you. The problem is, what about the future?
Michael Bosi: Mr. Bellows and Mr. Schmitt had both had concerns about that type of
language to be contained within a zoning document. Marjorie Student has said that
some modification would be needed, as was presented yesterday as to whether that
should exist in a zoning document or should exist somewhere else separately. So, in that
respect, I would have to defer to the opinions of those people about the necessary
inclusion of such language in a zoning document and defer that to another mechanism to
ensure that that condition continues to be met.
Lindy Adelstein: Is there any possibility Marjorie Student has an answer to that?
Marjorie Student: I had come up with some language for it, but I understand from Mr.
Camp that that there is a policy in place.
Skip Camp: I understand how important this is to you, and, again, I will do my best to
make sure that this unwritten policy continues. We do this in preconstruction meetings
and with our contractors that come in on an ongoing basis-small vendors and
contractors. I will personally do my best to make sure that that continues. I'll work with
Page 40
July 15, 2004
the purchasing department and my project managers. I think you've alluded to the fact
that we've been doing a pretty good job, and we'll make it even tighter. I do pledge that
to you.
Lindy Adelstein: You've been doing an excellent job. In fact, I've never seen one go in
another way.
Marjorie Student: Just as a matter legally, I had come up with some wording, because
in other instances, just to protect the integrity of the neighborhood, we have done some
conditions as it related to construction traffic and such, but from a planning perspective, I
don't know if Mr. Schmitt or Mr. Bellows may wish to address the issue.
Ray Bellows: The only issue I would have is the separate non-county vendor traffic
versus county vendor traffic. If you try to put a limitation that would only apply to
County vehicles, I think you'd have a hard time enforcing it.
Ray Schmitt: I would concur. I think that kind of language would make people feel
better, but would be nothing more. It would be difficult to enforce, and it is language that
really does not belong in a zoning document. There are other methods to deal with that.
Brad Schiffer: What review did you do? You said that this meets the Bayshore Gateway
Triangle Redevelopment overlay standards? What was done to ensure that?
Michael Bosi: The comprehensive planning department provides the GMP evaluation,
and when arriving at a conclusion, they have to evaluate the regulations that are
contained within the growth management plan for that specific Bayshore Overlay district
to make sure the uses are allowed within that overlay district, and the comprehensive plan
for the planning department, provided for myself with a memo of consistency indicating
that it did meet all the criteria set for it within the growth management plan for projects
within the Bayshore overlay district.
Brad Schiffer: For an office building? For example, Bayshore has a requirement that,
for example, 80% of the office building has to be within 5 feet of the street property line.
None of these are anywhere near that.
Stephen Sposato: There' another geographic area within the Bayshore, this project does
not meet that.
Brad Schiffer: The uses that are within this... everything is called office space here, but
we know that it's not. There's no breakdown of uses, or anything like that that I've seen.
Michael Bosi: Within section 3.3 it lists the pennitted uses...
Brad Schiffer: But the square footage, or what's existing, what's not existing...
Page 41
July 15, 2004
Michael Bosi: At the beginning of the staff report, I pointed out that based upon the
current build out that there was 589 thousand of office space constructed right now.
Brad Schiffer: But, for example, jail space? This room for example, isn't even office
space. What are the breakdowns of the uses? And, when it says that the almost million
square feet of office space, does that include non-office space?
Ray Bellows: I think I can answer that. I worked on the DR! for this government center.
The DRI specifies the breakdown of various square footages. The PUD document
doesn't necessarily have to replicate those breakdowns. The DRI development order
goes into that.
Brad Schiffer: But when everything is referenced as office space, so, in other words, the
jail s not in addition to the office space, it is within the office space?
Ray Bellows: Yeah, and the DR! talks about the jail sizes.
Brad Schiffer: And we don't have the DRI, so...
Ray Bellows: And this is not an increase over what was already approved. It was
basically a fonnality to change from the P zoning that the DRI was approved under, to a
PUD document that better addresses development standards and landscaping, etc.
Brad Schiffer: Again, my only concern is that everything is always called out as office
space. The health department building that you are going to raise... is it designed to have
additional floors built on it?
Skip Camp: Yes. It is designed for 3 additional floors.
Robert Murray: Mr. Camp. My interest in that parcel I called ugly, earlier. You are
going to have a structure there, a building correct?
Skip Camp: Part of that will be the site that will contain one of 3 parking decks. In
addition to that there will be a large addition to a landscaped retention pond, and that's by
the water management system.
Robert Murray: So will they continue to auction the vehicles on the campus?
Skip Camp: The answer to that question is that we will probably have an off site
location for those vehicles. What we don't know is that if we can use part of the parking
deck. We will probably look for someplace off site.
Mark Strain: Does anybody know the floor area that the RTIS was based on? The
maximum?
Stephen Sposato: It was based on the DIR build out. 996 thousand.
Page 42
July 15, 2004
Mark Strain: So it included the vested areas?
Stephen Sposato: Yes sir, but may I make the point that actually jails are exempt from
the DIR process. They did include those in the traffic impact analysis that they did.
Mark Strain: How old was that traffic impact?
Stephen Sposato: It was done as a part of the DR!. I think it was approved in 2000, so
probably most of the data is 1999. As part of this, we did update some ofthese numbers
as a part of this submittal.
Mark Strain: We didn't receive those either. I don't have a TIS, do you have it? I want
to make sure that the TIS included the gross amount the 996,977 and that you say the jail
was included in the 1999 analysis, did they anticipate correctly the size ofthe jail that we
have today?
Michael Bosi: I apologize; they did submit a 2003 annual traffic monitoring report based
upon the approved 996, 977 square feet as per the DR!.
Mark Strain: I would at some point like a copy ofthat.
Michael Bosi: Absolutely.
Re2istered Speakers: None.
Russell Budd closed the public hearing until a motion would be made.
Mark Strain made a motion to approve PUDZ-2003-AR-5087 "subject to staff
recommendations and the changes that were provided on the sheet provided with
three elements on it. In addition to that, one of those elements was changed to
require the Harrison road to go one way with an incoming one way and not an
outgoing. Also, the 750,000 square feet will exclude parking decks." Second by
Lindy Adelstein.
Discussion:
Mark Strain: Lindy, if we were to add a stipulation to institute a policy for construction
contracts for this PUD that will include a provision to discourage the use of Harrison
Road as an access for construction traffic, would that fonn a legal problem for the county
attorney?
Marjorie Student: I would rather see just an absolute condition related to the impacts
that might be attributable to this project. I have concerns about the government by law
Page 43
July 15, 2004
deeming what can and cannot be in contracts. There are a couple of constitutional
provisions that deal with this. One is the impainnent to or regulation of what can or
cannot be in contracts. If there was another way to do it, and that's why I had some
alternate language that didn't reference putting it in a contract. It was just a condition,
similar to conditions placed on projects before, due to the impacts of construction traffic
and the magnitude of the project.
Mark Strain: So, if we simply said that one ofthe stipulations is that construction traffic
will be discouraged from the use of Harrison Road, that would work?
Marjorie Student: I think so. The language I had was, "Access via Palm Drive to the
government center complex by construction traffic for this project shall be prohibited."
Lindy Adelstein: Now, that I could accept.
Mark Strain: Now, if there's no problem with my motion, I'd just as soon change my
motion to reflect that language as well.
Lindy Adelstein: I would second that.
Brad Schiffer: The height again, Mark? You were saying it's 75 feet where?
Mark Strain: It applies to that health building.
Brad Schiffer: And then he jumped up and said, "not including parking."
Mark Strain: No, that's for the 750,000 calculation that triggers the Harrison Road.
Brad Schiffer: Ok.
There being no further discussion, Russell Budd called the question. The motion
carried unanimously. (5-0)
H. Comprehensive Plannin2 Evaluation and Appraisal Report, (E.A.R.) - A
Seven Year Evaluation and Appraisal Report for the Growth Management Plan
Transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. (Coordinator: Randy Cohen)
Stan Litsinger: This item that we have before you is not new to you, but I would like to
tell you where we are at in the process. As you are aware, for the last 2 years, we have
been developing our required 7 year evaluation and appraisal report on the
comprehensive plan. The process has included 5 public workshops and joint meetings.
The most recent was on May 1 ih. This is the 6th advertised public hearing for the
planning commission to make recommendations to the board on July the 2ih for adoption
of the EAR report. I'd like to make the clear the distinction that we are adopting a report
and not amendments top the comprehensive plan. This report identifies the failings,
shortcomings and successes over the last seven years and identifies some proposed
Page 44
July 15, 2004
comprehensive plan amendments, which at the time we are able to receive a sufficiency
review from the dept. of community affairs, we will have 18 months in which to adopt
the identified amendments. Very quickly, in order to bring you up to date on the contents
of the voluminous document that we sent you, we have several items we'd like to point
out. One is the water resources facility supply plan, and as we noted to you in an e-mail
response top legislation this past session which extended the due date for our local; water
resources supply plan, we are going to withhold the water facilities supply plan at this
time, so that the work can continue with the S. Florida Water Management District to
coordinate the contents of the two reports, since the lower west coast plan has not been
completed. Also, in your packets, you will note that we have attached the responses
which have been collected since May 17th to the well thought questions that were raised
by Commissioner Strain. Weare also prepared to discuss those. Also included is a well
considered proposal from the Conservancy of SW Florida, relative to watershed
management planning. We also are prepared with their director, the water management
department to provide some responses and recommendations relative to a decision to
recommend inclusion of the Conservancy's recommendation in the EAR report. We also
have 4 topics on which we would like to make a very brief clarification presentation in
response to questions and issues raised at the May 1 ih workshop. We want to address
the issues of the density bonus system, density in the coastal high hazard area, retail
development and activity centers, and affordable housing potential on non-confonning
lots throughout the county. I should note that on a couple of those subjects, Marjorie
Student of the County attorney's office will want to provide some input relative to the
propriety of some of those changes associated with the legal impacts or potential impacts
on property rights. Then, we would go to your questions and answer. What we would
propose to do is have the Conservancy present there position relative to watershed
management plans, and then have the staff give our r4sponses and comments on that
proposal, and then give you our recommendations and comments on that proposal in the
very beginning. We would then follow it up by the presentations on the four topics as
noted, then go directly into your questions you may have on the plan.
Mark Strain: Can I ask a procedural question of our County attorney? This is a big
book...
Marjorie Student: Yes it is.
Mark Strain: Is it all or none? Ifwe have discrepancies about it today about portions we
can't resolve, do we say the whole thing is no-go until those are resolved or?
Marjorie Student: Well, I believe that what we would do is apprise staff of the
comments and make your recommendations for consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners, because they are the ones that have final authority on the matter.
Mark Strain: Can we vote on it in pieces, or do we have to vote on it as one document?
Marjorie Student: The one document has to be submitted to the DCA that comports
with statutory requirements, those being a report on our plan and how it's working and
Page 45
July 15, 2004
what we need to repair, and also how it addresses changes in the rules and the statutes
that have occurred since we did our last year, so I think to take pieces out of it may do
violence to the document. We may have a problem with DCA. What I think would be
better would be is if there are some issues that can be resolved, then to send a complete
document to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mark Strain: But, in essence, we can vote on it in individual sections.
Marjorie Student: Well, I would. ..
Stan Litsinger: We would ask the planning commission to either vote in majority to
vote a recommendation to the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS to either
adopt the report or not adopt the report. If the conclusion of the planning commission is
not to adopt the report, the procedure would be, should the board respond in a like
manner, we would simply go back to the drawing board and delay adoption of the year
report until September at the earliest.
Mark Strain: 95% of this may be perfect, but because of the questions that need to be
asked, we may have pieces that just don't fit right, and we may have concerns about that
as to how we move forward. I think I understand now.
Marjorie Student: And, Commissioner, I am just concerned that if we send a partial
one, then we may miss something that's required, and then DCA would find it
insufficient.
Mark Strain: I wasn't suggesting that, Marjorie. I was just trying to figure out how the
process would work.
Stan Litsinger: The process continues after the board adopts the EAR report. All of the
contents of the EAR report are identified as required contents. I guess the assumption
would be that in the event that it is not found sufficient in the first 60 day period, we
would be back to the planning commission with some changes to the report in order to
achieve a sufficiency finding with the department of community affairs.
Robert Murray: If we were to make some recommendations, and they were agreed to
by the Commissioners, then would you incorporate those recommendations at
submission?
Stan Litsinger: Yes, we would then incorporate those into the adopted report which is
the 7 year report.
Robert Murray: So it is a worthwhile effort?
Gary Davis (Conservancy of South West Florida): Good afternoon. We appreciate
this opportunity to address you regarding a portion of the EAR. Let me focus on goal 2
of the CCME. In the EAR report you have in front of you it would be section 1.5 F of the
Page 46
July 15, 2004
brief assessment of the success, shortcomings, and recommendations related to the
conservation and coastal management element. Objective 2.1 pertains to the importance
of our estuaries and coastal watershed in Collier County. The point I do want to make is
to read objective 2.1, "By January IS\ 200, the County shall prepare watershed
management plans that will address appropriate mechanisms to protect the County's
estuarine and wetland systems." That deadline was not met. These watershed
management plans have not been prepared. The EAR does acknowledge that the
deadline has not been met, but it talks about stonn water master plans and does not
suggest a sufficient process for having these broader watershed management plans
developed by the county. We have requested in our letter and recommendations for some
language that would go a lot further in tenns of how these watershed management
systems would be developed. On the first page of the suggested revisions, under 2.1., we
would like to see these plans be inter-departmental, broader than just stonn water
management, within the ·county staff. To include the natural resources department, for
example, or environmental services. Some good news is that there are state and federal
agencies that can provide expertise and resources to the County to assist with these plans.
As a matter of fact, some of these agencies are already looking at watershed management
plans for important watersheds in the county. So, the language that we propose here
would broaden the people involved to work on the watershed management plans, and also
give direction to the dept. of community affairs about how the County would go about
developing these plans. On of the things, I didn't include in this is a new deadline. I
would like to suggest a deadline of 2006. This date is important because it is 6 years
after the original deadline, so that is one important issue to DCA, second, in 2007, those
water bodies in Collier County that do not currently meet water quality standards, which
there are 8, will have to have developed by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, a total maximum daily loading number. That is a number that says how much
the water body can accept when it comes to certain pollutants for which the water body is
not meeting water quality standards, and still meet water quality standards. In order to
achieve that number, since the water body is not meeting water quality standards today,
there will have to be restrictions on new pennits for discharging water into those
watersheds. If the county has watershed management plans that address the water quality
issues for these watersheds, then the DEP will not promulgate that number itself. The
DEP can rely on the County's plans. The deadline for those plans would be 2006, in
order for the DEP to decide by 2007 whether it needs to adopt a TMDL for these
watersheds. That's why we're suggesting in addition to the language here, that a deadline
of 2006 be given to DCA then eventually incorporated into the growth management plan
on this particular objective,
Mark Strain: Gary, you have 5 pages of suggestions. I think they are all important for
us to understand. If you go to the fifth page, we may not remember everything you said
about the first page. Would it be more productive have an immediate reaction from a
staff member as you finish each section?
Gary Davis: Sure that would be fine. Let me just say that we have been working with
staff on this issue for a couple of months here, and we do appreciate the attention that
they have given to this.
Page 47
July 15, 2004
Ricardo Valera (Director-Water and Road Maintenance): Good afternoon. I do
have a response to Mr. Davis' comments. Mr. Davis is requesting that you revise the
language of the EAR, focusing towards recharge of aquifers, preventing saltwater
intrusion to drinking water supplies, and commercial and recreational fishing quality
standards. Collier County understands the importance of the environmental and natural
resources, however, we believe that federal and state agencies are currently working
towards obtaining results from the TMBL studies and working not only with Collier
County, but other local governments in the state, top make sure that all these standards
are maintained and water quality would be improved. So, we believe that this would be a
duplication of effort that we are not fully prepared to tackle. The state and federal
agencies are working together. We get involved and partner with them in a lot of
meetings. They listen to our concern. However, taking the lead in this, would seem to be
out of our jurisdiction. Our recommendation would be to save some taxpayers dollars,
avoid a duplication, and maintain the language as is without inclusions or revisions.
Robert Murray: Why would that be out of your jurisdiction?
Ricardo Valera: Well, for instance, let's view this as a law enforcement task. Collier
County has a fine law enforcement team; however there is a limit to the duties based on
budget and responsibility. If we were going to tackle enforcement of borders, and FBI
and CIA tasks, it definitely would be a humongous task. So, right know the water
management districts, the DEP, being the lead in the state, are conducting these studied.
They not only have the funds, but are mandated to do so.
Robert Murray: Is it your statement, however speedily or not they move are focused on
water management for quality or are they focused on flood control...
Ricardo Valera: flood control, water management, protection of wetlands and natural
resources, wetland, aquifers...
Robert Murray: Do you think they have parceled out those activities equally, or may
some weigh more heavily... In other words, do you think water quality receive the same
degree of funding, staffing and pro activity?
Ricardo Valera: In those agencies, yes. From my experience in the water management
district, I would say water quality is their first priority. So, they regulate development
impacts the developments; impact the wetlands, focusing towards protection of the
natural resources among those water. . .
Robert Murray: My only concern would be that as was the case with roads, we got
pushed back in time and now we are doing catch up. We have what appears to be before
us with development a chance to really focus on water quality- to preserve what we
have so that our aquifers continue to provide us with the water we need. I just wonder
how that could be considered to be duplicative. I understand we are in a pinch for
dollars, but Ijust wondered whether or not that is such an extensive activity...
Page 48
July 15,2004
Gary Davis: I feel a little blind sided about this because I met with the County Manager
yesterday, and he told us that he supported the County having these plans for a number of
reasons, including this TMDL deadline. I'm just a little shocked that we are getting
opposition from one of the County's departments in this case. What we are talking about
is an objective that has been in your plan for several years, but has not been met. I
thought I just heard Mr. Valera say that the objective should be taken out of the plan.
The staff didn't· even recommend that! The staff said that the objective should be
retained in the plan. I am really surprised by this response from a County department
when I thought that we had agreement from the County Manager that we would go with
the Conservancy's proposal. What we are saying is not that we should go it alone, and
duplicate state plans, what we are saying is that the County should utilize the expertise
and the resources of others. I know for a fact the S FL Water Management District has a
person devoted to helping these plans in their development. I thought this was very
basic. What I hear Mr. Valera saying is that he wants to go backwards. The DCA
would not agree with that. The DCA would not agree to take out an objective that the
county has ignored all these years, and, we would certainly be talking to the DCA about
that if it were to come to that.
Mark Strain: I saw your recommendations as bringing these other agencies in for
consultation, not necessarily a requirement- not to be leading the charge, that's not the
way this seemed to read to me. And, as far as circulating new language, you could do
that by simply sending it to these recommended agencies, see if they have something to
say in 10 days, and if they don't, it's still Collier County doing the lead. I'm not sure that
that's that problematic. I know, Mr. Valera, that you are stonn water. It didn't know
stonn water was in charge of the environmental aspect of this. What happened to Bill
Lorenz' department in regards to this? Didn't his dept used to handle all this? He was
more the natural resources and environmental and John Bolt? I'm wondering where we
get the environmental input into this besides the stonn water input?
Ricardo Valera: Well, I have Bill here for clarification on that, but just to clarify for a
minute, we are not recommending to remove any language, Weare just recommending to
leave it as is.
Mark Strain: By the way, were you here when any of this language was written or was
that before your time?
Ricardo Valera: That's before I came on board.
Mark Strain: So you are not the author of this language,
Ricardo Valera: No, I am not the author.
Bill Lorenz: At one particular point in time, I was overseeing this component. We had 4
departments that reported to me. That ended in 1996. So, it has been awhile since I had
any direct responsibility over this. But, I was here in 1989 when we adopted this
language. We tried to implement this through the old stonn water utility that we were
Page 49
July 15, 2004
putting together back in 1990, but then that was not approved. The funding was not
approved, and that's how long it's been since we've looked at this objective.
Robert Murray: Who is in charge of water quality?
Gary Davis: Well, that's the problem we are seeing. It looks like stonn water is being
given some of those responsibilities. Our point is that the current language dealing with
watershed management plans is broader than just stonn water management. Stonn water
management is getting the water off the land into the estuary as fast as they can, but if
you look at the other aspects in policy 2.1.4, "The water shed management plans should
address appropriate wetlands being conserved. Drainage systems do not unacceptable
effect wetland and estuary systems" etc. These are broader than just stonn water
management, and I think they are a natural resources function, too.
Ricardo Valera: Okay, one final clarification. Yes, in fact, water management does deal
with handling loggings of water, but not necessarily discharging it quickly. On the
contrary, the goal is to keep it as long as possible and to maintain the hydro periods of the
wetlands and protect their resources. The way this operates is that he Florida
administrative codes allow the Department of Environmental Protection to delegate
authority to the 5 water management districts to issue environmental resource pennits
that are a joint application between the Corps of Engineers and to each water
management district. Collier County has such a good relationship with the S. Florida
Water Management District, that we not only have received delegation to pennit projects
that are less than 10 acres, but 40 acres with no wetlands. This is something that very
few Counties in Florida have, and that is because they rely on the expertise that we have
and our understanding of the rules. However, they have not granted us any authorization
to work in, over or adjacent to wetlands, because they look at what type of effects the
development will have on those wetlands. So, if we are going to duplicate the review
process, for something that is already done at the federal level through the court, it would
be a duplication of efforts and a waste of taxpayers' dollars.
Gary Davis: Mr. Valera is confusing a pennit with a plan. We are not talking about
duplicating pennits. We are talking about a planning process that sets forth how the
watershed will be managed in all of its aspects. Pennitting is only one of those.
Pennitting should be consistent with the plan. Again, I hear Mr. Valera saying that we
shouldn't do any of this when it has been in your plan, and this is something that the
EAR, as it is currently drafted, doesn't address, how these watersheds management plans
should be developed. Otherwise, the DCA is going to find this insufficient, and we are
going to help them find it insufficient. I can move on to the next point.
Mark Strain: That would be fine with me, I just, unfortunately I just think with the fact
that there seems to be not all unifonn thought on this. After you make each point, I'd like
to hear from staff so that we can weigh our decisions as we go forward.
Gary Davis: I though there was going to be support from staff on this, and I'm a little
surprised and blind sided by that. I'm ready to move on if you'd like.
Page 50
July 15, 2004
Russell Budd: Please do.
Gary Davis: On the policy relevance part of 2.1.6... That current policy talks about
promoting intergovernmental cooperation in the development of these plans, and we are
just asking that that be expanded beyond the current policy and beyond the EAR
language as it now states, to include state and federal agencies. That's the point behind
2.1.6, and our comments on page 1 and the top of p. 2 of our document. The current
policy says that we have to include Marco, but we are saying add in some of these other
agencies as well.
Ricardo Valera: Just for clarification, we have had discussions with the County
Manager. We have had conversations with Mr. Davis, as well. We understand the
importance of the natural resources, as any good citizen does, however, assuming taking
the lead on this is something that other agencies are doing. They have the funding, the
resources, the time and the staff to do it. We are working with them to get the results, and
once those results are in, we will be able to refine our process, so, you know, it's a matter
of continuing to work with them. We want to continue working with the Conservancy.
We want a friendly relationship with them, and not only with them, with any other public
or private organization.
Mark Strain: That addresses the first item, and we are on the second item promoting
inner governmental cooperation, where the Conservancy has requested that the federal
government be brought in. What are your thoughts on that?
Ricardo Valera: Um.. . okay, I am not prepared to respond to that specific issue. I came
to talk about revisions based on the water and TMDL's.
Mark Strain: Policy 2.1.6. They have a 5 page letter that recommends some word
changes to different policies...
Ricardo Valera: Yes, I did read the letter that they turned into us, and summarizing it,
the revisions that are in the suggested language, we would still go back to the first item,
leaving it as it is.
Robert Murray: So that's a blanket no, do I take that?
Ricardo Valera: Correct.
Stan Litsinger: The planning staffs perspective relative to the eventual EAR report and
whatever contents and recommendations are contained, will of course result in what we
would call EAR based amendments, and at that point the BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS has to be prepared to implement these programs and not let them
languish. Of course we do support updating some of the objectives and continuing to
work on the developments of these water shed management plans. I suppose there may
have been some interpretation changes relative to the direction of the County Manager,
but my understanding is, from the planning staff, from the County Manager, we do not
Page 51
July 15, 2004
recommend inclusion of these recommendations in the EAR report. We should all
remain cognizant that any adoption of any amendments associated with this, as has been
explained by Mr. Valera, would to a certain extent be another level of a regulatory
program that the County would undertake, and it directly impacts tax dollars. There are
no current appropriations proposed. It would have to be addressed next year. We do not
currently have the staff on board. So, and cognizant decision to include this new program
in the EAR, which would then have to result in EAR based amendments, we should
understand the impact on the tax payer.
Mark Strain: Stan, I thought they were just asking that the water shed management
plan that was supposed to have been done this past couple years is now to be done over
the next few years because it was not done. I though that in order to get that done, why
don't we just notify a couple of other government agencies and get their input? What's
wrong with that? Why wouldn't we want to do that anyway? I don't understand.
Stan Litsinger: Well, I think Mr. Davis will probably address this for you, but I think
he would very readily tell you that the proposal by the Conservancy goes far beyond a
coordination effort with the agencies involved with watershed management. Maybe I'm
wrong, and he can clarify that with me.
Gary Davis: What I am saying is that the County was required to do these plans. The
County has not done these plans, so the County needs to figure out how to get them done.
That's all. Now that doesn't mean the County needs to spend only its own money. That
doesn't mean it has to do it all itself without the help from these agencies. We just need
to see a process in the EAR and ultimately in compo plan amendments that are based on
the EAR that show how it will get done. I hear Mr. Valera arguing that the County
shouldn't be involved at all... again; this is not a pennitting process. This is a plan. I
can't think of very many plans that the state and federal agencies are working on for
water sheds in Collier County. I pointed out one, which was the S. Golden Gates
restoration. That is a federal and state plan or dealing with the problems that exist in that
water shed. Right there we have a plan already, the County can say, "we adopt this as
our plan for that water shed." Naples Bay, we have a planning process that has started. It
started under the leadership of the S. Florida Water Management District. A surface
water improvement and management plan is being developed for Naples Bay. 3 million
dollars have been appropriated for the beginning of that process-just the beginning,
from the legislature. So, we have a planning process that the County is participating in.
The County can make that the watershed management plan for Naples bay. I don't
understand why there would be resistance to that.
Russell Budd: I'm at a loss myself. I might be misunderstanding what's going on here,
but it seems like we've got a requirement that was supposed to be effective by January 1,
2000. We are four years later, and the request is made, "Let's start planning for the
future." And I'm hearing the County say, "No, we don't want to play. We don't want any
part of it, and it costs money." I understand that. But there have been several annual
budgets reviewed and approved. We are in a budget process right now, and I don't know
that this is accounted for. We are just walking around it, and I don't think that the
Page 52
July 15, 2004
Conservancy is asking for too much. We might modify it, but just to say, "No. Weare
not going to do it." I am shocked, and I just can't believe that there hasn't been
meaningful communication between the parties before we get here, and we are no where.
Joe Schmitt: The language that is in your book doesn't say that we are bypassing it. It
says that we are moving it to mid-2005. Mr. Davis' language is much more specific.
None of this was discussed during the workshop.
Gary Davis: We brought it up in the workshop.
Joe Schmitt: Not as specifically as you address it here.
Gary Davis: We couldn't do that in 3 minutes.
Joe Schmitt: The language shows 2005, and that is what was proposed, and that is
staffs decision. The language that is in here is a policy decision that will require BCC
approval and will have to define a funding source to meet the requirements of this, and
that is certainly beyond the scope of what staff can discuss right now because we don't
have that authority. You as the commission can review the recommendation and forward
it to the BCC, but, beyond that, our position is as stated. We seem to be debating how
we'd go about doing this, and none of us have the wherewithal to debate that.
Gary Davis: May I point out in the objective achievement analysis, objective 2.1. It
doesn't talk about doing these water shed management plans by 2005; it talks about
completing three particular stonn water master plans by 2005. That is not the water shed
management plan, and those three do not incorporate all the watersheds that we need to
deal with in Collier County. So, that is not responsive to the failure to develop the
watershed management plans as were supposed to be done by January 1,2000.
Robert Murray: This morning I was told that someone dives to verify that there are or
are not sea grass beds. Would Mr. Valera or another gentleman infonn me as to how we
go about doing that?
Bill Lorenz: I understand that the question was, when there are boat dock pennits to be
issued or to be reviewed, that our environmental staff will go out and do a site inspection
for the boat dock pennitting. What we do, is we go to that particular location, and we
verify that there are no sea grasses where the dock will actually be built. That's different
from doing a sea grass study and analysis of all the coastal waters of Collier County. We
currently do not do that.
Robert Murray: Ok, but you are in fact doing the other-that makes me feel better.
Bill Lorenz: On a project by project basis.
Brad Schiffer: I'm just concerned. The reason we do a watershed management plan is
to increase the quality of the water. What is the quality now?
Page 53
July 15,2004
Gary Davis: That's the next item that I want to address-objective 2.2 & 2.3. Your
current objective in the growth management plan says "all canal, rivers and flow ways
discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state or local water quality
standards." The staff response to that says nothing about whether or not the bodies of
water in the County are meeting those water quality standards. It simply says that we are
taking samples. If you look at the EAR language on objective 2.2, it says that Collier
County monitors its water quality and that it does so in 50 locations. We would like to
see Collier County acknowledge that water sheds are not meeting water quality standards;
because this is the kind of language the DCA wants to see- you are not meeting your
objective, and we will remind them of that if you choose not to do so here. There are 8
water bodies within Collier County that are not currently meeting water quality standards.
Those would be the Cocohatchee River Canal, Cocohatchee River, Naples Bay, Gordon
River, Gordon River Canal, Golden Gate Canal, Henderson Creek Canal, and Barron
River Canal. Most of those are not meeting water quality standards because they have
nutrient pollution, nitrogen and phosphorus running off from stonn water, which lowers
the dissolved oxygen in the water and kills fish. Weare talking about estuaries, some of
the most productive ecosystems in the world being degraded by the water quality
standards that we have. So, all we are saying on 2.2 & 2.3 is that we should acknowledge
where the objective isn't being met.
Stan Litsinger: The statement that this language represents what DCA wants to see-
again, reverting back to the purpose that we are about. This is our evaluation and
appraisal report on the comprehensive plan; I don't know whether or not we can arrive at
the conclusion as to what the DCA wants to see relative to our evaluation of our own
comprehensive plan. One note that I would make here, is that I believe that these policies
were substantially intact during that EAR process, and yes we probably do need to update
the dates and timing and commitment relative to completion of these plans, but I don't
know that we know what DCA wants to see relative to any proposed comprehensive plan
amendments in this area.
Ricardo Valera: I have a clarification on the impaired bodies of water. The latest report
that is available does list 8 bodies of water in Collier County as potentially impaired. It
doesn't define them as in fact impaired. It does show what the reasons are, for example,
one of the water bodies has dissolved oxygen, and it shows that as being a low. Most of
them are being low, and the reason that it's not a definite is that there isn't sufficient data.
The data is being collected as we speak by local and state agencies. There is not enough
data to draw any final conclusions. Again, the funding and the efforts are there. Other
agencies are handling that.
Gary Davis: He's absolutely wrong about that. The DEP has adopted a final list of
water bodies that do not meet water quality standards in Collier County. And, the US
EPA has added to that list as on June 11,2003. We are talking absolutely about the list
of impaired water bodies in Collier County. I don't understand why he isn't up to date on
this.
Page 54
---'^-
July 15, 2004
Brad Schiffer: Here's the point, we didn't do the study on time, and we have impaired
water bodies. Why wouldn't we want to do the study now? Why wouldn't we want to
understand these bodies?
Ricardo V alera: You are correct sir, the study is being conducted. Collier County is
participating with the other agencies in getting that done. Weare not taking a lead on this
because we have not taken a lead on this. This is because the EP A and the water
management are working on this with us.
Brad Schiffer: And their coverage would be identical if we took the lead, or what. . .
Ricardo Valera: Well, I mean... it would be a duplication. It's already going on. So,
there's a monitoring station that the district has at this location... what benefit would it be
to have one place just next to it with Collier County operating and maintaining it.
Brad Schiffer: Why couldn't we put it someplace else and have twice the coverage?
Gary Davis: What we are talking about here is NOT duplicating studies. We are talking
about a plan. The plan will take advantage of the data that the federal and state
government already have. We don't have to duplicate the studies. As a matter of fact,
Collier County has generated most of the data that went into the state's detennination that
we have 8 bodies of water that aren't meeting water quality standards. We are talking
about a plan that takes the data that then incorporates the suggestions and the
involvements of other agencies and develops a plan for how these watersheds will meet
water quality standards and these other objectives in the future.
Brad Schiffer: So why is this a problem? What am I missing?
Gary Davis: I'm missing it to.
Brad Schiffer: If the data is coming from all over, and some of the data is coming from
us, I mean is it just getting the right person to right the report. I mean, what is the
problem?
Russell Budd: The problem is that the County said no, and their recommendation
doesn't agree, and we don't have to like it but we'll have to come up with our own
recommendation as we move this forward. Frankly, this is one of the goofiest issues that
I have dealt with in 11 years on the planning commission. The Conservancy commonly
comes before us, commonly takes a position, some we agree and some we don't- we go
through them. They have a letter that has been out several days or a week or whatever
amount a time, then we come here and we aren't even talking about the same issues.
We're disagreeing on fundamental facts. We're not even playing on the same board. We
are not even talking about the same thing. We've gone through multiple fiscal years and
not addressed it, and we are talking about going through multiple more fiscal years and
not addressed it because it costs money and we don't have money. It sounds to me like
we are just glossing over it and passing it by and we don't intend to do a darn thing. I
Page 55
July 15, 2004
might be missing the picture, but I think some of the other planning commissioners are
getting the same thing.
Brad Schiffer: And the water bodies are deficient, so.. .it's one of our major assets...
Russell Budd: Mr. Davis, if you could go ahead and in summary fashion talk about the
other points in your letter, and unless the County position changes I think we heard a
summary that their answer is no. So we don't need to belabor it, but you should make
your points, and if there is a different answer we can address it, and we'll take that into
consideration, but I think I couldn't be more disappointed in the County's position.
Gary Davis: Let me say that we did try to work with the staff on this and I thought we
had come to a consensus on this, and I am sorry that it has taken so much time to get
through these items. Looking at 2.2 & 2.3, as I said, there is also a policy 2.2.5, which we
are suggesting needs to be changed to show that the county has not detennined stonn
water management facilities that are not meeting state water quality treatment standards
within Collier County. Collier County acknowledges that they haven't done that, but
there is nothing that talks about how they are going to do it and whether they are going to
do it. In objective 6.2, which has to do with wetlands protection. There is nothing in the
EAR on section 6.2 that would suggest that wetlands protection should be consistent with
watershed management plans that the county was required to compete in 200. So, we
think there should be some internal consistency in the comp plan, to the extent that
wetlands are recommended to be protected in the watershed management plans should be
reflected under policy 6.2. We looked at another element of the comp plan, which is the
public facilities element drainage sub element, which primarily deals with stonn water
drainage programs, and basically our suggestion is that there be a reference to the
watershed reference plan, so that he drainage sub element and activities under that sub
element would be consistent with the watershed management plan. The only other thing
that we mentioned in any detail, starting on page 5, is that in your packet, there are more
detailed evaluations of major issues, and one of those is under environmental resource
and habitat protection. That's in page 2.21.2 that I am talking about. We are suggesting
that certain things need to be updated in that more detailed evaluation, such as the actual
promulgated list of impaired water bodies for Collier County- rather than referring to a
planning list that was put out in 2002. The promulgated list was put out in 2003, and the
EP A added to it in 2003, so that's what we are suggesting there. Finally, on sea grasses,
the EAR simply says that sea grasses are being protected through the pennitting of boat
docks, and Mr. Lorenz just spoke to that, but we think that these plans ought to look at
broader protection for sea grasses other than just each time a boat dock gets pennitted.
We ought to be looking to see how the estuary is doing with regards to the health of the
sea grasses for other estuarine impact indicators. If there was a sea grass survey to show
where the sea grasses are, it would be important for planning purposes. It's important
because developers would know which areas to avoid in their planning processes from
the beginning.
Stan Litsinger: I believe that you have two speakers relevant to the topic at hand.
Donna Reed Caran, I believe would like to speak on watershed management issues.
Page 56
July 15, 2004
Donna Reed Caran: Good afternoon, commissioners. I am here on behalf of the Estuary
Conservation Association. The ECA is dedicated to the health on the Wiggins {Pass
estuary system which includes the Cocohatchee River and the canal. And since much of
what goes into our bay starts up stream, having a watershed management plan in place is
imperative. I think that if we are going to evaluate and appraise ourselves, we have to
say that we have done a lousy job here, and we have to get moving forward. The ECA
would like to support the Conservancy's plan and move forward.
Doug Fee: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'd also like to give a hand to the
Conservancy. This is an outstanding group looking at the broader issues faced buy all
citizens in Collier County. Weare here to talk about our future- how we are going to
move forward, and since the objective 2.1 does say that the County shall prepare
watershed management plans, I don't even think it's a question of when and how, I think
we need to do this, and again, I am with North Bay Civic Association, and 1/3 of our
neighborhood is a watershed- the Cocohatchee River, and so we are vitally interested in
making sure that we have a plan in place for anything upstream. We'll volunteer. We'll
be there at those meetings. I do believe that the County has the resources. Weare the
fastest growing area in the country. We have lots of money. So, I think that the money is
here. One other point, recently the commissioners sent a letter of intent to the Federal
Government to do a study on the Vanderbilt Lagoon. It is my understanding that there
was going to be a 5 million dollar expenditure, and the Anny Corps came back and said
that, "we don't have the funds." The point I'm making is, we need to spend the dollars
here to make sure that we protect. I mean this is a great resource- our watersheds and
our estuaries, and if it can't be found at the federal level, it needs to be found here. I
don't think money should be the issue. We just need to move forward, get the citizens
involved. We have road plans. We have park plans; we have all kinds of plans. The
estuaries are very, very important. Thank you very much.
Stan Litsinger: Since this is a substantial recommendation, obviously, possibly we
would recommend that the planning commission take a position and make a motion that
of course would be carried forth into your overall vote, whether, I do not look at this as
something that you may want to piecemeal in a recommendation to the board. Then we
can move onto other portions of the presentation.
Robert Murray made a recommendation that this planning commission adopt
verbatim the recommended language of the Conservancy be included in the
recommended language to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Lindy
Adelstein.
Discussion:
Russell Budd: Again, I have to comment that, again, I'm disappointed in the County
that we couldn't have had meaningful dialogue on the issues, because it seems that we are
put in the position where the Conservancy is making a recommendation and the response
or comment is, "No." As I tried to allude to before, the Conservancy has come before us
many times with varying degrees of success, and I am sure with good intentions they are
Page 57
July 15, 2004
not always right, and quite possibly not always right on this one, but not given any
meaningful dialogue on what the alternative is, I am inclined to support that
recommendation.
Brad Schiffer: Isn't this something that we could move back into Environmental
Protection? Nothing against Stonn Water, but maybe that's why it's being minimized.
Russell Budd: Wouldn't that be a staffing decision for the County Manager on how
the...
Stan Litsinger: I think it's the Manager's prerogative.
Russell Budd: We can't tell him how to run this company, but we can tell him that he's
not running it right or that we are not happy with the results we're getting.
Brad Schiffer: Can we send him a memo, or?
Ricardo Valera: Mr.Budd, I'm sorry that this is not yielding the level of communication
that you were expecting. We did meet with Mr. Davis, and we believe that the meeting
went under very friendly and good tenns. We did also meet with the County Manager,
and while we do agree that al of these issues are important, our position is that we should
not be taking the lead on initiating all of these activities that are already being conducted
by other agencies.
Mark Strain: Some of the things that I heard mentioned by Mr. Davis as a rebuttal to
Mr. Valera, I want to make sure I understand, so that in the motion, if there needs to be
clarification, it is there. Objective 2.2 & 2.3, listing the water bodies, there was a
discrepancy over whether they were really failed, or whether the language needs to be
modified to indicate that the water bodies do not meet the standards. I don't see a
problem with using that language instead of using the word, "failed."
Gary Davis: I have no problem with that change.
Mark Strain: The other point was that there was a concern from the County staff that,
"they weren't going to be the lead agency." I didn't see the intent in the Conservancy's
language to change the lead agency. Is that a true assumption?
Gary Davis: The County is responsible for seeing that these plans get done, but if the
Water Management district is the lead agency on it, then there is no problem with that.
I'm not saying the County has to be the lead to do all the work, but if someone else has
done the plan, like I mentioned with S. GG Estates, we can use their plan.
Mark Strain: The direction that was suggested by the Conservancy was not to
necessarily have the other agencies come in and take over, but that we seek their input in
consultation to produce a plan.
Page 58
July 15, 2004
Gary Davis: Correct.
Mark Strain: Ok. With those clarifications, I would certainly endorse the motion.
Robert Murray: I certainly would amend my motion to reflect that qualification and the
agreement on the behalf of f the Conservancy.
Lindy Adelstein: I would second that.
There being no further discussion on the motion, Russell Budd called the question.
The motion carried unanimously (5-0)
Stan Litsinger: David Weeks now has 4 topics that he would briefly like to cover,
relative to issues that arose at your previous workshops with the Board of County
Commissioners.
David Weeks (chief planner in your comprehensive planning department): The 4
items, two of which are intimately related. The first is the coastal high hazard area, and
the staff understands on the joint workshop of May 1 ih, is that the density would be
capped at 4 dwelling units per acre within the coastal high hazard area with no
exceptions. There had been some discussion about affordable housing, and there had
been some consensus that we limit to 4 units per acre. I just want to put that on the
record one more time to make sure that this the position that the planning commission
would recommend.
Brad Schiffer: That's the maximum, right? Wasn't it that it's three units per acre, and
the only way you can go up to four is with affordable housing? The cap is four.
David Weeks: That's correct that the cap is four, any applicable density bonuses could
get you from that three back up to four. But, under no circumstance, through a rezoning
action, relying on the density rating system, could more than 4 units per acre be achieved.
#2 is the density rating system itself. Specifically, we needed clarity here, because staff
failed to bring to your attention a couple of things. As we walked through the different
density bonus provisions, there was some discussion about whether to remove them or
leave them in, the action was as follows. The conversion of commercial density bonus
provision, that bonus number was kept in tact but reduced from 61 units per acre to 12
units per acre. What that would mean in the coastal high hazard area, for example, is in
reality, in that circumstance, it would become a one unit per acre bonus, because it gets
you to four and the cap. Elsewhere, though, it would be a 12 unit per acre bonus.
Brad Schiffer: Wait a minute. I thought we eliminated that. Here's why. We have a
community character plan and a smart growth plan, and that thing is in the opposite
direction. Plus, I thought it was only affordable housing that could rise from 3 to 4. No
other bonus applied in the coastal high hazards but affordable. I thought we killed it.
There wasn't that many sites, and it was in conflict with new urbanism. Don't you guys
agree?
Page 59
July 15, 2004
Robert Murray: That's my recollection.
David Weeks: Thank you for the correction. The density ban, density bonus, the
recommendation was that that would be deleted; the affordable housing bonus would be
retained. Again, ifit's in a coastal high hazard area, that would become, an effective one
unit breaker bonus. The residential infill density bonus, deleted. Road way access,
deleted. The TDR. Staff failed to bring to the hearing body's attention that fact that
there was a density bonus for TDR. We needed to get clarity from you. We would
assume that you would not want to eliminate that density bonus, because the County just
got through adopting significant changes to that. That being the rural fringe, growth
management plan amendment 2002, which do have some applicability in the urban
designated area. On a limited basis, TDR's can be transferred into the urban designated
area, as you are aware, for the most part, that TDR is located within that urban fringe
area, but can be transferred to the urban area on a limited basis. Again, we need your
c1arification- your agreement with staff that that density bonus does not need to be
eliminated.
Mark Strain: David, weren't there minutes taken at the meeting? I mean, you are
asking us to remember what we did then, why don't you just look at what we said then?
David Weeks: This one wasn't discussed.
Mark Strain: Ok, but the others were, and I don't want to second guess what we did
then. There were 14 people in the room. I'd rather we relied on the transcript for those.
David Weeks: That's a good recommendation. We'll go back and verify that was to
eliminate the conversion of the commercial as opposed to changing it from 15 to 12. I'll
take that in your motion that you are not changing your position. That is not your intent.
Stan Litsinger: Maybe it is important, Commissioner Strain, that as this is the hearing
and that was a workshop, that you go back and reiterate your position on that as far as
adoption of the content ofthe EAR report.
Lindy Adelstein: But are there minutes available right now for us to go over? So that he
can give you the numbers?
Brad Schiffer: You're right, I mean, this is the hearing where we vote on it. Should we
vote on each of them individually or... the last thing you were talking about with the TDR
program, you couldn't bring the coastal high hazard above 1, correct? Or you couldn't
use them at all out there?
David Weeks: It would be the same, in that I mean that coastal high hazard area cap at
4 units per acre is across the board, I mean there are no exceptions, so any of these
density bonuses that would be applicable in that area would only get your from 3 up to 4.
Page 60
July 15, 2004
Brad Schiffer: But isn't it only the affordable housing than can raise you one? This
TDR system couldn't raise you one.
Brad Schiffer: Then that would be new, and we can decide now whether we like that or
not.
Robert Murray: Could we not deal with the pieces that were in the workshop, and
acknowledge those, and then if there are questions with regard to the TDR we might
exploit that? Do you see, though, that there are many contradictions or collisions as a
result of the first grouping that we approved with the TDR question? Give that we would
approve that those are appropriate still.
David Weeks: Do I see a conflict? No I don't. Again, the only unknown goes back to
the coastal high hazard area as to whether or not you would want to see the TDR bonus
applicable there to get you from the 3 back up to the 4.
Robert Murray: Are any properties at the Coastal High Hazard area open to receive the
credits?
David Weeks: Yes.
Robert Murray: Are there many?
David Weeks: It's an unknown number. That provision has rarely been used, but,
nonetheless, it's one we have to respond to one way or the other. I can tell you that the
free rural fringe provision in the TDR in the land development code specifies that you
cannot transfer density from outside the Coastal High Hazard area into it. I think that's a
very good policy.
Robert Murray: Would any credit equate to more than one unit per bonus?
David Weeks: No.
Brad Schiffer: And, Dave, isn't that also your answer? It can't raise the coastal high
hazard, because that would have to come from outside, wouldn't it?
David Weeks: Well, it could be an internal transfer. You could have pone property
within the coastal high hazard transferring its density to another property in the coastal
high hazard area.
Robert Murray: Would that ever result in a higher number than the one bonus?
David Weeks: No, because, I take your direction to be that that four is a cap absolutely.
No exceptions. None. The most it could do is get back up to the 4.
Page 61
July 15, 2004
Brad Schiffer: The reason I might be okay, is that it's a unit in the coastal high hazard
that will stay in the coastal high hazard, so I cold see how that would be ok. It's kind of a
washout.
David Weeks: Is it the consensus then to leave the TDR bonus intact? (All
commissioners nod and say yes.) The second and final on the density rating system and
future land use element, the issue is that staff failed to bring to your attention the newest
density bonus that we just added last year, and that is the transportation concurrency
management area bonus. As part of the mass of concurrency management changes, there
is the density bonus of up to three units per acre for that provision, and we failed to bring
that to your attention. It simply was not discussed. I will go ahead and tell you that is
specifically says that that density bonus would not be applicable in the coastal high
hazard area. There is no conflict or issue there. There's just a question of do we want to
turn right around and delete what we just adopted last year. Staff would recommend
don't do that. Leave it in tact.
Robert Murray: Could you help me to understand, because I don't have a recollection
of that, what that bonus actually... Where it arises from and what it does?
David Weeks: Yes, if a property is in that defined specification for currency
management area-there's two of them, they have to do certain things...
Robert Murray: Okay, that connected for me.
David Weeks: So, the other two things related to the density rating system is that the
context of our discussion was strictly the future land use development. What we did not
discuss was whether or not those changes would also be applicable to the Golden Gate
area master plan and the Immokalee area master plan. Now the Golden Gate area master
plan includes primarily Golden Gate estates but it does include the Golden Gate city area,
that's roughly 4 square miles that are within the overall coaxable urbanized area. There
might be a split between that and the Immokalee area master plan, because that is an area
that is more removed. It's an area that, generally speaking is considered to be depressed.
There might be some desire to treat it differently, and to say, "well we want to promote
development over there," where we are more concerned about density increases over here
in the coastal area. I just thought that as an opinion you might say, Golden Gate area,
make those changes, and Immokalee maybe treat differently.
Mark Strain: We just got done, though. In fact, the changes to the Golden Gate master
plan are barely through the process. With all that stuff being taken into consideration, I
don't know why we would want to look at that again, and Immokalee is looking at their
plan right now.
Lindy Adelstein: What is it now?
Page 62
July 15, 2004
David Weeks: I have those if you are interested. There are 5 of them, the conversion of
commercial zoning bonus, lying within a density band or within an activity center, the
affordable housing, the residential infill, and the roadway access.
Robert Murray: Could you give us the numbers associated with those? I'm not
proposing we change anything, but I would like to...
David Weeks: The conversion of commercial allows a 16 unit breaker bonus. The
density band is 3, within an activity center is 16, affordable housing is up to 8, residential
infill 3, roadway access 1.
Brad Schiffer: None of those are addressed in the recommendations.. .it's not an issue
Golden Gate is going to worry about. . .
Mark Strain: Those are not addressed. We addressed property use and rezoning, but we
didn't address those five bonuses at all.
David Weeks: Correct, I am not aware of any discussion on that...
Mark Strain: I don't know why it wouldn't apply to everyone else.
Brad Schiffer: But take Bayshore, for example. It has units with in it that wouldn't
change based on this, would they?
David Weeks: The Gateway Bayshore triangle overlay does have two things specifically
about it that I will point out. Number one, the fact that all of that has urban zoning. It's
already zoned VR or mobile home or RMF6 or so forth, those properties would not be
going for a rezoning action the same as we would expect in other areas that are zones
agricultural. Secondly, there is also a specific provision in that overlay that density can
be increased to 12 units per acre is there is direct access to either Bayshore Drive or to
US 41 east, and when certain other conditions are met, and that would not be effected by
this. That is not part of the density rating system.
Lindy Adelstein: This Golden Gate situation, are you saying that this is something
that. . .
Mark Strain: No, I think the one's he's talking about, everybody ought to be the same.
I just wanted to make sure that what he brought up would not specifically be in conflict
with something addressed by Golden Gate, and those five bonuses were not.
David Weeks: Mr. Strain, if I understand correctly, you are saying to treat those in the
Golden Gate master plan the same as we did in the flue.
Mark Strain: That's correct. I mean, we didn't address these; it wasn't a concern, so
why bring them up now?
Page 63
July 15, 2004
David Weeks: Okay. That seems to be a consensus. The last then is the Immokalee
area master plan. There are four bonuses there. Number one is the roadway access of
one unit per acre. Residential infill of 3 units per acre, affordable housing up to 8, and
this last one is called proximity to the neighborhood and commerce center mixed use
district. That would be a 12 unit breaker. It's listed within the density bonuses, but also
if you go to those two sub districts, they specifically say residential development is
allowed at 12 units per acre. It's a little bit of an interim of conflict. I would suggest to
you that if we eliminate the density bonus, it will have no impact, because if you go to
that sub district, and it just plainly says 12 units per acre per residential development.
Lindy Adelstein: Then, I'd recommend that we get rid of it that way.
Brad Schiffer: Didn't you say that the bonus was distance to that sub sector.
David Weeks: Correct, it's similar to over here in the urbanized area, where the activity
centers say, "You get a density of 16 units per acre." If you are in the activity center,
outside the coastal high hazard area, you get a density of 16 units per acre. Period. It's
not part of a density bonus provision. But, in Immokalee, it's both listed as part of a
density bonus provision, but also within the sub district, so if we delete it from the bonus
provision, then it will still be allowed.
Brad Schiffer: But isn't the bonus distance to the sub district? If you are such a
distance to the sub district, you can get that unit count?
David Weeks: Not in the Immokalee master plan. I think you are thinking of the density
band. You are within a mile radius of the activity centers. ..density band... there is no
such equivalent in Immokalee. You are either in the sub district and you get 12 units per
acre, or you are out and you don't. But the question is, does the commission want to
recommend deleting these density bonuses for the Immokalee area or do you want to treat
them differently and leave them in tact?
Brad Schiffer: Only the redundant one.
Russell Budd: I'd agree, only where it's redundant for the 12 units.
David Weeks: Okay, and the others you are saying, "Leave alone."?
Brad Schiffer: And the commercial conversion, should we vote on that as to what we
all feel? It was last left with Mark wanting you to go and check the minutes, but Stan's
point is that this is the hearing. That wasn't the hearing.
Joe Schmitt: It was pretty clear in the workshop. The only bonus you were going to
move forward with was the affordable housing density bonus. The only conflict in the
workshop was clarity in regards to the coastal high hazard area-whether the affordable
housing density bonus would be applicable. There was some confusion, I don't think we
ever got a resolution, but it stayed at 3? Or would the bonus be applied in the coastal
high hazard area? It was my understanding that, no; there would be no density bonus at
Page 64
July 15, 2004
all in the coastal high hazard area. Now, we didn't discuss the TBR one, so that is one
that would get us back to 4 units an acre in a coastal high hazard area, and I think the
board agreed to that, but anything higher than that, I think the board said, "No. They
wanted to avoid specifically this down zoning from commercial to residential.
Brad Schiffer: True or false, the conversion from commercial to residential will be
eliminated.
David Weeks: Eliminated. Yes.
Joe Schmitt: You can debate the issue, but of course there is one proj ect that is currently
still ongoing, which was going to be a recipient of that bonus, and I think that was what
ignited the feelings against that bonus. A boat area in North Naples...
Brad Schiffer: I would have never thought of that.
Joe Schmitt: I don't want to get into names.
David Weeks: The last comment on the density rating system was the recommendation
to eliminate the traffic congestion area reduction of one unit breaker, and replace it with a
coastal high hazard area reduction of one unit per acre.
Russell Budd: That is correct.
David Weeks: That takes care of the two issues., The third was the activity center. We
had discussed making changes for the interchange activity center. I just want to clarify
that the staff recommendation was or an activity center at I-75 at Pine Ridge Road and 1-
75 and Immokalee Road, only, that is not county the interchange down at 951 and Davis
Boulevard. The commercial uses would be limited to those serving the traveling public,
such as hotel, motels and restaurants, gas stations, etc. As well as uses that would be
dependant upon the highway system itself such as a storage and distribution facility. The
point of clarification was to make sure that it only applied to those two interchanges.
The big distinction between those two and the one down at 951 and David Boulevard is
the fact that there is already a cap at the amount of commercial development that is
allowed at that interchange, and that's a maximum of 55% of the acreage can be zoned
for commercial uses, and it's darn close to that already. The balance would be limited to
industrial uses, residential, community facilities, etc.
Robert Murray: But when we speak about storage and distribution facilities, are we
talking about storage for personal belongings or are we talking about warehouses?
David Weeks: It would be warehouses. Not your mini storage that the local citizens
would rely on, because that does not have any relationship to the highway.
Robert Murray: Right, so you are talking about it's a potential at that Golden Gate
interchange there could be storage facilities...
Page 65
-_._-_....-._---~
'---.---.--.
July 15,2004
David Weeks: Not the Golden Gate interchange...
Robert Murray: I must have misheard you.. .
David Weeks: 951 and Davis Boulevard.
Robert Murray: That one already has that potential or that facility, does it not?
David Weeks: Yes it does, but..
Robert Murray: So, in other words, not in Golden Gate.
David Weeks: Okay, if you are calling that Golden Gate, the limitation would not apply
there because there is already a cap at the number of acres that can be zoned commercial.
The final point had to do with affordable housing within the Golden Gate Estates sub
division on non-confonning lots. Staffs perspective is that this is a massive undertaking
to detennine how many lots potentially would qualify. We respectfully submit to you
that this is not an EAR issue. What is an EAR issue is that we need to do more for
affordable housing. We need to pursue other avenues to provide more affordable housing,
but, not specifically this issue of whether or nit the Golden Gate Estates should be looked
at for mandating affordable housing.
Marjorie Student: I understand that this would just be at the evaluation stage, but I
have a concern if it were a mandatory program, if there would be any problem with some
sort of berharris claim or issue like that if it were mandated that legal nonconfonning lots
have to have affordable housing on them. I also want to remind this commission that in
the RT areas and in the Vanderbilt Beach area, there are some legally non-confonning
lots, and then when you start 0 target areas where it could go, and you aren't consistent,
that could be problematic as well, and I think that's something that would have to be
considered in any sort of evaluation. An incentive based program is probably a better
means in trying to achieve this than a regulatory one.
Robert Murray: If the by right concept flies for affordable housing, how does that
work? Then that neutralizes that issue entirely, does it not?
Marjorie Student: The "by right"? That you have it "by right"?
Robert Murray: Affordable housing by right, I guess is what they wanted to have. Am
I not saying the right words?
Mark Strain: That was another issue that is going to come out of this, but what David is
trying to talk about is the PUS. . .
Robert Murray: Yeah, I know, the 1.1 acre thing
Page 66
July 15, 2004
Mark Strain: Yeah, less that 1.1. I think what he's recommending is not to put it in the
EAR. Let's address it later in the LEC, or...
Marjorie Student: The "by right" might take care of it, and it may make it go away, but
I just want us to look at a number of options, and I always, if possible, like to do
incentives. I think that can keep us out of difficulty.
Joe Schmitt: All we need to do is identify this as a goal, and because those lots are now
restricted-they can not be built on, by the LDC, and the LDC would have to be changed
to accommodate that, and really what it came down to was the size of the lot and the size
of the unit would pretty much dictate that you are going to have a house that is in a
certain cost structure. You call it what it is, affordable housing, it wouldn't be an
affordable housing agreement, but it would promote a program that would provide these
lots with that would be marketable at a rate that would be affordable.
Marjorie Student: Correct me if I am wrong Dave, but it is my understanding that if
you are a legal non-confonning lot, and met some certain circumstances, it wasn't that
you couldn't build on your lot, you still had the ability to build if you met certain
standards.
David Weeks: The big distinction is between legal nonconfonning lots and illegal
nonconforming lots. There are thousands of lots in Golden Gate Estates that were split
off prior to the 1974 or 1982, when the zoning district changed and said the minimum
was 2.25 acres. That would be your 75x660 and your 105x660 lots. If they were split
prior to those dates they are legal nonconfonning lots. Those lots are treated like
confonning lots in every way. I want to clarify. When I said it would be a massive
undertaking, that would be in looking at the legal nonconfonning lots. Because our quick
and dirty search of the records shows somewhere in the neighborhood of 11,000 legal
nonconfonning lots. The illegal lots, we have come up with less than 10 of them. The
question is, of those almost 11,000, we can identify that many parcels, but how many of
those are illegal versus legal. We believe the vast majority of those are legal
nonconfonning lots. The massive undertaking would be the manual process of checking
on those parcels to detennine the split date. It would be a matter of going through the
public records and looking them all up. It would be very labor intensive. Again, the staff
recommends is lets identify affordable housing as an issue, and leave this as one option
for the County to investigate. Let the investigation take us where it will. Ultimately, we
mayor may not be coming back with some type of recommendation in the future for
regulatory changes. That concludes the points of clarity I had.
BREAK: 3:20 PM
RECONVENE: 3:30 PM
Russell Budd: It is highly improbable that we will be complete in the next hour and a
half on this item. We still have 4 inches to go and we have gotten through Yz inch, if
volume has any relevance. If that does occur, that we can't go any further this evening,
Page 67
July 15, 2004
than what is the room availability, staff availability, and inclination of the other
Commissioners?
Joe Schmitt: The board room is available tomorrow morning. We could be here until at
least 1 :00, and then there is a coastal advisory committee meeting. I would think that we
could be able to finish by one if we started in the morning.
Russell Budd: Do we have Commissioner availability for tomorrow at 8:30 if we run
out of time tonight? Okay. We can do that if necessary. So, let's just keep that in the
back of our mind. Let's shoot toward a 5 o'clock completion. Ifby some stroke ofluck
we are done, or if we just have a short sprint to complete, we'll do that, otherwise we'll
break at a convenient time and consider reconvening in the morning. So now if we could
come to the registered speakers, please.
Doug Fee: I'm not sure exactly which items we are able to comment on...
Stan Litsinger: Mr. Fee, you are able to comment on any of the topics that have been
presented so far.
Doug Fee...and if something comes up later, are we able to re-speak?
Stan Litsinger: yes.
Doug Fee: I do have a transcript from the May 17th workshop, and I am just going to
read what it says here. It says "David Weeks stated the only two density bonuses that
still apply are affordable housing (which applies anywhere but in the CHHA) with only a
one unit per acre bonus with a cap of 4. The other density bonus is conversion of
commercial for non PUD commercial zoning, which will still give 16 units per acre, but
not applicable in the CHHA. I attended that meeting, and we feel that there was an
elimination of density bonus within this CHHA, with that in mind on page 1.5.h.13, in
your brief assessment of successes and shortcomings of the future land use element, there
is an indication of that meeting. It says, "However on the May, 1 ih, 2004 joint meeting
of the Board of County Commissioners and the Collier County planning commission
workshop, the joint commission voted to eliminate all density bonus provisions, except
that for affordable housing, therefore the density rating system will be revised
accordingly. The six bonus provisions are..." Number one says, "Conversion of
commercial zoning. Is this telling the state, in the year process, what our current bonuses
are? They are explaining what that is and that there will be a change to that?
Stan Litsinger: That's correct, and that the EAR identifies an EAR based amendment in
that area.
Doug Fee: Okay, so this is not saying that that would continue after you do the
amendments, but that right now these are the current bonuses. Next, I am on page
2.22.18, under Hurricane evacuation, limiting development in a CHHA. On 2.22.18,
there is a conclusion that reads, "Based upon the empirical evidence presented, within the
Page 68
"----"
July 15, 2004
CHHA, however the density rating system has played, and will continue to playa pivotal
role in controlling development within the CCHA." Then it says, "Flue, density rating
system, allowable density bonuses within the CHHA, and underneath conversion of
commercial zoning, it reads, "yes." Should there be a change in that table based on the
workshop and what is being submitted to the state? And then underneath affordable
housing it also says yes. And, 2.23.1, it reads, "Hurricane Evacuation, limiting public
expenditures that subsidize development in the coastal high hazard area." On the first
page, under B, under comments, it reads, "due to the partial effectiveness of the density
rating system, staff are looking into putting more conditions on affordable housing, which
is one of two allowable uses within the CHHA." I'm wondering again, is that something
that might be revised? It's saying there are two allowable...
Mark Strain and Dan Fee discuss whether he is looking at a current copy of the EAR.
Doug Fee wants to know what the process is for members of the public receiving
updated copies of the EAR. Stan Litsinger says that a current, accurate copy will be
available once the Board of County Commissioners has approved the final document.
Doug Fee: I would like to put on the record that the document I have on hand, still
indicates some bonuses in the Flue, in the CHHA, so I'm just wanting a clarification.
Robert Murray: Stan, I need to be clear, if we vote as a body to accept or reject certain
things, you are not going to make a change on those, you will just give an ancillary
document that makes the recommendations.
Stan Litsinger: I will take your recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners, that is correct, as a planning commission recommendation.
Robert Murray: So your document will remain as it is right now?
Stan Litsinger: Until transmittal
Robert Murray: So the commissioners would be obliged to read these
recommendations as it relates to these specific items, correct?
Stan Litsinger: Correct.
Robert Murray: So, your question was when can the public see these?
Doug Fee: No, my comment is that if this is the exact document that gets transmitted
with any stipulations that you or the board put into record, and then they make there
changes. I want to put on the record some changes that may need to occur, prior to the
board finalizing. Let me back up to 2.22.18 in your document, then I'll sit down on the
density issue. "However the density rating system has played, and will continue to play,
a pivotal role in controlling development within the CHHA," and in this table, it says,
Page 69
July 15, 2004
"conversion of commercial zoning," it says yes. And on "affordable housing", yes.
Should that not be changed to no?
Mark Strain: When I read this whole document, there's a whole pile of places that will
have to be changed to be consistent with what the workshop recommended. Again, I
took that red paragraph as saying that they acknowledge what the workshop said, they
just haven't had time to make the changes, and they will make them..
Doug Fee: And, I'm not to... I know the County staff does a tremendous job, I'm just
trying to put some input into it.. .
Robert Murray: My impression of that, Doug is that it reads to recognize the changes
we recommended.
Stan Litsinger: Doug is referring to an earlier version. . .
Mark Strain: It's the same one we've got.
Stan Litsinger: We, or course, will make all the adjustments to catch up with the
recommendations and decisions relative to changes throughout the document.
Brad Schiffer: Prior to state submittal.
Stan Litsinger: Prior to being trucked of to DCA, so to speak.
Brad Cornell (Collier County Audubon Society): I have a comment about activity
centers and the density ban issue that you were just talking about, and that comes from
the Community Character's Marco's advisory committee discussion of this issue. I was
at that May 1 ih meeting, and I was confused about what you all discussed. I am very
supportive of incentivizing affordable housing for the area; we obviously have a great
need for it. I am concerned that elimination of the density ban bonuses, rather narrowing
the scope of those for affordable housing, may result in some unsustainable patterns of
development around activity centers. I am just raising that as a caution. I am into an area
that I am not an expert at, but it seems to me that we want to keep densities high, or that
we don't suddenly want to drop of a density outside of an activity center; that we would
want to transition those back to residential areas.. .that activity center densities and the
bands around them support public transportation and other aspects that we would like to
see come to fruition-and are, in many aspects. So, I just wanted to raise a caution flag
about that. If I may jump to another issue, the Golden Gate area master plan policies in
the EAR, there is one that references the conservation coastal management element
policy 627. That has to do with a new policy we put in there that stated within one year
of adoption of these amendments, "Collier County shall work with federal and state
agencies to identify properties that have a high probability of wetlands or listed species
occurrence. The identification process shall be based on hydric soil stata and other
applicable criteria. Once this identification process is complete, the County will
detennine if it is sufficiently accurate to require federal and state wetland approvals prior
to issuing a building pennit within those areas. The County shall use this infonnation to
Page 70
July 15, 2004
infonn property owners of the potential existence of wetlands on their property." This
one year window where the county was going to consider their data they had on N.
Golden Gate Estates was adequately accurate to have these kinds of things. I thin that we
should have that discussion, and I think that the EAR should point that out, and we
haven't had that policy resolved. We should consider whether we can map wetlands and
enlisted species habitats to the extents where we don't give building pennits in those
mapped areas unless you can show that you have a wetland destruction pennit from the
corps or the DEP. That was the intent. It's adding a level of scrutiny to what we strongly
suspect is wetlands. I think it would be beneficial to the natural resources in Golden
Gate.
Mark Strain: I'm just questioning how much of an impact that is going to have on
people who have bought a single family home site on subdivided area out there, thinking
they can build a house on it, and all of the sudden they have to go through a more
convoluted process to get there, and that's probably.. Golden Gate Estates is no longer
affordable, but that fact is it's still cheaper than almost anywhere else. And, I understand
you wanting to restrict it. It's a good reason, but we've tried to get here through further
requirements on minimum clearing and things like that. I know we've looked at ROMA
for applications in certain areas, and I'm not even sure where that program is right now...
Brad Cornell: Well, it's still out there. The application is still being reviewed by the
DEP, and because of the rise in property values, it is getting to be less and less a viable
option for mitigating wetland destruction. Mark, I am not proposing anything that isn't
already required to be done. You have to mitigate for wetland destruction. It's a way of
helping to ensure the protection of those where the County process involved building
pennits on those lots. It seems that he County should be looking at pennits before they
issue building pennits.
Mark Strain: Again, I'm in favor of seeing things better protected, but I am still
concerned that you are going to drive the costs so high to get a pennit, by the additional
level of scrutiny... I'm just not sure you are going to gain that much, and I don't know
how you are going to interconnect it all anyway.
Joe Schmitt: I'm trying to follow Brad's thought here, because I already paid for one
DEP position in my building dept. They have just funded for a second. Everyone in the
estates is either afforded the opportunity. DEP reviews every building pennit that is
approved in the estates. They detennine whether or not there is a wetland detennination
and mitigation. So, it's a procedural thing and I am not sure what you are asking. We're
doing it.
Brad Cornell: I guess I am asking for resolution of this policy. I'm on page CCME
policy 626, page 26.
Bill Lorenz: Just to elaborate on this. The policy basically says that the staff is to work
with these agencies to detennine if we could develop some type of mechanism by which
we could require the homeowner to submit to us a DEP required wetlands pennit before
Page 71
July 15,2004
we issue the building pennit. Currently, what we do is place a notice on our building
pennit that says you may have to get the appropriate federal and state wetlands pennits.
This particular policy gave us one year to conduct a study to detennine if we could
detennine areas in the N. Golden Gate Estates where we would not even consider pennit
applications until they could show a evidence from the DEP that would say the area
either did or did not have a wetland. The map that I have up on the view screen is an
analysis that we did last April. We worked with the DEP officials that work out of our
Collier County development services pennitting center. This analysis indicated that there
is not an easy enough way to detennine up front areas in N. Golden Gate Estates, that we
felt comfortable enough to say, "We will not issue a building pennit unless you get some
infonnation from DEP." So this is the analysis, Brad, that shows why we are
uncomfortable with going any further. The final analysis was that we need to work more
closely with DEP staff to detennine that they feel comfortable what these are areas are
the areas that they would say are areas that would require a pennit for a building pennit.
So, we can update this analysis. There was a hitch last summer where a staff member
was not there, but now we need to develop that relationship. I think we have
accomplished the objective. We sat down with the officials. Wee developed the analysis.
But at this point I am uncomfortable with taking the next step and making this a mandate.
Brad Cornell: I would very much like to sit down and discuss this with you. I have not
seen this analysis. I would like to pursue this. I think this was a policy that was adopted
with the rule assessment, that has not been tied up, and I saw value in it, and I would like
to be convinced that we don't need it any more, or that if we do need it, how it could still
come into play. I wasn't proposing to lay any onerous requirements on land owners that
they don't already have. Related to that, is the Golden Gate Area Master plan policy 1.3.
In the EAR, I feel that deferring resource protection to the policies that are in other places
in the comp plan are inadequate, and I thin there needs to be some better policy
consideration for North Golden Gate Estates. I'd like to see the Golden Gate Area
Master plan restudy. This particular area was brushed aside, and to defer all of those
policy questions to other parts of the plan, and I think that the North Golden Gate Estates
area merits more location specific policies. I'm thinking of wetlands and listed species in
the Eastern areas of the space. I think we need to take a closer look at what policies
could be very beneficial for the resources that are out there, and the EAR should reflect
that.
Robert Murray: I'd like to return to the smart growth question you raised. I think
David Weeks can help us, here. Ijust want to confinn, David, in the activity centers and
just outside of them, there are districts and sub districts. Those have call outs for the
densities that are allowable. On their own, from an activity center out to one unit per
acre, there is a transition, is there not?
David Weeks: Yes, there is, but that transition is now more drastic. If the property is in
an activity center, that is not in the urban coastal fringe or urban residential fringe, which
is the vast majority of the activity centers, then they are eligible for 16 units per acre. If
you are outside of that, with the recommended changes now, it means you are down to 4
units per acre. Unless you qualify for the affordable housing density bonus, or unless you
Page 72
July 15, 2004
are in the transportation concurrency management area, or the TDR, and of course, the
existing zoning. Generally speaking the transition now has been based on the
recommendation, drastically altered. It is more or less 16 to 4 to 1 to 5.
Joe Schmitt says that he has received word that the board room is not available in the
morning, but that it would be available on Monday morning. Mark Strain says he
cannot be there, but would like to be there to hear his questions answered because he
has not been able to ask them for three meetings. He said he'd be willing at 5 o'clock
to make a motion. It is decided to go through his letter and questions.
Mark Strain: The first thing I want to say is that I really appreciate Randy Cohen and
Kimberly helping to put the answers to the letter together, because if it wasn't for their
efforts, I probably wouldn't have gotten a lot of responses, and the two of them went out
and collected them, typed them up and brought them back. Some of the questions that
came back had no answers, so I'll ask them again today. There are some issues that have
been brought up that I think need to address this panel. The first one, staff said it was
more of an issue of a policy recommendation by us than it is for the EAR, and that is in
reference to public hearings in regards to GMP amendments, As we know, the private
sector has found that by doing a GMP amendment for a different use on a property, it
might be more efficient trying to go through a process in the LDC. While they still need
both, there is a lot of argument that says if they've gotten it from the GMP, than it is
almost a given when they come here for the PUD. What has happened is tat areas have
been rezoned, and neighbors have not been made aware of it until it comes up for the
PUD review, and we are told, "Well, you know, the GMP says they can be here." That's
a strong argument, and people rare stuck with a surprise, and they are going to get it one
way or another. So, what I am suggesting is that for the private sector rezone
amendments, or languages that affect the uses of properties that affect the GMP, that
those people go through a public notification process. Not, just simply in a public
meeting, but that the adjoining neighbors are notified. My question came about as a
result of reading the EAR, but apparently it should be a question of policy. So, with that
statement. . .
Stan Litsinger: The bottom line on that is correct. Clearly we can do this if the board
makes a decision and the County Manager supports it. Clearly there is dollars and staff
time involved.
Joe Schmitt: I am fully prepared to implement. Once the board says to amend the LDC,
I have a staff that handles these types of activities for the comp plan for rezoning.
There's no problem. We need the board to recognize that it's brought up by the planning
commission, and planning commission would recommend it to the board. If they concur
and provide that guidance, the staff will implement.
Mark Strain: If we limit it to the private sector, the land use changes, and we don't get
that many of these a year.
Joe Schmitt: No, it is not overwhelming, and would not be a significant burden
Page 73
July 15, 2004
Mark Strain: If we got to address it separately, maybe we ought to do it right now.
Mark Strain made a motion that we recommend a policy change to the Board of
County Commissioners implementing public notification for land use changes to a
GMP process. Second by Robert Murray. The motion carried unanimously (5-1).
Mark Strain: The next question on the list that I had that did not get answered was the
hurricane shelters. There is a whole pile of infonnation in this document that will take a
lot of time to discuss. This concerns the lack of hurricane shelters to protect us in the
event of a hurricane. Staff has acknowledged in this document that we have a level of
protection of the minimum range for a category one stonn only. Once we go to category
2, we don't have adequate shelters for them. The range that was picked was the range of
people expected to stay is 12 percent to 24 percent. It turns out that we use 12 percent,
which is the lowest end. If more than 12 percent decide to stay, they have no hurricane
shelter. Ifwe go to a category 2, some of the shelters are in the an evacuation area, so we
have even less space. The shelters that we do have- it can't be verified that the meet the
wind load criteria that is currently on the GMP. All of this boils up to a big problem with
hurricane evacuation and shelters. As far as evacuation, we have an acknowledged
failure of level of service on a lot of the routes that are hurricane evacuation routes, and
when asked if there has been level of services developed, we have not gotten an answer.
It was asked at this public meeting several times. So my question is, and it was asked in
this letter, could we consider hurricane shelters an element of concurrency? No response
was received.
Stan Litsinger: Statutorily, hurricane shelters are not identified as a category A facility
concurrency. They are also not identified as an optional facility to identify as a
concurrency basis, on the basis to approve or deny development orders. Mr. Summers is
out of town, but I will tell you that as a part of his FY05 budget is complete restudy of the
entire issue associated with shelters, routes, impacts on service standards, issues
associated with concurrency detenninations, on hurricane routes and the entire inventory
of shelters, in coordination with the shelter standards, including coordination with the
school board. All of this is on the menu to be considered.
Mark Strain: And, I guess, if they can't be a concurrency element. I don't know, I'll
address it further in the documentation with some suggestions that we should strengthen
the policies that are suggested through the EAR process. I'll wait until we get there. If
you decide to leave, you could be stuck on the road because you can't get out. If you
decide to stay, you could be stuck in your home because the shelters are full. I think
that's a bad situation for the residents of Collier County to be in.
Brad Schiffer: New construction is meeting resistance and wind loads, and everything, I
don't see how. ..
Mark Strain: Wind loads and shelters are different things. Wind loads give you a
criteria to build to (I think it's 120), shelters are required to be 160, and we are suggesting
Page 74
July 15,2004
through this EAR process that it be 140. Shelters have additional criteria for life and
safety and staying there. For example, you have to have emergency generators,
telephones, food supplies, cots, things like that.
Brad Schiffer: but what is the intent, to evacuate the whole County into the shelters?
What I am saying is that the building code now, the goal is to stay in your unit.
Obviously in a low area, they have to evacuate, but...
Mark Strain: But the evacuation areas during a category stonn are figured at a certain
percentage of population. There was a study done that says 12 percent of the pop. will
leave. There was a survey done that says 24 percent of the pop. will leave, so the range
is somewhere in between 12 and 24 percent of the population will choose to go to a
shelter. When they go to a shelter, they will be expecting it to withstand the wind load
that shelters are required to withstand. When they get there, many will find tat there is
not enough room, and that the ones that are built, no one knows if they are built to the
criterion that is in this document. When I questioned someone at the school system, they
didn't know. They said some of the schools are older and they may not be to those
mmlmums.
Brad Schiffer: But the building code does have factors that are upgrading constantly.
Mark Strain: In this book, are the shelters. The facilities that are described as shelters,
there are greater than 300 of them, I think there are four out of 6 are shown as schools.
Barron Collier is one. Try to find out if Barron Collier has 160 m.p.h. wind load. I think
you'll be disappointed with the results. That's my concern. Ifwe send people to BCHS
as a hurricane shelter, if the facility meets the codes that we say we want them to build to
in these documents.
Brad Schiffer: But the building department could be involved in making sure they do.
Mark Strain: I have a memo here from the building department. They know the
problem, but they say the school system is outside their curlews. Yet, we send everybody
to the school system. So now we need to know if the school system is meting codes, and
I'm not sure they are, and I can't find an answer to that. That's what brought the question
up. Maybe we can get into it and make some recommendations. Beach access. I got the
beach and boat access report. It was well done; it shows that they are trying to work with
Rookery Bay to get additional shelters and parker. I think there is a greater opportunity
there. Rookery Bay through DEP does not have the funds to expand the boat launch
facility there for canoes and kayaks. A partnership with them by the County, I know they
are currently talking to them, and my suggestion is that they might want to do that to a
greater extent. Question concerning the density on the barrier islands, I think staff said
that they would want to amend the previous recommendation regarding policy CCME in
response to my question, and that they would refer to the minimum density allowed
within the appropriate future land use designation in lieu of the way they have worded it
now. I went in and checked it, and the language hadn't been changed, because you guys
Page 75
July 15,2004
hadn't caught up with all the changes in that document, but I am assuming that when it
goes to DCA, you will do that.
Stan Litsinger: That's correct, and it's your recommendations and the responses to the
questions that are carried forth to the beard based on the board's direction.
Mark Strain: Question 5 was the one I went over a bit concerning the reduction in miles
per hour.
Brad Schiffer: You know, Mark, what the code does, it has importance factors, and it
may be taking the 140, and due to the importance factors coming up with the pressures
that the old code of 160 would have.
Mark Strain: Well, the building dept. explained it to me. The e-mail correspondence on
pages 10-13, I read it. I wasn't concerned about the explanation. I was concerned that
the result of the explanation is that we still don't know if the shelters we are sending
people to have the right ratings. Now, they may have, but I can't get that infonnation.
Brad Schiffer: We didn't get those e-mails, by the way. Can I just read yours?
Stan Litsinger: I believe those were put in your transmitted notebook packages. In the
attached documents as # 5, e-mail responses.
Brad Schiffer and Stan Litsinger discuss the location of the packages.
Mark Strain: On #6, policy 12.1.10, staff concurred with my question, so they were
going to change it. #7, I understand your response there, it's concerning the ability to
secure additional right of way, that's fine. #8, I brought a question concerning de
minimus impact on roads. Again, my question goes back to Hurricane evacuation. I'm
not saying we don't have adequate evacuation if we did the studies, but from what I can
detennine, we have not ever done the studies to see if the roads, when they are all turned
in the same direction, are adequate to evacuate the area. All I am suggesting is that we
might want to do that in order to comply with the de minimus requirement of that last
section ofFL statutes.
Stan Litsinger: We, of course addressed de mmlmus impact relative to deficient
roadways in our most recent concurrency regulation, which was before you many many
hours and times. Impacts that would otherwise be considered de minimus, would not be
evaluated as de minimus, on deficient hurricane evacuation routes. Of course, in the
process of the reevaluation of the entire system, through the review of our evacuation
shelters... We will look at that again.
Mark Strain: Because, according to the backup in this document, in the moth of
October, it's estimated that 192,000 vehicles will be hitting the road to evacuate. That's
not how many we have here, that's how many would evacuate. If they were to hit 175,
Page 76
July 15,2004
and we turned the lanes all, North, do we have a study that would get us out of here in a
timeframe allowed?
Stan Litsinger: It has been recognized that we need to continue work in that area. Of
course we do have under development a new emergency management response program,
in response to the legislation in Tallahassee a few years ago in development.
Mark Strain: #9 involved removal of the transit system from concurrency because
statute allowed that option to be exercised. In your response, you said that it wasn't
concurrency based, and that it should not be removed. Does that mean your response to
my question is to leave it alone?
Stan Litsinger: I think the response to your question is that transportation system
relative to the transit system is not a concurrency issue, however we are required in a
transportation unit, to address and reflect capacities and functions and standards for a
transportation system should we have one. Which we do.
Mark Strain: So, it's going to stay in the element, but are not going to include it as an
element of concurrency, is that correct?
Stan Litsinger: Yes. That's right.
Mark Strain: Is there a reason why, since it's an option in the statutes to allow it to be a
concurrent element? It seems to me that that would be advantageous because then you
have it ties to current development which may help make it happen.
Don Scott: It's in there more from an element of looking at things like increasing
headways-there are a lot of things that are taken into account with the transit system. I
don't know if it's something we might try to look at. How they might want to address it
from a concurrency aspect, but I made the comment back to delete it because it's not in
there on a concurrency basis, it's there as something we have to report to the federal
agencies on other issues on how the transit system is working, and how we want to
address certain routes that need to be upgraded as we go through the budgeting process.
Mark Strain: But the transit system is starting to fail. One of the easy we may protect it
is to add it as concurrency. I want to make sure that we don't eliminate it to the point that
we can't reconsider. I understand the response to the reclaimed border question. We
don't have enough of it anyway, so it's moot. #11, the water element is irrelevant
because I guess that's off the discussion for today. The solid waste element, taking off
water and sewer, is solid waste still a part of discussion today?
Stan Litsinger: Of Course.
Mark Strain: the last sentence of this response says, "the feasibility study including the
pilot project is being addressed by the staff and it is anticipated to be substantially
complete in four to five years." I can't understand how are you using this gas other than
Page 77
July 15, 2004
blowing it off into global wanning, and could we kind of stop doing that? That's not the
answer I got. Carbon Dioxide is one of the major elements in the global wanning effort,
and I thought if we are just contributing to that, maybe we need to just stop.
Stan Litsinger: I would agree, but I have to tell you that I did not prepare that response.
We may have someone here from public works, I'm not sure...
Paul Matosh (Director of Water Department): Right now all the gas is currently being
burned off in flares, and that's why you got the response that you did.
Mark Strain: Right, and I knew that to be the fact, but what I am saying is, can we put
something in the air that directs us to explore things that would prevent us from doing
that. It's not a good thing to be doing that with the increased carbon dioxide that will be
created. Was there a reason that we just couldn't do something that would encourage us
to look into better ways of doing it?
Paul Matosh: Staff here is studying it. Right now that is the only way we have to
eliminate the gas the builds up in the land fill, but we are looking at all alternatives in
order to address that.
Mark Strain: I hear you saying that but what alternatives are we looking at and how are
we looking at them. Everybody is going to say that they are doing something, I don't
know how effective they are doing it other than opening up the encyclopedia and saying,
Oh, there's another system there."
Paul Matosh: Right now we are involved in landfill gas to energy project. We are
studying ho to convert that gas to electricity so that we can use it in Collier County. That
is moving ahead.
Mark Strain: Can we say that in this EAR policy?
Paul Matosh: I'm not certain that we want to limit ourselves to only that option or
study.
Mark Strain: That's even better. I would like to see this EAR policy expanded to
indicate that we are positively looking into more avenues to eliminate this gas rather than
burning it off into the air. That was what I was trying to get to.
Stan Litsinger: I have a possibility of where you may want to go with this, as I
mentioned, all these changes, relative to the planning commission's recommendations to
include and make changes in the document will go to the Board of County
Commissioners. If the recommendation is that we add a policy relative to this issue, as a
result of the EAR based amendment, we certainly could take that to the Board of County
Commissioners, and I don't believe we would have any objection to that.
Page 78
July 15, 2004
Mark Strain: I'm worried about making a motion, because this is question 12, and we
haven't made any motions, yet, so are we assuming that everything else we are not going
to move forward with, and only the ones we make motions on, because, I mean..
Stan Litsinger: At the end of discussion on your questions, I would propose that the
commission, make a recommendation on inclusion of all of the satisfactory responses and
the discussion that we have had in the document that goes to the Board of County
Commissioners, including the answers to your questions that staff throughout the County
have provided.
Mark Strain: I asked a question about affordable housing, and I understand the answer.
One question that has come up, though is that if we base the number 500 new units a year
on the time and period that the County was in need of so many affordable housing units.
A lot of time has transpired. We may need more than 500 units per year now. Has
anyone explored that from that relationship? To see if today's housing world, we need
more than 500 a year to keep up. We probably do, but are we correcting that?
Jay Sweat (Comprehensive Planning): We need an awful lot more than 500 a year.
We are working with the Schimberg center at University of Florida. I don't know that we
can put our finger on an exact number, all we do know is that we are short based on the
forecast for the next 10 years we will be increasingly short, anywhere upwards of about
35 thousand units short. So, I don't know at this point if we can say for a fact the exact
number. What we are doing now is producing well in excess of 500 a year. Weare
going to be working with the University of Florida to up that number. To what number
that is, we don't know at this point. Weare also looking for direction from the
department of the Community Affairs on how we can come about mitigating the
increasing need for affordable housing in Collier County.
Mark Strain: In the brief version response to this EAR, not going into the backup
material, it says that we have that goal and it looks like we are doing really well. The
reality is that we are not. It lonely looks that way because we are using the wrong
standard. We ought to go back and make a clear announcement that we are meting that
goal, but that goal is inappropriate that we have a better goal based on today's standards,
but we haven't done it yet. That's what I am trying to say.
Robert Murray: I want to get something clear in my mind. Commissioner Quayle had
provoked a question in my mind about inventory. Do we have an inventory? Do we
keep a list of those residences that are considered to be affordable housing?
Joe Schmitt: Just to clarify, we keep a list of those that have been approved for an
affordable housing density bonus agreement, and that we are either through that
mechanism or through ship deferral and other types of programs, but when you say
affordable housing meaning the simple price of a home, no. That is something that the
board of realtors does, but that is not something that we go out and do an assessment of.
Jay is working with the affordable housing commission, and I think they were looking at
that, but we don't go out and do a price break assessment. ..
Page 79
July 15, 2004
Robert Murray: No, and I wouldn't have an expectation that would be the case. The
question for me is we use the word net, and if you have a net, you should have a gross.
The affordable housing, I have to assume is the low and the low low income people, as
opposed to so called work force housing.
Joe Schmitt: Well, we can get into a debate on semantics. What is workforce housing?
A doctor at NCH needs workforce housing? You know what I'm saying? We don't have
a break point or a criterion for what we call work force housing? We just assume it to be
the mid range resident in Collier County who can find an affordable place to live- your
school teacher, your fireman, you know you have less than 80,000 type of income.
Robert Murray: I didn't intend to make an issue of semantics. I'm trying to understand
how we can come to any conclusion of need, especially since there is a statement of using
a net. That means that at some point along the line, there was a document that you folks
were using, the reason I poke tat question a little deeper, is because ultimately when
homes are resold they can no longer qualify as affordable. How can we keep track of
that?
Joe Schmitt: There are leans and other mechanisms to keep track of that in regards to
those homes that are identified as affordable housing under the affordable housing
density bonus system, and if they reach a certain maturity and they are sold, yes we keep
track of that.
Stan Litsinger: There is also a state standard relative to qualification for low and
moderate income housing, relative to the annual median earned income, and I believe it is
about 35 percent of median earned income should be applied to housing. That is again a
analyzed and converted into corresponding rentals and surveys of the community.
Joe Schmitt: Bob, the only thing we can do with a policy like this is through our land
development regulations promote that a developer come in and build affordable housing.
That's the affordable housing density bonus agreement. To establish a goal is one thing,
but to make it happen, we need the regulations that would incentivize that program. That
is the most significant factor in developing right now, is through the affordable housing
density bonus, even if it is 30%, on a development, that truly becomes a true example of
inclusionary zoning-we have a partial development of 20-30% affordable housing, and
it is indistinguishable which unit is affordable and which was not. It's a good program,
and that's all we can do is continue to promote that density bonus to incentivize
developers to use that bonus to get density. You will see a couple more come in shortly,
unfortunately it's in areas tat we already know are pretty congested, Immokalee Road,
951...
Mark Strain: Question 14, about public beach and waterway access. Staff provided a
backup about that. There are some discrepancies in the backup, that if we get through it,
I will ask fro explanations, but it's buried 4 inches into this pile right now, so I'll pass on
it. #15, water quality issue, I was relieved to see that we are using other agencies'
Page 80
July 15, 2004
infonnation, It must not be stonn water, because ifit was, we wouldn't be wanting to use
those, so Under #16, talking about the urban development pattern.
Robert Murray: On 15, in the response in the second paragraph, "The PCD is required
to comply with the requirements listed in Collier County's Water Pollution Control
Program Ordinance (Ord. 89-20). These requirements limit the department's efforts to
protect ground water, fresh water, surface waters and other non-tidal water resources
from all sources of pollution in Collier County." Limit, does that? Maybe I misread
that?
Stan Litsinger: Maybe limit wasn't the best word. Maybe define would have been
better?
Mark Strain: On 16, I talked about benefiting from standalone commercial rezoning
opportunities. Part of the response to staff was that on one hand we are providing density
bonuses to get rid of commercial, on the other hand we are saying it is policy to create
standalone commercial, so in the response, "Such opportunities should probably be
limited to neighborhood commercial development - certain low intensity retail uses, and
limited office and personal service uses." Obviously, we have gone into the document,
but that fact that you have responded that way, does that mane it will get worked in there
some was, assuming the Board of County Commissioners approves it?
Stan Litsinger: On direction of the planning commission prior to on in conjunction with
the presentation to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mark Strain: #17 was about grade separated intersections. I found a comment in the
document that said intersections with 100, 000 trips per day will qualify, and I think there
are a few of those in the county, but the transportation department has indicated that there
is a lot of other criteria that will trigger a grade separates overpass, so I am fine with that.
# 18, the rest.. .
Robert Murray: I understand that there are two points here. In that response to the
second portion, it says, "but is not considered a policy," and then in the paragraph below
it says, "therefore the language is not meant to be a policy," What would trigger it to
become a policy? It's not meant to be or written that way, but it is in there? It's just a
plan? We are planning to eventually change it?
Stan Litsinger: yes.
Mark Strain: That's the balance of my comments from the response to the questions
that I had.
Russell Budd: Okay, let's summarize that in a motion, what recommendations we want
to go forward out of your letter. Just to pick a point...
Page 81
July 15,2004
Mark Strain: Based on the discussion we just had with staff, the various
recommendations that they had then and the clarification they have provided to us would
be our recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
Brad Schiffer: There is one thing I would like to look at based on these e-mails. The
160 may have made sense in the old code, but now it is going to add an undue burden to
the structure.
Mark Strain: I acknowledged that the 140 is acceptable. They responded. Ijust needed
a response. But where do we have 140 in this County? We just don't know.
Brad Schiffer: Where are the wind loads 140?
Mark Strain: No, where are the structures that can withstand 140?
Brad Schiffer: the building department would know that.
Mark Strain: Well, no, they don't. They were asked point blank...
Brad Schiffer: Well, any church built after 2001. . .
Stan Litsinger: Well, that's part of the analysis that does need to be looked at and is
ongoing and has been identified as a need.
Mark Strain: But churches are not designated shelters.
Brad Schiffer: But they are built as shelters.
Mark Strain: No, that's the problem. No one knows.
Brad Schiffer: But the code says they are.
Mark Strain: But the code that they were built under may not be the same code we have
here today.
Doug Fee: I'd like to comment on one of Mark's questions, #4, policy 10.3.8 on page
1.5.F.31 requires that development density on barrier islands be restricted to the lowest
density in the FLUE. His question says, "staff would like this clarified to mean "4" units
per acre... the lowest density in the FLUE is 1 unit per 5 acres, how is 4 nits per acre
consistent with the lowest density criteria?" The general policy is on page 1.5.F.28 reads
"undeveloped coastal barriers shall be maintained primarily in their natural state, and
their natural function shall be protected, maintained and enhanced." Then, underneath
that, "Collier County recommends that this objective be maintained, but specific enabling
policies be revised." So, obviously, what we are asking in here under 10.3.8 requires the
development density on undeveloped coastal barrier systems shall not exceed the lowest
density provided in the future land use element. Collier County recommends the actual
Page 82
July 15,2004
density be listed in this policy, which is currently 4 dwelling units per acre." We are
concerned that this is significant increase. I think what mark is raising is tat it is one unit
per five, which I think is more conserving, but if you go to 4 units per one, how are you
then meeting the objective of leaving tem in their natural state? The other thing I want to
raise is in policy 10.6.1,. in the same area, it reads, "in addition to those applicable
policies supporting objective 10.1.2.3.4.5, development within the County's coastal zone,
shall also meet the following criteria. Densities on the following undeveloped coastal
barriers shall not exceed one unit per 5 acres, and it lists 5 areas. Those are policies that
have been in there for awhile, and they do limit 1 per 5. I'm just raising a point that we
wouldn't be in support of going 0 a density of 4 to one. We would like to leave it at the
lowest density which is 1 to 5 in the barrier islands.
Mark Strain: In response, when staff came back, they are suggesting that we do change
it as a result of the question, "would refer to the minimum density allowed within the
appropriate land use designation as shown on the county wide future land use map." You
just read that as one of the 5, so wouldn't that put it back in...
Doug Fee: To me there is a conflicting policy already in there. If you are changing
10.3.8, there is another policy you would have to look at.
Mark Strain: You know what, the utmost authority on this is sitting in the audience. If
he's just come up and help us on this.
David Weeks: Staffs position on this is that the future land use element dictates what
density is allowed, and it depends on what the designation is. Many of these coastal
barrier islands are designated conservation. Think of Key Waden for example. That
designation allows one unit per 5 acres. There's no change in that. However, there is the
reality that there are some coastal barrier islands that may be designated urban, and if tat
is the case, that is where that 4 units per acre would be applicable. It would be another
circumstance if we don't make a change- where we have a CCME policy that says your
density is one unit per 5 acres, yet the future land use element tells you something
different.
Mark Strain: Do you know of an example where the urban designation might be on a
barrier island? I think you are saying where it is already acknowledged it's urban area,
that's where you are saying the FLUE says you can have the density. Maybe we already
have that and it isn't an issue. If we change the language as you are suggesting, rather
than just change it to a blanket 4 units, it could pose a conflict with the conservation
portion of the. ..
David Weeks: That's correct. We simply should just defer to what the land use element
allows, recognizing that there are different designations and therefore different densities
allowed.
Mark Strain makes a motion that would forward the series of questions and
responses with the comments provided today by staff and others to the Board of
Page 83
July 15, 2004
County Commissioners for final approval. Second by Lindy Adelstein. There being
no discussion, Russell Budd called the question and the motion was approved
unanimously. (5-0)
Mark Strain: Roman Numeral 10 in the binder, "staff evaluation and appraisal report."
There's a paragraph at the end of the page talking about a state recommendation between
a distance Y2 mile between cites of beach access. I don't understand what that meant.
How is the park maintaining lesser density?
Stan Litsinger: I think it refers to the land on which the beach access transverses.
Mark Strain: It's owned by the state park, though. It doesn't have any density related
to it.
Stan Litsinger: Correct.
Mark Strain: So they are not maintaining it. On page 1.5.A.7, 1.4.4 it talks about
evaluating facility capacities for cat. A facilities. Are they saying that only the elements
of concurrency are A, or are their other things that can be category A in which to evaluate
post development?
Stan Litsinger: From the standpoint of concurrency provides category A facilities and it
also provides for public schools. Other than that the standpoint of approval or denial on a
development order on the basis of facility capacity would be an issue of hurricane
standards. There are no statutes for applying this as a concurrency rule.
Mark Strain: So, in order to be a category A, you have to e subject to concurrency?
Stan Litsinger: That is correct.
Mark Strain: Page 1.5.C.1.6, the red correction added to the last paragraph. Where is
this 400 foot corridor? It just didn't ring a bell.
Stan Litsinger: I'm sorry; we don't have staff here who developed that modification.
Mark Strain: Why was it added if we don't even know what it is?
Joe Schmitt: It's dealing with the water and sewer district and part of Tim Deloney's
staff. . .
Mark Strain: Well, maybe we can figure that out. If it's in there for a genuine reason,
fine, if it isn't, I just didn't see what we were talking about. On page 1.5c3.2, policy for
historical flow ways and the use of these flow ways to control runoff into the estuaries.
Certainly that is going to factor in to the watershed management plan. If that didn't
happen, and just looking at policy 1.1.4, when they talk about restoring historic flow
Page 84
July 15, 2004
ways, are they talking about the location of them, their volume, or their outfall potential?
Does that need to be defined? Do we know?
Stan Litsinger: I would say no, sir, we don't.
Mark Strain: I would say in order to make that policy effective do we want to decide
which one of those we should be looking at? If you look at them all you have a much
broader problem?
Stan Litsinger: How about if we concur and have staff look at that prior to the Board of
County Commissioners meeting and see if a modification is needed.
Mark Strain: Page 1.5CA.2, we talk about current waste collection service. They are
preparing an RFP document that will be effective in Sept. 2006. I believe that one we
currently have was from 1998-2003. How do we get from 2003 to 2006 if we don't have
anyone doing it?
Stan Litsinger: I can't confinn when the existing contract expires, but we do know that
we are of course sending it out for RFP again, and that the effective dating of the new
contract would being in September of 2006.
Joe Schmitt: That's going on right now, and I would have to ask Paul, he' the only one
from that division... They are in the preliminary discussions with waste management.
Mark Strain: I know that from the paper, but all I was saying is that expires in 2003 and
the new one starts in 2006.
Stan Litsinger: We may need to reconcile the dates on this policy. ..
Mark Strain: On the next paragraph on the same page you talk about replacing requisite
transfer stations with recycling centers. What are we doing with that? Do we no longer
need transfer stations?
Randy Cohen: It's more of a name change, than function.
Joe Schmitt: In fact, that is right. They want to put recycling...
Mark Strain: Isn't this the issue that is going on with the stake holders' group to discuss
that Collier County should be the lead agency in regards to species and things like that?
Stan Litsinger: That is in fact the subject of the stake holders' group which is charged
with reporting back to the Board of County Commissioners in November in what
direction we will go forth.
Mark Strain: Ifwe submit this to Tallahassee with this language that says we really met
the objective, how does that affect the outcome of the stake holders' group?
Page 85
July 15,2004
Stan Litsinger: I think that the stake holders' group and what direction we go in regards
to the listed species issue is independent of the EAR reporting on the Comp plan as is
currently in place.
Mark Strain: The stake holders' group is saying that we did not met that goal, other
wise they never would have been fonned. Page 1.5.F.I0, policy 3.2.3, why was it
recommended in the first place? Why was it not done? And no why is it deemed
unnecessary?
Stan Litsinger: We can try to resolve that prior to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mark Strain: I'm assuming that someone felt this was necessary, but we never did it
and now we are saying we never needed it at all...
Stan Litsinger: I believe this policy has been in there since 1989.
Mark Strain: Page 1.5.F.14, irrigation. The County Public utilities division has a
limited capacity to provide the treated waste water that can be consumed by gold courses.
Are we deep well injecting? Ifwe are, couldn't that be put to better use?
Paul Matosh: We are only deep well injecting when the demand for reclaimed water
goes below what we are producing. So, it is only a secondary method for disposal.
Mark Strain: Don't we have an overabundance of people that want affluent. . .
Paul Matosh: But not at certain times of the year. When we are all standing knee deep
in water, no we can't get rid of it.
Mark Strain: Even the required affluent storage requirement... where they had to store
a certain percentage of what they took in so you'd have a place to put back..
Paul Matosh: That is correct. We store it everywhere you can. Sometimes all the
storage fills up and we have to use deep well.
Mark Strain: Page 1.5.F.39, policy 12.3.2 It states that after a hurricane that
necessitates an evacuation the Board of County Commissioners shall meet to hear
preliminary damage assessment. This will be done prior to the reentry of the population."
Does that meet the sunshine law? I take that to be deleted?
Stan Litsinger: I guess if we notice the meeting that there is no one in town... this is a
classic conundrum. Maybe we need to look at the wording there, but we certainly need to
have a provision for emergency meetings prior to population.
Mark Strain: Page 1.5.J.12, the third paragraph titles "objective achievement analysis."
"Also, the County recommends broadening this objective to apply to "working class
Page 86
July 15,2004
families"". We have affordable housing, work force housing, and now," housing for
working class families." Do we define this?
Stan Litsinger: I think the proper wording would be work force.
Mark Strain: Could this be changed?
Stan Litsinger: Yes, to what we have defined.
Mark Strain: Page 1.6.12, it's a listing of all Florida statutes that came into effect since
the last EAR. # 8 hits on what I already asked here today, it says the Collier County
management plan is consistent with this requirement, but we don't know if we are
consistent with 1.6.3.31.80 without knowing if we have a hurricane level service issue. I
brought the statue with me and it addresses...
Stan Litsinger: It addresses de minimus and relative to the definition on impacted
roadways, 110% of service level, and also of Hurricanes evacuation routes and provides
for single families. As you know in the past year we have submitted 2 major comp plan
amendments associated with changing our concurrency system under this statute. The
issue was raised recently, and our response and comp plan amendment change and
additional language in relevant to hurricane evacuation impact was found to be
compliant. We are currently compliant with the1999 change on that matter.
Mark Strain: In section 2.1, item 2.15, one thing that changes with this subsection, in
the prior up to this point, staff would look at each policy and evaluate how will it had
worked. From here on out, they don't do tat. I am assuming that the restatement means
that you want to keep the policy.
Stan Litsinger: In this area, anything relative to transportation, the technical
circumstance that we found in our preparation of the EW AR was, what is the cutoff day?
In a lot of these cases we have included in the EAR policies that we have just amended in
the last year. So, at this point to say that we have been successful, we would need to
modify these policies again, and we don't really have any analysis to make on those at
this time.
Mark Strain: You are recommending that these stay put. On page 2.1.5, policy 1.5.3,
(he quotes) Why is that an element of concurrency achievement for the transportation
level of service?
Stan Litsinger: It has to do with availability. Those two policies that are referred to as
conditions of concurrency are in the ground or under construction.
Mark Strain: So it isn't, "or". Would it be better to say, "and"? If you have a water line
tat doesn't mean that from transportation's viewpoint you are concurrent, you have to
have a waterline and the other issues of transportation.
Page 87
July 15, 2004
Stan Litsinger: Maybe "standards" could be confusing there whether you are talking
about water and seer or you have the condition of leaving in place as under construction.
Those two clearly apply to any of the five facilities, so we look at specific conditions
relative to transportation, and several of the others.
Stan Litsinger: Is the recommendation that we look at different language?
Mark Strain: I don't know enough about it to recommend any changes. It just doesn't
read simply.
Mark Strain states that he doesn't want to bring all those present back to another
meeting to hear his questions. He decided along with Stan Litsinger that they can
handle his questions privately.
Brad Schiffer made a motion to forward to the Board of County Commissioners.
Second by Lindy Adelstein. Being no further discussion, Russell Budd called the
question and the motion was approved. (4-1)
Old Business:
Mark Strain: If you all recall last time we met and I brought my notes, we had an issue
with the RT park up on the Lee County line. We had a lot of discussion and we made
some motions and stipulations. Apparently the way the two parties that were here
interpreted it differently. They want to know what we really mean when we said we
wanted to restrict the hours. I went back and looked at the notes I had from that meeting,
and I showed them earlier today to one of the staff members that was involved in it, and
I'll read it to you. The question comes about as a result of them moving two commercial
pieces together on the TR track on the North side. We put some stipulations together so
that the hours of operation should be restricted to 7-7, which we approved. Apparently
someone thinks that we didn't say B, that we said A & B, and that the hours of restriction
lie in both parcels. I don't recall that discrepancy. They only thing I can rely on is why
my notes say, and they say hours of operation on B. The land owner asked that we bring
this up and getting a clarification, so that this issue... I wanted to ask this board what
they remember about it.
Brad Schiffer: I remember, Mark, that it's only the one we pulled up behind the other
one.
Mark Strain: One faced the frontage on the road, and it didn't seem logical to have to
restrict that. The one further in did, and that's why I believe the notes are written that
way, but I want to make sure that as a concurrent...
Lindy Adelstein: That's my gut feeling too that that's what we did.
Page 88
July 15,2004
Mark Strain: As far as the record goes, it is our thought that the hours of restriction
were for parcel B, not parcel A & B.
Stan Litsinger informed the commissioners that they would receive an updated copy of
the EAR when it was approved by the Board of County Commissioners and sent on to
the state. They were requested to leave their copies behind as the County could find
use for them.
There being no further business, the meeting was concluded at 5: 15, pm.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Mr. Russell Budd
Page 89
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
"--.. - -, "~.<-'~"---- ·h·.-_~_,'_~"·.. -.. ~,-,~"-,,,,--,,_,=~-~,~~,~,~,.~ ',._' .~~ '.~_" C_·.=~,·~~;_~...~~.._~~____ _""~_'"~_~_~_B'~~~~_~,"=~, >..~_. ;'___.'..._~'_"~" "_~_._~n~.__..,~__~~_
Community Development and Environmental Services Division
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
2800 North Horseshoe Dri ve · Naples, Florida 34104
July 19,2004
Robert Davy
26950 Nicki J. Ct.
Bonita Springs, Fl. 34135
Re: Petition No. BD-2004-AR-5693, Holmers, Todd And Jeff
Dear Mr. Davy:
On Thursday, July 15, 2004, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition
No. BD-2004-AR-5693. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 04-06 is enclosed approving this use.
Please be advised that Section 2.7.2.3.2(3) of the Land Development Code requires an applicant to
remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County
Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing
advertising sign(s) immediately.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 213-2911.
~~~
Ross Gochenaur
RG/sp
Enclosure
CC: Todd Holmers and Jeff Holmers
28303 Hidden Lake Dr
Bonita Springs, FI. 34134
Land Dept. Property Appraiser
M. Ocheltree, Graphics
"Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDT)
File
c
o
c
c
.. "
y
Phone (239)403-2400
Fax (239) 643-6968 or (239) 213-2916
www.colliergov.net
.--,.-..-----
CCPC RESOLUTION 04- 0 - 6
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER
BD-2004-AR-5693 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 36-foot extension for a boat dock from
the 20-foot length allowed by LDC Section 2.6.21. to create a dock facility consisting of two slips, each
having one boat lift, protruding a total of 56 feet into the waterway to authorize a 56-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-2004-AR-5693, filed on behalf of Todd Holmers and Jeff Holmers by Robert
Davy, for the property hereinafter described as:
Lot 18, Block G, Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat, as described in Plat Book 6, Page 2, of
the Public Records of Collier County, Florida,
be, and the same is hereby approved for, a 36-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length
otherwise allowed by LDC Section 2.6.21., to create a dock facility consisting of two slips, each having one
boat lift, protruding a total of 56 feet into the waterway to authorize a 56-foot boat docking facility in the
RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions:
1. Corresponding pennits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers and
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be provided to Collier County prior
to the issuance of a building pennit.
2. Reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be installed at the
outennost 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
3. 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.
4. All prohibited exotic species, as such tenn 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.
/ S- -If
day of
\J~/v
/
,2004.
Done this
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER~OUNTYJ;FL9RWA f 0
i.' /ii,' /1 ,'/ ~' ",'
¡,I / //. . "f/Y). ..f
. : ... _,'."" J._ ',' / ~ { ,P' ~ ..'.
BY. / \....___...// .AY V/'-(A...,.f~c. .,#' I l¿",.,lf¡(- _/
RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
" .....-.-'-.....'"
il/..
ljs h K. Schmitt
Cfo munity Development and Environmental
~vices Administrator
~prov~. :o,Fonn and Legal Sufficiency:
~~i \J~
Patrick G. White
Assistant County Attorney
B D-2004-AR -5693/RG/sp
Page 2 of 2
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
, c. ~__...,_...~~ _~'~""_'__~".'_~ ,~._" .__":'"'''_.~.·.L~·_;~_..·..~~_~~_'=-_'_~___·=~__~·'''''' -=,_~."~~-,,,".__,,; ~_. _~_,__.._,~.~_~_,.~.~""...~., '.-'''~~...~.'= ,~,~~¿~_=..,,_.~__=_=_~~_.._.,....~..,__~~..,. ~ 0..."__.._._, ,_~-_ ..,,,-- '__ ,--- .~.-
Community Development and Environmental Services Division
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, Florida 34] 04
July 19,2004
Robert Davy
26950 Nicki J. Ct.
Bonita Springs, Fl. 3413 5
Re: Petition No. BD-2004-AR-5699, Robert Davy
Dear Mr. Davy:
On Thursday, July 15, 2004, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and
approved Petition No. BD-2004-AR-5699. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 04-07
is enclosed approving this use.
Please be advised that Section 2.7.2.3.2(3) of the Land Development Code requires an
applicant to remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken
by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this
item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 213-2911.
since~~
/í¿;~ ~
Ross Goche aur
RG/sp
Enclosure
CC: Land Dept. Property Appraiser
~. Ocheltree, Graphics
JMinutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI)
File
..
c
"
e
c
H
t. )'
Fax (239) 643-6968 or (239) 213-2916
www.colliergov.nct
Phone (239) 403-2400
CCPC RESOLUTION 04- 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER
BD-2004-AR-5699 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK
OF 30 FEET BEYOND THE 20 FEET PERMITTED BY CODE
TO CREATE A DOCK FACILITY CONSISTING OF TWO
SLIPS, EACH HAVING ONE BOAT LIFT. PROTRUDING A
TOTAL OF 50 FEET INTO THE WATERWAY ON PROPERTY
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Flonda 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 30-foot extension for a boat dock from
the 20-foot length allowed by LDC Section 2.6.21. to create a dock facility consisting of two slips, each
having one boat lift, protruding a total of 50 feet into the waterway to authorize a 50-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-2004-AR-5699, filed by Robert Davy, for the property hereinafter described as:
Lot 20, Block G, Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat, as described in Plat Book 6, Page 2,
of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida,
be, and the same is hereby approved for, a 30-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length
otherwise allowed by LDC Section 2.6.21., to authorize a 50-foot boat docking facility consisting of two
slips, each having one boat-lift, protruding a total of 50 feet into the waterway 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. Anny Corps of Engineers and
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be provided to Collier County prior
to the issuance of a building pennit.
Page 1 of 2
2. Reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be installed at the
outennost 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.
3. 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.
4. All prohibited exotic species, as such tenn 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 FUR THER 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.
Ir~
day of
h/v
"
,2004.
Done this
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER Ç,OUNTY; FLORIDA
BY', /<~i"/:1.1 .,Û5·:á~/·~¡·:./,/ /
/t...,_ ;t...~" "",;/;.;¿t...(_ ;" ?,"1'/./,.Z:':'(
RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
Patric ite
Assistant County Attorney
BD-2004-AR-5699/RGlsp
Page 2 of 2
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
~- ······~··c~~uIrltYD~~;ï~p~~~;i·~dE~;¡~rW~;;w·s;;;¡~;~;Di;¡~~ion
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, Florida 34104
July 19, 2004
Robert Davy
26950 Nicki J. Ct.
Bonita Springs, Fl. 34135
RE: Petition No. BD-2004-AR-5697, Robert Davy
Dear Mr. Davy:
On Thursday, July 15, 2004, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved
Petition No. BD-2004-AR-5697. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 04-08 is enclosed approving
this use.
Please be advised that Section 2.7.2.3.2(3) of the Land Development Code requires an applicant to
remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County
Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing
advertising sign(s) immediately.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 213-2911.
S~f'~
Ross Gochenaur
RG/sp
Enclosure
CC: Land Dept. Property Appraiser
¥. Ocheltree, Graphics
vMinutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI)
File
".
c
o
c
o ...
t: Y
Phone (230) 403-2400
Fax (239) 643-6968 or (239) 213-2916
www.colliergov.net
CCPC RESOLUTION 04-_º-ª--
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER
BD-2004-AR-5697 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 36-foot extension for a boat dock from
the 20-foot length allowed by LDC Section 2.6.21. to create a dock facility consisting of two slips, each
having one boat lift, protruding a total of 56 feet into the waterway to authorize a 56-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-2004-AR-5697, filed by Robert Davy, for the property hereinafter described as:
Lot 19, Block G, Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat, as described in Plat Book 6, Page 2, of
the Public Records of Collier County, Florida,
be, and the same is hereby approved for, a 36-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length
otherwise allowed by LDC Section 2.6.21., to create a dock facility consisting of two slips, each having one
boat lift, protruding a total of 56 feet into the waterway, to authorize a 56-foot boat docking facility in the
RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions:
1. Corresponding pennits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers and
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be provided to Collier County prior
to the issuance of a building pennit.
2. Reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be installed at the
outennost 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
3. 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.
4. All prohibited exotic species, as such tenn 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 / J - It day of ~ /./ , 2004.
/
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER9~UNTYlJLORIDA
/" Iii,' l' /) I
/,.,/ /,l./! ,,/'" ,:¿f A'
BY: /G' ".'A 2 1(// ./: / ), ..,¡
RUSSELL A. BÚDD, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
/t~Þ-
J osrPifK. Schmitt
Cotnllunity Development and Environmental
SeMces Administrator
v~:~ a ,~¡:~egaJ Sufficiency
Patrick G. White
Assistant County Attorney
BD-2004-AR-5697/RG/sp
Page 2 of 2