CCPC Minutes 08/21/2008 R
August 21, 2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
August 21, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning
Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Donna Reed-Caron
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David J. Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review
Thomas Eastman, CCSD Director of Real Property
Page 1
AGENDA
Revised II
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2008, IN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - WL Y 3, 2008, REGULAR MEETING; ruL Y 9, 2008, LDC MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - WL Y 22,2008, REGULAR MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: CU-2007-AR-12419, ABC Liquors Inc., represented by Heidi K Williams, AICP of Q Grady
Minor and Associates, P.A., is requesting a Conditional Use of the Commercial Intermediate (C-3) Zoning
District with a Special Treatment (ST) Overlay to increase the maximum allowable square-footage of
personal services, video rental, or retail uses (excluding drug stores, 5912) from 5,000 square-feet of gross
floor area to 12,000 square-feet of gross floor area in the principal structure. The subject property, consisting
of approximately 1.79+ acres of land, is located in the northeastern quadrant of the CR9S) and US4)
intersection, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-
David Moss) RE-ADVERTISED FROM 8/7/08
B. Petition: RZ-2007-AR-12044. )mmokalee LLC, represented by Shaun Mularkey, AICP, of Coastal
Engineering Consultants, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Residential
Multi-family-16 (RMF-16) Zoning District to permit a multi-family development on 9.33'" acres with a
maximum of IS dwelling units per acre for property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of
Immokalee Road (CR-846) and School Road, in Section 9, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, in the
unincorporated lmmokalee area of Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem)
1
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: VA-2007-AR-11494, Darryl J. Damico, represented by Tim Hancock, AICP, of Davidson
Engineering, Inc, is requesting an after-the-fact Variance from the requirements of Subsection 4.02.02.C of
the Land Development Code (LDC) to waive the maximum site area of twenty acres to allow excavation of
36.61 acres on a 46.87 acres site within the Estates (E) Zoning District for a project to known as "Captiva
Pond". The subject property is located in Golden Gate Estates (Unit #45), between 54th Avenue NE and
56th Avenue NE, in Section 4, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Melissa Zone) CONTINUED FROM 7/17/08
B. Petition: CU-2007-AR-11493, Darryl J. Damico, represented by Tim Hancock, AICP, of Davidson
Engineering, lnc, is requesting a Conditional Use for the expansion of an existing earth mining operation
within an Estates (E) Zoning District, for a project known as "Captiva Pond", The subject property,
consisting of 46.87 acres, is located in Golden Gate Estates (Unit #45), between 54th Avenue N.E. and 56th
Avenue N.E., in Section 4, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, of Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Melissa Zone) CONTINUED FROM 7/17/08
C. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13060, Naples Baptist Church, Inc. represented by Laura DeJohn, AICP, of Johnson
Engineering, Inc., requests a Conditional Use in the Mobile Home Overlay within the Agricultural zoning
district (A-MHO) pursuant to 2.03.0I.A.I.c.7 of the Land Development Code (LDC). The 4.96 acre A-
MHO zoned site is proposed to permit a Church with a maximum of 12,000 square feet of floor area. The
subject property is located at 2140 Moulder Drive, Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier
County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach) CONTINUED TO 9/4/08
D. Petition: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-119l4, Germain Properties of Columbus, Inc., represented by Dominick J.
Amico. P.E., of Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, Inc. and Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, of RWA, requesting a
rezone from Planned Unit Development Ordinance No. 90-50 to Commercial Planned Unit Development
(CPUD) to be known as Germain Toyota CPUD. The purpose of the request is to increase the maximum
building area from the current maximum of 60,000 square feet to a maximum of 130,000 square feel. The
13.05+ acre subject property is located at 13329 Tamiami Trail North; lying in the southwest quadrant of
the intersection ofTamiami Trail North (US 41) and Wiggins Pass Road (CR-888), Section 16, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone)
E. Petition: PUDA-2008-AR-13063, Silver Lakes Property Owners Association of Collier County, Inc.,
represented by Dwight Nadeau of R W A Consulting, Inc. request a PUD Amendment to the Silver Lakes
PUD (Ordinance No. 05-14) to provide additional living space for specific accessory structures. The :!:146-
acre subject property is located approximately one and a half miles south of the Tamiami Trail (US 41)
and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) intersection in Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) CONTINUED TO 9/4/08
10. OLD BUSINESS
A. To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) review and consider two proposed ordinances as
follows: I. To amend Ordinance Number 90-17, known as the "Collier County Noise Ordinance", codified as
Chapter 54, Article IV, of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, which Ordinance
subsequently was amended by Ordinance Numbers: 93-77, 00-68, 04-15, and 07-61 that is intended to
provide sound levels that are not detrimental to life, health, enjoyment of his or her property; and 2. A
proposed Ordinance providing for a permit to authorize the operation of outdoor serving areas; specifYing
outdoor serving area permit application requirements; providing for suspension of such permit; providing for
operating regulations; providing for conflict and severability; providing for inclusion in the Code of Laws and
Ordinances; providing for repeal of three specified ordinances; and providing an effective date.
(Coordinators: Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney, Dave Scribner and Gary Dantini, Code Enforcement,
Lisa A. Schott, President and Principal Acoustical Consultant) CONTINUED FROM 7117108
TO BE HEARD AFTER THE CONSENT AGENDA
2
II. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
8/21/08 eepe Agenda/RB/sp
3
August 21, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to
the August 21 st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If the secretary will please
do the roll call.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSI.oNER WOLFLEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We are 100 percent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
Page 2
August 21, 2008
Addenda to the agenda. We have a few announcements.
The consent Item 8(A), which is ABC Liquors, Inc., I think has
been, it says, withdrawn. I'm not sure if that means continued to
another point or withdrawn for rehearing or what, but --
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, it's my understanding that they
wish to come back before the planning commission to clarify a topic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under advertised public hearings,
we have Item 9(C), which is going to be continued until September,
which is the Naples Baptist Church, Inc., on 2140 Moulder Drive.
We have Item 9(E), which is the Silver Lakes Property Owners
Association. It's on 951 south of 41. And that's also continued to
September 4th.
Then under old business, we have the noise ordinance, which is
kind oflike a piece of Scotch tape, you can't get it off your finger. It
has been floating around here for a year to two years now, and it's
been continued indefinitely. I'm not sure what that means. I would
hope that it's coming back to us sooner than indefinitely but -- maybe
you can't peg a date on it, but we do need to still get that fixed.
MR. KLA TZKOW: It's coming back to you fairly soon.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. There's a lot of people are
still watching it so -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Jeff, is the noise ordinance and
the outdoor seating ordinance coming back, or both or one?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I believe we're bringing both back to you at
the same time. The issue with the outdoor seating -- the issue with the
noise ordinance has been human voices, as well as the A TV in the
Estates. I think the A TV in the Estates issue is done. We're still
working off of the human voice issue.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And the outdoor seating is
coming back?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think -- Joe--
Page 3
August 21,2008
MR. SCHMITT: The outdoor seating ordinance basically has
not changed since you reviewed it probably well over eight or nine
months ago. It is coming back to you at the direction ofthe Board of
County Commissioners.
It's basically included with the noise ordinance, because the
direction was to review the noise ordinance and compare it and
contrast against the outdoor seating ordinance.
One of the two will go forward, not both, basically. But that's the
board's decision. My objective is to bring -- I'm directed to bring the
noise ordinance back to the board. The board's direction was to bring
-- send back to you the outdoor seating ordinance.
And I think what the board is looking for is a recommendation,
based on your review of the noise ordinance, whether to proceed with
the outdoor seating ordinance.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think last time it came up,
that's exactly what we decided, to put some teeth in the noise
ordinance and let the outdoor seating go away.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to, I think, formally vote on it,
and that's why it's coming back. And after we're finished with the
noise ordinance -- I imagine we'll take that first. Ifwe're satisfied with
it, we may just recommend dismissal of the seating ordinance. So
that's an option we could have.
I think that's all the issues written on the agenda.
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
As far as planning commission absences, we have a unique
situation has arrived, thanks to Tropical Storm Fay. As you know, we
were going to hear about half of our GMP amendments for the
Page 4
August 21, 2008
adoption hearing on Tuesday. That got delayed by board order to
August 29th. That's the day we were going to hear the other half of the
GMP amendments. And the other half includes the school board
amendment, which is rather lengthy.
Unfortunately what that does, it forces upon us a full day on
GMP amendments on Friday of next week. But prior to Friday of next
week, which is the 28th, we have the LDC amendments that we were
going to try to finish up. Those also include the environmental
segment of the LDC amendments, which are rather intense.
So the way I'm thinking, we're going to have two full days. And
what I would like to ask staff to do in preparation of each of those
days is to have alternative days lined up in this room to continue each
one of those meetings.
This panel may decide, because we have two days back-to-back
which could go rather lengthy not to take the full length of the days,
maybe to start in the morning and cut off in midmorning instead of
working too late, and then dividing it up over a two-day period,
depending on how fast we're moving through those items. But we can
make that decision on each of those next week during the meeting.
MR. SCHMITT: And we will do that. I've already instructed my
staff to look at dates to continue each of those.
And just as a warning, the water supply plan that is scheduled
for you to be -- to be heard by you on the 29th, we are still having
some difficulty in getting information needed, primarily from the
independent authorities. And so there's some issues there.
So that may be continued -- may be one of the items continued.
We'll let you know certainly, probably by the close of business
tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
As far as the attendance for the planning commission on the
28th, that will be the LDC day. Is anybody here not going to be able to
make it that day?
Page 5
August 21, 2008
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I may have an issue. I'm trying
to get it changed, but I've had an ongoing thing on --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll still have a quorum.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Question. On the 27th we're
scheduled here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's been canceled.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, and the 29th?
MR. SCHMITT: The 27th was taken off your calendar quite a
while ago. I don't know why it kept on showing up. But that day -- I
announced it quite a while ago.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 29th we're here till 12:00?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I was going to bring up
next.
Joe, that information, the 29th, isn't that the day that we found
out we can run the full day?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. So that -- yeah,
again, that's been corrected.
As far as the 29th, is there anybody here that cannot make it on
the 29th?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Still, that's the two days I'm
having issues with. I'll try to get them resolved.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Possibly not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney as well.
Okay, so that would take us down to six, and we're okay then, so
good to go.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, since you're talking LDC on the
28th, I trust everyone got their packets and note on the cover sheet?
There was changing the sheets for sheets, the pages -- the new pages
are of course the amendments and changes that came out of many of
Page 6
August 21, 2008
the DSAC meetings.
So -- and we'll certainly make sure you're aware during the
presentation of the changes or where staff basically didn't agree with
the recommendations of the DSAC. But we'll make sure that that's
noted during your -- the presentation to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
On the GMP -- or on those LDC hearings, if you could kind of
prepare your staff, because they're related to EAR, and the
environmental in particular, I would certainly like to hear and see on
the screen as we're discussing each change in the environmental what
EAR paragraph -- or what EAR segment of the GMP they think their
interpretation applies that makes the LDC amendment come out the
way it did.
I want to make sure that the interpretation we see from staff is
what this panel understood the outcome to be when the EAR was
voted on. So that would be my --
MR. SCHMITT: Understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might take a little bit longer to do
that, but I think it would be well worth it.
And by the way, Tom is here. We forgot you, I think. You're so
quiet over there all the time, Tom.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, Tom's big day will come on the 29th,
because that will also be the school concurrency issues and public
school facilities element and many of the other activities associated
with that. So that's going to be -- we may be spending a lot of time on
those items as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good reason we're leaving an extra
back-up day then.
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 3, 2008, REGULAR
Page 7
August 21,2008
MEETING: JULY 9, 2008, LDC MEETING
Approval of minutes. The first is July 3rd, 2008, the regular
meeting.
Is there a motion to either change or approve?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve, Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll second.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
July 9th LDC meeting minutes. Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved, approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. And I'll second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
Page 8
August 21, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - JULY 22,2008, NONE
The BCC reports and recaps. Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: The BCC did not meet since the last planning
commission, so there are no recaps.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: NONE
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chairman's report. I think I've
said enough already this morning.
Item #8B
PETITION: RZ-2007-AR-12044, IMMOKALEE LLC
Consent agenda items, we'll start with that. And the first one that
is actually on today's agenda is 8(B). It's the Immokalee, LLC.
There has been one change to the conditions of approval that's
being suggested. If you all turn to Exhibit B, Page 1, conditions of
Page 9
August 21,2008
approval, and it's item seven.
And it said the development shall be limited to one full, in
parenthetical, right in, right out, end parenthetical, access driveway
that shall be located at least 440 feet west of School Road 846
intersection.
Well, that's a contradiction in terms. One full versus right in,
right out. Right in, right out is not a full access. I believe the intent of
the panel was to provide at least one full access into the property. It
would be real hard to get into it otherwise.
And so my suggestion to staff was to strike the words right in,
right out, pending verification at today's meeting.
Is there any comments and disagreement with that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other corrections or
changes or suggestions --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On that same page, Exhibit B,
under number one -- I'm sorry, under number 11, we talk about a
developer shall provide a 25-foot wide landscape buffer. Do we want
to stipulate what type buffer that should be?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's on there. If it's not on their
plan, we may want to.
. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I looked at the master plan. The
master plan doesn't comport with the statement, actually. The master
plan hasn't changed. If not, we should probably under number one
stipulate applicability.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says IS-foot Type D buffer.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, but it doesn't say 25, so--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And Kay --
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal
Planner.o
Page 10
August 21, 2008
This was a condition that you all added at the hearing. You
didn't specify the type that you wanted, you just said a 25-foot wide
landscape buffer.
So it's not shown on that plan, because the plan that was
submitted on 8/4 was prior to you adding that condition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that IS-foot Type D goes to
25-foot Type D.
MS. DESELEM: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would have been the assumption
that -- I know I made the suggestion, but I just simply suggested they
widen that IS-foot buffer to 25 feet, and the applicant accepted that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then I would agree with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I think the D doesn't change, it
just goes from 15 feet to 25 feet.
MS. DESELEM: Okay. So you want us to add in the actual letter
designation for that then as well?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the plan has it, but the corrected
plan where the 15 is would say 25. So the Type D never was into
discussion, it wasn't a point of change. So I think it's going to be a
25-foot Type D buffer instead ofa IS-foot Type D buffer.
MS. DESELEM: We'll add that correction--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the plan will change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The plan will change, yes, that's correct
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But either one or the other has to
be, yes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay?
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, on the same exhibit,
number 12, we had discussed this a number of times, the developer
was advocating that this sidewalk would go from nowhere to nowhere.
Page 11
August 21,2008
And they had suggested putting the sidewalk up where it would do
good. .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sidewalk they were talking about
going nowhere to nowhere was the one at 846. This is the one on
School Road. This is a secondary street coming off of 846.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other corrections,
comments, changes on the consent agenda item?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just had a question. The height
here is 50 feet. Was that zoned actual or both? Does anybody know?
MS. DESELEM: It's zoned height. You go to condition number
six, it specifies zoned height.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, there were two corrections,
correcting number seven to strike the words right in, right out, and
then correcting the master plan to indicate that the 15 Type D buffer is
a 25- foot Type D buffer.
MS. DESELEM: And I'll add that also to condition number 11.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 11.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to recommend approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made a motion to
recommend. As stipulated, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As stipulated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Midney.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 12
August 21, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you.
Item #9A and #9B
PETITIONS: V A-2007-AR-11494, CAPTIV A POND; CU-2007-AR-
11493, CAPTIV A POND
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we'll move into our first advertised
public hearing. Actually, there's two of them. They're kind of a
matched pair.
Mr. Klatzkow, I'd like to hear them both together and then we'll
vote on them separately; is that acceptable?
MR. KLATZKOW: That is acceptable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 9(A) and 9(B) will be both be heard
together. One is petition for Variance V A-2007-AR-11494, and it's
Darryl J. Damico for Captiva Pond on 54th Avenue Northeast.
The second is Petition CU-2007-AR-11493. It's a conditional use
for Darryl 1. Damico involving Captiva Pond on 54th Avenue
Northeast.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this applicant, please
rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
Page 13
August 21,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any disclosures on the
part of the planning commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick White, was he ever -- he was
involved in this project.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, he -- for the record, Tim Hancock
with Davidson Engineering.
Patrick and I are co-agents on the application. Patrick is
currently on his honeymoon we hope having a better time than we are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only reason I asked is he
mentioned the project to me, but at the time there was no paperwork
circulated on it. And I said, why don't we just wait until we get the
paperwork before you bring it up. And so other than that I don't
believe we had much other discussion on the matter.
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I need to admit my error in not
adding Patrick to the application as a co-agent, but for the record, he
does represent Mr. Damico likewise.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that we'll move into the
presentation. And Mr. Hancock, if you could go through both of them
and whenever you feel it's appropriate for questions, let us know and
we'll be glad to entertain you.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. As stated, I'm with Davidson
Engineering, and I'm representing the applicant, Mr. Gerald Damico
on both items 9(A) and 9(B) before you today.
Item 9(A) seeks a variance to permit more than 50 percent of the
subject property located within the Estates to be excavated. And Item
9(B) seeks a conditional use to permit off-site removal of fill from the
site.
The history of this project is contained in your staff report. And
some of you may have had a little case of deja vu as you reviewed the
staff report, seeing this application approximately two years ago.
I'll recap the history of the project as briefly as possible for you.
Page 14
August 21,2008
This site was an active excavation from 1997 to 2003. It provided fill
and perc sand for building pads and drain field construction, primarily
in the surrounding Estates area.
The prior excavator over-excavated the site in an area of just
under one acre of the originally approved excavation limits. And there
were two separate excavation permits issued for these properties. The
lake was never dug to its full permitted depth of 20 feet.
In 2006, applications were made for conditional use and
variance approval that would allow for the lake to be brought into
compliance and to expand the excavation limits to the south and west.
In response to those applications this body placed 11 stipulations
on the project at the time, and forwarded the applications to the Board
of County Commissioners with recommendations of approval.
Subsequently the variance was approved and the conditional use
denied by virtue of three votes in the affirmative for each application,
conditional use requiring four.
The stipulations that this body placed, all 11, have survived the
process in the intervening time period and remain in the application
before you today.
The key changes in the application before you today, and again,
I keep that history brief because most of you were here a couple of
years ago on this application. But let me give you a quick, broader
picture.
The excavator at the time who actually made the application two
years ago made some mistakes on the site. The primary concern of the
board was not to reward an applicant for making mistakes. You go
outside of an excavation limit -- and while excavation permits do
allow you a 20 percent fluctuation -- to go outside those limits and
then have the appearance of being rewarded for doing so by expanding
your operation did not sit well with the board.
And the board made some specific suggestions as to how that
could be addressed as this process went through in 2006. Those
Page 15
August 21, 2008
changes are embodied in the application before you today, and I'd like
to go over those with you.
First of all, a parcel of land that was previously surrounded by
the excavation, there was a sliver, if you will, along 54th Avenue that
was not included in the application. Mr. Damico has since purchased
that property, much to his dismay, at the peak of the market, and it is
now included in the application, which resulted in the squaring off of
this excavation.
So that was helpful in that it didn't create a parcel that was then
going to be surrounded on three sides by the excavation. So we think
from a compatibility standpoint that is by far an improvement.
Secondly, instead of limiting the excavation to permit for the
development and sale of subsequent single-family homes, the last
application before you left a ring around the lake, if you will, and
homes could be placed there once the excavation was complete.
That again was a bone of contention with the county commission
who recommended why don't you just dig the whole thing out. And
that's verbatim from their record.
The plan before you today actually does that. It pushes the limits
of the excavation out to the edges of the property so there's no residual
residential land use plan being proposed here today. It's simply an
excavation.
I'd like to point out, this excavation for perc sand and fill sand
involves no blasting and no dewatering in the traditional sense.
The South Florida Water Management District does call
dewatering when you take wet material out of the ground and you
stockpile it and the water drains back into the lake, they do call that
dewatering. But I think when we all think of dewatering we tend to
think of basically walling and pumping water out, which would have
an -- so you could do a -- dig an area a little bit deeper. That will not
be occurring on this site. No permit has been applied for, nor do we
feel that's necessary to reach the permitted depth or the requested
Page 16
August 21,2008
depths for the excavation.
And probably the last point and the one that's most significant is
upon completion of the excavation the owner has offered to
voluntarily deed the property over to Collier County for whatever use
they wish. We really don't care. Plant petunias, make it a park, not our
Issue.
The point being that one of the questions in the last course of
discussion was well, gee, who maintains it. If you dig the thing out to
the limits, what's the incentive for the property owner to keep it in
decent condition.
We have had discussions with County Parks and Recreation.
They've had some ideas. And one of the things that we are proposing,
if you'll notice in the exhibit before you, along the north edge of the
lake, the limits of excavation have actually been pulled back to leave a
parcel of land which is going to require a combination of some
excavation and some filling from the current existing lake shoreline.
And the reason for that is should the county wish to do
something with the property, again, we don't want to get wrapped up
in that discussion of what the county mayor may not do with the
property should this rezone be successful and they accept the deed to
the property upon completion of the excavation.
We have left enough room up there to allow for a passive park,
possibly a boat ramp for fishing. The county's talked about a sailing
center. Those types of discussions have been ongoing.
But again, we don't wish to make that a part of our application
but wanted to at least point out that there is a residual area of land that
will be remaining that could be of use to the county for recreation
purposes, should it wish to do so.
We believe this approach will satisfy the stated concerns of the
county commission when the application was narrowly denied in
2006, and also assist in furthering the goals of the county and meeting
the needs of its residents in the future.
Page 17
August 21, 2008
When this application was filed, the market was very different
than it is today, with fill prices much higher and gas prices much
lower. With the reduced demand and increased fuel prices, some of
the proposed parameters have certainly changed.
The applicant would like to request consideration of the
following additional items by this body.
Number one, that the project -- I've limited that the project
would have no more than 50 trucks per day. That's a limit placed on it
to try to ensure a degree of compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood.
We'd like to alter that to an average of 50 trucks per day with no
more than 75 in a given day. And the reason is that if inclement
weather or other reasons cause that 50 trucks per day to drop below
and you're capped at 50 the next day, it actually extends the life of the
excavation. So we'd like a little flexibility in not capping it at 50
trucks per day but capping it at 75 with an average of 50. That allows
a little operational flexibility. It is not a substantial issue, but one that
we wanted to request just the same.
Secondly is, due to the currently reduced demand for fill, the life
of the conditional use is not limited, so that the completion of the
excavation will be tied to the demand in the market instead of an
artificial time frame. .
Again, this application being filed in 2007 even, we've seen the
demand for fill drop from that time. So the -- it may push out the life
of the excavation a little bit, but we believe that the elements that have
been incorporated in this application -- which by the way do include a
six-foot high berm on three sides of the project; each side which
borders residential will have a six-foot high berm constructed. The one
side that borders agricultural with no residences would have a fence.
We think that again a higher degree of compatibility is being
here achieved today.
And the third item is, as a correction the proposed excavation --
Page 18
August 21,2008
your application states that it represents 90 percent of the available
property. The actual number is 78 percent. That number has dropped
down because of a small native preserve area, plus the area that is
required to construct a six-foot high berm with four-to-one slopes is
about 50 feet all the way around the lake. And we actually are going
to have to fill the lake in some areas to accomplish that.
And the last thing is, stipulation 13 contained in your staff
recommendation would require the applicant to pay Collier County
$1.00 per loaded truck exiting the site.
The application before you requires that the owner bring the site
into compliance with all LDC standards including buffering, which
require both time and money to complete.
The applicant has removed all residual value from the property
for the elimination of home sites and a voluntary donation of the
property to the county upon completion.
With the depressed fill values we currently face, this particular
requirement seems onerous. Mr. White has asked that I point out to
this body that the last time the BCC was asked to address the issue of
impact fees for excavation, they took no action.
The requirement would seem to reverse that decision. The
applicant would appreciate the consideration of this body in removing
stipulation 13. But please understand, if necessary the property owner
would rather proceed with the support of this body, even if it means
that stipulation remaining.
I'd like to thank Ms. Zone for her diligence in picking up the
pieces with regard to this application. Our planner originally assigned,
Mr. Brown, is no longer with the county and Ms. Zone had to step in
at the last minute and pick it up and get this thing scheduled.
We appreciate her efforts and would be pleased to address any
questions you might have at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we ask general questions, I've
got one clarification I'd like you to show us. You've got on here a
Page 19
August 21, 2008
proposed lake. The variance request is for an after-the-fact variance.
Which portion of the plan is after-the-fact?
MR. HANCOCK: The pen on the display is pointing to the most
southwest corner of the existing excavation. This is an area that was
supposed to be used for stockpiling and dewatering. In that process the
excavator scraped the area, and it was outside of the limits of the
excavation.
So that is where, when you look at the existing excavating
permits, that's the area that is outside of those permitted areas.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you came in in 2006, was it for a
variance as well? I was here, I just don't remember.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. The variance was -- the variance
really is to exceed the 50 percent limit as a part of the new application.
However, let's assume the property owner was just trying to
make what was there legal. They still would have had to require the
variance, because of going outside the excavation limits.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in 2006, what was that variance
request for?
MR. HANCOCK: That again was for the limit of 50 percent of
the land mass being excavated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the one you were talking
about.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wasn't sure. Okay, I have a lot
of questions, but I will defer to my board members first.
Go ahead, Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, the LDC outlines several
guidelines that are to be used in making a determination of this
petition. And both your report and the staffs report identifies those
guidelines and gives a response to the guidelines. If you look at the
first five of these guidelines in your report, as well as the staffs report,
they are completely opposite as far as a yes or no answer.
Page 20
August 21, 2008
And I'd like a little more explanation as to why you feel that
your answer should dominate over the staffs reference who has
looked at this thing from the viewpoint of the LDC.
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Kolflat, are you referring to the
conditional use application or the variance application, sir?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The first application. That's the
variance one. Page 4 of 8 of your report.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Under analysis, and looking at the
staff responses to question A regarding special conditions or
circumstances which are peculiar to the location, size and
characteristics of the land, structure or building involved, my response
to that is yes, there are special conditions and circumstances, while
they were the doing of the excavator, not the property owner.
What we have is we have a site that sits in an existing condition
today that is not appropriate or normal. Candidly, this was an absentee
operation. It's no excuse, but Mr. Damico was not the one operating
the removal of fill. What he's been left with is a site that is not in
compliance.
Whether this conditional use is approved or not, there's going to
have to be excavation on the site in order to bring the site into
compliance. The site's going to have to be either filled or corrected. I
believe those are special conditions or circumstances that should be
considered in viewing this application.
As far as size and characteristics of the land, we are as far out in
the east of the Estates as you can get. It's out there a ways. There's not
a substantial amount of residential development around the project.
Not to minimize the homes that are out there, but it's in a fairly
sparsely populated area. Again, I think that's a consideration this board
has to look at in determining whether or not the proposed excavation
is appropriate.
Under B, special conditions resulting from the action which do
not result from the action --
Page 21
August 21, 2008
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Before you leave that last one,
though, there were two excavation permits that were issued that
identified the limits of the excavation activity, did they not?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. The application before you today
includes additional land. I think in those two excavation permits, the
fact that the permits were issued and that this has been an active
excavation from a period from 1997 to 2003 shows that there was a
decision and a code requirement at the time that excavation in this
area is appropriate.
We're asking to continue that excavation. This is not a new
excavation. You kind of have two choices when it comes to fill. You
can either take it out of existing pits or you can start new pits
somewhere else. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a piece that is
more remote than this piece for the purposes of excavation. And the
fact that the material removed from this particular pit is used primarily
for fill pad and perc sand, and the greatest user of perc sand is septic
systems, and the greatest area where septic systems are being installed
is the Estates puts this excavation in the back yard of the very folks
who are going to need it. I believe those are special circumstances, sir.
As for the second item regarding circumstances which do not
result from the action of the applicant, such as pre-existing conditions
relative to the property, again, I'm not excusing Mr. Damico as the
property owner by any means, but we did have an excavator out there
that moved outside of the boundary. It was done so without the
knowledge ofMr. Damico but he's left with a mess to clean it up, one
way or the other.
You may recall in 2006, the applicant was the excavator. That's
not the case today. Mr. Damico has had to take a very direct interest in
getting this problem revolved.
In order to fix the site, it's going to take money. And I think
that's where the board was worried about the applicant being
rewarded, if you will, by expanding an excavation. We hope we have
Page 22
August 21, 2008
addressed that issue.
But I do believe there are circumstances that the applicant itself,
the property owner, did not create. We had an excavator moving
outside of an area not to his knowledge, and now we're stuck to fix the
problem.
The third item, as far as a literal interpretation of the 'provision of
the zoning code work unnecessary or undue hardship on the applicant
or create practical difficulties for the applicant. Again, I go back to the
simple point that it is going to simply take money to fix this.
In order to bring this lake into compliance, we would have to
dredge from the bottom of the existing permitted excavation area,
throw that material up onto the shallow areas of excavation that were
outside of the original limits, with no ability to haul off-site, no ability
to receive revenues from that operation.
So is it a financial hardship for Mr. Damico, whose primary role
of construction is down in this market right now when fill prices are
down? Yes, we believe it is.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the expended excavation
activities were an action of the property owner.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, they were an action of the excavator.
But again, you know, Mr. Damico received -- and the way it
traditionally works is when you bring an excavator in, is the property
owners pay the royalty. The property owner doesn't necessarily go out
there every day and check the limits of the excavation. You trust the
person doing the operation to do it within the boundary of the rules.
That didn't happen in this case, so Mr. Damico is left holding the
bag. And quite candidly, we've looked at the amount excavated and
believe there's a discrepancy between what the excavator indicated
and what has actually been removed from the site.
Again, I'm not crying poor mouth for Mr. Damico, it's just the
reality of the situation. He's left with an issue that's going to be
financially difficult for him to resolve without the ability to increase
Page 23
August 21,2008
the excavation area and derive some revenue.
Item D, the variance if granted would be the minimum variance
that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or
structure which promotes standards of health, safety and welfare.
On this one I do agree with staff, this is not the absolute
minimum. Could there be less excavation that would at least try and
tie this into a situation where it could be revenue neutral for Mr.
Damico? Probably.
And when I say revenue neutral, please understand we're already
stripping the development value of the property away in this
application, plus giving the land to the county. There is no residual
value.
The only money to come out of this property is either going to
be through the excavation or it's going to be through the sale of the
property for residential use if this project is not approved.
Those are our two options: Go in and spend money to clean up
the site to fill parts of a lake that just costs money and in the end no
one benefits, or dig a little bit more, build out the site, eliminate the
residential units and give the property to the county.
When I look at those two scenarios, I think one clearly
outweighs the other.
But is this the absolute minimum variance? No, I have to agree
with staff on that.
And the fifth one, will granting the variance confer on the
applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning
regulations to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning
district?
The reason I disagree with staff's response of yes here is that I
think you'd be hard pressed to find another property that is sitting in
the situation this one is.
H is a perc sand operation. No blasting is required in this site. A
lot of the areas in here, you have rock running through them and
Page 24
August 21, 2008
whatnot. So in close proximity to residences out there it's a pretty
clean operation.
So again, I think this is a unique situation. I think in your history
you'd be hard pressed to go back and find a similar situation. But that's
the only basis for the reason I disagree with staff response to Item E,
Mr. Kolflat.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, that's good. But I want to
compliment the staff. We talked about these findings in past about not
just parroting something but going into them, and I think they made a
good analysis of this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just -- and you answered a
couple of my questions. But Mr. Damico has owned this property for
how long?
MR. HANCOCK: At least since 1997.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And he was the owner during
both of the permitting permits?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, just -- okay, I'll get to
something later. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions at this time?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, could you put up, Ray, Page
3 of the variance report, the aerial photo of the site as I believe it is
today.
MR. HANCOCK: Actually, the aerial photo in your staff report
is not as current -- and this may be part of kind of the leftover that Ms.
Zone had to deal with when Mr. Brown was no longer involved with
the project.
Let me give you an aerial that is -- yeah.
Page 25
August 21,2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: So that's what it currently looks
like?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So that means that the entire
separation has been taken out. There were two lakes here, as you can
clearly see from the other aerial photograph. So the entire separation
of the lakes was taken out.
MR. HANCOCK: Unfortunately this one doesn't show it all that
clearly. The short answer, Ms. Caron, is that yes.
The excavator, through -- I don't understand how or why, and
maybe Mr. Spencer can shed some light on this -- thought that he had
an okay from county staff to go in and take that out.
Now, how that happens after this was denied in 2006, I'm at a
complete loss for.
What happened is the excavator came in and scraped the top
material off in that connector, so -- this one doesn't show it, but if you
look on the county appraiser's website, you can actually see that most
of that is still there. It's about two feet below the surface of the lake.
So apparently he thought he had the permission or direction
from county staff -- and there is nothing to substantiate that, I'm very
clear about that -- to remove the barrier between the two lakes. And he
scraped the top of it off. Not all the way down to a severe depth. So
that could be replaced.
But it does point out one of the issues that came up in the
original discussion back in 2006 on this, which is from county staffs
perspective, I think from everyone's perspective, would we be better
off having two separate divided lakes out there or would the lake
actually function better as a single body of water?
And I think unanimously the opinion was yes, it would function
both aesthetically and whatnot better as a single body of water.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But in point of fact the Board of
County Commissioners said no. They denied that conditional use in
Page 26
August 21, 2008
order to do that.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am, they did. And I am at a loss for
where his direction came from, to be candid.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you plan to do any sort of a
littoral border with plantings if this is restored to a lake the way you're
proposing?
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Midney, one thing that the planning
commission doesn't see on some of these excavation or conditional
use applications is the actual excavation permit itself. That goes just to
the board.
In that permit it does show the littoral shelf planting area. Where
the example on your visualizer is pointing to, over in that corner we
felt because it's closest to an existing home -- there's an existing home
next to the property and has been for some time on the northwest
corner. There's another home that this expansion would be adjacent to
at the southwest corner.
So what we felt was most appropriate over there is to reduce the
-- if we're going to put a littoral shelf somewhere, let's do it
somewhere where we reduce the dig time and operation close to that
single-family home.
Right where the pen is pointing, inside that berm would be
approximately a 1.3-acre littoral shelf that would have to be
constructed and planted.
That's one of the other issues is these old excavation permits
don't have littoral shelf requirements. So what we're having to do is
not just provide littoral shelf for the new excavation area, but really
for the total lake.
That's part of kind ofa remediation to bring this thing up to
current Land Development Code standards, that we're not doing it just
for the expansion, we're doing it for the entire lake, as the LDC
requires. We're not asking for any points on that.
Page 27
August 21, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Midney?
MR. HANCOCK: I stand corrected. The littoral shelf is 2.6
acres.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And it's going to be around the
entire lake?
MR. HANCOCK: On the electronic age, we've removed push
pms.
The area indicated in the dark line there would be the littoral
shelf planting area.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Only on one corner?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, for two reasons: One is the existing
slopes of the lake in many areas has already been done. One of the
things the excavator was required to do was to go back in and fix some
slopes.
There was a prior code enforcement issue where there had been
some washout areas. So those slopes have been done.
We actually have to bring fill in to create littoral shelves on the
majority of the perimeter of the existing lake. So the new excavation
area was where it was easiest to create the shelf and we thought most
appropriate next to the home.
And I've been corrected, Josh Fruth, the engineer on the project
that's doing the excavation permit, that littoral shelf does go all the
way up the western side of the property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Shaking head no.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, my question's kind of on
depth too. You mentioned in your presentation that the existing
excavator didn't go deep enough. What does that mean?
MR. HANCOCK: It's currently at a permitted depth of20 feet.
There's some parts of this lake that are only six feet deep, and so
there's more depth to be had there.
Page 28
August 21, 2008
Additionally, one thing that wasn't done in the original
excavation permit is the area was not cored and looked at from a
geotechnical perspective as to how deep could the lake go.
And so we can go up to 40 feet before we hit a confining layer in
this area. And the confining layer is actually a little below that. But
without question, 40 feet is an achievable depth on this lake.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the point made is that you
are doubling the depth of this lake in this application?
MR. HANCOCK: The excavation permit will ask to go to 40
feet, which the board will hear, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, sir.
MR. HANCOCK: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sometime we've learned over
time that some developers will dedicate roads to the county and the
county does not accept them, so there's that in between area. That
leads me to the general area of your donation, whether it be by
dedication or whatever method.
It would have a value. The property would have a value as a
lake, would it not, since you're creating a lake? The property doesn't
get a diminished or no value, it has some value, does it not?
MR. HANCOCK: I think from the property appraiser's
standpoint he probably isn't going to value it any differently if there's
a lake on it versus vacant land. I haven't studied that, but that would
make sense.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, what I'm driving at is that
that's appreciated that Mr. Damico would like to offer it to the
citizens. I'm just trying to understand whether or not ifthere's no value
to the lake, is there any value to the county, or does the county inherit,
like one of those roads, it's dedicated and not something that they want
to accept?
Page 29
August 21, 2008
Is there any certainty that the county will accept this lake when
complete?
MR. HANCOCK: We were a little concerned about trying to
negotiate a certainty to that, to run afoul of something in the lines of
contract zoning. Gee, if you give us our conditional use, we'll give you
the lake. That's not an appropriate situation for an applicant to be in or
to place the county in.
What I can tell you is that we have even -- I've gone to the point
of doing some site planning for Parks and Recreation to make sure that
the remainder along the north edge is sufficient to have ample
recreation value to the residents of the county for what the Parks and
Recreation Department would like to see out here or believes would
be programs that the public would want to see out here.
And one of the things they mentioned in our discussions was a
sailing center, much like they have at Sugden Park. And one of our
ideas was, you know, what about -- when you end up with a 36-acre
lake, that's a pretty sizable bass fishery that could be created there, and
so the opportunity to have a small boat ramp and a parking area.
So what we've done is the value of this property really is in the
remainder two acres that is going to be left on the north property. That
has a value in that you could put homes on it. And those would be
terrific home sites at 150-feet wide looking across a 36-acre lake.
It has a similar value I believe to the county and maybe a higher
value, for long-term use of both stormwater management, public
recreation or whatever other purpose the county may deem is
appropriate for this location.
So I believe by leaving that two-acre parcel on the north, the
applicant is foregoing the excavation of that area. That certainly has
value. And beyond that, the long-term value as public use area I think
is there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you for that answer.
The reason it goes a little deeper than that, before you indicated
Page 30
August 21, 2008
there were only two representations of value to the remainder of the
property. But I offer that there's a third. Because if it's a donation and
it has a value, Mr. Damico or his corporation, whether he owns it
individually or what, would benefit from tax advantage for the
donation. So it does have a value that is not represented so far. We
don't know what that value is because no one has determined its value.
But I think it would be important to note that when donated,
certainly I would expect Mr. Damico to take advantage of any tax
benefit that he could.
But I think it needs to be on the record that that's there and that
might be a mitigation in some form. May have nothing to do with that
we're doing ultimately but -- the other question I did have was -- okay,
he talked about the littoral plantings, so I guess that basically was it
for that. But I did want to cover one other area.
The permits expired in '02. Are new permits required?
MR. HANCOCK: A new excavation permit for the proposed
lake limits is required.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And are you certain that you'll
be able to get those?
MR. HANCOCK: If the conditional use is approved and the
variance is approved, then yes, sir. We actually have applied for an
Environmental Resource Permit with the South Florida Water
Management District. And that permit should be issued prior to the
board taking action on this.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's basically what I was
talking about in that regard.
Okay, I think you've answered my questions. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You had said that we received
the wrong aerial in the packet?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. That aerial is a little older than the
Page 31
August 21, 2008
current aerial photography available on the appraiser's website.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, because we do have
two, and they're different. And one is dated '07, I believe, and the
other one, there's no date on it. Do you know when that was done?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the one that -- this particular one,
Tim, is what he's talking about. This was the one officially included in
the staffs packet.
The one that we should be using was the one included in your
environmental report. Does that clarify it?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. That was the one that we submitted.
For some reason Mr. Brown was using an older aerial, and I don't
understand why.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So we'll disregard the other
one.
MR. HANCOCK: Yeah. The aerial that you see in our packet,
which is the one that the Chairman referred to, it's titled Captiva Pond,
Golden Gate FLUCCS Map, that aerial is the most current aerial
photography available from the property appraiser. I think the rural
areas were not flown this past year. They'll be flown next year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I -- you're not going to
excavate any more acreage? In other words, you're just going to go
depth, or are you going to take any more of that?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. As the exhibit on the visualizer
shows, we will be -- the request is to continue in the southwest and
increase the size of the lake.
Candidly, there's an expense to mobilizing equipment. We've got
a problem out there that's got to be fixed, and we're just simply trying
to find a way economically to dig out of this hole. No pun intended.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Hancock, I do have
questions. Before I ask you yours, it might solve some of yours if I
Page 32
August 21, 2008
were to ask Stan Chrzanowski some questions first.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Stan, if you don't mind.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners, Stan
Chrzanowski with engineering services.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. I have several issues
involving the way they got here. Comments made by Mr. Hancock
concerning soil tests. Were soil tests done before the lake was
excavated?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. We usually have soil testing
done, but we know that the area around here is deep sand. And back in
those days we would let people go out and actually dig holes on the
site rather than a full boring, because we found that that was a more
accurate way of finding out what was under the ground.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just want to make sure that those cells
didn't show a confining layer to below the depth that he's asking to go
to today,
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir, even the new soils tests show
the confining layer as a clay down at about 40 feet to 50 feet, like Mr.
Hancock said.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any excavation bonds posted on
this site?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, there's an existing bond still in
effect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the value of that
bond is?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir, I don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any cross-sections on this
site yet?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We had cross-sections, but I'm sure that
those are not the latest. We haven't had a report on this site in a few
years.
Page 33
August 21, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When the bonds that you had posted,
they would have to be bond based on the quantity of material removed
from the lake or proposed to be removed?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Proposed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. What size lake was it bonded for,
the original 20 or the amended 36 or the proposed 40 --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: There were two initial permits on this
property. Because back in the old days, well, the code said you could
only dig up to 50 percent of the property on a 20-acre parcel. So you
could really only dig a 10-acre lake on a 20-acre parcel.
And the reason they put the 50 percent in the code was they
wanted to make sure that when the excavation was done you could
build a house on the same parcel.
If I could put something on the visualizer?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: What you're looking at is a colored
LIDAR topography of the site. It's a colored LIDAR topography of the
site, and the colors are based on elevation.
Right in the middle of the site is -- this is from January, 2001.
The large lake on the right had already been dug over the amount that
it was allowed to. And he had started the other permit on the left.
But if you look off to the left of that, you'll see two other
excavations that were done on parcels. At the time that this excavation
was done, we were allowing excavations in Golden Gate Estates, but
as long as there was no blasting involved.
Those excavations all hauled off-site, and when they were
complete, homes were built on those parcels.
The board didn't want just a plain excavation on any parcel in
the Estates back then. You had to leave land to build homes.
We don't know why staff never had any problem with just a
lake, because you have water retention, you have some ability for
recreation. But I think the board, like a couple of the commissioners,
Page 34
August 21, 2008
was worried about maintenance of the parcel when it was done. If it
wasn't turned over to some entity that could actually use it for
recreation, then you had a problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the cross-sectioning of the lakes, if
the lakes are improperly dug and the cross-sections aren't appropriate
or they turn out to be inappropriate later or they fall in,
cross-sectioning is done to assure the sloping is correct.
And part of the sloping issue is to assure that public safety,
health, safety and welfare is that they can -- if someone were to fall in
a lake with steep slopes, they may not be able to get out. The
shallower slopes allow someone to climb out.
If the county were to take this lake under any proposal, who
would be responsible for making sure the cross-sectioning is
appropriate and that the slopes are in place and maintained?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We would be. And after the last set of
board hearings, one of the reasons that some of the work was done out
there is we told the contractor to go out and dress up the lake side
slopes.
And we were monitoring while he did that, although we never
received any cross-sections. And it was during that doing of that work
that I think that middle portion was removed so he could get the fill to
fill in some of those side slopes.
But we never did receive final cross-sections because they just
kind of stopped operation after a while.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you still don't know if the
cross-sections meet county minimum standards in regards to slopes
and safety.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir, I don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If the side slopes are sand, which
I think you indicated, and there's no confining layer, clay layer for
quite a distance, how do they hold vertical?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: They -- sand is funny. Our code calls
Page 35
August 21 , 2008
for a four-to-one slope --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- down to a certain elevation and
two-to-one after that.
And you'll see a lot of the lakes in Collier County form a little
scarp from the wave action. Sand tends to -- natural angle of repose of
sand under water, I have seen sand settle down to a 20-to-l slope. But
I have also seen lakes like this hold up fairly well at two-to-one and
four-to-one for long periods of time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and the lake is -- this is, compared
to some excavations, this is not that big of an excavation. And if they
were to take 40 feet out of this lake, that would force the slopes along
the sides to go more vertical than sloped at a four-to-one or actually,
whatever, two-to-one when they get down past the break point.
If that were to occur, what would stop the sand from fluffing off
and thus taking out the slopes that are closer to the shoreline and
making those more vertical than they currently are, thus causing a
greater problem potential for health, safety and welfare?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It could occur if you had a two-to-one
side slope below -- three feet below control elevation, depending on
the natural angle of repose of that soil.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has staff looked at what happens in this
particular lake's case as to what they use the maximum depth and how
much of that gradual side sloping would actually end up being steeper
so they would know if they can go to a three-to-one, two-to-one or
whatever once they get past the break point?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We don't have any way to tell that. We
don't have any existing excavations that are that depth except for one
way up in Immokalee, the Stewart sand mine. It's permitted to go to 80
feet deep in a similar type of sand.
We could go up there and take a look at it. But without looking
at that exact soil under that condition, there's no way to tell what it
Page 36
August 21, 2008
will do after the lake is done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then after the lake is done, should
those slopes fail, it's the responsibility then of the owner to maintain
them at least to county standards.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And to maintain a slope that caves in or
falls in down to 40 feet, you're back filling it with substantial amounts
of trucked in material; is that a fair statement?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The existing excavations, did they have
any indications of where littoral zones will be required as a minimum
in the existing excavations?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir, back in those days commercial
excavations didn't require littoral zones.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Stan, you gave me enough
to ask Tim some more questions. I appreciate it.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You're welcome, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any other questions
ofMr. Chrzanowski while he's here?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, what was the intent?
You've given us the intent of why -- what was the intent of the 50
percent of the property being left as dry land in the LOC. What was
the intent of the 20- foot depth in the LDC rule?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm sorry, that's our standard depth for
all excavations, unless the board allows them to go deeper.
COMMISSIONER MIONEY: And what would be the
justification of -- I mean, why wouldn't they say 40 feet?
I mean, the developer is saying that that's actually a better lake at
40 feet than at 20 feet.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The Water Management District
recommends that 50 percent ofa lake be deeper than 12 feet. And they
Page 37
August 21, 2008
limit to 20 feet so we limit to 20 feet for that.
Depending on the size of the lake, depth -- it just takes longer for
a lake to fill in if it's deeper. You get more residence time for -- if it's a
water retention lake.
But for a quarry, we have quarries that are 40 feet deep all over
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So from the county's point of
view there's no disadvantage to 40 feet over 20 feet?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Not as long as you don't penetrate the
confining layer at the bottom.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Stan.
Hi, Tim. Let me continue where I left off with Stan.
Earlier you had indicated the BCC denied for some -- for various
reasons, apparently, the continuation of this or going further with it as
they had started in 2006. I think it was 3-2 or some vote like that?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe part of your discussion
indicated they didn't see the need to reward someone for basically
violating the code in the way this was done.
MR. HANCOCK: I believe those were Commissioner Coyle's
sentiments, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Obviously the code's been violated on
this site, and it's been violated again, and now you're asking to expand
it to include the violation so there is no more violation and to reward
the applicant by allowing him to excavate more and make more
money and then produce a liability for the county to assume.
And I'm just wondering why that's even reasonable to request of
this board. The evidence you produced today so far has not shown that
we don't have a liability by even considering this as ownership by the
county, based on the testimony from Stan just a few moments ago on
Page 38
August 21, 2008
the lake banks and the failing of those banks and how they could be
stabilized.
We don't know if you've cut the lake to the right proper
elevations or slopes right now. And most likely, the bond you have up
wouldn't cover the cost to fix the lake, even if it was discovered to be
an error.
I just don't understand where you're coming from today on this
request. So maybe you can address some of those issues as best you
can.
MR. HANCOCK: Believe me, Mr. Chairman, I wish I were
involved in 2006 so I could answer that question better than I can
today.
What I can tell you, based on my review of the record and the
past activity on the site, is that the property owner at that time had two
options: Option A was, because the lake has not been dug to its
maximum depth, would be to go in with a dredge, pull that material
out, fix the area where -- that had been over-excavated to a depth
maximum of I think six feet in that southwest corner. It's not very
deep, but it's about six feet deep. In other words, go in and fix the
problem.
Once the problem's fixed, then would have the ability to come in
and apply for an excavation permit, conditional use and variance to
excavate the balance of the property. That was one option.
Based on meetings with county staff at that time, it was
determined that the better course of action, rather than going through
all of that to fix what was out there and then come in and request
additional excavation, would be to wrap it into one application.
And unfortunately the appearance of that action is to simply
come forward and say, gee, we messed up, hey, would you give us
more. I think that's a tactical and a political nightmare to have to deal
with.
In retrospect, I wish they'd just fixed it and then dealt with it
Page 39
August 21,2008
from that point forward.
And so, you know, those were the two options.
Is the end result of the -- and in that case, if they were to go
down that road, when the property is dug out they could then come in
and put the homes on it and have residual value.
I think in essence what's before you today is a little bit of the
property owner trying to fall gently upon his sword. There is value to
this land. We're in a depressed market right now and everybody knows
that. But five, 10 years out there's value to the land from a residential
perspective.
The applicant could expend the funds to fix what's wrong out
there and then come back later under a clean application for a new dig.
What I believe we're trying to do today is to put a package
together, if you will, that eliminates the commission's issues of
reward. In other words, okay, dig more and then still have all the value
inherent in the property that you had previously. And we're taking that
residual inherent value and we're setting it aside.
And I believe that is the attempt and the effort based on
conversations Mr. White had with individual board members who
denied this application the last time as to the best course to come back
before them.
Commissioner Coyle said in the record that if we turned them
down it will force them to go back, rethink this and come back to us.
That's precisely what we've done at significant expense to Mr.
Damico. Not that he has a heck of a lot of choice at this point.
Something's got to be done to fix the site, so that's the scenario.
On the item ofliability, a sand pit at 40 feet is nothing new.
They do exist out there. But to address the concern, the current bond
amount is $75,000. The proposed bond amount is $106,000, based on
the proposed excavation limits.
One option that I believe is available to this body is to
recommend that that bond be held for a period of 12 to 18 months
Page 40
August 21, 2008
after completion of excavation to ensure that any sloughing of the
sides, or if it were to occur, that it could be remedied.
And if that bond amount is not sufficient, then we ask your staff
to give us an idea of what may be.
What is in all likelihood going to happen is it's very difficult to
dig two-to-one in sand. The moment you go down and you try to reach
a two-to-one, you're going to get some sloughing beneath there and it's
going to settle during the period of dig.
The only way we're going to get serious subsidence is probably
because of a void or a weakness that we're not aware of.
But I do believe a $100,000 bond amount is significant in the
ability to bring a dredge in and take material from the bottom and
create the slopes that you need to create. We've had to do some of that
already on-site. So hopefully that is another tool in the box.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Hancock, the testimony is
that the material all the way down to the clay layer is sand. You can't
stabilize a falling-in bank with more sand from the bottom.
Basically what you have to do is bring in a material such as
crushed rock or some kind of rip-rap or large boulders and dump those
in first to stabilize the bank. And then you put better material on top of
that to get your slope back again. Your $106,000 bond wouldn't cover
one-half of one side of this lake.
All I see is a huge liability for the county under the scenario that
you're suggesting as a positive. I see the opposite. I see it as a
negative.
Mr. Chrzanowski?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Sir, in may. Stan Chrzanowski again.
Like I said, we're not sure of what the side slopes look right now,
because we haven't seen a full set of cross-sections. Right now that
lake side slope could be according to code down to whatever the depth
is right now. And when they dig deeper they can leave the side slope
shallower. They don't have to dig straight down.
Page 41
August 21, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, I understand that, but right here
today we're being asked to make a decision, we're basing it on criteria
that we don't know can be met. And they're offering no evidence to
show us what the side slopes are and you've admitted you don't have
any.
So why would we make that decision and put us in a potential
liability only to find out we don't want to go there because it is a
liability and that they've got approval for a lake.
So I don't know how to proceed here today on a positive note
with this. That's where I'm coming from. And I've seen nothing
offered to assure the community that we've got a positive outcome of
this if it were to be considered as a potential site for the county. And
I've still got a lot more questions.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Stan, what is the county's -- not
the county, I know you can't speak for them, but you might know the
answer to this. What is the liability, if any, for a property owner who
abandons their property in such a case?
Let's say that they were given the opportunity to do all of this
and then they just -- the county said no, we don't want it, there's
problems, and they walk away. What's the result then?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't know. But we've been a little
concerned that this whole lake is an attractive nuisance for the last few
years, you know, it might attract neighborhood kids.
At this point we're trying to get something done out here. And
I'm not sure what it is.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I see that -- yeah, and I
appreciate, that's health, safety and welfare. But ultimately I think we
might all agree that the property owner is primarily responsible to
assure that they comply with the code which does speak to health,
safety and welfare. So I appreciate, though --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think Mr. Damico is the only one who
Page 42
August 21, 2008
can tell you that. Because I don't know what his funding is like, I don't
know if he'll default, does he own this outright. He would probably be
the best one to tell you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, and I understand that. I
thank you for the comment that you made.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I guess this would be
towards someone from the county staff.
What kind of an investment in infrastructure would the county
have to make in order to turn this into a park?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Midney, you're making the
assumption that it's legally excavated with the proper side slopes that
have been stabilized first --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's just an assumption, yeah,
I'm just asking. Supposing the county did really want to make this into
a park, wouldn't they have to invest substantial infrastructure and have
people out there to supervise it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's like the park in Orangetree. You
could basically have a fishing park like they're proposed there. But
that's a shallow dig out there and this is a little different application.
But I don't know if they need any more than that. Maybe they
might need bathrooms on septics. I don't know if anybody's even
looked at that yet.
MR. HANCOCK: Obviously, it depends on the facilities that are
planned. And again, we tried not to make that the thrust of this,
because that's a decision for a later day.
But I can tell you the initial discussions with them were fairly
minimum. A small building for a sailing center. It would have to have
bathrooms, you know, maybe a boat ramp, something along those
lines. Nothing of any grandiose nature. But again, those are
discussions and it's not something we're trying to do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bellows, could you put two
Page 43
August 21,2008
photographs up for me. The first one is the one that's first in the
packet, and that's the one that -- the aerial that Mr. Hancock says is the
older aerial.
MR. BELLOWS: You want the top one first?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the bottom one, please. Thank you.
In the middle of the bottom one, if you see the area that has
black water with a stripe going down the middle of it, that's --
rectangular area. Mr. Hancock, is that the place where you believe
your applicant had stockpiled fill and then scraped too low and then
discovered he had a problem?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, I believe that is the area of
over-excavation, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm bringing this up is
because the indications of the different coloration and the way that's
done, okay, we could accept that maybe they took too much fill out of
there when they were scraping the stockpile, they went down two or
three feet too deep, because the coloration of the water there might
lead you to believe there's a different depth there than the water on the
main lake.
Ray, could you put the other photograph up, the more recent
one.
Well, now we have a different circumstance in that same area.
Now we have a body of water that looks like the balance of the lake as
though it was excavated in a similar manner to the balance of the lake
at least deeper than a scraping of just the surface stockpile.
Now I'm trying to correlate that with your statement earlier that
all they did in this over-excavation was scrape off the excess surface
material as a result of taking out the stockpile. It just doesn't appear
that way between these two photographs.
One looks like it was intentionally done and the other I might
give you the sake of argument may not have been intentionally done.
MR. HANCOCK: Let me try and put that in context.
Page 44
August 21, 2008
The original movement outside of the boundary was I believe
based on the stockpiling of material and the scraping or removal of
that material.
There's no question in my mind there have been parts of this lake
that have been taken out by the excavator without the property owner's
knowledge that exceeded the previous photo.
I can't offer you an explanation for the actions of that party, why
they occurred, where the fill went. I have a good idea. But I'm not
making any excuses, nor am I asking for -- you know, trying to offer
you a reasonable explanation.
Things have occurred on this site that simply shouldn't have
occurred. And Mr. Damico is stuck fixing them. And that's where we
sit today, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've heard you say that many
times, and I understand what it's like possibly to not be able to be on
your site every day. But if we offer that up as an excuse, it would
leave the doors wide open to anybody in Golden Gate Estates that
wanted to do the same thing, because, I mean, why wouldn't you, if
this is the precedent that's being set here today.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was going to follow up on
that.
Mr. Damico was the owner of this property when it went
through the last time around. And he knew he had a problem then. He
should have been on top ofthis 24/7, if that's what it took, in order to
make it right.
And obviously he didn't see that need. He just ignored the site
again, and now we have additional after-the-fact variances that you're
seeking because again, we over-excavated.
It just doesn't -- I mean, it doesn't pass the smell test.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: I just had to point out you need to make
Page 45
August 21,2008
your ultimate decision based on testimony. You don't have any here.
You don't have Mr. Damico testifying, you don't have the excavator
testifying. You simply have Mr. Hancock giving you at best what is
hearsay based on conversations he mayor may not have had on this.
So you don't have any testimony before you on this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Klatzkow.
Mr. Hancock, do you have anything else you want to say before
we move to staff?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can I speak for a second?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I don't know who you are, if you're
MR. DAMICO: I'm Darryl Damico.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You certainly can come to the mic., sir.
MR. HANCOCK: Based on Mr. Klatzkow's input, Mr. Damico,
who was sworn in, the owner of the property, would like to address
you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. You need to get closer to the
mic, sir, so she can pick up your conversation.
MR. DAMICO: Good morning, everybody.
Yeah, this thing is definitely a mess.
At the last meeting for some reason, I mean -- of course they
turned us down, but I don't know if it was something to do with Stan
and Don or whatever, but they wanted that dividing thing removed in
this area --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Mr. Damico, this thing -- our
meetings are all recorded by this young lady, and it has to be on the
microphone.
MR. DAMICO: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can move around but you need to
carry a mic. with you if you do.
MR. SCHMITT: Use the projector right here, Ray.
MR. DAMICO: Okay. This area, like you're saying, was
Page 46
August 21, 2008
shallow, and then there was that separated area in there, that little bank
that was there.
And I don't know, maybe somebody -- but when we left the
meeting it was understood that they wanted that out of there and they
wanted this area in there filled. And that's what Don did, and I thought
it was okay.
And then we just cleaned up the whole side, got the fencing all
in place and -- you know, there's no question about it. I mean, I -- I
mean, I've been a resident of Collier County for 32 years. I'm a
builder. And I always do everything by the book. And this thing got
away from me. I trusted Don. And he was supposed to dig where he
was supposed to dig, and obviously he didn't.
As far as the money, there wasn't that much money involved in
the thing when we were getting like 75 cents a yard. And we were
making a couple thousand dollars a month there. But I don't know
where some of the money went, actually.
And I just want to try to bring the thing into compliance. If I
could sell some fill -- the way fill prices are now and the way things
are really down, it would probably take me four or five years or four
year to sell the fill. And in was able to do that, I'd have enough
money to do the banks, to payoff the mortgages that I have, to
basically just try to break even or get the money out and have enough
money to bring the thing into compliance.
And I understand, I mean, I was watching -- I wasn't watching
the store. I messed up. There's no question about it. I apologize for it. I
just -- you know, what do we try to do now? Whatever your
recommendations are, of course we'll follow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Damico, my concern is that you're
asking to dig more area, which obviously generates some revenue. I
don't know what amount. There's no restriction on the revenue that
were to be generated to put it back in to fix any problems that occur,
because we don't have any testimony from any evidence submitted
Page 47
August 21, 2008
today that shows where the problems are.
We don't know if your cross-section is going to show a problem
that's millions of dollars to fix or hundreds of thousands or nothing to
fix.
MR. DAMICO: We have some cross-sections that were done by
Trigo that show the slopes to be, you know, not where they need to be.
Some are better than others. They vary.
And again, when I was talking to Bill McDaniels, who is very
knowledgeable about this stuff, what we were going to try to do is as
we're dredging go ahead and get those slopes the way they're supposed
to be, do the littoral shelf all the way around so it would be in
compliance, and then sell as much fill as we can to pay for all that.
And I figured that I've got a couple hundred thousand dollars in
mortgages, I could probably pay that off, get the littoral shelves all
done and we have to build a berm all the way around. We've got a
fenced-in side on the agricultural side. I've been very involved with
this thing and I'm trying to -- I'm just trying to make it work at this
point.
Yeah, there was definitely a chance of there being a profit in this
thing when fill was $9, $10. But with everything being way down
from that now, I'm really in a correction mode here.
And I can understand -- we just thought -- one of the
commissioners had said well, dig the whole thing out. And then we
thought, well, if we dig the whole thing out, the perfect thing would be
is give it to the county.
I never thought in a million years to myself like oh, gee, that is
going to be a liability to the county. I just -- it was not something that
really came to my mind.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what you're asking us to do is
make a huge leap of faith on a project that you have admitted has been
problematic for you. It would be greater problematic for us in the
county I would think to provide you with this avenue and not have
Page 48
August 21, 2008
everything sown up as tight as possible.
And that means knowing what's out there, knowing what's got to
be fixed, knowing the quantity of fill yet to dig and see if it's sufficient
to what can be fixed, and then getting into the terms even of the
conditional use and the length of time you want it for.
All these things are very problematic from my perspective as a
board member that they aren't answered.
I'm still not saying it's the right or wrong thing to do. But under
the terms in which you presented it today I've not seen enough
evidence that I can feel comfortable with it. So that's where I'm
coming from at this point.
Mr. Hancock?
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, we do have as a part of our
excavation permit that is in for county review, we do have
cross-sections.
What I think may be appropriate if it -- I know we've spent a lot
of time on this already today -- would be to request a continuance and
give staff the time to review those cross-sections from the standpoint
that you have stated, which is trying to address the issue of liability,
and us come back to you on a later agenda. And give staff the time to
look at those cross-sections. Because remember, most of the digging
has been done for about two years now, the reshaping, so there's some
stability issues that could be addressed through that.
We would respectfully request a continuance to allow us to
provide that information to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Added to that, whatever bonding
you intend, not only does it have to have the dollar value, but it has to
be descriptive of the condition potential.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And we may find that instead of
two-to-ones, three-to-ones are the right answer for the slope --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You need to have that ironclad.
Page 49
August 21, 2008
MR. HANCOCK: -- to address the technical issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we're going to consider a continuance
for you to come back with a better package, there are some other
matters that need to be addressed.
Besides knowing the condition of the cross-sections, someone
needs to do an analysis of the standup ability of the soils. I'm real
concerned about that.
And then an analysis of the remaining area to dig and see if it's
sufficient to stabilize the lake if there are problems with those
cross-sections. And then what the detrimental side effect would be if
we dig to a lower depth and they cave in again.
All that long-term stuff is important. And if there's a--
undoubtedly it would have to be linked to some sort of bonding in the
future so that if they cave in we have something to fall back on for
some set period of time.
Those are minimum standards. And then of course we haven't
even heard from the neighborhood yet and from the public who may
have concerns out there as well.
I certainly don't like your unlimited period for a conditional use.
You said to the public in your NIM it would be 18 to 24 months. You
listed certain things there and you seem to be changing that here at this
meeting and that's not appropriate for a meeting like this.
So those are minimum concerns by me. Even if you go into a
continuance, I'm a little concerned why if you're already in violation
the county hasn't acted upon the violation. Instead they've allowed this
process to take as long as it wants and looks like it could be continued
again for some indefinite period of time.
Those are just not all -- none of that's very good. So far it's not a
positive solution. But I'm willing to work with it if the rest of the
members are.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some concerns, if we're
Page 50
August 21, 2008
going to lay them all out before you go. The depth. You have 60 foot,
the berm cross-section, essentially that would be what would be left
behind. The county could remove the berm if they wanted. I'd like to
see that increased to a better dimension, a dimension that would
support parking if it was ever there or any kind of sanitation, any
septic tank that would have clearance away from the water's edge and
everything. So I would recommend at least 100 feet on the north-south
boundary .
MR. HANCOCK: The plan would be actually to remove the
berm.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As you exit.
MR. HANCOCK: As we exit. And that width of land was
intended to give access all the way around the lake.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think north-south, I would
be suggesting making that 100 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this comes back, I think you need to
have a much better plan prepared, and that addresses not all the issues
of the land planning or the property one as a finished product, as an
open, I mean nonresidential, of course, but as a finished product, what
it would look like, the cost to get there with a probably opinion of cost
from a reputable -- from a qualified professional firm. So that if a
bond is put in place the bond is there for the entire cost to bring this
thing back into compliance and to give us the product that you would
anticipate turning over, if that's what you decide to do.
Tim, you've been here so long, you know the ropes, and I think
you could probably figure out the best way to sell this if it needs to be
sold. And I'm suggesting that you look harder at it then, if that's what
you want to do.
I don't see the support on this board. If I'm wrong, someone
please state.
And with that, I guess what we ought to do, if you're requesting
a continuance, I do want to hear any members of the public that are
Page 51
August 21, 2008
registered to speak.
Ray, has anybody registered on this matter?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that simplifies it for today. Is
there any need for a staff report at this point?
Melissa, did you have something you wanted to say?
MS. ZONE: Yes, but I need to be sworn in.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MS. ZONE: Thank you, Commissioner. Melissa Zone, Principal
Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Department.
I just wanted -- because it wasn't really clearly addressed, and as
I was sitting here and trying to grasp this project myself, I just want to
cull it out to this board so that when they do bring it back it is more
defined, and if it's a revised application, and I'll make sure in my staff
report that it is well defined.
I want to show you from this aerial, they had a -- two excavation
permits. What they were in violation was, as we know, they removed
this strip of land. But in addition to that, what I have found through
my research these last three weeks, this area never had an excavation
permit, but it has been excavated and there is a lake there.
And if you look at current conditions --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what they've acknowledged
they're coming in for after the fact.
MS. ZONE: 'Well, after the fact for stripping this but also this
portion. So I just wanted to make it clear to the board that there's two
after the facts tied to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we understand that. And when
they come back, if they come back, and if they bring in the
cross-sections of the lake, it would be interesting to see if that neck
that connected the two lakes got fully excavated, or just a few feet
below the surface like testimony showed.
Those are the kind of things that are all going to come out if this
Page 52
August 21, 2008
is brought back to us. And that probably is the best avenue to take at
this time.
Okay. With that we have a request for a continuance. Is there a
motion to -- for both Items V A-2007-AR-11494 and
CU-2007-AR-11493? And it would be an indefinite continuance.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made my Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr.
Wolfley.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion passes 8-0. Let's take a break till
10:15.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will please take
their seats. We1come back from break.
Item #9D
PETITION: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11914, GERMAIN PROPERTIES
OF COLUMBUS, INC.
Page 53
August 21, 2008
.CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item on today's agenda is -- the
next and only remaining item is 9(D). It's Petition
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11914, Germain Properties of Columbus, Inc., for
Germain Toyota CPUD on Tamiami Trail North.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please
rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the planning
commISSIOn.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I met with Mr. Mulhere and
Mr. Thornton.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any others?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had -- I was supposed to meet with
Mr. Mulhere and Mr. Thornton, and the storm waylaid that. And then
the aftermath of the storm on my personal needs waylaid the second
meeting we set up. So I had a phone conversation with each
gentleman, and everything we discussed on the phone will be
discussed here.
So with that, we'll go into presentation.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you, and good morning. Bob Mulhere
for the record, here on behalf of Germain Toyota. And with me this
morning also is Bob Germain, Jr., Dominick Amico. Dominick is
principal with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, civil engineer. Chris
Thornton, who is with the Passidomo law firm, keep it short. Russ
Weyer, who has prepared the commercial needs analysis, and he's
with Fishkind.
Matt McLean. Matt is the project civil engineer. Ted Treesh. I'd
like to say he's half the man he used to be. Ted. He's gotten a little
thinner. And Kris Bowman, who is the environmental consultant.
Page 54
August 21, 2008
I just want to go over a little bit about the project location site,
and then I'll get into the details of what we're requesting.
The site is just over 13 acres in size. I have an aerial exhibit on
the visualizer that shows the site. And I'm sure you're all familiar with
the location. This is Wiggins Pass Road, Tamiami Trail. The Germain
Automotive Facility PUD is located right here. Just to the north is the
Germain Lexus site. That is zoned C-4.
Just to the south is also Germain auto storage property. That is
also zoned C-4. And of course to the east is Tamiami Trail. To the
north, Wiggins Pass. Across the street, commercial property.
In this location here we have RMF -6 zoning. These are
single-family homes. This little piece here is zoned C-4. This is a
transient lodging, a hotel facility right here facing Wiggins Pass Road.
This area is zoned CF, commercial facility. It's undeveloped at
the present time. But there is a proposed -- I'm not exactly sure what
it's going to be, but there's a proposed community type use, sort of a
camp facility in that location.
The principal component of the request before you today is to
rezone it from PUD prior to -- it was approved prior to the CPUD
Commercial PUD designation, to CPUD, increasing the square
footage from 60,000 to a maximum of 130,000 square feet.
The height request, which originally was at 75 feet, and it's been
reduced now to 55 feet from 50, so there's a five-foot increase in
height. And that will be to provide for a redeveloped site, new
showroom, parts, office, two stories, parking garage. And that will be
an enclosed parking garage. And all of that will total about 114,000
square feet.
The additional plus or minus 16,000 that would get you up to
130,000 is for the potential future redevelopment of the existing
Lincoln Mercury building.
I just want to go over to the site plan again and talk a little bit
about the preserve area.
Page 55
August 21,2008
The preserve will be located in this vicinity here. And I'm going
to put another exhibit on here that better shows that.
Here it is. Sorry.
This is the PUD master plan. And as I said, the preserve will be
located along the western boundary in this larger area right here.
There was some questions about that. This is an exhibit from the
original PUD. And you can see that the preserve area on the original
PUD was sort of this large pie-shaped piece. And you can obviously
see that the geometry has changed. And the question was how did that
occur.
And it was approved through an SDP amendment. And it had to
do with the location of the eagle's nest, which we can get into, which
was actually incorrectly located at the time of the original PUD. When
it was correctly located, subsequent SDP amendment changed the
configuration of the preserve.
And again, our present PUD master plan, which does have the
required amount of preservation, 30 percent of the existing native
vegetation, will run along the boundary adjacent to the residential here
and the CF, which is the citizens camp here, and of course this portion
in here.
We did hold a neighborhood information meeting on October
24th, 2007. There were about -- well, there was 15 people there, but
that included the consultants, so I'm not sure how many residents were
there exactly.
I want to cap the residents' concerns, or summarize the residents'
concerns.
Basically the concerns were related to the nature of the
boundary, the way that the native vegetation was maintained in that
boundary, and noise that emanated out of the facility, particularly in
the early morning hours.
And there was some -- so there was some concern over the
building height that was requested, which we subsequently reduced.
Page 56
August 21, 2008
I believe that summarizes the issues that were raised at the
neighborhood information meeting. There may be some members of
the public that want to speak to those issues.
Just looking through my notes here to see if I missed anything
that was at issue.
Okay, so again, just to summarize, the issues were that mainly
centered around this boundary here and noise generation. But
interestingly enough, the noise generation actually was generated --
the concerns were generated based on this building here, which is
actually located on the Germain Lexus site, not part of this PUD. We
recognize that that's still going to be part of the discussion here.
So I want to show you a couple of exhibits. The Germain Lexus
site just recently had an SDP approved and is going to be redeveloped.
And I want to show that to you.
This exhibit shows the existing condition here. And again, this is
the area that was of significant concern. And then the proposed
redevelopment of the site as part of the approved SDP.
Not only are the buildings much further away from the boundary
with the residential there, but these buildings are fully enclosed. There
will be no outdoor emanation of noise from this new facility, which
was the case here. There's doors that were open here and repairs that
were taking place.
And this was actually leased out to a third party, and that third
party probably wasn't as attentive to the neighbors' issues as could
have or should have been.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for clarification, for the members,
this particular plan you're showing on the right, though, is not up for
consideration here today.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct. But we've been told that there
would be some discussion about it. So I just did want to let you know
that a lot of the neighbors' concerns dealt with that location. I believe
we've addressed that through this new SDP and new redevelopment.
Page 57
August 21, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I'm just trying to figure out if
it's not part of the application, I've got at some point figure out a way
to tie you to that.
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was going to ask, is this whole
document here, is this location right here --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use your mic., please, David. Get closer
to your mic.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What this is, that's what you're
saying is not part --
MR. MULHERE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Just want to know what to put
aside.
MR. MULHERE: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You want to go back to that
again. Even though it's not the subject of discussion, we're going to
discuss it briefly.
You made a statement that I thought was interesting. Those are
bays inside, I assume, the allocations in that building?
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How would they gain entry into
that building?
MR. MULHERE: Oh, in this new building?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir, the bays, to do the work
that they're going to do in there.
MR. MULHERE: Well, you know, I'm going to defer to either
Bob Germain or to maybe Matt or JeffNunner. I forgot to introduce
JeffNunner, I'm sorry. JeffNunner is the boss.
Come on up.
MR. NUNNER: Hi, JeffNunner. I'm the project manager for
Germain Motors.
Page 58
August 21,2008
There's an entry on the north and the south sides of that building
to get into the service area.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: If a service man were to take the
vehicle to go do service, they would drive to what is up in the north, I
guess that's representative of north there, and -- no, go a little further
up. All the way up. I'm pointing at something you can't possibly see.
No, sir, come up to where that -- yeah, isn't that an entrance into
there?
MR. NUNNER: Those two locations, and then there's also a
ramp on the south end where they would ramp up to the second floor
parking area.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So those are overhead doors,
aren't they?
MR. NUNNER: They'll be overhead doors that are closed during
the day. They'll only open when a car needs to go into the building.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's your pledge. I appreciate
that.
MR. NUNNER: It would be a fully air conditioned service area,
so those doors would remain closed.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know. But I'm just thinking of
those wonderful November through February days where air
conditioning is just not appropriate. But okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I just wanted to put that on the record.
The other requests related to the proposed amendment to the
PUD deal primarily with setbacks.
I'm going to put this exhibit on once again, which is the master
plan.
The requested setbacks, what we've done is maintained -- is
amended the existing PUD to create a 200- foot setback at the request
of -- and to address concerns expressed by residents, neighbors, so that
nothing will be within 200 feet of residential zoning, which is right
Page 59
August 21, 2008
here.
This is the boundary for the RMF -6 zoning. So we've taken
everything out of within 200- foot of that area and expressed that we
would maintain that setback.
The other setbacks that we requested are typical setbacks that
you find in a Commercial PUD in an activity center. And on the north
and the south, they are presently 50 feet on the north, and we've
requested an amendment to the 50 percent of the building height but
not less than 15 feet.
And again, we're immediately adjacent to the existing developed
auto dealership to the north.
And as far as the south goes, it's presently 80 feet. And we've
requested the amendment to be 50 percent of the building height, not
less than 25 feet on the south.
Adjacent to U.S. 41 the present setback is 100 feet -- excuse me,
75 feet, I'm sorry. And we've requested that that be amended to say 50
percent of the building height, but not less than 25 feet.
We understand that there's been some concerns about that
particular setback. And because the plan calls for a 25-foot landscape
buffer and a parking storage area there, we can maintain the existing
75-foot setback along U.S. 41. And so we would agree to do that.
I have a whole plethora of experts here. I'm sure you have a lot
of questions. I really think that summarizes the request adequately and
we would be able to respond to your questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have -- and this is the master
plan you're presenting?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I note that there's no obvious
indications to me, anyway, of any parking allocations. Presumably
you'll comply. But my question is more so, have you as a result of this
reconfiguration acquired additional parking space?
Page 60
August 21, 2008
MR. MULHERE: Are you talking about parking that would be
required for guests or are you talking about storage or display area for
vehicles --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Just parking of any sort and
every sort. Presumably -- I mean, since it's a dealership, you want to
have vehicles for sale.
MR. MULHERE: Maybe go to the aerial.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just curious to know whether
the reconfiguration has given you additional vehicle spaces. And if so,
and whether or not my subsequent question will be now asked,
whether the automotive facility has been enhanced. Is it larger, the
facility is able to handle more?
And then finally, do we have the same situation where on the --
let's see, if that's the north, on the west side the entrance is gained to
the bays?
MR. MULHERE: To start with your first question, the
impervious area is not changing but there will be more building
structure. A significant portion of the new proposed building structure
will be an enclosed garage as well as some roof vehicle storage and
display. So it's a more comfortable and a more modern approach for
the dealership.
And yes, the dealership will be completely -- it will be a
complete new building and new dealership built on a -- replacing what
exists.
And as you can see, there's a building right here, which was the
used car refurberation (sic) type use in there. That actually goes away.
And though we don't have specific details of the site
development plan yet, as you can see here, this is the proposed
building area. And we've maintained 200 feet from the residential, so
we've actually increased that setback. And of course we've got a
landscape buffer in here and then a setback from -- or excuse me, a
preserve and landscape buffer in here and then a setback from there.2
Page 61
August 21, 2008
So this would be your parking garage area and this would be
your more habitable dealership area. It's two stories. And let me just
give me a little more detail on that.
There's a service area and showroom and parts area on the first
floor, which will be 76,000, plus or minus, square feet. And then the
second floor includes offices and parts at 12,243 square feet. And then
the balance will be an enclosed parking structure.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One final part of that. The last
time that we saw this, there was a number of concerns put forth by the
residents regarding not only noise but waste products.
Where is the waste depot? Where do you now store tires and
such that you've -- you know, used tires that have come off of vehicles
for replacements, et cetera, et cetera?
MR. MULHERE: I'm glad you asked that question. It's a good
question.
Yes, there is a dumpster located in the back of the -- well, there's
an enclosure right here, and then there's a large dumpster that's
actually located outside of that enclosure. I don't see that it's depicted
on than aerial. But that is going to -- it's temporary and it's going to be
taken away.
When we redevelop the site and go through the SDP process, we
will locate these trash enclosures that are required by code to be
located outside of that setback area or as far away from the residential
as we can. We haven't gotten to the site development plan yet. We
have no detailed plans. We have some architectural renderings but no
detailed plan.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, just to be absolutely clear,
you're talking trash. And do you mean by trash all waste materials?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that at least it will be not
anywhere near the residents, there won't be any dumping in the back,
so to speak.
Page 62
August 21, 2008
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
MR. GERMAIN: I'm Bob Germain, vice president of Germain
Motor Company and the property owner.
The service facility will contain inside the tanks for used oil and
also rooms for used tire storage that traditionally get piled up out in
back of the service department.
So regular waste that -- solid waste we generate will be in an
enclosed dumpster area outside the building. But tires, the used oil,
anything we generate will be inside of the building.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
Also, someone just mentioned to me that I said that the parking
garage would be enclosed, which is actually an incorrect statement. If
I did say that, I didn't mean to.
The parking on top -- on the roof of the dealership will be
enclosed. There will be a -- obviously a little bit of a wall that will
hide the cars from the public.
But here's a rendering here. Parapet wall was the word I was
trying to think of. In the back here, which you can't see in this
rendering, there is -- because this is part -- this is a parapet wall.
Beyond that in the back would be rooftop vehicle display and storage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Have you -- it looks as though
the ingress -- well, the getting into the property and out, the ingress
and egress, it looks like you're changing it.
MR. MULHERE: Well, that's a very good question. Actually--
and I'm going to ask Matt, in case I don't get this right. But the -- two
of these points of ingress and egress will be going away, based on our
meetings with FDOT. There's probably in their opinion too many
points of congestion in ingress and egress. And as I understand it we --
actually it may be -- well, there's three points of ingress and egress
technically on this site here, and I think this middle one is going away.
Page 63
August 21, 2008
Is that correct, Matt?
And we would retain this one and this one.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Looks like the one on the south
. .
IS gomg away.
MR. MULHERE: Is this one also? Which is not--
MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean with ABB, for the record.
The two access points through access management criteria by
FDOT, they will be closed. As part ofthe SDP approval for Germain
Lexus this particular location will be closed and access for Germain
Lexus will be in through this existing location that currently serves the
Toyota facility.
At the time of SDP approval for the balance of the site, there's
three more access points along 41, and meetings with FDOT have
indicated that they're going to follow through with the standard access
management criteria, which will effectively include closure of this
particular location.
So at the end of the day the proposed access points off U.S. 41
for the facility will just be through this particular location and this
location.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, that clears it up.
And although that's not -- is not what your drawing shows. Okay,
well, that's good.
Is there currently a sidewalk there in front of the property?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have to move the mic
closer to you, David.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm about to swallow it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just like I am and like the rest of us,
you have to speak -- she can't hear you.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: There is a sidewalk right here. It's probably a
little bit hard to see, but right here, and then it swings out. There is no
Page 64
August 21, 2008
sidewalk currently in this area here.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Were you planning on
continuing that sidewalk through the length of your property?
MR. MULHERE: You know, I don't want to -- I'm going to have
to defer -- I'm assuming that staff will ask us to do that or make a cash
contribution in lieu of.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just asked would you put this
in the plan to have a sidewalk going from north to south of --
MR. MULHERE: You mean in this vicinity here?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The entire length, yes.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What would be the width of
that sidewalk?
MR. MULHERE: Standard five feet, is it?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is it five or six?
MR. MULHERE: It will match what's existing. I think the
standard is five feet, but I could be wrong. But it will match what's
existing here.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: From FDOT, did you hear of
any, any --
MR. MULHERE: That has to go through the FDOT because
they will permit that. So just -- obviously we have to get a permit from
FDOT.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just wanted to make sure that
there would be a sidewalk that continues the property. Okay.
Is there going to be any future road work that FDOT is
planning? In other words, you're asking for a setback that -- from the
road that's much less than what --
MR. MULHERE: Not anymore. I put on the record and agreed
that we would go back to the 75 foot.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, you did? I'm sorry, I was
reading something. I missed that.
Page 65
August 21, 2008
MR. MULHERE: However, to answer your question, no, they're
done with their improvements. There are some improvements that the
county is planning on doing, but they're not, I don't think, physical
improvements. I think they deal more with signalization. Not physical
to the intersection, I think they deal with signalization and the smart --
SCOOT technology.
But you could certainly ask --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: When it gets to that.
MR. MULHERE: -- Michael if you --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at
this time?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is auto parking and storage -- you
can see on this plan where all the automotive parking is -- she usually
can hear me; I'm not usually the issue -- is that a primary use or an
accessory use?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, I certainly would defer to staff.
My opinion would be that the parking -- you're talking about display,
vehicle display?
COMMISSIONER CARON: All this -- yeah, there's parking
surrounding every building. Every inch of concrete here is essentially
parking.
MR. MULHERE: So I think you have two things here: You have
parking that is for employees and guests to the facility. That's clearly
required, but accessory to the principal use. You have storage of
vehicles that --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait, stop just a minute.
So that accessory parking is essentially what's back here in the
back of the building here, this light color?
MR. MULHERE: No --
COMMISSIONER CARON: It sort of looks lighter in color than
Page 66
August 21, 2008
-- that's obviously not display area.
MR. MULHERE: Right. But not necessarily all -- first of all,
this is not necessarily all guest parking or employee parking, though
some of it may be employee parking.
There's also the storage of vehicles that are either used vehicles
being refurbished or otherwise, you know, vehicles that are being
repaired or in some way getting ready for sale.
So you do have some storage component as well in a car
dealership.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But do you consider that primary
-- a primary use or an accessory use?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I mean, the primary use is auto sales
and service. Assumed with auto sales and service is display, storage
and the parking that is required to address those things.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what I'm asking. So we
would consider most all of this parking to be a primary use?
MR. MULHERE: I guess I -- you know, I'm not trying to be
evasive. I'm thinking more -- I'm not sure what you're trying to get at,
so I don't -- I guess what I would say is that it's part and parcel of the
use. Parking is not the use. Sales, auto sales, is the use.
MR. BELLOWS: And display.
MR. MULHERE: And display. So the display component is --
COMMISSIONER CARON: The display is a use. And what you
display in an auto dealership is parked cars.
MR. MULHERE: Correct, yeah. I don't have a problem with
that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Then my point will be that
on this site as it is currently developed, all across the back of the site
and down across, that is preserve area.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All of that parking, because I've
driven through it many times, abuts that preserve. There's no setback.
Page 67
August 21,2008
Why isn't there a 25-foot setback--
MR. MULHERE: I can answer that --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- or an accessory setback of 10
whatever it is?
MR. MULHERE: I can answer that question.
The code doesn't require a setback. It has nothing to do with
uses, it has to do with structures. Required setback is for structures.
Use doesn't even come into play.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan Mason, could you come up and
comment on that, please?
MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason,
Engineering and Environmental Services Department.
The setbacks for primary structures or principal structures are 25
feet, but for impacts and accessory structures it is 10 feet currently in
the code.
MR. MULHERE: Structures.
MS. MASON: And impacts, 10 feet.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So all of this right now is
essentially non-compliant. Because I can tell you there's no 10-foot
setback from any of this preserve area back there.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARON: In addition, on the current PUD
there's a requirement for there not to be loudspeakers. I can personally
testify that this operation has always used loudspeakers. And I can say
that because I'm part of Audubon Eagle Watch and so I spend a lot of
time out in the preserve in the back of here. And to quote a movie, I
can listen to them going, Ravi to parts, Ravi to parts all the time.
So again, we have another instance where we're not complying
with the current PUD.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, but--
COMMISSIONER CARON: The preserve area we know is an
issue. There had been FDP -- I meant DEP has cited for tires and oil
Page 68
August 21, 2008
and many violations. So why is it that we would even consider -- how
are we to have confidence that the new PUD will be followed when
the old PUD has not been followed?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I guess I'd answer that in a couple of
ways.
I'm not sure if there were many violations. I mean, that's an
adjective that you put on there. But there were violations. Many is a
modifier I wouldn't put on it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: More than two.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Well, depends on the definition of
many.
However, having said that, we've corrected all those violations.
We did go out and have a test done in the site where the violation
occurred and it came back clean.
We believe that the present plan is actually better than the
existing condition. We're going to construct a wall along the eastern
boundary of this preserve adjacent to the RMF -6 that will match the
wall that is already existing over here on the Germain Lexus site,
match it in terms of architectural style.
And so that will actually create a greater buffer with the
landscaping on the residential side, which we will maintain,
obviously.
But I do understand your point.
As far as the loudspeakers go, you know, I can't really respond
to that. I don't know ifthat's coming from here or here or here. I take
your word for it. And we are agreeing to have no amplified sound.
And how that will be modified or followed to ensure that it occurs, I
guess the only suggestion that I can make is if it suits the planning
commission, we could on a quarterly basis or couple times a year
provide some visual evidence of the site condition. Because I know
you also expressed some concerns relative to the off-site drainage
facility, which I know we did --
Page 69
August 21, 2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: We'll get to that.
MR. MULHERE: So, I mean, that might be one way to ensure it
for a period of time and that we provide that to staff and they review
it, rather than to rely on code enforcement to have to come out and
address these issues.
I know that Bob Germain is here. He may want to speak to those
issues. Weare committed to being good neighbors. Weare committed
to doing the right thing. I can't really speak to the issues in the past,
but I know that we've discussed this and --
MR. GERMAIN: Again, Bob Germain.
You know, these new facilities are a lot different than the
traditional automobile dealerships that we all grew up with, you know,
in terms of just we don't throw -- you're so used to the old car
dealerships that have the transmissions sitting out behind the service
department, the stacks of tires and waste oil tanks that are outside of
the facility.
This is a new facility. The new generation of car dealerships are
completely enclosed and you don't have those situations. You know,
they're much cleaner looking from the outside, and they tend to keep
everything, tire storage, used motor oil storage, everything, inside.
In terms of the paging, you know, we used to have the big bull
horns on every corner of the building so you could page your
salesmen when they're out on the lot. The new stores that we've built,
the Lexus store that's on the north side ofthis complex, the new BMW
store, instead of having those loudspeakers -- we still do it in the
showroom to some extent, although we try even not to do that just so
you don't have all those distractions within the building.
But in terms of outside paging, everybody has pagers, and when
the receptionist gets a call she just basically pages with a beeper
whatever employee, you know, has a phone call. So, I mean, it's much
quieter. I think if you hear anything from these buildings -- now we
really don't have those external horns broadcasting all over the lot.
Page 70
August 21, 2008
There are some speakers overhead in some of the service drives that I
think that you could probably hear, depending on which way the
wind's blowing. But I think that, you know, the new facilities, the
noise will not be an issue.
All the service work, all the impact wrenches, it's all done inside.
The doors are all high speed doors that go up and down within just a
few seconds. So they're very quiet stores.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But the question, Mr. Germain,
was, it was already a requirement of your current PUD and it was not
followed through with.
So my question is just how can you give us a level of confidence
that we won't run into these same issues? Not only loudspeakers,
protection of hazardous chemicals, your preserve protection and the
maintenance of that preserve area, and the buffering, there's a real lack
of landscape maintenance. Not to the front. Please let me give you all
due credit to U.S. 41, looks lovely. Actually, landscape buffering
between your dealerships, between Lexus and between the storage --
auto storage section, you've done a very nice job with that.
But along the back, along the preserve, what we should be
protecting most, and along the residential where your neighbors are,
you've not been a good neighbor. And I need a level of confidence that
that's going to change. I think your neighbors need that, too.
MR. GERMAIN : Well, again, I think that we -- I mean, we do
consider ourselves to be a good neighbor. I think there's been some
confusion as to what the requirements actually are in the swale on the
west side of the property, what needed to be cleaned in there, how
often did it need to be mowed, how often did we need to get in there
and trim and clean it.
And I don't think that -- I think there was some confusion,
especially on the retention lot that's behind the Lexus dealership that
actually is right in between two residential houses. I think there's
always been -- there's been some question as to what -- how we really
Page 71
August 21, 2008
needed to maintain that and what we were allowed to do. I'm happy to
fence that in.
You know, I think we finally between myself and Jane and our
maintenance people have an understanding of what we need to do to
make that not an issue for the neighbors.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I mean, I just -- I think
everybody needs to understand what we're dealing with here.
Back in May, when we were originally going to hear this, this is
what that water retention -- there's a home right on this side, there's a
home on this side. And it was dry in May. But it wasn't bermed, it
wasn't fenced, it was a pit in a residential neighborhood.
MR. MULHERE: I have some pictures that were taken
yesterday.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have them right here--
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. No, I'm not disagreeing with you--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- this is yesterday.
MR. MULHERE: -- and this is--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- this is Wednesday--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, now. Bob, let her finish
with her discussion, please.
COMMISSIONER CARON: This is Wednesday. It is now filled
with water, obviously doing its job. But surrounding it is nothing but
weeds, and still no fencing. This is a neighborhood where there are
children. And it's a hazard. It's a serious hazard.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. No, I don't think we're disagreeing with
your comments. We intend to do a good job on a regular basis clearing
that of any, you know, non-required vegetation. We're more than
willing to fence it in, as Bob Germain indicated.
I'm not sure if the neighbors want a fence there or not. I mean,
this is a stormwater facility, it's not real, real deep. But obviously
when it rains it gets filled with water. It is bermed just slightly, as you
can see in the photo on the visualizer.
Page 72
August 21, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, before we go too far, Mr.
Klatzkow, since that's been passed amongst us, I'm assuming it needs
to be part of the record?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll leave a copy with the court
reporter. Cherie'?
MR. MULHERE: And if I could say that although this isn't part
of this PUD, I understand it's part of the concern.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My next question was, Bob, would you
show us on the aerial map underneath this picture exactly where it is
in the area that we're talking about where this is.
MR. MULHERE: It's the Lexus site. And it's right here.
But knowing that that's not part of this PUD, we have put on the
record and would be willing to put on the record that we would fence
that.
The other thing I did want to say, Commissioner Caron, in
response to your concerns, were that we are also committed to,
through the SDP process, in any way that we are required to embellish
the vegetation or replace dead vegetation we will do that in there
through a landscape plan in that preserve with native vegetation.
And as far as the 10- foot setback for accessory structures from
preserves and now also impacts, fill, okay, and since that's parking,
that's filled, you know, that wasn't required at the time that that was
approved. It exists as it is now today. There were no such
requirements at the time that was, you know, constructed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: Sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the ownership of the three
parcels is the same, if we get concurrence and agreement with the
owner's representative and the owner here today to improvements on
the other parcels, can we make motions and stipulations to include
that?
Page 73
August 21, 2008
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good.
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just -- we had passed
around pictures of a retention pond that did its job during Fay. And I
was just wondering where that was, the location here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we just --
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's right here.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I don't--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, could you show Mr. Wolfley the
location of the retention pond that was just circulated in photographs.
MR. MULHERE: It's just to the west of the Lexus site. It's right
here. You can see the -- right in here.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, great, thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Between two single-family homes.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I see.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions at
this time?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, I think one thing you
should clear up, you testified that it's going to be an enclosed garage. I
don't think you want to say that. It's an open --
MR. MULHERE: Correct. That's correct, thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and it will obviously meet the
architectural standards for barriers and hand rails.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. And thank you. I did -- if I said that, I
didn't mean to. I mean that the top part for parking would be enclosed.
It will not be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are there any restrictions
applicable because of a -- presumably the eagle's nest is still there and
Page 74
August 21, 2008
the eagles are still there?
MR. MULHERE: Well, the eagles are not there. They're not in
that tree that was the subject of concern at the time that this was
originally approved. They've actually moved.
But as far as the regulations go, even if the eagles leave the tree
for a period ofI think five years, it's still considered to be occupied.
So that tree would be considered to be occupied.
So there are some restrictions relative to construction during the
nesting season. We have a bald eagle management plan. We will
follow that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wanted to get that on the
record, because that's important for those who are concerned with that
as well.
MR. MULHERE: I did neglect to add a comment that Michael
Green -- a change in a condition that Michael Green discussed with us
just before the meeting, so I want to read that into the record. I
apologize for not doing that earlier.
There are presently two transportation stipulations in Exhibit E.
The second stipulation presently reads: The developer shall pay its fair
share costs of intersection improvements as U.S. 41 and Old 41, and in
parens, right turn lane improvements which have been identified as
not to exceed $14] ,902.60.
The revised condition would read: The developer shall
contribute fair share payments towards intersection improvements
including signalization and intelligent transportation management
systems, ITMS, at U.S. 41 at Wiggins Pass Road and Old 41 which
have been identified as not to exceed $141,902.60.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope you have that as a hand-out.
MR. MULHERE: I just have it in my own handwriting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll need it as a hand-out before the
meeting's over, if we're going to add that to stipulations.
MR. MULHERE: We'll see if we can get that taken care of or
Page 75
August 21, 2008
have someone write it that's legible -- that writes legibly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at
this time?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm going to want to get into the
market study. But if you want to go ahead and ask your questions first,
then we can come back to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll ask mine and we'll hold off on
the market study.
Mr. Schmitt, I've been trying to find out on-line, but it takes a
while with the connection we have up here. On the aerial that Bob has
shown us, the Germain auto store at C-4, I cannot determine if that's a
principal use allowed in a C-4. Can you?
MR. SCHMITT: I'll look at it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, there's no other buildings on
there, no other facilities, it's just auto storage. And since they didn't
include this in a PUD or a broader application, it's a standalone parcel,
and that would have to be a standalone use then, which means it
would have to be a principal use.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, C-4 allows for auto sales and display.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as that--
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, it does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Why wouldn't you have used a PUD for all three properties,
especially since you're in for SDP on one?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm not sure -- I asked myself the
question why they went for a PUD on the piece of property they did
originally, because it's actually been detrimental to them.
But having said that, I believe there really was no reason to
include those other two parcels. They already had C-4 zoning which
allowed the uses, they were unimproved, they didn't have to have that
additional expense of adding those to the existing PUD. It just wasn't
Page 76
August 21, 2008
necessary. And they were really only making improvements to this
site as it related to the issues that they needed to amend the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason, it would have been
easier for us to stipulate on the other parcels.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we see that now, obviously in
hindsight. Yeah, understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, on the master plan that you show.
Let me get to it. You want to put that back on the screen?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah I've got to find it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem.
MR. MULHERE: I'm looking for the master plan. You've got
one there? Oh, thank you, Ray. Got too many papers. Here we go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You moved the preserve area to that
strip along the west.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I heard your reasoning for it based on
what you understand the history to be. I disagree with your reasoning,
but neither here nor there, we still -- I don't believe that's the way we
got there. But now that we're there, you need 1.9 acres of preserve.
And you've taken the preserve -- the landscape buffer, the buffer in the
rear, and extended it all the way up to the north property line past the
intersection with the southernmost line of the RMF -6 residential
parcel. Do you see that?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did the calculations last night. And if
you do that, you've got more than the 1.9. And the reason that's
important is I think the intent all along to keep you at 1.9 was to stop
at that southern RMF -6 zoned line with the preserve and continue with
the landscape buffer north of there.
And the reason that's important is because if it's preserve, you
cannot put the landscaping, the possible berm and wall and fence and
everything else you need in a preserve. So you don't want that to be
Page 77
August 21, 2008
preserve in order to protect the residents to the west.
So I think on this plan you need to cut that preserve off at that
RMF-6 southern line.
MR. MULHERE: We could do that, but Mr. Strain, we actually
met with the environmental staff, and the agreement that was made
was that we would put the wall on the eastern edge of that preserve
and that we're only counting then the area that is to the west, and that
that was acceptable to them. And we think it's better for the residents
too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then are you changing your
PUD calculation?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I guess, do we have 1.9 acres
minimum?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, not only that, you have 1.9 acres
in the southwest corner to match what the original PUD said.
Basically you moved the language over. You don't mean that --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we need to change that language to the
western side. I agree with you on that.
So what you're saying is, where we talk about the preserve being
located in the southwest, it needs to say the western boundary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think that you need to
rectify the acreage to be accurate. It isn't 1.9. My numbers were rough
by scale. So it's probably not 2.25, but the numbers don't jive.
MR. MULHERE: Let's do this, then. I assume if we do go
forward today we're going to come back on your consent agenda,
correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. MULHERE: So I think what we could do is verify that
number and revise it as may be necessary as part of your motion. And
then we come back as part of the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe get to that point today, that would
be a fine way to resolve it.
Page 78
August 21, 2008
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, can we -- we'd like to get the
Forge Engineering analysis, soil analysis that we had done become a
part of the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you enough copies to pass out?
MR. MULHERE: We did distribute them via e-mail. We just
have a copy now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has everybody here--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That e-mail said that it would be
available.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you need to use the
microphone.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sorry about that.
If I recall correctly, that e-mail said that would be available.
MR. MULHERE: We'll get copies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be best.
On your Exhibit B to your PUD -- I don't know if you're there
yet, Bob. On the bottom line it says it's your standard developments
table.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's hard to find any of these ever to be
right anyway, but on the last line, it says maximum gross leasable
area. I think we should take out the word leasable. You're not leasing
this property, you own the property, don't you?
MR. MULHERE: It's just a term that the planning staff has
always used. I don't mind taking it out. But I do want you to know that
that 130,000 square feet applies to square footage under air.
In other words, it doesn't include the parking deck or -- those are
not ever included in your square footage calculations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wouldn't say ever. They're not
included in air conditioning calculations for sure.
MR. MULHERE: They're not included in terms of this limitation
here. We've never included the square footage for display on top of
Page 79
August 21, 2008
the garage in terms of the square footage, for example.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we don't know how much --
MR. MULHERE: Enclosed might work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, how much gross square footage do
you think you're going to be using then?
MR. MULHERE: We're going to be using for display, offices,
all the typical uses, 130,000 max.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you're now saying is either air
conditioned or enclosed.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But your gross now is going to be
substantially larger because you're using a how many deck parking
garage?
MR. MULHERE: Just parking on the roof.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Parking on the roof?
MR. MULHERE: I mean, I've never seen a parking garage in
any calculation in Collier County counted towards the intensity. I'm
not aware of -- unless it was maybe a commercial garage?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Waterside Shops just had maybe
one that might have been looked at as intensity, but I don't remember
the circumstances particularly.
MR. MULHERE: Not as part of their retail calculation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So instead of gross leasable area, it
would be enclosed area.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that would be fine.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MR. MULHERE: That parking could be surface otherwise.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron -- or Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, the area thing is
something that staff and everybody is reviewing, it kind of spun off
Page 80
August 21, 2008
the task force. So it is correct, it is within the enclosed area of a
building. There are some exceptions for egress systems and stuff, but
an open parking garage would not be included.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So enclosed is the right word to use
there?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just want to make sure we're not
leaving ourselves open to something unforeseen here. Do they get
around enclosed building -- if they leave those bays open like they
have now then is it no longer enclosed?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR. MULHERE: No, it's still enclosed.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Because I'm--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, one --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the LDC has a definition
of building area. Why don't we just use that, that would be the same as
this.
Ray, don't you agree with that, that building area is the word we
should be using? Because that's the definition that establishes within
the enclosed.
MR. BELLOWS: Typically we've used gross floor area or
building area -- leasable for retail uses. If it's office, we generally use
gross floor area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now what are we back to? We're
going to use enclosed?
MR. MULHERE: I think in this case the enclosed is actually
more restrictive. And I think it gets to what you were more concerned
with, more so than just gross -- than just leasable area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would feel comfortable leaving it that
way --
Page 81
August 21, 2008
MR. BELLOWS: In my opinion we're dealing with a use that's
not quite a retail type of use, it's an auto dealership. And because it has
unusual storage needs or display needs, I would say the enclosed area
would be best suited in this case.
MR. MULHERE: If it serves the planning commission, I
certainly wouldn't mind between now and -- again, if we go forward
here, you know, looking at that definition. And I'll provide one for you
if you want it here as to what is meant by the term enclosed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I think we're happy with enclosed
at this point, so why don't we leave well enough alone.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit E, list of developer
commitments. Under landscaping, your number two, your Type B
buffer, it says a buffer may include water management area and shall
include an opaque fence.
Now, is this around that water management area that was shown
to us by Commissioner Caron in that photograph?
MR. MULHERE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, where would this apply?
MR. MULHERE: This is intended to be right here where -- right
here where the preserve area abuts the residential zoning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: The water management area is to the north
and again over in this area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For both sound and visual, why would
we want to make it opaque? There's sure nothing pretty looking at a
car lot. Why wouldn't we want to see it a solid wall six feet high?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I think opaque is you can't see through.
Opaque means --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could be a chain link fence with those
slats in it too.
MR. MULHERE: That wouldn't meet the definition of opaque.
Page 82
August 21, 2008
But, I mean, if we want to change -- if you want to say a concrete or
masonry architecturally finished wall, would that get it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for everybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to make notes as I go along
here, so give me a minute.
Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: While you're on the wall, can we
talk about the height of that wall? Obviously a six-foot wall that is
behind the Lexus dealership hasn't done much to protect the residents
there from noise. Perhaps we should think about a higher wall.
MR. MULHERE: I would offer two things. I don't think we
would be opposed to that, but I think that the noise issue will be
addressed through moving everything into the interior of the building,
not having landscaping. So I think that really will go away.
Then the question is do you really want a higher wall. We do a
good job with the landscaping on the outside of the wall. With the
six-foot wall it should be very attractive from an aesthetic perspective.
And I recognize that, you know, we need to ensure that that's the case.
But that I think would be better, I'm just -- it's really not a
question. To go eight-foot is really not a problem for us if you wanted
to give us a deviation. But then again you're talking about a -- I mean,
for light and air, I think six foot works better.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you have any objection to
bringing back a cross-section by the consent agenda of that area
showing how the parking lot works with the wall, works with the
landscaping, works with the preserve, works with the residential?
MR. MULHERE: Matt?
MR. McLEAN: We can do that, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark --
Page 83
August 21,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- a question.
Robert, the wall is going to be on the eastern side of the
preserve, essentially the Germain side.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct. And it's not counted as part of
our preserve, so, you know, as I indicated to Mr. Strain.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you would see it through the
preserve, if you could see it.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, did you bring a copy of your
corporation records for the record? Would you make sure that the
court reporter has a copy. For those of us that want to see it, we can
put it on -- it's short, so we can put it on the overhead.
Okay, I think the -- go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just back to the development
standards table.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, ma'am.
(Papers being distributed.)
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think I have that already, thank
you. I printed it out. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far, we have a whole
pile of paperwork here to distribute. And for the record, everybody's
receiving a handwritten note concerning the fair share contribution
that was read into the record earlier.
We also received several pages, Forge Engineering soil test
report, which are -- it's dated August 11th, 2008. Looks like it's nine
pages.
And we've received the corporate disclosure of interests, a listing
of the various owners of the property that wasn't part of the package
originally.
And all these I have copies for the court reporter.
Is there a motion to accept all this into evidence? Mr. Murray?
Page 84
August 21, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to include all documents
tendered into evidence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by anybody?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Okay. Now, Ms. Caron, you were in the middle of something.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Because the entire PUD abuts
the preserve, don't we need to change the development standards table
to reflect that?
MR. MULHERE: Under -- I'm looking for it right now. Let's
see. Abutting residential. Conservation area, I see it, okay.
Well, I think what I would suggest there, if it works, is that, you
know, that's existing parking. I would footnote that and footnote that
parking exists within the 10-foot accessory structure boundary. That
way if it's ever redeveloped, they still have to meet that setback.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, the site's being redeveloped
now. I don't know why we can't bring it into compliance now.
MR. MULHERE: Well, you know, we can put a wall there.
You're allowed to use a physical barrier and then go right up to it. So I
mean, maybe that's what needs to happen there. I don't think they want
Page 85
August 21, 2008
to lose 10 feet. They have that option.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you suggesting, Ms. Caron,
any change to the table then, or not?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, I want to think about
that, because that may be exactly what they need to do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we get to the end of this.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Before we get to the end, we'll go
back to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had finished with the questions I've got
from the documents, and we're getting into then the commercial
Fishkind report.
Ms. Caron, I think you had questions on that.
MR. MULHERE: So just to clarify, I'm just going back to that
real quickly on that conservation area. I'm sorry. I just wanted to
clarify the -- the existing condition, we either need to allow that to
remain in place, because otherwise if we leave it the way it is right
now, during the SDP process, I guess staff would require a physical
barrier and we'd end up having to put some sort of a wall in there to be
able to -- to extend to -- you know, because from what I'm
understanding, the setback applies to not only structures but also like
fill and parking. Even though it's existing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if the setback applies to that, then
you'd have to put a retaining wall in, is what you're getting at, to stop
the fill from being over there. Remove the fill and restore the area.
MR. MULHERE: Exactly. That's what I'm saying, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you want to change that here and
you want to change it in the development standards table, wouldn't
you be seeking a deviation?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, technically we would be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't we have to--
MR. MULHERE: Well, it's not a deviation. Setbacks are not
deviations. You can use the PUD to request different setbacks, and
Page 86
August 21, 2008
they're not deviations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Give you time to think about it.
Okay, Ms. Caron, do you want to ask your questions about the
Fishkind report? Is that --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure. I just have a couple.
I'm sorry, your name again is?
MR. WEYER: For the record, Russ Weyer, with Fishkind and
Associates.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. Mr. Weyer, this is the
report that you put together for the Germain properties. Are you pretty
comfortable with what's in this report?
MR. WEYER: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So when we go to your market
need conclusions --
MR. WEYER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It says here within a 30-minute
drive time area of the project there is the potential for an additional
212,000 square feet of auto dealership by 2020.
MR. WEYER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And you're really comfortable with
that figure of 212,000?
MR. WEYER: Yes, ma'am, based on population growth and
based on the per capita need that we have analyzed in the market.
Markets are very efficient. So we have analyzed it from current
market conditions and what the population has accepted. We think
going forward based on future population growth, that's what it will
be.
COMMISSIONER CARON: This PUD is asking to increase its
square footage by some 70,000 square feet.
MR. WEYER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right next door at the Lexus they
just increased it some 56,000 square feet.
Page 87
August 21, 2008
What in your judgment is the reason that all square footage for
auto dealers within a 30-mile radius --
MR. WEYER: 30-minute drive time.
COMMISSIONER CARON: 30-minute drive.
MR. WEYER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry, 30-minute drive, why
should 60 percent of it, of everything you've projected that will be
needed by 2020, why should it be on this piece of property?
MR. WEYER: Well, understood too, there are -- this was a very
difficult -- first of all, let me explain, this is a very difficult analysis to
do because it's not a homogeneous commodity, like you would go to a
grocery store and the different grocery stores do types of things. It's a
very specific type of commodity that you're buying.
What ultimately will happen, dealerships are making changes,
they're starting to consolidate. I think what you will see that is not
included in this is some of the dealerships that will be going away as
they consolidate, much like where they're moving the BMW
dealership from Davis Boulevard out to 41.
So those things will be taken out of the market and consequently
incorporated into these as well.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It didn't go away, it just moved.
MR. WEYER: I understand.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But you didn't answer my
question. You've told us that within 30 minutes, a 30-minute drive of
this piece of property 212,000 square feet of auto dealerships, we're
going to need that by 2020. And you want to put 60 percent of
everything between 30-minute drive right here at the corner of
Wiggins Pass and 41.
MR. WEYER: Mrs. Caron, I'm going to let --
COMMISSIONER CARON: And --
MR. WEYER: Two things. First of all, Mr. Germain had asked
to answer that as well. But we did include that 56,000 of the Lexus in
Page 88
August 21, 2008
this analysis already, so it's not part of the new. It was included in the
-- because we knew it was coming.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, so now we're down to 40
percent.
MR. WEYER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So my question still remains. I
mean, I'm wondering here, I think it's going to be amusing to see the
reaction of the Devoes and the Galloways and the Scanlons when they
find out that they've got next to nothing left because everything that's
going to be needed is going to be right here at Wiggins Pass and 41.
MR. WEYER: Not everything.
But Mr. Germain?
MR. GERMAIN: Yes, I just -- I want to explain how we arrive
at the size of these proposed dealerships. The manufacturer comes to
us when they want a facility, and we're responsible for keeping our
facilities up to their standards and the ability to service their
customers.
This is a new Toyota store so Toyota comes to us, they do a
market study and they say based on the units in operation that you
currently have for our product, based on the growth that we see and
our percentage of sales as a percentage of the industry, we feel that in
the year 2012,2015, I think they forecast out six years, you're going to
have "X" amount of units in operation.
That being the case, you're going to need to go from 36 service
bays to 72 service bays. And 72 service bays translates into so much
parts square footage and so much showroom. So the size of the
building is determined by the manufacturer.
And depending on the franchise, there's -- sometimes there's
some flexibility and sometimes there are not. But the manufacturer
determines the size of the building that they would like to see us build
for them.
And we have franchise requirements that require us to keep our
Page 89
August 21, 2008
facilities updated and the size that it takes to service their customers.
And they forecast it out five and even 10 years.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But sometimes, as with your
BMW dealership, you are unable to accommodate that on the piece of
land you had, you had to move it.
MR. GERMAIN: Exactly. That's true.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. So my -- I'm still
questioning whether we need to maybe move something else off of
this piece of property, and probably the next go will be your Lincoln
Mercury dealership. That's not long for -- or as Mr. Weyer would like
to say, elimination of functionally inadequate and dated dealer
facilities. That one will probably --
MR. GERMAIN: The Lincoln Mercury franchise, we're looking
around for some alternatives to that. Moving forward, it's probably not
-- the growth of a Toyota franchise or a Lexus franchise is a lot greater
than a Ford Motor Company or a Lincoln Mercury. But it's a viable
franchise for us, but it may at some point not be on this piece of
property .
COMMISSIONER CARON: But then that gives you close to
17,000 square feet already that you would have available.
MR. GERMAIN: I think that our wish is not to commit to
removing that building. Again, we're looking for alternatives for the
Lincoln Mercury franchise, but we want to include it in the square
footage for this petition.
I also want to say that in regards to parking, most dealerships
these days, when they expand, because of the cost of land and the size
of the buildings that we're being required to build, most of the stores
have off-site parking to put lease returns, wholesale vehicles that are
going to be taken to the auction.
We currently lease four acres up at the dog track that's enclosed.
And we also just got a lease from the county on some property in
Railhead Industrial Park, another two acres. So we do store some of
Page 90
August 21, 2008
our extra stock, lease returns and wholesale cars off-site.
MR. MULHERE: And might I say that the savings attributed to
that are passed on to the buyers.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You might say that, but--
remember, you're on the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the
applicant before we go to staff report?
MR. MULHERE: I did just want to clarify a couple of things. I
think it was actually 30 percent of the square footage, or just slightly
over 30 percent of the square footage, the 70,000 translates to 30
percent of the 212,000, or just over 30 percent, not 40.
And also --
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's got to be closer to 40, Bob,
because we're talking about adding 70 to 56.
MR. MULHERE: I was thinking seven times three is 21.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's closer to 39 or 40, so--
MR. MULHERE: Anyway, think 33 percent.
But the other point I wanted to make is obviously those other
dealerships that you reference, those other franchises, when the time
comes for them to ask for a new site or an improved site they have to
come in and do their own analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but those are made as instructed.
They'll hire somebody else who'll come in and say we need it. Have
you ever seen anybody come before us that hasn't said that?
I don't know if that's a good defense, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: No, I'm not making a defense, I'm just saying
they're going to do their own study at the time, and you have to
evaluate that at that time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else got any comments for the
applicant before we move to staff report?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa, is this yours?
Page 91
August 21,2008
MS. ZONE: Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the
Department of Zoning and Land Development.
I would like to discuss some clarifications that were in the staff
report. And if this board would accept them, I'd like to make these
changes so when it does come back to consent agenda, I'll have the
staff report showing those changes that I am proposing right now.
Before I go into all of these changes, I do want to verifY that the
subject property is designated urban in the commercial district of the
mixed use activity center subdistrict, and it's activity center number
20, which is at U.S. 41 and Wiggins Pass Road.
And if you could turn to Page 3 of the staff report, under the
purpose description of project, instead of -- I wrote zoned height
instead of actual height. And if this board would be acceptable to it, I
would like to change it to reflect the actual height, which would be 65
feet. Zoned is the 55 feet.
Also, on Page 4 of the staff report, the third paragraph where it
says this petition was previously scheduled to go before you, it was --
it was brought to my attention with discussions with the applicant that
the applicant continued this petition because concerns were raised that
the preserve area had been modified and that it appeared that it might
have been reduced, and they wanted to show that it had been -- that
the master plans had changed and the reasons behind that.
But also, according to the Growth Management Plan, there is a
requirement for, in activity center 20, that a market analysis had to be
completed. It wasn't at that time, and, you know, so they continued to
have that market analysis completed. And it was not because of a
planning commissioner's request.
So that is erroneous, and I would like to change that paragraph to
basically write what I just paraphrased now. And if this board is
comfortable with that, I would like to make that change.
Also, what I have on the visualizer, what was passed out to you,
came to me from the -- from transportation division planning services,
Page 92
August 21, 2008
and the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far.
MS. ZONE: I'm sorry, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay, I interrupted you.
The one that you passed out says it's from Mason, S. --
MS. ZONE: Well, you know what, we were--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the principal environmental
specialist. How did that come from transportation if it's an
environmental?
MS. ZONE: We were very clever. We were wanting, because
you had mentioned earlier you wanted to see something that Bob had
read into the record. So we asked Ms. Mason, who has her laptop here
to e-mail it to one of the people in the Board of County
Commissioners the requirements for the new PUD document,
developer's commitments.
She was gracious to assist us, as well as the -- Paula Spring. So
she e-mailedit.soit does appear to come from environmental, but it's
not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just trying to figure how
environmentally they decided upon this, because they always have
unique ideas, and this could have been another one, but -- no, we
appreciate that. Thank you.
MS. ZONE: I thank you for that -- that's why I kind of folded it
on the visualizer to kind of remove some of the names, but Susan's, I
couldn't.
Exhibit E of your PUD document, the list of developer
commitments, under transportation there are two developer
commitments. And to clarify what Bob Mulhere had talked about with
transportation planning department, number one and two reads similar
to the one and two of your PUD documents commitments except for
there was added language that says after the word cost of intersection
improvements, and then the added words are: Including signalization
Page 93
August 21, 2008
and ITMS. And then at U.S 41 and Wiggins Road.
And so we wanted to make that a little bit clearer and for this
board to be able to see what we would be revising in the PUD
document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we leave that, so what
you're suggesting is -- because we've had two different documents.
We had a hand document that was passed to us that we've already
accepted into evidence, although it doesn't mean we've accepted it into
stipulation. That is replaced by at least one of the comments on the
new, cleaner typed e-mail document that we received.
MS. ZONE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As well as the other transportation items
on Exhibit E items being replaced by items one, two and three in the
e-mail Exhibit that you sent out.
And has transportation agreed with that? A nodding of the head
of Mike Green would be fine.
Let the record show Michael Green nodded his head in the
affirmative. So that works.
Now we can go on, Melissa.
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, Bob Mulhere for the record.
Mr. Strain, I just want to say that we have no problem with
those. I may have misunderstood Mr. Green when he gave me the
changes. We're fine with the way those are worded.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MS. ZONE: And one and two will replace on that e-mail note
that you were given as an exhibit by me to the one and two of the list
of developer commitments in Exhibit E.
A third one was just added, and I know that the applicants might
have some questions. And I'll have them come up to address this. But
on number three, transportation planning department would like to
add: All existing interconnections on both the north and south PUD
boundaries shall be maintained in perpetuity.
Page 94
August 21, 2008
Of course I will have them change it to CPUD. And we will put
these commitments -- we'll bring it to the county attorney's office to
make sure that they are -- written it for legal sufficiency without
changing the intent of their request.
But I believe the applicants might have some questions on
number three.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's dying to speak on that mic.,
Melissa. Go ahead, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere.
You know, I don't have much of a problem with this
interconnections. It's appropriate, they exist. But I would like to
suggest one additional phrase, and I don't think transportation would
mind, and that would be at the end of it to say, unless said
interconnections are altered or relocated with the approval of
transportation services.
Maybe it has to be shifted somewhere. You don't have to come
in and amend the PUD to make some minor revisions to the
interconnections.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just as the language in general, I would
have asked for some kind of clarification. All existing in perpetuity.
We don't know what's going to happen down the road. There needs to
be flexibility if this is to go move forward.
MR. MULHERE: And I would say that if we want to change it
we have to go in and get their approval. I'm more comfortable with
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike?
MR. GREEN: For the record, Michael Green, Tansportation.
We would be okay with that additional language at the bottom of
that condition that we have the ability to review a relocation of the
interconnection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So except as may be approved for
relocation by the Collier County Transportation Department.
Page 95
August 21, 2008
MR. MULHERE: Alteration or relocation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, Melissa, are you--
MS. ZONE: Those were the corrections that I would like to add,
if this board is acceptable to them. And I have no other disclosures or
anything else to add. But I am here for any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For clarifications purposes, on
Page 3 of 13, you pointed out about the zoned height. And I made a
mark here, actually usually larger. I mean, I was just -- reversed.
Now, not a problem for you in this context, but I could have
sworn I heard Bob indicate that he was going with it the way it was
stated here, and I want to be clear, we agree, do we, that the zoned
height is usually and in this case lesser than the actual height.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, we agree.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the actual height will be 65
feet.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, the way we proposed the PUD, the
zoned height is 55 feet, the actual height is 65 feet.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, I'm good with that,
thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
MR. MULHERE: We didn't put that on the record yet. I'm
waiting for you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's go back to our conversation
of the other day, and let's get to what we really need for height here.
MR. MULHERE: We did have a conversation or a meeting as to
whether or not -- what did we really need for height? And at that time
I suggested that the actual and zoned could be the same. We don't
think we -- because it's a flat roof. There's a big difference here. Ifhe
had some sort of a hip roof or something, then we would need a
difference between the actual and the zoned.
And the parapet wall on the parking garage is measured as part
Page 96
August 21, 2008
of the building height, it's the flat vertical member. That's how you
measure your height.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But doesn't that have to be high
enough to enclose the vehicles?
MR. MULHERE: It does. And I think that would included
within that 55 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, let me make sure what
you're saying. First of all, actual height is measured from the average
centerline of the road. Do you know if that's higher or lower than your
property?
MR. MULHERE: How high are we going to be off the road?
Three, four feet? It's pretty close to the same.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let's assume the same. The
actual height, he'll have nothing can go above it. So if you do put
parking up there, no light fixture, no lightning rod point, nothing --
MR. MULHERE: No, I think a lightning fixture can, that's not
part of it, that's exempt from it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actual height?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
MR. SCHMITT: Elevator shaft.
MR. MULHERE: All of those are exempt.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From actual.
MR. MULHERE: To my knowledge they are.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exempt from zone, but they're
not exempt --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought actual was supposed to take in
the height of all appurtenances and everything else from the natural
ground level up.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now you're saying no?
MR. BELLOWS: I was thinking zoned, but I believe you're
Page 97
August 21, 2008
right, now that I'm thinking of it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let me go back. That's
everything. Because I remember when we put that together. There's
nothing, the point of the lightning rod can't be above that height.
So Bob's got to be careful here that no light fixtures on top of
that parking garage, nothing like that.
And remember, Bob, this --
MR. MULHERE: So if the lighting fixtures and those kinds of
things are accounted for, then I would suggest that we need to stay at
the 55 and 65, just to be sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other thing is--
MR. MULHERE: I was under the impression they were exempt,
but let's just assume that it's anything on top of the building and
everything, including lighting fixtures, flag pole, whatever. Then I
think we need that extra 10 feet, because the parapet wall would then
be counted as part of it alone, which I didn't think was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do you have the actual definition?
Have you pulled that up or are you looking at it?
MR. BELLOWS: I'm looking right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figured you might be. Why don't you
just read it into the record so nobody has any mistake as to what we're
talking about.
MR. MULHERE: I got it right here. Sorry, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: Slow computer.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, this is building, actual height of: The
vertical distance from the average centerline elevation of the adjacent
roadway to the highest structure or appurtenance with the -- without
the exclusions of Section 4.02.01.
So I think those exclusions actually do still apply. It says
without.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, what it means is you cannot
use the exclusions.
Page 98
August 21, 2008
MR. MULHERE: Okay, well, then that's another debate, what
that sentence means.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know how we've applied it all in the
past, it's from the highest tip -- because as Commissioner Halas said, I
think to the tippy top of the building--
MR. MULHERE: I don't even want to get--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the intent behind that ordinance--
MR. MULHERE: -- into a discussion of what that means. I'm
just telling you if that's the case, I feel like we need the 55 and 65 then
to be sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You bring a lot of clients here. Might
remember tippy top. Just think of tippy top for commercial --
MR. MULHERE: I got it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, that was supposed
to get rid of tippy top. I think we're actually using the word more since
we wrote that.
But the bottom line, Bob, if you're walking on the roof, you're
probably causing a zoning violation, being so tall. That was my only
concern.
The other concern I had, and maybe is, that since setbacks are
normally measured perpendicular, this 200 feet, we do show it
extremely clear on the site plan. Will there ever be a confusion? In
other words, should we state something that's within 200 feet of a
residential boundary, so nobody in the future without that graphic
would have a problem?
MR. MULHERE: It says under the table for the rear setback
abutting residential, 200 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And since setbacks are--
typically they're measured perpendicular, so essentially I could go one
inch below that residential and slide 27 feet up. That's not what you
show, obviously --
MR. MULHERE: We can't really in this case, because otherwise
Page 99
August 21, 2008
it's 100 -- I mean it's -- or whatever. What is it, 50 percent of the
building height, so yeah, you might be --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 27.5.
So should we -- and Jeff, I guess it's that the drawing clearly
shows that it's a -- from that corner you're doing a 200-foot radius.
Should we make it work verbally and graphically or just rest on
the graphic?
MR. MULHERE: Well, do you want to say as measured
perpendicularly or by radius?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All's we could say is that no
building would could be within 200 feet --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we add that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- of an abutting property line,
and that does it. But setbacks are measured perpendicular. Somebody
could take advantage of that.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. So what we could do is we could say--
leave the setback in there and say except that no building shall be
located within 200 feet of residential zoned property, and that would
work.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And use the word abutting.
That's it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I want to get back to this
whole height issue, because I think that whatever is built here on this
site has to have some relationship to the rest of the activity center.
And the height across the way to the north is 35 feet. Across the
street to the east, it's probably even less than that. But there's nothing
beyond there that's more than -- greater than 35 feet plus whatever,
you know, the little peaky things on the roof, which don't go up more
than 10 more feet beyond that.
MR. MULHERE: I agree that that's probably the case now, and I
can't tell you what might be the case. I'm not sure what the height
Page 100
August 21, 2008
restrictions on these PUD's are. 75 foot is the allowance in C-4, which
-- C-4 here, C-4 here, C-4 here and here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I can tell you what's on the
ground --
MR. MULHERE: No, I understand that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- of the activity center.
MR. MULHERE: And what I'm suggesting is we took it down
from 75 feet zoned height to 55 feet zoned height as a max.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You didn't have a zoning of75
feet, your PUD says 50 feet.
MR. MULHERE: No, from our original request, we took it
down is what I meant, from the original -- from what we submitted
originally.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Your original PUD is 50 feet.
MR. MULHERE: Right, zoned.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't see any need to change that,
so give yourself 55 feet for actual on the new. Which is what you and
I had talked about.
MR. MULHERE: I know we did, but I also caveated that I felt
that the parapet wall and the other appurtenances that would be on the
roof were not subject to that. I thought it was measured to the vertical
roof, to the -- I'm sorry, to the horizontal roof structure.
But if everything is included as the definition indicates, then I
don't know -- I don't know that --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, if you're looking -- right now
you currently are allowed 50 feet.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think that needs to change.
If we're going to now define an actual height in there, I don't see why
you need more than 10 feet more than anybody else would get on the
top of theirs.
MR. MULHERE: So 50 and 60?
Page 10 1
August 21,2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: We're talking 35 feet for your
neighbor, who gets 10 feet on top of that.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, 50 and 60 probably works. That works,
50 and 60. So that would be five -- that means we're at the existing
zoned height of the PUD. That works.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, be somewhat careful. I
don't know if you're going to build a ramp for your vehicles, but if you
start building elevator lifts, that 10- feet difference is going to start
giving you trouble.
MR. MULHERE: We'll have to just keep the balance down
below that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of
the staff, which this was supposed to be, before we go into public
comment, public presentation?
Melissa -- anybody else, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'd like to talk to compo
planning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Compo planning, are you here?
There he is. Corby.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. Good morning.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Hi. Very simply, I want to get your
thoughts on the market -- the supposed market analysis that was done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, when we finish with compo
planning, before we hear public speakers and before we go into
debate, we'll take a 15-minute break. It's obvious we can finish this
before we take a lunch. There's no sense of everybody waiting for
lunchtime, because this will be the last thing we hear today.
Corby, after you we're going to take a break. Go ahead, sir.
MR. SCHMIDT: For the record, Corby Schmidt, with
Comprehensive Planning Department. And just generally what --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get the mic. a little closer
to you, sir.
Page 102
August 21, 2008
MR. SCHMIDT: You just want general responses to what
comprehensive reads into the market study?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. To begin with.
MR. SCHMIDT: Sure. Not like any other market study we've
seen, this one is certainly a specialized market study because it deals
with an automobile dealership and a sales and service facility. And
that way it's highly specialized.
It does take into account the market area for again the franchise
or the make, makes being sold at the specific location. And it tries to
mix that. And it does. It mixes that with the overall market area and
the overall commercial space available, and it also gives us other,
whether they're like or different, it also gives us the other
measurements for automobile dealerships and sales and services in
that same area.
So in that way it's a typical study.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So you think it's appropriate--
you're buying into the 212,000 square foot number?
MR. SCHMIDT: We can accept that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You think that's a reasonable
number?
MR. SCHMIDT: It is.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And that some 40 percent of that is
acceptable at this one site in terms of -- well, I mean, they're telling
you that within 30-minute drive -- and first of all, I think it's rather
specious, because within a 30-minute drive to the north, we're out of
our jurisdiction. So we can't even consider the square footage that
might be approved beyond the Collier County borders.
MR. SCHMIDT: I think the mix between the demands of the
makers and what the market will support are being used here to show
you that at each individual location we're densifying or we're
increasing the intensity of the use.
It's a recent trend and it's one we'll see for the foreseeable future.
Page 103
August 21, 2008
And you may see each next market study give you larger numbers like
that, where each one will intensify based on a larger market support
area.
COMMISSIONER CARON: How many of these market studies
for auto dealerships have you seen before?
MR. SCHMIDT: This is the first for a specific to an automobile
dealership.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So we've never required a market
study for automotive in this county?
MR. SCHMIDT: It is the first one I've seen and it's first time one
is being required inside this PUD.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it's required for the activity
center. But do you have any idea whether it would be required of other
activity centers?
MR. SCHMIDT: It would be, yes. It would be..
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of compo planning?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Corby, thank you. We'll come
back here at five minutes after 12:00 and resume. Thank you.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon, everyone, welcome
back from the break. We're going to be finishing up this Germain
Toyota application. Is there any questions before we go to public
speakers?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to bring up one
other issue that I spoke to both Chris and Bob about, and that's the
loading and unloading of these trailers, which has been consistently
done off-site, blocking Wiggins Pass Road, most especially, but also
blocking the turn lane in from Old 41 onto their property.
I want some sort of assurance, and we should probably make it a
Page 104
August 21, 2008
stipulation, that there will be someplace for these vehicles to load and
unload on-site, as opposed to off-site like they've been doing.
MR. MULHERE: We would agree that during the SDP we will
design a location for that to occur.
I had one item I needed to discuss. I don't know if you want me
to do it just right now, Commissioner Strain or--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to you. We can either wait till
after public speakers at your closing or you can --
MR. MULHERE: I can probably just deal with it real quick right
now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MR. MULHERE: In having some discussion with environmental
staff during the break regarding the wall, it turns out that at least the
opinion of the environmental staff is that a wall and a fence are
different, and that a fence can be on the edge of preserve but a wall
can't be.
So we would have to get on the record, we would have to ask
you to allow that six-foot wall that we propose adjacent to the
residential-zoned property to -- so I'm suggesting that we put a
footnote on the setback from conservation area under the accessory
structure to say except that a wall -- it's 10 feet -- except that a wall
may be erected along the western border of the preserve where
adjacent to -- six-foot wall where adjacent to residential zoning, and
the existing parking/vehicular use areas may remain in place.
And I think that gets it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have that in some kind of
written form.
MR. MULHERE: Oh, Lord.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's take it--
MR. MULHERE: Not that you could read.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I really think this is silly to have to deal
with this. There's no difference between a wall and a fence in regards
Page 105
August 21, 2008
to this, but if we have to do it to stop trouble from the future from a
misinterpretation of our code, which it certainly sounds like it is, we
want to straighten it out now.
So why don't you go ahead and tell us the language.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I would say that we'll put a footnote
under Table I, Exhibit B, the setback from conservation area for
accessory structures, which reads 10 feet to say as follows: Except that
a six-foot wall may be erected along the western boundary of the
preserve where adjacent to residential zoning, and the existing
improved parking or vehicular use areas may remain in place.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think we're as fast as Cherie' is
here, come on now --
MR. MULHERE: Oh, I didn't know you were writing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's back up. Except six-foot wall may
be erected along --
MR. MULHERE: In said eastern, I meant western. Okay, I'll
read it slower. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you meant eastern preserve
boundary, you don't mean western boundary, because that would be
the western property boundary --
MR. MULHERE: That's correct, eastern preserve boundary.
Where were you--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hold on a second. I think I'm getting it.
Except a six-foot wall may be erected along eastern preserve boundary
adjacent to the residential zoning.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. And the existing vehicular use areas may
remain in place.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, is the edge of the existing
vehicular areas, are they right along the edge of this shown preserve or
are they within it?
MR. MULHERE: They're right on the edge.
Page 106
August 21, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So why are you saying
that, because you don't want to have to pull them 10 feet back?
MR. MULHERE: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. What would be the
problem if you actually did build a wall along them. It could be like a
short wall. There's some virtue would keep ground critters on the other
side ofthe wall. But also I think in terms of environmentally to have a
small curb wall kind of structure.
MR. MULHERE: You're talking about after we get past the
residential zoning.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct, six-foot prior.
MR. MULHERE: That we would agree to say a three-foot
structural wall, structural barrier for the entire length of the preserve --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And that's much more
protective than anything could be. I don't even care if it's three feet, I
mean, two feet.
MR. MULHERE: How about a curb? How about a curb?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think a curb, you know, make
it --
COMMISSIONER CARON: A curb would be good.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- something that would stop
any kind of structure --
COMMISSIONER CARON: A curb would be good along the
entire preserve area.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we'll do that. Yep, that makes sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we're -- vehicular areas are up
against the preserve area --
MR. MULHERE: Shall be curbed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Shall be curbed.
MR. MULHERE: That makes sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else before we go to public
speakers.
Page 107
August 21, 2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, do we have any public
speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker, Doug Fee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know Doug, ifhe remembers from the
past, knows the rules. So welcome up, Doug, and use either speaker
you'd like.
MR. FEE: Good morning, or good afternoon, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Doug Fee. I live in the neighborhood
where this project is located.
I have to also say that I am personal friends with many of the
people that live on these two roads, center and west. I've had several
meetings myself that I've been involved with.
As you know, there are letters that have been submitted into the
record from the property owners. There's a petition.
The one thing I want to bring up here is on the letter dated --
well, it doesn't have a date, but it says reference constant noise
disturbance, okay, that is their heading. And on Page 2 of the petition,
what you have here is noise disturbance sources: Car alarms, horns,
paint and detailing and auto mechanics shops, loud music, toxic paint,
cleaning fumes, yelling, profanity, air horns on large trucks, squealing
tires, revving engines, power tools, air tools, high pressure water hose,
motorcycle and frequent car work repair being done outside.
So where Mr. Mulhere, the consultant, stands up and says that
we have addressed these issues, the key here is these neighbors are
saying constant noise disturbance. And I live in this area, I live a half
a mile down the street. I do frequent the area. I can hear the noise
myself.
This is a PUD that was approved in 1990. And in the PUD on
Page 2, it clearly states the intent to be compatible with the
surrounding land uses through internal arrangement of structures, open
space, setback and landscape. And it uses the word harmonious.
Page 108
August 21, 2008
And what I want to point out here is you as the planning
commission have a project that's coming forward which, let's assume
is good for the neighborhood and Collier County. But what we need to
do is we need to make sure that the detail that's located in this PUD
document addresses all of these issues very detailed.
Because what we don't want to do is run into a situation, I bring
up Stevie Tomatoes, where you have neighbors who are very close to
a commercial property and they don't have any ability to address their
concerns except through this process, okay?
Now, having said that, one of the ways to help them is to put up
a wall and put up landscaping. And if I could, I want to use that
picture that was put up where you were talking about the fence, I don't
know who has it, with the yellow highlight. Does anybody have that?
What I want to make sure of is I agree that there needs to be a
wall between the residents RM-6 and the project. I am hoping that you
will extend this out to a distance that will allow the noise not to
proceed into the residential area.
If you only are picking this part, you do not have any noise
buffer to the north where you have the Lexus dealership. It's C-4, it's
not part of this zoning. But if you're stipulating things outside of it,
somehow we need to address that, because the noise is coming from
this direction, as well as it's coming from the south direction. And the
neighborhood is hearing it.
So I would agree, we need a wall. We do not need a fence. I
know, because I have a fence between a project and where I live, and
it is a very small fence. We need to have a wall, okay, much like you
see on a road, so that it blocks the noise and so it should be a masonry
wall or however you want to do it, not a fence.
I believe that the height should be eight feet at least, preferably
10 feet. Six feet is not going to do it, especially if you are raising the
vehicles up into a garage. And what happens is the person g~ts there at
6:00 in the morning, he needs to locate the vehicle, he's going upstairs,
Page 109
August 21, 2008
he's using the alarm, and the alarms from the car are emanating out
into the neighborhood, okay? It happens right now in the parking lot,
let alone when you put the new structure up, okay?
What I liked that Mr. Germain put on the record was the old
facilities were done in a certain way and the new facilities are done in
a new way. And he used the words: They are completely enclosed.
Then five minutes later Mr. Mulhere stands up and says oh, but
wait, the parking garage on the top meets certain requirements and it
won't be enclosed. That is my concern, that what we're doing is we're
raising some of the noise that's located on this level up to another level
and there'll still be some openings.
What I'd like to make sure of is that somehow there is either
trellises or some noise impact use that allows it to stay within the
garage, just like they do down at the Vanderbilt parking garage. You
don't see that parking garage. Somehow they've got it hidden, okay?
So we need to buffer the noise.
The 200 feet. That is great. I want to make sure that the language
that is located in the exhibit, which says building height -- setback
from west property line, it says 200 feet abutting residential and 50
percent of the building height not less than 15 feet. What we need to
make sure of is that the language in the table matches what is here on
this radius.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We changed the language.
MR. FEE: So you have that covered.
One thing I need to mentions the transportation. The corner of
Wiggins Pass and 41, you've talked about some language as far as fair
share amount of money coming in.
That corner right now is not engineered well at all. There are no
curbs, there's no medians, there are five lanes that have very light
painting. My point is in this process, the public needs to tell you that
that is an unsafe intersection, and if you can stipulate, make sure that
we bring that up to standard. It's an activity center, but it is a roadway
Page 110
August 21,2008
that is not safe. It hasn't been done. There's a lot of hodgepodge
asphalting. You know, there's a project to the north that's being
developed. And it is not very consistent, okay?
That is basically -- I just want to make sure that we cover the
noise, we make sure there's a wall.
The other thing is the buffering. If you have the buffer, they
have to maintain that buffer. But that isn't really landscaping, okay?
So that buffer area which you're not -- you're not supposed to touch
except to maintenance it, what if it thins out and the neighborhood
finds itself with no landscape, okay?
Unless I'm not understanding this, are they required to put a
buffer all the way along where the residential abuts the commercial?
And if it's buffer -- if it's preserve, I want to make sure that somehow
along that wall there is quite a bit of landscaping that remains there
that is maintained, that blocks out any noise, any light.
So I don't know whether the language is stipulating that or not.
That's basically my comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll find out, because that question
was one of the reasons I was suggesting we not take the preserve all
the way to the north.
But Mr. Murray has a question first and then I'll --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hello, Mr. Fee. This was
presented previously. We had it continue. And I think you've been
following that, right, this whole process going forward where they
wanted to do some work and -- you haven't followed Germain --
MR. FEE: I don't believe this project --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, not this particular project,
but last time there was discussion about trash and tires and the whole
business. That's the one I'm referencing. And you were following it.
MR. FEE: Oh, I attended the NIM meeting.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's what I'm driving at.
Now, you read a note or a letter undated and said constant.
Page III
August 21, 2008
Is it your testimony that the people who have related this
information to you have related it about issues that they're raised that
are now happening even though Germain pledged that it would correct
all those things?
MR. FEE: I can state personally that I have been on the street
and have heard the noise today -- not today, but within the last month
or so. You can stand on Center Street where the residences are, and
you can hear the noise.
It's -- what they do is they'll come out and they need to locate the
car, and they will use the electronic, and all of a sudden you'll hear
beep, and that car is 20 feet away from the property line.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand you, and I
appreciate your telling me that. So why do you believe a wall will take
care of that?
MR. FEE: I believe it will certainly help in making the noise
reverberate off and not make it over into the property. It's -- I mean, a
wall is a normal planning item. And they're agreeing to put it up. I'm
just saying that six-foot may not be the proper height that will allow
that sound not to --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you for
representing the people in your area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, did you have something you
wanted to add?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, please. I'm trying to remember not to
speak too loud into this microphone because I blew out someone's
ears.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All of ours.
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Strain, the -- in no way would I suggest
that your calculations aren't most likely 100 percent accurate, but the
engineer over here --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, you're being overly tactful for
some reason.
Page 112
August 21, 2008
MR. MULHERE: Except the project civil engineer says that if
we take that preserve out, we will not meet the 1.95 acres that's
required, that it's actually -- we really do need this.
There may be some degree in there that we won't need. We're
certainly willing to take a look at that. But I think the majority we do
need to meet that 1.95 preserve acreage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You hired the civil engineer.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. And then so what I wanted say was that
this wall, I mean, obviously if you want us to extend it a little bit
beyond the residential zoning boundary, that would be fine. But I
really think Mr. Fee's issues are addressed by two things: Removing
all of the uses that are presently occurring either through open doors or
outside inside the building, and the parapet wall that will be on the top
of the parking garage should provide better protection than a wall
that's eight-foot or 10-foot high down at the ground level relative to
that parking garage use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Bob, if you extended your
yellow line down to what is essentially the edge of the proposed
parking garage area so that everything in that circle of 200 feet were
walled --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- right to there, yeah, that might
help the situation.
And I guess the other probably more important thing is, is there
going to be a reconstructed wall on the Lexus portion of this? Does
Lexus already have one?
MR. MULHERE: There is a wall, yes, there is. And so --
COMMISSIONER CARON: And it goes the whole length of--
MR. MULHERE: Correct. It would come all the way down here.
We would have to connect it this way, okay? And I would suggest
refurbished is certainly likely, but I don't know about reconstructed.
Page 113
August 21, 2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: But there is a wall there already.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So maybe that just solves it if they
want to extend it down a little further.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A little further needs to be defined.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I said to the edge of the
building there, so it sort of matches the curve where we're saying it's
going to be 200 feet back. It will just marry that --
MR. MULHERE: I guess what we could do, understanding that,
is to dimension that and where we made that exception for the wall
under the development standards to reflect that additional distance
when we bring it back to you, in terms of a dimension. It's 200-foot or
250 feet, whatever it is, we'll identify it beyond the RMF-6 boundary,
the southern RMF -6 boundary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We could just come up with it
now just based on your radius, make it 200 feet past the boundary.
MR. MULHERE: That would work, yeah, yeah. Agreed. I didn't
think of that, thank you. That's 200 feet there, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The height of the wall, their suggestion
was to go higher. Is there any problems with that?
MR. MULHERE: I don't think there's any problem. I just have a
concern that it's maybe not what they really think that they might want
with the vegetation.
By the way, I did want to address that issue. We understand our
requirement to maintain at least the -- if in any of the vegetation dies
or it becomes scraggly or whatever, we're required today and would be
required then to go in and replace vegetation that would at least meet
the buffering requirements. And I understand that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, because it's not that way
now.
MR. MULHERE: I understand, you shared that. And I passed
Page 114
August 21,2008
that information on. When we do the site plan we will go through a
landscape -- a plan submittal that will enhance that vegetation to meet
or exceed code requirements within the buffer area, using native
vegetation that's acceptable to the staff in a preserve format.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, on the plan that you have up here,
it says 25-foot landscape buffer required. The word landscape buffer
infers it's a planted buffer. It's really a preserve area, isn't it?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, it is. It's both. It's going to function as
both. There is a 25-foot landscape buffer there, and the preserve can
count towards that landscape buffer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we're not -- by using the word
landscape buffer we're not inferring any additional plantings, we're
maintaining the preserve that's there, or what?
MR. MULHERE: No, we might be inferring additional
plantings. And that will come at the time of site development plan. We
actually -- we will have to make sure that it does at least meet the
buffer requirements.
MR. SCHMITT: Which then would have to be native
vegetation.
MR. MULHERE: Native vegetation, right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other public
speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have comments? Ms.
Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, let's get into the intersection
from staffs point of view, because Mr. Fee is correct, the intersection
at Wiggins and 41 is a mess, and it's dangerous, and considering all of
the proposed intensity at this corner, something needs to get done.
MR. GREEN: Mike Green, transportation planning.
Because of the way this area has developed, improvements were
made as they've been identified. I can tell you that all of the
Page 115
August 21, 2008
development that has happened that has been approved has been
reviewed for traffic impacts and everybody has been required to
provide fair share towards intersection improvements.
You've got a new right turn lane that's been added on eastbound
Wiggins Pass. Northbound Airport has been converted into dual lefts.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No Airport.
MR. GREEN: It's 41, I'm sorry.
So most of the laneage that can be improved has been improved.
Raised curbing isn't necessarily what makes a road safe. There's
tradeoffs. There's changes in drainage and stormwater and everything
else that has to happen along with that. So just adding curbing isn't
sufficient, that's not what makes the road safe, it's all of the other
design features that come into account.
And the roads currently are designed for the traffic volumes that
are out there. As a matter of fact, there's remaining capacity on 41 and
Wiggins Pass.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's just talk about when those
improvements are actually going to be complete. I think that may be
closer to what the issue is.
Yes, you've put in additional turn lanes, but this is not complete
by any stretch --
MR. GREEN: Those are not complete. The rest of the
improvements to be made do include intelligent transportation
management, which is SCOOT. It's an automated interconnection
between signals and signal timing. There's three intersections that are
identified.
We were working with FDOT to get their approval to put this on
their corridor, and that would be 41 and Old 41, 41 and Wiggins Pass
and 41 and Imperial Golf Course Boulevard. We expect those to be in
place in the next eighteen months.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And when you're coming down
Page 116
August 21, 2008
Wiggins Pass Road toward 41, and/or you've made the turn on the
new lanes, right now is the work that's going on there developer
related? Because the road is uneven, the lanes are not defined.
MR. GREEN: There's a number of issues that can cause that.
Like you said, as improvements were identified, they were completed.
You also are tying into two separate FDOT projects over the last few
years. It improved 41, especially the six-Ianing up to Old 41 and then
the continuation of that north of Old 41.
And then we had to go back in and add right turn lanes that were
not included in those projects.
So in today's condition, yes, there are multiple projects that have
put down pavement over different times, and there has not been one
complete like area-wide reconditioning of the pavement and the
striping. But that at this point would fall to maintenance activities.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, but it seems to me that 41 is
pretty well set. We did get the turn lane at Old 41, which certainly
helped everybody in that neighborhood. It was a disaster without it.
But I'm talking in particular about Wiggins Pass west on the
Germain side of Wiggins Pass. Right now the Benderson project is
under construction, and daily it seems the turn lane going into that
project changes.
When is all of this due to be complete so that we don't have
different levels to try to traverse when you're going around?
Right now there are two lanes as you come north and turn west
on Wiggins Pass, two lanes that you can take around. One, the outer
lane, is supposed to lead people into the Benderson development.
The second one is to lead you down Wiggins Pass and also allow
you to turn into the Germain dealership. They have a turn lane there as
well.
But right now nothing is even. There are no good lines either
coming out or going in. The pavement is uneven.
MR. GREEN: There's a final lift of asphalt that usually gets put
Page 117
August 21, 2008
down after the site construction is completed. And that has to cure out.
So you're looking at temporary lines that have not been down with
thermoplastic. That is a requirement. So when the project is complete,
you will see a unified topcoat of asphalt and thermoplastic.
COMMISSIONER CARON: What's the approximate timing on
that?
MR. GREEN: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Will anything that's going to
happen at the Germain site, in this case it would be the Lexus site, will
any of that affect when and how soon that will be accomplished?
MR. GREEN: It won't. The additional lanes and pavement work
have been done as far as reconstruction. It's completion. It's, like I
said, the final lift of asphalt and the striping and the signal timing and
intelligent transportation management happens now.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of
anybody at this point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. We'll close the public hearing
and discuss our motion. Not make a motion, but discuss it. Because
this particular project has a lot of stipulations with it.
I have at least a list of 13, but I'll again defer to anybody else
who wants to start the conversation.
Ms. Caron, did you --
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, you can start down your list,
I'll just check off as I go along.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one question. Do you
wish to take this into evidence?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to enter it into the record
through a stipulation.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine for me, just reminding.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it, sir.
Page 118
August 21, 2008
Okay, I'll read them off for discussion. And then ifanybody
needs clarification or whatever, we can take it from there.
Let's go back to the beginning. The first one is the setback on
U.S. 4l will remain 75 feet.
There'll be a fence placed around the water management site for
the Lexus dealership that goes into the residential zoning behind it.
On Exhibit B -- go ahead, Ms. Caron.
. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it was a fence and
landscaping for that water management area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And when we get done, I'm going
to ask the applicant if they agree with everything. So if you have any
concerns as we move forward, Bob, please state so.
Number three, on Exhibit B, the word leasable in the last line
will change to enclosed. And it's on the development standards table.
Number four, a wall will be erected at eight feet in height,
architectural of concrete or masonry, as we discussed within the north
part of the property to the eastern side of the preserve on the western
side of the property. And that goes all the way from the northern
property line to the 200-foot radius to the south where that 200-foot
radius stops on the site plan.
At the consent agenda, the applicant will bring a cross-section of
how that western buffer preserve wall, how that whole scenario will
look like in the back of this property to be entered into the -- as part of
the stipulation as a member of the record at that time.
Exhibit B, the development standards table regarding the 10-foot
accessory setbacks for preserves, we'll modify the PUD reference to
the preserve areas to coincide with the correct location on whatever
the actual size of the preserve becomes.
If it's still 1.9, fine, Bob, we need to leave it that way. But also it
only references the southwestern corner, we know it's not there so,
you need to clarify the language.
There was a series of new stipulations handed out for
Page 119
August 21, 2008
transportation. Items one through three in an e-mail from Susan
Mason dated August 21 st. They'll all be accepted with the exception
of the last one which has some additional language and will read: All
existing interconnections on both the north and south PUD boundaries
shall be maintained in perpetuity except as may be relocated or altered
with approval of the Collier County Transportation Department.
Number eight under their regular stipulations, Exhibit B, there
will be no building within 200 feet of existing residentially-zoned
property. That's to correct the reference of200 feet that's referenced in
the development standards table where it simply says abutting
residential. That language will replace that.
Also in Exhibit B, the zoned height will be 50 feet and the actual
height will be 60 feet.
Number 10, the vehicle loading and unloading will be -- all
vehicle loading and unloading will done on-site. And that is in
reference to the car carriers being offloaded on the streets.
Number 11, Table One, Exhibit B, there will be a footnote in
regards to the 10-foot accessory added. It will say: except an
eight-foot wall be erected along the eastern preserve boundary
adjacent to the residential zoning, and the existing vehicle use areas
may remain in place where against preserves those existing vehicle
use areas shall be curbed.
And that I think gets us everything.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You say may?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it shall be erected, I'm sorry, the
eight-foot wall shall be erected.
MR. MULHERE: On that one, Mr. Strain, the way you read it, it
was adjacent to the residential, but we agreed to extend it 200 feet
beyond there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I said that earlier, but you're right.
It will be -- extend wall to a 200- foot distance line along the western
project --
Page 120
August 21, 2008
MR. MULHERE: Beyond the RMF-6, southernmost RMF-6.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As I think I clarified that further on in
my first one.
MR. MULHERE: You did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, does anybody see anything else
that needs to be adjusted, modified.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think that Mr. Wolfley had
asked about sidewalks. I don't know where we ended up on that.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That would come in on the
SDP, I believe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's finish this conversation first, Mr.
Murray.
Sidewalks will be handled on SDP and will be either sidewalks
or in lieu of like it's usually done, I would assume.
MR. MULHERE: Correct. They're required.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I don't want to be gilding the
lily, that's not my intent here or questioning. But I thought Mr. Fee
raised a decent question relative to chirps and so forth.
Is it even feasible, logical to put some kind of a sound
attenuation at the top of that building in the back so that those
vehicles, when the driver goes up there or the salesman goes up there
and he's trying to find it, that it can reduce that noise? Because I think
from that height that sound travels.
MR. MULHERE: Well, two things I would say. We didn't add
but we need to add that there shall be no -- I'm trying to think of the
word. In terms of the sound, we didn't add that -- I didn't hear you add
that stipulation --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the PUD already says you're not
to have any loudspeakers or --
MR. MULHERE: We need to add it to this one, too.
Page 121
August 21,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in this one.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I just wanted -- okay. I don't know how
you're going to -- I mean, if someone's abusing that system, I see that
that could be annoying, but to simply locate something with a rather
quick, you know --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. The purpose of
the roof parking is additional storage or is it access for sales or --
usually sales would be at ground level, no?
MR. MULHERE: It's for employee and inventory parking. So
the only time that's going to occur is if they have to move down the
vehicle to the display area.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That should be rare by
comparison. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, for comfort, any part
of a parking garage above the first story is under the architectural
standards, so there's quite a bit of treatment that they'd have to do.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any -- Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think I only had one other and
that was we talked about the trash receptacles and moving those away
from residential.
MR. MULHERE: Now -- and I don't disagree with you at all.
I'm just raising an issue. Now that we're going to have an eight-foot
high wall that's going to extend from the property line to 200 foot
beyond the residential, they really wouldn't be able to see anything on
the other side of that wall. I mean, honestly.
And I know there's odors and other things. And I don't disagree
to moving it back a little bit, but can we assume like a minimum of 50
feet or something from the preserve boundary?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure. Because the deal is again, it's
Page 122
August 21, 2008
noise and odor, not sightline, obviously.
MR. MULHERE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the resolution to this issue?
MR. MULHERE: I would suggest that we say the trash
enclosures shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the
preservation boundary -- from the residential -- excuse me, the
preservation adjacent to the residential zoning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but Bob, if you know that's an
issue, why would you want to put them in that 200- foot area to begin
with? Why don't you just move them somewhere where -- .
MR. MULHERE: Well, we probably could do that, yeah. We
can find a place. We're going through a site development plan process,
we have plenty of room on the site to locate it. I'm fine with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another stipulation would be that trash
receptacles will be restricted from the 200- foot radius limitation.
MR. MULHERE: Adjacent to residential.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. Radius limitation adjacent
to residential.
Okay, all those stipulations have been read into the record.
Anybody have any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None.
Does the applicant accept those stipulations?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's a very good point. On the Lexus
site, the fence and then some landscaping, we didn't really discuss
landscaping, but it was suggested. And I don't think we object to that.
But we don't want to get into a discussion of what is meant by that as
we move forward.
Maybe what we ought to do it is provide a cross-section to you
for that as well for your consideration when we come back so that we
don't have any on -- it's going it be a hedgerow and maybe a tree every
30 feet, that's typically what's required.
Page 123
August 21, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so when you come back in for the
consent agenda, you'll bring a cross-section of the fence and issues
and locations on the Lexus property as well.
MR. MULHERE: On the off-site water management facility,
right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, by for off-site water management
MR. MULHERE: Dominick's really appreciating all this work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For off-site water management facility,
you're talking about the piece that's sandwiched in between the
residential.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine, that works.
Now, does the --
MS. MASON: Excuse me, sorry to interrupt again, Susan for the
record.
I just wanted to clarify for that portion that both landscape buffer
and preserve, they can't have the trees every 30 feet a line of shrubs,
it's got to be staggered and planted in a natural manner versus --
MR. MULHERE: We're not talking about that, we're talking
about a different site.
MS. MASON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bob, how a 53-foot qualifies as a
preserve is beyond my bewilderment. And how we can not want to
make it a better landscape buffer is even more bewildering.
But, so be it.
MR. MULHERE: We can do that with native vegetation,
though, we can make it a better preserve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we ought to make it better for
ways around, especially for people that live behind it.
MR. MULHERE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's more ofa priority.
Page 124
August 21, 2008
Okay, with those stipulations on the record, does the applicant
accept the stipulations?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any clarifications
needed for staff as to what those stipulations are, so when this comes
back on consent we understand what they are?
MS. ZONE: Thank you for asking. As I was writing very
quickly, I did not catch the second one which had to do with the fence
and the landscaping.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There will be a fence and landscaping
around the water management site to the rear of the Lexus property
that is sandwiched between the residential lots. And that particular site
will also be brought back to us in the form of a cross-section to show
us exactly what's going in there.
MS. ZONE: Right, that's with number five. Very good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever number it is, yeah. Okay?
MS. ZONE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody settled? Is there a motion to
recommend approval subject to the stipulations that we've just
discussed?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make it.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made the motion, seconded
by Mr. Vigliotti.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
Page 125
August 21, 2008
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
And that wraps up today's meeting.
Make sure we don't have any new business? Nothing on the
agenda? Is there any old business? Any public comment?
(No response.)
Item #14
ADJOURN
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Wolfley, seconded by --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicates.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. All in favor, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
Page 126
August 21, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Nobody opposed, I hope. Motion carries 8-0. We're out of here.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:45p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM
Page 127
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Community Development and Environmental Services Division
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, Florida 34104
September 29,2008
Mr. Miles Rocky Scofield
Turrell, Hall, & Associates, Inc.
3584 Exchange Ave.
Naples, FL 34104
Reference: Petition No. BD-2008-AR-12802, Vanderbilt Surf Colony Recreation and
Maintenance
Dear Mr. Scofield:
On Thursday, August 21,2008, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved
Petition No. BD-2008-AR-12802.
A copy of Resolution No. 08-04 is enclosed approving this use.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 252-2942.
k
Ashley Caserta
Senior Planner
---------
AC/mm
Enclosure
cc: Land Dept. Property Appraiser
Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDT)
Addressing (Peggy Jarrell)
M. Ocheltree, Graphics
File
c
o
l~~
e
r
c
w
..
t
y
Phone (239) 403-2400
Fax (239) 643-6968 or (239) 213-2913
\V\vw.colliergov.net
CCPC RESOLUTION 08- 04.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION
NUMBER BD-2008- AR-12802 FOR AN EXTENSION OF
BOAT DOCKS 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 04-41, 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 5-foot extension for
seven (7) boat docks, and a 15-foot extension for a nine (9) boat docks, from the 20-foot length
allowed by LDC Section 5.03.06.E.l, to authorize a multi-slip boat dock facility in an RMF-16
zone for the property described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B; 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
5.03.06.E.I; 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-2008-AR-12802, filed on behalf of Vanderbilt Surf Colony
Recreational and Maintenance Association, Inc. by Miles "Rocky" Scofield of Turrell, Hall and
Page 1 of3
'll>I~1_'''''''''''''' "
Associates, for the property described in the attached Exhibit A, and depicted and numbered in the
attached Exhibit B, is hereby approved, authorizing the following boat dock extensions:
1. A 5-foot boat dock extension from the 20-foot length otherwise allowed by LDC
Section 5.03.06.E.1 for boat docks #1 through #7, as depicted in the attached
Exhibit B, to authorize a maximum 25-foot boat dock for these seven (7) boat
docks; and
2. A 15-foot boat dock extension from the 20-foot length otherwise allowed by LDC
Section 5.03.06.E.l for boat docks #8 through #16, as depicted in the attached
Exhibit B, to authorize a maximum 35-foot boat dock for these nine (9) boat docks;
This approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be
provided to Collier County prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. Reflectors and dock numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be
installed at the outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings,
whichever protrudes the farthest 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 farthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Completion.
4. All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in
the LDC, must be removed from the subject property prior to issuance ofthe
required Certificate of Completion and the property must be maintained free from
all prohibited exotic species in perpetuity.
5. The applicant shall provide a letter or letters from the condominium association or
associations representing the residents of Buildings One, Two, and Three of the
Vanderbilt Surf Colony stating that the condominium association or associations
will not add any additional boat docks along the respective waterfronts ofBuldings
One, Two, and Three and the waterfront of the subject recreational area of the
development.
6. The applicant will not add any additional boat docks along the waterfront of the
recreational area of the development.
Page 2 of3
7. Only boats with a draft ofthree (3) feet maximum shall be permitted to be moored
to the subject boat docks.
8. The applicant shall confirm during the site improvement plan review process that
the existing and future utility easements necessary to provide utility services to the
boat docking facilities are adequate.
9. No docks or vessels are permitted to encroach into the Vanderbilt Waterway.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded III the minutes of this
Commission and filed with the Collier County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this al~t day of &Ju>o'1 ,2008.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
'1 /) /1
(v I RcL{ /J j\Jlc
Mark Strain, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jol h K. SChmItt
do munity Development and Environmental
e, rvices Administrator
~ and Legal Sufficiency:
J ef . right
Assis ant c~unty Attorney
Page 3 of3
l~GAL PARC~~ DE;SCRIPTION:
VANDERBILT SURF COLONY RECREATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE
AREA
(TENNIS COURT PARCEL 1 )
A portion of Tract A, Baker-Carroll Point, more particularly
described as follows:
From the SouthwHI corner of Tract A , BAKER-CARROlL POINT, as
recorded in Plat Book B. page 42. Public Records of Collier
Courrty, Florida, run N 11.40'00" W, along the Westerly boundary
of aaid BAKER-CARROLL POINT, for 939.91 feet; thence
N 03-048'50" E. tor 31.03 feet; N 89-46'00" E, for 211.80 feet;
S 00-14'00" E, for eo.OO tHt; S 44-24'43" E, fer 361.05 feet;
thence 147.48 teet along the ere of a CUIV., concave to the
Southes.t, having a redius of 100.00 feet and I~ended by a
chord having I length of 134.46 '''land beariny N 87.17'47" E,
ta the POINT OF BEGINNING: thence N 35.12'08" E, for 75,61 feet;
N 89-48'00" E, for 227.10 feet; S 00.'4'00" E, for 210.00 feet;
S 89-46'00' W, for 125.00 feet to 8 point of curvature, 110.02
feet along the arc of 8 curve, concave to the Northeast, having
a radius of 100.00 feet and subtended by a ct10rd heving a
length of 104.55 feet and bearing N 58.~2'56H W, to. point of
tangency; N 27.11'52" W, for 69. a 1 feat to a point of CU'V8tI..n;
40.60 feet along the 8rc of 8 curve, concave to the Southwest
having a radius of 100.00 feet and subtended by a chord haVtng
a length of 40.32 teet and bearing N 38'49'47" W, to the POINT.
OF BEGINNING:
Containing 1.103 acra., more or le.sa.
Subject to easements and reatrlctionl of record.
Said lanc:b situale, lying and being in Collier County, Flaida.
I
EXH'I3'T
A
Ul ^ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ Ol~
cv l>l>m~...,
:g~g~;gilr=5~~
m;Ul>~~c:o~~..
-<<rIOOl>_
O~OOUll>c!~~
::;()::;"'~~;;::ml>
mOC::EOOUli5~
t:;lc~l><::EImz
O~;;::r;1mz~OGl
'?mr-;u:::ocn<"'TlC/)
OUl::E::E::El>ZOl>
't'-<IIl>l>lJI;U;U
~Ob-<-t-om()m
':~:';'~2l;gob
C"iZOUlXOZ;U
OGlq~, Z~lJ
C::<~2?g:u;;um
~OOO'" C;u
"'i-;;::~~IT1;g~~
ClI"'Cm.,,_~
~::E"';U~mo;:j
ClII-ITlO;UZZ
O.:!;~l>"~~Gl
~~::Eil~irif11;g
Cl)Z~2loo ;;S
c::G"Jox;u~ 0
~ a;;::, p:l 0 Ul
r1l' I;3:z;;:: m
:-<: ::E"'mr Ul
~ -2 :E ~
~ ~ ~
~ :-I ~
' 0
;2
'"
t
?=
~
~-
~
8L.>J
3~
..,.
m
-:;><
:rg..
~ JJ ::1
_('tl ("D ~
~~ ~~
~",mRo
6~' ~.>
;:;00600
0-.. ::;j Cf)
2:30
~ ftI ("')
""'~a..-.
!:<-:n~PJ
n;::lnct
"""""l..o-.)ooo
3..;:... =.....
~ ~ ~ I---(
~sg:~
~~~.
<
)>
Z
0 m
m x
u;
~
;0 \ ~:z
-a 0G"J
OJ \ (f)O
::u 00
\ co
0 - ~^
-a r \ I (f)
0 -I ~v
(J)
m (J)
0 C -,( )\
0
m ;0 I
(J) ." I
G)
z () I
0 -7\1
r )Z~I
0 I
Z 1
-< I
(j) I
m ~ I
0
-;
(5 -< I x1j
f a a "
.. '" 0 '-<
'" '" '" '-< _CJ I
0 o w
~
-;
o
:E 0_
Z ~ ~ ~
(fJ w.... rn
I~gi~
~~~~~
~ en.....
(/) ~ ~
~
Z
Cl
~
'"
~
m
U> U> -<
C'l :I: >-
~ ~ ~
m -< >-
;:
m
-; "tl
.. .. ;;0
0 '" ~ 0
-; . ,
l> m.... "tl
r 0
Z
9 CJl
r m
(JJ 0;<.1] m C
r Z
~ ';21 Cl m
(JJ "". :i! ><
-I
m
(') z
0 CJl
"'.... c 0
Z
-; Z
;;0
r-;m
moD
"'''' z-;e:
;;: o:!u] Cll>m
:!i r CJl
-I
'"
":!
o
o
1+
~I
;-J
0:J
"',",'"
'0 ,,"~'l
... . ,.t. ;,
/"; ""./
o ~ ;g )!<r~;>,,-
o $ 0 ,', v>:,,
R a ~~. >.:::)'<'C::,
-om. .........,e'
~ ~ 0 hf<':-}
N~.. ",J'.!...: ::...'\'::"
-~'~':i:"'A,/,""<'"
f'\) \~,\,/
~ 8~Djd
w m !U'I_~/\"
b~ . ,;i...)
mm
'(f)
~
m
o
z....
>....
"tll:D
r-r-
me:
C/lm
wl:D
",.-
....r-
or-
co>
<
m
;;om
mx
S::Cii
O::J
<z
m(j)
Oen
)>m
z)>
o~
;;0)>
mr
"tIr
~-I
00
mOJ
om
'"
;;oc:
'" ms:: EXHIBIT
'" ~ "tI-
r-l
'"' ~.~ )>0
~ 0" j B
,.., men
hl ..,. S::m
~ '" m)>
z~
i;J -I)>
hl h'I r
-'I r
1!;0
j1;
;;0;-; .y_
l::~,
~ ~-~~~
m )>"'~~"
~;~~
l~"~
rill
z~
mz
o
)>
;;0
-<