CCPC Backup 01/21/2010 Rccpc
MEETING
BACKUP
DOCUMENTS
JANUARY 21, 2010
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 21,
2010, 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
AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE
MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — DECEMBER 16, 2009 CRA AND IMMOKALEE MASTER PLAN &
VISIONING COMMITTEE WORKSHOP and DECEMBER 17,2009 REGULAR MEETING
6 BCC REPORT- RECAPS —JANUARY 12, 2010
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: VA- PL2009 -37, FLO TV Inc., represented by Kimberly J. Madison, Esq., of Ruden, McClosky,
Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., is requesting a Variance of 55.7 feet from the 75 -foot front yard setback
requirement; and Variances of 22.3 feet and 22.6 feet from the 30 -foot eastern and western side yard
setback requirements, respectively, of LDC subsection 4.02.01, Table 2.1, Table of Minimum Yard
Requirements for Base Zoning Districts, to permit 19.3 -foot, 7.7 -foot and 7.4 -foot setbacks, respectively,
for the guy lines and anchors of a communications tower in excess of 75 feet in the Estates (E) Zoning
District. The 4.77 -acre subject property is located at 5860 Crews Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to CU- 2008 -AR- 14085)
1
B. Petition: CU- 2008 -AR- 14085, FLO TV, Inc., represented by Kimberly J. Madison, Esq., of Ruden,
McClosky, Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., is requesting a Conditional Use for a communications
tower and the installation of related shelter and equipment in the Estates (E) Zoning District, as specified
in Section 5.05.09 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The approximately 4.77 -acre
subject property is located at 5860 Crews Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in
Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to VA- PL2009 -037)
C. Petition: PUDZ -A- 2006 -AR- 10318, Pawel and Teryl Brzeski, Magnolia Pond Holdings, LLC and
Teryl Brzeski, Trustee of the Land Trust # 1 -B, represented by Davidson Engineering and Patrick White
of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP, are requesting a rezone from the Magnolia Pond Planned Unit
Development (PUD), Ordinance No. 98 -49, and Rural Agriculture (A) Zoning Districts to a Mixed -Use
Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as Magnolia Pond MPUD, permitting 231 multi - family
dwelling units and/or an assisted living facility (ALF) at a floor area ratio of .60 with the applicant seeking
to add an additional 5 acres to the site. The subject property is 47.05± acres and is located on the north
side of the I -75 right -of -way and half mile west of Collier Boulevard (CR -951) in Section 34,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
D. Petition: CU- PL2009 -405, Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes Department represented
by Abra Horne, AICP, of Wilbur Smith Associates is requesting a Conditional Use in the Gallman Olds
PUD zoning District to add a Government Facility, limited to a Bus Transfer Station pursuant to LDC
Section 2.01.03.G. Le, Essential Services. The subject 10.04± acre property is located on the south side of
Radio Road extending to Davis Boulevard, approximately 1,000 feet from the Radio Road and Davis
Boulevard intersection in Section 3, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP)
E. Petition: RZ- PL2009 -469, East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District No. 26, represented by Robert
L. Duane, AICP of Hole Montes Inc., is requesting to rezone from Rural Agriculture (A) and Commercial
Intermediate (C -3) zoning districts to the Public Use (P) zoning district for a Fire Station and accessory
uses. The subject property is 3.68± acres and is located in Section 20, Township 51 South, Range 27 East,
Collier County, Florida.
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: CPSP - 2009 -3, A staff initiated petition amending the Capital Improvement Element of the
Collier County Growth Management Plan to incorporate updates based on the 2009 Annual Update and
Inventory Report on Public Facilities (AUIR), and additional staff analysis, including updates to the 5 -Year
Schedule of Capital Improvements (for Fiscal Years 2010 — 2014) and the Schedule of Capital
Improvements for Future 5 -Year Period (for Fiscal Years 2015 — 2019). (Coordinator: Corby Schmidt,
AICP, Principal Planner)
10. OLD BUSINESS
11, NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
1/8/10 CCPC Agenda/Ray BellowsAd
PETITION
CPSP- 2009 -3
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
CIE AMENDMENT
Naples Daily News • Sunday, January 10, 2010.21D
41612 JA 4 4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a pub-
lic hearing will be held by the Col-
lier County Planning Commission
on Thursday, January 21, 2010 at
8:30 A.M. in the Board of County
Commissioners Meeting Room, 3rd
Floor, Administration ,Building,
County Government Center, 3301
East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida
34112.
The purpose of the hearing is to
consider adoption of an amend-
ment to the Capital Improvement
Element of the Growth Manage-
ment Plan. The ORDINANCE title is
as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 10 -r_
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDI-
NANCE NO. 89 -05, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UN-
INCORPORATED "AREA OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING
FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CAPI-
TAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT,
PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
" CPSP- 2009 -3, A staff initiated pe-
tition amending the Capital Im-
provement Element of the Collier
County Growth Management Plan
to incorporate updates. based on
the 2009 Annual Update and Inven-
tory Report on Public_ Facilities
(AUIR), and additional staff analy-
sis, including updates to the 5-
Year Schedule of Capital Improve-
ments (for Fiscal Years 2010 -
2014) and the Schedule of Capital
Improvements for Future 5 -Year
Period (for Fiscal Years 2015 -
2019). [Coordinator: Corby
Schmidt, AICP,,Principal Planner]
All interested parties are invited
to appear and be heard. Copy of
the proposed amendment is avail-
able for inspection at the Compre-
hensive Planning Department,
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples,
Florida between the hours of 8:00
A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday. Any questions
pertaining to the document.should
e directed to the Comprehensive
Planning Department (239 -252-
2400). Written comments filed
with the Comprehensive Planning
Department prior to January 21,
2010 will be read and considered
at the public hearing.
If a person decides to appeal any
decision made by the Collier Coun-
ty Planning Commission with re-
spect to any matter considered at
such meeting or hearing, he will
need a record of that proceeding
and for such purpose he 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. 4
Mark P Strain, Chairrp °
Collier County Planning Commis
im
NOTICE OF MEETING
ENT TO THE CAPI-
AENT ELEMENT,
ADND PROVIDING
to the 5-
Improve-
rs 2010 -
of Capital
re 5 -Year
rs 2015 -
Corby
All interested parties are Invited
to appear and be h ard. Copy of
M
tfrro Fldrli, Atl�ji' questions
to the Comprehensive JoUary 10.2010
Department -(239. 53
OTICI OFPIIBLICHL RIfVG'
2 ritten comments ♦fled
Wit the Comprehensive Planning
Notice is hereby given that a pub-
Jic hearing
Department prior to January 21,
will be held by the Col -
lier County Planning Commission
on Thursday, January 21, 2010 at
2010 will be read and considered
at the public hearing.
8.30 A.M. In the Board of County
Commissioners_Meeting Room 3rd
Floor; Administration
If a person decides to appppeal any
decision made by the ColIJer
,euilc�ing
County Government Center, 3301
East Tamiaml Trail, Naples, Florida
Cdun.
ty. Planning ,Commission with re-
34112 .
The , urpose of the hearing Is to
p
consider adoption of an amend-
ment to the Capital
sPect to an matter considered at
such meet) i� Or hearing, he "yvIII
need a recd of that •proceeding,
Improvement
Element of `the Growth Manage-
and for such purpose he may nee0
to ensure that "a verbatim record
ment Plan. The ORDINANCE title is
as follows:
of the proceedings is made, which
ORDINANCE NO. 10- `
AN ORDINANCE
record ce cludes testimony
to be which lihe appew is
AMENDING ORDI.
NANCE NO. 89 -05, AS'AMENDEp,
THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH
e `
MANAGEMENT PLAN, THE U!l "
^ADA. nr r•n� i Nm
INCORDORATFn F
C ffiai "
ENT TO THE CAPI-
AENT ELEMENT,
ADND PROVIDING
to the 5-
Improve-
rs 2010 -
of Capital
re 5 -Year
rs 2015 -
Corby
All interested parties are Invited
to appear and be h ard. Copy of
M
tfrro Fldrli, Atl�ji' questions
Agenda Item 9A
Co��er Co-r�->s -ity
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Presentation Version
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: JANUARY 21, 2010
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
ELEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE
89 -05, AS AMENDED; AND, RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THESE
AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
(ADOPTION HEARING)
BACKGROUND
Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, also known as the Local Government Comprehensive Planning
Act, requires all local governments within the State of Florida to maintain comprehensive planning
programs based upon an adopted local government comprehensive plan. As part of this process, the
local government must monitor changing conditions and must use this information to guide periodic
amendments to the local comprehensive plan a /k /a Growth Management Plan (GMP). More
specifically, Section 163.3177(3)(b)(1), F.S., requires the County to review its Capital Improvement
Element (CIE) on an annual basis in order to maintain a financially feasible 5 -year Schedule of Capital
Improvements. An amendment to the comprehensive plan is required to update the schedule on an
annual basis, or to eliminate, defer or delay construction of any facility listed in the 5 -year Schedule.
The primary purpose for maintaining a financially feasible 5 -year CIE Schedule is to avoid being
forced into a long term CIE and long -term concurrency management; particularly in the case with
transportation exception areas. In addition, it is essential for the Transportation Division to continue to
address deficiencies as a means to avoid being compelled to create a Transportation Concurrency
Backlog Authority in Collier County. The Backlog Authority would divest the BCC of major
transportation related projects and expenditures.
The 2009 CIE's Schedule of Capital Improvements covered the 5 -year planning period for fiscal years
2009 through 2013. The 2009 annual amendments to the CIE were adopted February 24, 2009 by
Ordinance 2009 -07, and text -based revisions are denoted by "(X)" in the Element's margins.
The presently proposed CIE's Schedule of Capital Improvements covers the 5 -year planning period
for fiscal years 2010 through 2014, and correlates with the 2009 AUIR adopted by the BCC on
November 3, 2009. This Report serves as a reminder how during AUIR hearings, the BCC directed
Transportation Division staff to provide alternatives during the CIE update and amendment process for
both Arterial and Collector Roads and Stormwater Management Systems.
-1-
Agenda Item 9A
Capital Improvement Element amendments recommended herein result from adoption of the 2009
AUIR, BCC direction, additional staff analysis, and in some situations, either combining or truncating
projects based on changes in demand and funding.
As with 2009, the County is again faced with decreased demand on capital infrastructure and
facilities, and is proposing to delay and in some situations eliminate proposed infrastructure and
facilities in the adopted 5 -year Schedule of Capital Improvements. However, the County will remain
concurrent in the 5 -year CIE.
Pursuant to Section 163.3177(3)(b)(2), F.S., amendment to the Capital Improvement Element requires
only a single public hearing before the Collier County Planning Commission (sitting in its official role
as the County's land planning agency) and one single public hearing before the governing board
(BCC) as an adoption hearing.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department is currently positioned at the beginning
phases of the next, or 2011, Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). EAR -based amendments will
account for virtually all of the text -based revisions to the CIE. Consequently, the presently proposed
annual update to the Capital Improvement Element confines itself to the 5 -year Schedule of Capital
Improvements, and the second 5 -year Schedule as an un- adopted CIE appendix.
Growth and population estimates and projections have been falling since the issuance of the 2006
BEBR population projections. These declining numbers were taken into account in the preparation of
the County's Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) and the CIE. However, it should be noted
that the Transportation Division uses actual traffic counts instead of population numbers. This
practice is attributed to the fact that counts vary based on facility expansion, and origin and
destination changes that normally occur through the normal development process.
For comparison, the Collier County Population Estimates and Projection (CCPEP) figures are 6.2 %,
12% and 17.2% decreases from the 2006, 2007 and 2008 CCPEPs for the same years, respectively.
Population projections for years 2010, 2015 and 2020 have fallen 22.1%, 29.8% and 34.4 %,
respectively, from the 2006, to the 2009 CCPEPs. [These decreases may also be interpreted to mean
that, it will take 22% to 34% more time to reach the populations previously projected for 2010 through
2020; and existing capital facilities will correspondingly maintain their reliable capacity for this
additional time, without need for expansion or construction.] It should be noted that if this trend
continues, some projects would be pushed out of the second 5 -year planning period. However, staff
is concerned that when the economy rebounds l ,iFter lwguishiog near the bottom, or re4ching deeper
lowsl, and vacant residential units are occupied, there will be instantaneous demand. Fortunately, the
CIE is updated annually — which identifies pending financial constraints and curtails possible
concurrency issues.
[Collier County Population Estimates and Projections, (CCPEP), May 2009]
The effects of these decreases have influenced the demand for public facilities and infrastructure with
a corresponding reduction in the expenditure of revenues for them throughout the County. They are
discussed generally herein and specific examples are included below.
One of the more illustrative indicators of this downward trend is the traffic counts on County arterial
and collector roads. The 2009 AUIR includes peak hour trip count logs in Attachment F, observations
in Attachment B and mapped data in Attachment C of the County Roads section of the AUIR (pp. 23-
29) illustrating an overall decline in peak hour directional volume from 2008. Traffic volume
decreased an average of 4% from the peak hour trip counts reported the prior year. More than 22%
-2-
Agenda Item 9A
of the 132 counting stations showed a decrease of greater than 10 %. At ninety -nine count stations,
AOP for example, counts were down from the prior year; 27 count stations were up from the prior year; and,
six stations showed no change. Consequently, County arterial and collector road projects gained
another measure of flexibility while still maintaining concurrency. The 5 -Year Schedule of Capital
Improvements included with this annual CIE update and amendment presents three Transportation
alternatives and two Stormwater Management System alternatives responding to the potential impacts
and costs associated with an uncertain planning future.
Another indicator exemplifying population decreases is the students enrolled, or membership counts,
in County schools. Between 2000 and 2007 2005, the school district grew by more than 5;300 9,100
students at a growth of 3 to 5 percent a year. In the past three four years, however, the district has
experienced a decline in enrollment as economic forces have been changing. The Collier County
School District membership reports from 2005 to 2009 provide the student counts in public schools,
which illustrate a flatter growth rate in recent years,
ranging from a 1.18 percent in 2006 to a modest gain of 0.43 percent in 2009.
❖ October 2005 counts report a total of 43,296 students attended County -wide. 21,002 children
were enrolled in elementary schools, with 9,428 in middle schools, and 12,866 in high schools.
❖ October 2008 counts report a total of 42,697 students attended County -wide. 20,581 children
enrolled in elementary schools, with 9,516 in middle schools, and 12,600 in high schools.
Certain schools reported declines of 13 to more than 19 percent.
❖ October 2009 counts report a total of 40,302 42,882 students attended County -wide. 20,432
20,486 children enrolled in elementary schools, with 8-434 8,977 in middle schools, and
a_
11,439 12,594 in high schools.
* ** [Actual source for all three (3) sets of figures is the School District
Monthly Membership Reports.] * **
These figures represent an overall decline in the rate of growth resulting in GVeF 2,700 414 fewer
students since 2005 eYeF the next 20 Moors when nnmpared with last dear's twenty year onrnllmon�
prejeetier}s. The decreases in student enrollment are most likely understated, as it is the norm during
economic slowdowns and recessions for parents to enroll their children in public school, as private
school is no longer affordable.
Reduced traffic demand and school enrollment are symptomatic of an out - migrating populace and
workforce, as well as foreclosures and speculators not closing on pre -sold residential units. This
allows for a reduction in public expenditures devoted to capacity improvements, correlated with a
reduction in capital project activity in the CIE Schedule of Capital Improvements.
The amendments that are the subject of this staff report are limited in scope primarily to those
Category "A" items recommended in the AUIR.
As with the previous Schedule of Capital Improvements, all Community Park Land and Regional Park
Land transactions are being facilitated through interdepartmental transfers exchanging land holdings
for park lands, or using another method not involving expenditure of capital funds. One example is
the 47 acre Randall Curve interdepartmental transfer in exchange for regional park land at Big
Corkscrew Island Regional Park. These transactions represent changes to land inventory and the
corresponding value of land holdings.
-3-
Agenda Item 9A
The projected decrease in population growth reported in the AUIR has led to the existing potable
water plants being able to maintain reliable capacity longer without plant expansions or new plant
construction. The following changes were made to correlate with the May 2009 Collier County
Population Estimates and Projections (CCPEP) and resulting water demands:
NERWTP: Deleted new 7.5 MGD plant construction from FY 18;
Deleted 6.0 MGD expansion from FY 26
SERWTP: Deleted new 6.0 MGD plant construction from FY 22
When demand projections increase, the hibernated water treatment facilities are 100% designed and
can be reactivated, permitted and constructed in four to five years.
The projected decrease in population growth reported in the AUIR has also led to the existing
wastewater treatment plants being able to maintain reliable capacity longer without plant expansions
or new plant construction. The following changes were made to correlate with the May 2009 CCPEPs
and resulting water demands:
NEWRF: Deleted 4.0 MGD plant construction from FY 18
SEWRF: Deleted 4.0 MGD plant construction from FY 18 and 2.0 MGD expansion from FY 24
When demand projections increase, the hibernated wastewater reclamation facilities are 100%
designed and can be reactivated, permitted and constructed in four to five years.
Though not necessarily recommended by the AUIR, additional data and analysis supporting the
proposed changes are required by Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code for review by the
`, Florida Department of Community Affairs. The data and analysis are in the form of support
documentation and not incorporated into the CIE.
Additional details for each category of public facilities are provided in Appendix A, supplemental to this
Staff Report and attached hereto.
The economic realities /deepest recession off cdog gre ,7te5t number ofpeop /e in dec,�desl that influenced
growth and development during the last two years have required adjustments in capital improvements
and services planning and potential changes in the GMP that have not been experienced since the
adoption of the GMP in 1989, as required by Florida's Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Regulation Act (Growth Management Act). This is only the second time our
Capital Improvement program requires us to deal with falling population projections, declining school
enrollment, an out - migrating populace and workforce, and diminishing demand on capital
infrastructure and services. The tangible affects of these new realities can be seen in nearly every
planned public project and capital improvement. Our levels of service can be maintained longer than
previously projected, or can be achieved at later dates where projects were scheduled to address
deficiencies. An indirect effect of decreasing demand for new facilities and services are revenues
associated with new development. Until new development occurs, the demand for new capital
infrastructure, services, and associated revenue (Impact Fees) will remain stagnant as demand and
anticipated revenue are inextricably intertwined. Until the economy recovers, it is quite possible that
the aforementioned economic realities and corresponding impacts will continue.
Finally, other factors attributable to the economy that warrant consideration are changes apparent in
the day -to -day practices of the residents, workers and visitors in Collier County. People are
conserving more and consuming less, extending the life of existing public facilities and forestalling the
need for new facilities.
Agenda Item 9A
Numerous County personnel collaborated extensively with Comprehensive Planning staff in preparing
this edition of the CIE — including Transportation Planning, Stormwater Management, Public Facilities
(Parks & Recreation), Public Utilities (Potable Water, Wastewater & Solid Waste) and the Office of
Management and Budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIO
That the CCPC forward the GMP amendments to the BCC with a recommendation to adopt and to
transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
Prepared By:
Reviewed By:
Approved By:
Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner
Comprehensive Planning Department
Randall Cohen, AICP, Director
Comprehensive Planning Department
Date:
Date:
Date:
Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator
Community Development and Environmental Services Division
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MR. MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the March 9, 2010 BCC hearing.
GAComprehensive\COMP PLANNING GIMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments12009 Cycle PetitionslCP- 2009 -3 CIEICCPCIPRESENTATION VERSION of CCPCADPTN 21(9 CIE Staff Report.docx
-5-
STAFF REPORT — APPENDIX A COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 21, 2010
This appendix provides additional remarks regarding public facilities and capital improvement
planning not addressed elsewhere in this Staff Report.
Arterial and Collector Road Projects
Projected five year figures were reduced from the 2008 AUIR to the 2009 AUIR based on the
downturn in development. Development is projected to decline still further, beyond the reduction used
in the 2009 AUIR. This additional reduction in development activity affects the amount of Impact Fees
collected. The resulting reduction in demand for roadway improvements has a direct correlation to the
reduction in Impact Fee - related expenditures required. Changes to and the reprioritization of the
Transportation Division work program for arterial and collector road projects listed in the CIE
Schedule of Capital Improvements are necessary based on changes in demand reflected in peak hour
trip counts.
Capital expenditures from Impact Fee revenues are projected to be reduced by 54% over the previous
CIE. Capital expenditures from Gas Tax revenues are projected to be reduced by 17% over the
previous CIE. Ad valorem /General Fund revenues may be reduced from as little as 11% to as much
as 20 %, reflecting not only capital expenditures on road projects, but also Transportation Division
funding division -wide.
At the BCC's direction, Transportation Division was charged with developing alternatives that also
reduce ad valorem /General Fund expenditures for the Transportation Capital program. In combination
with the Impact Fee and Gas Tax reductions, three alternatives were developed to address a
reduction in ad valorem General Fund support for Transportation. They are: 1) the anticipated 11 %
ad valorem reduction in fiscal years 2011 through 2014 based on decreased assessed values; 2) a
15% ad valorem reduction; and 3) a 20% reduction in ad valorem. These three Transportation
alternatives are itemized in the document entitled CIE Changes from 2009 to 2010, included as a
supplement to this Report, and are presented in Exhibit "A "on pages 16.11, 16.15 and 16.20.
In each alternative, the total percent of reduction for the entire Transportation Division (operations and
capital) is assumed to be reduced from the capital budget. While sufficient ad valorem funding
(beyond debt service) is available in the Transportation Capital budget to cover the $3.53 million
reduction annually for the 11% in alternative No. 1, the $4.82 million reduction for the 15% in
alternative No. 2 would require that $898,000 in Gas Tax also be reduced in the Transportation Capital
program annually to maintain level funding in the Operations and Maintenance budget for the
Transportation Division. Alternative No. 3 at 20% reduction would require $1.72 million of Gas Tax be
reduced annually beyond all non -debt service ad valorem in the Transportation Capital program to
maintain level funding for Transportation Operations and Maintenance Programs. With the addition of
over 400 new and improved lane miles of roadways, the expanded infrastructure for Traffic Operations
and the advancing age of our bridges, further budget cuts to Operations and Maintenance would not
allow sufficient investment to safely maintain the capital inventory that currently exists, nor address
the increased demand for maintenance that will result from the deferral of capital projects. In fact, a
generally level funding for Operations and Maintenance will still mean a further increase in deferred
maintenance, which will need to be addressed at a significantly higher cost when funding improves.
The alternatives prepared seek to ensure deficiencies are addressed or, at least, progress is being
made to address each deficiency. At the same time, BCC policy directive is to keep the County out of
January 21, 2010 Staff Report Appendix A
- 1 -
a long -term concurrency management system and from facing the creation of a Transportation
Concurrency Backlog Authority.
This approach also avoids being forced into a long -term financially feasible CIE, which by Statute can
be 10 or 15 years. Both the Transportation Concurrency Backlog Authority and long -term CIE and
concurrency management system could become issues if there is a significant upturn in growth and
there is a widening of the financial gap for all of the deficient road segments where ultimately, major
funding would be required in a short period of time and no funding is available.
The alternatives substantially address existing and projected transportation deficiencies but further
delay major improvements. The different alternatives take the costs that have been deferred into
consideration, as well as the cumulative effect of the interim improvements and what the potential
financial impact will be when the deferred improvements must be done. It is possible that these
improvements could all be required in close proximity in time with, or at the same time that, other
major projects will be required. The cost benefit ratio of deferring improvements to out -years differs
with each alternative, resulting with different financial scenarios. The 11% alternative slows down
future project readiness and removes construction for the segment of Collier Boulevard from north of
1 -75 to Green Boulevard and the construction for the Valewood Extension. The 15% reduction results
in the further reduction in rights -of -way acquisition and the loss of construction funding for Santa
Barbara Boulevard from Copper Leaf Lane north to Green Boulevard. The major difference between
the 15% and 20% alternatives is that the 20% alternative does not leave any funds to roll into the new
fifth year (fiscal year 2015) or thereafter to bring forward a current concurrency concern (Golden Gate
Boulevard), the Santa Barbara Boulevard Project, Collier Boulevard between Golden Gate Main
Canal and Green Boulevard, nor other concurrency segments that may develop over the next five
years. Specific project implications of the three alternatives are demonstrated in the Schedule of
Capital Improvements included with this annual CIE update.
OF /These alternatives do not affect programmed improvements in the first year and County Arterial and
Co/ lector Ro.3d projects Ore funded �t X99M in Fsc,31 yedr 2010. / mpPovements in the second yeti- Ore
affected, however so project expenditures range filorn a low of$452M to a high of�-474M in fiscal year
2011 Cost projections for scheduled Arterial and Col lector Road improvements range from 15V 9M to
$529.5M over the 5 -year planning period. J
/Funding for Arterial and Collector Road projects scheduled in 2010, approximately $12.5M are derived
fom impact fees, $18M are derived fom gas taxes, $9.SM are derived fom grants or reimbursements, $276
are derived fom carry forward, $1 are derived fom developer contributions, $5.61V are derived fom interest
earnings, and $18.5M are derived fom the General Fund.
Funding forArteria /and Co/ lector Road projects scheduled in 2011 approximately $12.5M are derived fom
impact fees, $174M are derived fom gas taxes, $18M are derived fom grants or reimbursements, $85M are
derived fom developer contributions, $5M are derived fom interest earnings, and fom $12.1M to $15M are
derived fom the General Fund depending on the alternative adopted
Funding for Arterial and Collector Road projects fom impact fees over the 5 -year planning period is
projected at $67.5, at $86.8M fom gas taxes, at $54.8M fom grants & reimbursements, at $27.6 fom carry
forward, , at $5,2M fom developer contributions, at $1O.6M fom interest earnings, and fom $67M to
$78.6M are derived fom the General Fund, depending on the alternative adopted I
January 21, 2010 Staff Report Appendix A
-2-
Transportation projections used the anticipated 11% reduction in preparing the second 5 -year
Schedule. If the BCC adopts the 15% or 20% reduction, then the Arterial and Collector Roads
component of CIE Appendix H, the Future Costs and Revenues by Type of Public Facility will be
modified accordingly.
Parks and Recreation Facilities Proiects
The 2009 AUIR indicates a surplus of both Community Park Land and Regional Park Land through
the 5 -year planning period.
!County Parks ,and Recreation Facilities projects ,ire not scheduled with C.3pit.31 funding through the 5 -yewr
planning pet-iod.I
Two Parks and Recreation projects were removed from the Schedule of Capital Improvements, as
follows; the scheduled project for future improvements of an ATV Park, and the scheduled project for
future purchases of land programmed for parking expansion for Bayview Park.
Surface Water - Stormwater Management Svstem Proiects
The Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Program ( LASIP) has been an ongoing project continuing
over many years. Collier County reached the production phase approximately three years ago. Since
that time, Stormwater Management System improvements in this area have advanced by coordinating
them with Arterial and Collector Road projects. LASIP remains a long term project in the Schedule
of Capital Improvements.
The Belle Meade Stormwater Master Plan was completed in September 2006. Initiation of Belle
Meade Stormwater Improvement projects have been deferred until completion of the watershed study
effort currently underway by the CDES Engineering and Environmental Services Department. The
watershed study effort progress to date includes prioritization of study completion by drainage basin,
consultant selection to perform hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, and drafting watershed studies.
The delay in the Belle Meade projects was anticipated, as the South Florida Water Management
District emphasized the need for an integrated watershed management plan to ensure the
establishment and utilization of sound data and analysis to protect water quality and manage water
quantity. The anticipated completion date of the studies, including recommendations and project
funding prioritizations, is fiscal year 2012.
On June 22, 2004, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners established a Stormwater
Program funded via a 0.15 mil ad valorem levy, securing funding beginning in fiscal year 2006 for the
next 20 years. This program was modified by action of the BCC in 2009 to a 0.10 mil ad valorem levy.
During the 2009 AUIR hearing, the BCC requested [that] two alternatives be developed for the
Stormwater Management Systems component of the Schedule of Capital Improvements that
correspond with the different funding levels. First, an alternative that reflects Stormwater
Management's status as a millage neutral program was developed within the assumption that
revenues from the BCC established .15 mils would be reduced by 11% based on lower assessed
values. The second alternative substantially restricts Stormwater Management System project
funding by reducing the millage from .15 mils to .10 mils and then applying the anticipated 11%
reduction in assessed values. Under this second alternative, the Stormwater Management program is
essentially restricted to implementation of LASIP with some assumed reductions in scope and costs to
January 21, 2010 Staff Report Appendix A
-3-
meet the permitted schedule for completion of the project. Both Stormwater Management alternatives
are presented in Exhibit "A "on pages 18.11 and 18.11R.
/These alternatives do not aff ct programmed improvements in the first year and County Stormwater
Management System projects are Funded at $13.2M in fiscal year 2010, improvements in the second year
are 3fFcted, however so project expenditures range fom a low ofJ75M 1o.3 high of11O.1M in fiscal year
2017. Cost projections for scheduled Stormwater Management System improvements range from l43.3M
to $55.BM over the 5 -year planning period I
/Funding for Stormwater Management System projects scheduled in 2010, approximately $2M are derived
fom grants or reimbursements, $13M are derived fom carry Forward and $9.9M are derived fom the
General Fund.
Funding For Stormwater Management System projects scheduled in 201f, approximately $2M are derived
fom grants or reimbursements, and fom $55M to $8.6M are derived fom the General Fund depending
on the alternative adopted.
Funding for Stormwater Management System projects fom impact Fes over the 5 -year planning period is
projected at $1OM fom grants & reimbursements, at $13M fom carry Forward and fom $32M to $44.5M
are derived fom the General Fund depending on the alternative adopted.I
As with Transportation projections, Stormwater Management System projections used the anticipated
11 % reduction in preparing the second 5 -year Schedule. If the BCC adopts the 15% or 20% reduction
for Transportation projections, then the Stormwater Management Systems component of CIE
Appendix H, the Future Costs and Revenues by Type of Public Facility will be modified accordingly.
Potable Water System Projects
The Water & Wastewater Rate Study and Impact Fee Study approved by the BCC on June 24, 2008
were the sources for the figures used to prepare the CIE 5 -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements.
/County Potable Water System projects are funded at $325M in fiscal year 2010. Projects are funded at
f254M in fiscal year 2011 Cost projections for scheduled Potable Water System improvements are X113.BM
over the 5 -year planning period I
/Funding for Potable Water System projects scheduled in 2010, approximately $18M are derived fom
impact fees, $25M are derived fom revenue reserves, $3114 are derived fl-OM state revolving fund loans,
$6.3M are derived fom capital accounts, and $212M are derived fom rate revenues.
Funding for Potable Water System projects scheduled in 2011 approximately $18M are derived f.-on,) impact
Fes, $96M are derived fom revenue reserves, $173M are derived fom capital accounts, and $53M are
derived ft-O m rate revenues.
Funding for Potable Water System projects fom impact fees over the 5 -year planning period is projected at
$9.6M fom impact fees, at$4.1M fom revenue reserves, at $3M fom state revolving fund loans, at$55.9M
fom capital accounts, at$411M fom rate reveoues.I
January 21, 2010 Staff Report Appendix A
-4-
The Water & Wastewater Master Plan Capital Improvements Program for 2015 through 2019 was
divided equally for each year and funding sources were allocated in the same proportions as 2010
through 2014. Funding sources for 2015 through 2019 are not based on the rate study. These are
estimations only and will change when an actual rate study for this period is prepared.
Certain water treatment facilities were affected by deferred demand so as not to require a high
pressure reverse osmosis expansion for at the NCRWTP, or incorporation of Orangetree facilities into
the County system until fiscal years 2012 and 2023, respectively.
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Projects
Pursuant to the Landfill Operating Agreement (LOA) with Waste Management, Inc. of Florida (WMIF),
landfill cell construction is scheduled and guaranteed by WMIF over the life of the Collier County
Landfill. Collier County landfill expansion costs are paid for by WMIF through agreed upon Collier
County landfill tipping fees. By contract under the LOA, WMIF will construct any future required cells.
The timing of new landfill cell construction has been updated to reflect Waste Management Inc. of
Florida's current cell development schedule, which affects when new cell capacity is recognized.
defeFred_ dernand enough ri�Tpdu iFe ReW Gel' nnnetF Gtinn � until fiscal years 2012 and 7(14
respeEt � "'``11
/County Solid Waste Disposal Facilities projects are funded at $54M in fiscal year 2010. No projects are
scheduled 1n fiscal year 2019. Cost projections for scheduled Solid Waste Disposal Facility improvements are
$54M/$6.8M over the 5 -year planning period I
/Funding for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities projects scheduled in 2090, approximately $5.4N/ are derived
fom tipping fees.
Funding For Solid Waste Disposal Facilities projects fiorn impact Fes over the 5 -year planning period is
prolected a t $6.8M fom tipping f es. I
Updated projections indicate that the Collier County Landfill will have zero capacity remaining in fiscal
year 2039, while previous projections indicated zero capacity remaining in fiscal year 2036 [and fiscal
year 2033 before that]. This "gained" capacity reflects both the positive impacts of the past and
current solid waste initiatives that have increased recycling and decreased disposal as well as
reductions in the population estimates used to calculate the remaining disposal capacity.
Sanitary Sewer - Wastewater Treatment System Projects
The Water & Wastewater Rate Study and Impact Fee Study approved by the BCC on June 24, 2008
were the sources for the figures used to prepare the CIE 5 -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements.
/County Wastewater Treatment System projects are Funded at $32.5M/$37M in fiscal year 2090. Prolects
are funded at $254M1$26M in fiscal year 2099 Cost prolections for scheduled Wastewater Treatment
System improvements are $995. BM/$95 -T 5M over the 5 -ye4r planning period J
January 21, 2010 Staff Report Appendix A
-5-
/Funding for Wastewater Treatment System projects scheduled in 2010, approximately $18M are derived
fom impact f e5, $25M ,7re derived fom revenue reserves, $931V Ore derived fom qpit,3l 4ccount5, end
$25.7N1 are derived fom rate revenues.
Funding for Wastewater Treatment System projects scheduled in 2011 approximately $18M are derived
fom impact fees, $75A4.3,,,- derived fom revenue reserves, $17.9M are derived fom capital accounts, and
$5.4M are derived fom rate revenues.
Funding For Wastewater Treatment System projects fom impact f es over the 5 -yevr planning period is
projected at $9.6M fom impact Fes at $12M fom revenue reserves, at $915M fom capital accounts, and at
$50 gm ft-Om rate revenues.)
The Water & Wastewater Master Plan Capital Improvements Program for 2015 through 2019 was
divided equally for each year and funding sources were allocated in the same proportions as 2010
through 2014. Funding sources for 2015 through 2019 are not based on the rate study. These are
estimations only and will change when an actual rate study for this period is prepared.
Certain water reclamation facilities were affected by deferred demand so as not to require
incorporation of Orangetree facilities into the County system until fiscal year 2012.
/The combined effect of the Roads and Storrnwater Management alternatives do not affect programmed
improvements in the first year, and scheduled capital improvement projects are funded at $167.4MI�1755M
in fiscal year 2010, improvement5 scheduled in the second year are affected however 5o project
expenditures range from a low of$99.7M 1X1O4.9M to ,7 high of$1O4.5M/f 111M in f5ca1 year 2011 Cost
projections for all scheduled improvements range fom $65t 7M/$655.2M to $6558M/X659.3M over the 5-
year planning period-]
/Funding for projects Scheduled in 2010, approximately $16.1M are derived fom impact Fes, $18M are
derived fom gas taxes, $115M are derived fom grants or reimbursements, $29M are derived fom carry
forward $1 are derived fom developer contributions, $56M are derived fom interest earnings, $3M are
derived ft-OM state revolving fund loans, $15.6114 are derived fom capital accounts, $46.9M are derived fom
rate revenues, $54M are derived fom tipping fees, and $28.5M are derived fom the General Fund
Funding for projects scheduled in 2011 approximately $16.2M are derived fom impact fees, $17.7M are
derived fom gas taxes, $58M are derived fom grants or reimbursements, $85M are derived fom deve loper
contributions, $SM are derived from interest earnings, $16M are derived fom revenue reserves, $55.2M are
derived fom capital accounts, M .8M are derived fom rate revenues, and fom $176M to $256M are derived
fom the General Fund depending on the alternative adopted.
Funding fom impact fees over the 5 -year planning period i5 projected at $86.8, at $86.HW fom gas taxes, at
$64.8M fom grants & reimbursements, at $29M fom carry forward at $52M fom developer
contributions, at $1O.6M fom interest earnings, at $55114 fom revenue reserves, 3t $SM fom state
revolving fund loans, at$1474M fom capital accounts, at$919M fom rate revenues, 4t$6.8M fom tipping
fees, and fom $99.1M to $1252M are derived fom the General Fund, depending on the alternative
adopted.]
„r
January 21, 2010 Staff Report Appendix A
-6-
Schedule of Capital Improvements Tables: 2009 Amendments EXHIBIT "A" ADOPTION VERSION
COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
FISCAL YEARS 2010 -2014
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECTS
$3,410,000
$0
$0 $3,410,000
CONSTRUCTION
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
CIE #
PROJECT NOTES
SCHEDULE NOTES
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
TOTAL
TBD
-TB
Count Landfill Cell Construction Cell A7
2010
$3,410,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,410,000
D
ounty Landfill ell Construction Cell A6
2013
0
0
0
$3,410,000
0
$3,410,000
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECT TOTALS
$3,410,000
$0
$0
$3,410,000
$0
$6,820,000
IREVENUE KEY RLVENUE SOUR I- FY 2010 1 FY 2011 1 FY 2012 1 FY 2013 1 FY 2014 1 TOTAL
Landfill Ipping Fees'
$3,410,000
$0
$0 $3,410,000
$0
$6,820,000
$3,410,000
$0
$0 $3,410,000
$0
$6,820,000
Pursuant to the Landfill Operating Agreement (LOA) with Waste Management, Inc. of Florida
(WMIF), landfill cell construction is scheduled and guaranteed by WMIF over the life of the Collier
County Landfill. Collier County landfill expansion costs are paid for by WMIF through agreed upon
Collier County landfill tipping fees. By contract under the LOA, WMIF will construct any future
required cells. Landfill cells vary in size and disposal capacity.
NOTE: Collier County has adopted a two -year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided
for years three, four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency
Management System but must be financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an
alternative revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not realized. Figures provided for years
six through ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of revenues versus project
costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system.
G: \Comprehensive \COMP PLANNING GMP DATA \Comp Plan Amendments\2009 Cycle Petitions \CPSP - 2009 -3 CIE \CCPC \11 Jan 10 ADPTN 2K9 CIE tables (10- 14).xlsx CIE - 20
Schedule of Capital Improvements Tables: 2009 Amendments EXHIBIT "A" ADOPTION VERSION
COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
FISCAL YEARS 2010 -2014
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS
CONSTRUCTION
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
CIE p
739505
PROJECT
NCWRF Compliance Assurance
SCHEDULE NOTES
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
TOTAL
739507
NCWRF Bridge the Ga
2008-20011
$8,110,000
$4,333,334
$0
$0
$0
$12,443,33
730501
Sewer Line Rehab I & I Implementation)
2011 - 2013
Ongoing
$0
$600,000
$4,000,000
$250,000
$12,000,000
$250,000
$8,000,000
$250,000
$0
$24,000,000
Debt Service CAFR
$0
$0
$10,600,000
$10,300,000
$10,300,000
$9,800,000
$0
$9,040,000
$1,350,000
$50,040,000
Ex ansion Related Projects- Other
Re lacement & Rehabilitation Projects - Other
$0
$500,000
$2,230,000
$3,190,000
$6,480,000
$10,140,000
$22,540,000
Departmental Ca ital
$9,300,000
$16,990,000
$4,156,666
$4,190,000
$4,350,000
$8,030,000
$37,716,666
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECT TOTALS
$25,700,000
$250,000
$730,000
$1,610,000
$1,500,000
1,160,000
5,250,000
$37,050,000
$37,050,000
$26,000,000
$31,540,000
$30,380,000
$28,370,000
$153,340,000
REVENUE KEY - REVENUESOURCE
FY 2010
1 FY 2011
1 FY 2012
1 FY 2013
1 FY 2014
1 TOTAL
SIF - Wastewater System Development Fees / Impact Fees
$1,800,000
$1,860,000
$1,930,000
$2,000,000
$2,070,000
$9,660,000
B1 - Series 2006 Bonds
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues
83 - Series 2010 Bonds
$250,000
$730,000
$120,000
$50,000
$130,000
$1,280,000
SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
LOC - Commercial Paper, Additional Senior Lien
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SCA - Wastewater Capital Account - Transfers
REV - Rate Revenue
$9,300,000
$17,920,000
$23,490,000
$22,690,000
$0
$18,140,000
$0
$91,540,000
REVENUE TOTAL
$25,700,000
$5,490,000
$6,000,000
$5,640,000
$8,030,000
$50,860,000
$37,050,000
$26,000,000
$31,540,000 1
$30,380,000 1
$28,370,000
$153,340,000
NOTE: Collier County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years three, four
and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency Management System but must be
financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an alternative revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not
realized . Figures provided for years six through ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of revenues
versus project costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system.
G: \Comprehensive \COMP PLANNING GMP DATA \Comp Plan Amendments\2009 Cycle Petitions \CPSP - 2009 -3 CIE\CCPC \11 Jan 10 ADPTN 2K9 CIE tables (10- 14).xlsx CIE - 21
EXHIBIT "A"
COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY TABLE
FISCAL YEARS 2010 -2014
The table below itemizes the types of public facilities and the sources of revenue. The "Revenue Amount" column contains the 5 -Year amount
of facility
revenues. The right column is a calculation of expenses versus revenues for each type of public facility. All deficits are accumulated as a subtotal. The
subtotal deficit is the source of additional revenue utilized by Collier County to fund the deficit in order to maintain the
levels of service standards as
referenced in the Capital Improvement Element.
Revenue
Projects Revenue Sources Expenditure
Amount
Total
ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PROJECTS
Revenues: IF - Impact Fees / COA Revenue
$67,500,000
GA - Gas Tax Revenue
$86,898,000
GR - Grants / Reimbursements
$54,841,000
CF - Carry Forward
$27,669,000
TR - Transfers
$0
GF - General Fund
$78,655,000
DC - Developer Contribution Agreements / Advanced Reimbursements
$5,250,000
IN - Interest Revenue
$10,680,000
LOC - Short Term Loan Commercial Paper
$0
RR - Revenue Reserve
- $1,962,000
$329,531,000
Less Expenditures: $329,531,000
$329,031,000
Balance
$0
POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS
Revenues: WIF - Water System Development Fees /Impact Fees
$9,660,000
B1 - Series 2006 Bonds
$0
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues
$4,140,000
B3 - Series 2010 Bonds
$0
LOC - Commercial Paper 1
$0
SRF5 - SRF Loan 5
$0
SRF6 - SRF Loan 6
$3,000,000
WCA - Water Capital Account
$55,930,000
REV -Rate Revenue
$41,100,000
$113,830,000
Less Expenditures: $113,830,000
$113,830,000
Balance
$0
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS
Revenues: SIF - Wastewater System Development Fees/impact Fees
$9,660,000
B1 - Series 2006 Bonds
$0
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues
$1,280,000
B3 - Series 2010 Bonds
$0
SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans
$0
LOC - Commercial Paper, Additional Senior Lien
$0
SCA - Wastewater Capital Account, Transfers
$91,540,000
REV -'Rate Revenue
$50,860,000
$153,340,000
Less Expenditures: $153,340,000
$153,340,000
Balance
$0
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECTS
Revenues: LTF - Landfill Tipping Fees $6,820,000 $6,820,000
Less Expenditures: $6,820,000 $6,820,000
Balance $0
PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECTS
Revenues: IF - Impact Fees $0
GR - Grants / Reimbursements $0
GF - General Fund $0 $0
Less Expenditures: $0 $0
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS Balance $0
Revenues:
GR - Grants / Reimbursements
CF - Carry Forward
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues
GF - General Fund
Less Expenditures:
$10,000,000
$1,358,900
- $100,000
$32,045,900 $43,304,800
$43,304,800 $43,304,800
Balance $0
TOTAL REVENUE
SOURCES
G: \Comprehensive \COMP PLANNING GMP DATA \Comp flan Amendments\2009 Cycle Petitions \CPSP - 2009 -3 CIE\CCPCV 1Jan 10 ADPTN 2K9 CIE tables (10- 14).xlsx CIE - 22.11 R
EXHIBIT "A"
COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY TABLE
FISCAL YEARS 2010 -2014
The table below itemizes the types of public facilities and the sources of revenue. The 'Revenue Amount' column contains the 5 -Year amount of facility
revenues. The right column is a calculation of expenses versus revenues for each type of public facility. All deficits are accumulated as a subtotal. The
subtotal deficit is the source of additional revenue utilized by Collier County to fund the deficit in order to maintain the levels of service standards as
referenced in the Capital Improvement Element.
Revenues: LTF - LandfillTippingFees $6,820,000 $6,820,000
Less Expenditures: $6,820,000 $6,820,000
Balance $0
PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECTS
Revenues: IF - Impact Fees $0
GR - Grants / Reimbursements $0
GF - General Fund $0 $0
Less Expenditures: $0 $0
Balance $0
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS
Revenues:
GR - Grants / Reimbursements
CF - Carry Forward
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues
GF - General Fund
Less Expenditures:
$10,000,000
$1,358,900
- $100,000
$44,589,100 $55,848,000
$55,848,000 $55,848,000
Balance $0
TOTAL REVENUE
SOURCES
G: \Comprehensive \COMP PLANNING GMP DATA \Comp Plan Amendments\2009 Cycle Petitions \CPSP - 2009 -3 CIE\CCPC\11Jan 10 ADPTN 2K9 CIE tables (10- 14).xlsx CIE - 22.11
Revenue
Projects Revenue Sources
Expenditure
Amount
Total
ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PROJECTS
Revenues: IF - Impact Fees / COA Revenue
$67,500,000
GA - Gas Tax Revenue
$86,898,000
GR - Grants / Reimbursements
$54,841,000
CF - Carry Forward
$27,669,000
TR - Transfers
$0
GF - General Fund
$78,655,000
DC - Developer Contribution Agreements / Advanced Reimbursements
$5,250,000
IN - Interest Revenue
$10,680,000
LOC - Short Term Loan Commercial Paper
$0
RR - Revenue Reserve
- $1,962,000
$329,531,000
Less Expenditures:
$329,531,000
$329,531,000
Balance
$0
POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS
Revenues: W IF - Water System Development Fees/impact Fees
$9,660,000
B1 - Series 2006 Bonds
$0
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues
$4,140,000
B3 - Series 2010 Bonds
$0
LOC - Commercial Paper 1
$0
SRFS -- SRF Loan 5
$0
SRF6 - SRF Loan 6
$3,000,000
WCA - Water Capital Account
$55,930,000
REV - Rate Revenue
$41,100,000
$113,830,000
Less Expenditures:
$113,830,000
$113,830,000
Balance
$0
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS
Revenues: SIF - Wastewater System Development Fees/impact Fees
$9,660,000
B1 - Series 2006 Bonds
$0
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues
$1,280,000
B3 - Series 2010 Bonds
$0
SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans
$0
LOG - Commercial Paper, Additional Senior Lien
$0
SCA - Wastewater Capital Account, Transfers
$91,540,000
REV -'Rate Revenue
$50,860,000
$153,340,000
Less Expenditures:
$153,340,000
$153,340,000
Balance
$0
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECTS
Revenues: LTF - LandfillTippingFees $6,820,000 $6,820,000
Less Expenditures: $6,820,000 $6,820,000
Balance $0
PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECTS
Revenues: IF - Impact Fees $0
GR - Grants / Reimbursements $0
GF - General Fund $0 $0
Less Expenditures: $0 $0
Balance $0
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS
Revenues:
GR - Grants / Reimbursements
CF - Carry Forward
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues
GF - General Fund
Less Expenditures:
$10,000,000
$1,358,900
- $100,000
$44,589,100 $55,848,000
$55,848,000 $55,848,000
Balance $0
TOTAL REVENUE
SOURCES
G: \Comprehensive \COMP PLANNING GMP DATA \Comp Plan Amendments\2009 Cycle Petitions \CPSP - 2009 -3 CIE\CCPC\11Jan 10 ADPTN 2K9 CIE tables (10- 14).xlsx CIE - 22.11
EXHIBIT "A"
COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY TABLE
FISCAL YEARS 2010 -2014
The table below itemizes the types of public facilities and the sources of revenue. The "Revenue Amount" column contains the 5 -Year amount of facility
revenues. The right column is a calculation of expenses versus revenues for each type of public facility. All deficits
are accumulated as a subtotal. The
subtotal deficit is the source of additional revenue utilized by Collier County to fund the deficit in order to maintain the levels of service standards as
referenced in the Capital Improvement Element.
Revenue
Projects Revenue Sources Expenditure
Amount
Total
ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PROJECTS
Revenues: IF - Impact Fees / COA Revenue
$67,500,000
GA - Gas Tax Revenue
$86,898,000
GR - Grants / Reimbursements
$54,841,000
CF - Carry Forward
$27,669,000
TR - Transfers
$0
GF - General Fund
$73,495,000
DC - Developer Contribution Agreements / Advanced Reimbursements
$5,250,000
IN - Interest Revenue
$10,680,000
LOC - Short Term Loan Commercial Paper
$0
RR - Revenue Reserve
41,962,000
$324,371,000
Less Expenditures: $318,457,000
$318,457,000
Balance
$5,914,000
POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS
Revenues: WIF - Water System Development Fees /Impact Fees
$9,660,000
B1 - Series 2006 Bonds
$0
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues
$4,140,000
B3 - Series 2010 Bonds
$o
LOC - Commercial Paper 1
$0
SRF5 - SRF Loan 5
$0
SRF6 - SRF Loan 6
$3,000,000
WCA - Water Capital Account
$55,930,000
REV -;Rate Revenue
$41,100,000
$113,830,000
Less Expenditures: $113,830,000
$113,830,000
Balance
$0
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS
Revenues: SIF - Wastewater System Development Fees /Impact Fees
$9,660,000
B1 - Sevres 2006 Bonds
$0
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues
$1,280,000
B3 - Series 2010 Bonds
$0
SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans
$0
LOC - Commercial Paper, Additional Senior Lien
$0
SCA - Wastewater Capital Account, Transfers
$91,540,000
REV - Rate Revenue
$50,860,000
$153,340,000
Less Expenditures: $153,340,000
$153,340,000
Balance
$0
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECTS
Revenues: LTF - Landfill Tipping Fees $6,820,000 $6,820,000
Less Expenditures: $6,820,000 $6,820,000
Balance $o
PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECTS
Revenues: IF - Impact Fees $0
GR - Grants / Reimbursements $0
GF - General Fund $0
$0
Less Expenditures: $0 $0
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS Balance $0
Revenues:
GR - Grants / Reimbursements
CF - Carry Forward
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues
GF - General Fund
Less Expenditures:
$10,000,000
$1,358,900
- $100,000
$32,045,900 $43,304,800
$43,304,800 $43,304,800
Balance $0$0
TOTAL REVENUE
SOURCES
G:\ComprehensivMCOMP PLANNING GMP DATA \Comp Plan Amendments\2009 Cycle Petitions \CPSP - 2009 -3 CIE\CCPC\1 1Jan 10 ADPTN 2K9 CIE tables (10- 14).xlsx CIE - 22.15
EXHIBIT "A"
COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY TABLE
FISCAL YEARS 2010 -2014
The table below itemizes the types of public facilities and the sources of revenue. The "Revenue Amount" column contains the 5 -Year amount of facility
revenues. The right column is a calculation of expenses versus revenues for each type of public facility. All deficits are accumulated as a subtotal. The
subtotal deficit is the source of additional revenue utilized by Collier County to fund the deficit in order to maintain the levels of service standards as
referenced in the Capital Improvement Element.
Revenues: LTF - Landfill Tipping Fees $6,820,000 $6,820,000
Less Expenditures: $6,820,000 $6,820,000
Balance $0
PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECTS
Revenues: IF - Impact Fees
GR - Grants / Reimbursements
GF - General Fund
Less Expenditures:
Revenues:
GR - Grants / Reimbursements
CF - Carry Forward
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues
GF - General Fund
Less Expenditures:
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0
$10,000,000
$1,358,900
- $100,000
$32,045,900 $43,304,800
$43,304,800 $43,304,800
Balance $0
TOTAL REVENUE
SOURCES
G: \Comprehensive \COMP PLANNING GMP DATA \Comp Plan Amendments\2009 Cycle Petitions \CPSP - 2009 -3 CIE\CCPC \l Wan 10 ADPTN 2K9 CIE tables (10- 14).bsx CIE - 22.20
Revenue
Projects Revenue Sources
Expenditure
Amount
Total
ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PROJECTS
Revenues: IF - Impact Fees / COA Revenue
$67,500,000
GA - Gas Tax Revenue
$86,898,000
GR - Grants / Reimbursements
$54,841,000
CF - Garry Forward
$27,669,000
TR - Transfers
$0
GF - General Fund
$67,055,000
DC - Developer Contribution Agreements / Advanced Reimbursements
$5,250,000
IN - Interest Revenue
$10,680,000
LOC - Short Term Loan Commercial Paper
$0
RR - Revenue Reserve
- $1,962,000
$317,931,000
Less Expenditures:
$317,931,000
$317,931,000
Balance
$0
POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS
Revenues: WIF - Water System Development Fees /Impact Fees
$9,660,000
B1 - Series 2006 Bonds
$0
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues
$4,140,000
B3 - Series 2010 Bonds
$0
LOC - Commercial Paper 1
$0
SRF5 - SRF Loan 5
$0
SRF6 - SRF Loan 6
$3,000,000
WCA - Water Capital Account
$55,930,000
REV -Rate Revenue
$41,100,000
$113,830,000
Less Expenditures:
$113,830,000
$113,830,000
Balance
$0
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS
Revenues: SIF - Wastewater System Development Fees/impact Fees
$9,660,000
B1 - Series 2006 Bonds
$0
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues
$1,280,000
B3 - Series 2010 Bonds
$0
SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans
$0
LOC - Commercial Paper, Additional Senior Lien
$0
SCA - Wastewater Capital Account, Transfers
$91,540,000
REV - Rate Revenue
$50,860,000
$153,340,000
Less Expenditures:
$153,340,000
$153,340,000
Balance
$0
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECTS
Revenues: LTF - Landfill Tipping Fees $6,820,000 $6,820,000
Less Expenditures: $6,820,000 $6,820,000
Balance $0
PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECTS
Revenues: IF - Impact Fees
GR - Grants / Reimbursements
GF - General Fund
Less Expenditures:
Revenues:
GR - Grants / Reimbursements
CF - Carry Forward
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues
GF - General Fund
Less Expenditures:
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0
$10,000,000
$1,358,900
- $100,000
$32,045,900 $43,304,800
$43,304,800 $43,304,800
Balance $0
TOTAL REVENUE
SOURCES
G: \Comprehensive \COMP PLANNING GMP DATA \Comp Plan Amendments\2009 Cycle Petitions \CPSP - 2009 -3 CIE\CCPC \l Wan 10 ADPTN 2K9 CIE tables (10- 14).bsx CIE - 22.20
TRANSPORTATION FUND
313 ROADS CAPT
313 ROADS CAPT
TRANSPORTATION AD VALOREM REVENUES FV10
GENERAL
FUND/
FUND
MSTD PROGRAM
001
111 TOTAL
18,554,800
(14,633,000)
3,921,800
3,921,800
101 TRANSP OPS 7,935,400 8,786,900 16,722,300
111 MSTD ROAD OPS 6,399,100
111 MSTD LANDSCAPE OPS 5,090,100 11,489,200
OPERATING & MAINT FUND 101/111 7,935,400 20,276,100 28,211,500
REDUCTION OPTIONS
11% 15% 20%
(431,398) (588,270) (784,360)
(3,103,265) (4,231,725) (5,642,300)
DIVISION WIDE AD VALOREM 32,133,300 (3,534,663) (4,819,995) (6,426,660)
APPENDIX H
FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY TABLE
FISCAL YEARS 2015 -2019
The table below itemizes the types of public facilities and the sources of revenue. The "Revenue Amount' column contains the 5 -Year amount of facility
revenues. The right column is a calculation of expenses versus revenues for each type of public facility. All deficits are accumulated as a subtotal. The
subtotal deficit is the source of additional revenue utilized by Collier County to fund the deficit in order to maintain the levels of service standards as
referenced in the Capital Improvement Element.
Revenue
Projects Revenue Sources Expenditure Amount Total
ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PROJECTS
Revenues: IF - Impact Fees / COA Revenue
$75,000,000
GA - Gas Tax Revenue
$85,000,000
GR - Grants / Reimbursements
$0
CF - Carry Forward
$0
TR - Transfers
$0
GF - General Fund
$75,125,000
DC - Developer Contribution Agreements / Advanced Reimbursements
$0
LOC - Short Term Loan Commercial Paper
$0
RR - Revenue Reserve
$0
IN - Interest $5,000,000 $240,125,000
Less Expenditures: $240,125,000 $240,125,000
Balance $0
POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS
Revenues: WIF - Water System Development Fees $11,470,000
$4,650,000
WCA- Water Capital Account $48,630,000
REV- Rate Revenue $58,530,000 $123,280,000
Less Expenditures: $123,280,000 $123,280,000
Balance $0
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS
Revenues: SIF - Wastewater System Development Fees $11,460,000
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues $730,000
SCA - Wastewater Capital Account $99,700,000
REV - Rate Revenue $42,850,000 $154,740,000
Less Expenditures: $154,740,000 $154,740,000
Balance $0
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECTS
Revenues: LTF - Landfill Tipping Fees
Less Expenditures:
PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECTS
$0 $0
$0 $0
Balance $0
Revenues: IF - Impact Fees $0
GR - Grants / Reimbursements $0
GF - General Fund $0 $0
Less Expenditures: $0 $0
Balance $0
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS
Revenues:
GR - Grants / Reimbursements $0
CF - Carry Forward $0
CRA - Community Redevelopment Area/Municipal Service Taxing Unit $0
GF - General Fund $43,287,500 $43,287,500
Less Expenditures: $43,287,500 $43,287,500
Balance $0
TOTAL REVENUE
OTAL PROJECTS
$561,432,500 SOURCES $561,432,50
G:1C=prehensive \C0MP PLANNING GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\2009 Cycle Petifiws%CPSP- 2009 -3 CIE\CCPCN 1 Jan 10 ADPTN 2K9 CIE tables (15- 19),Asx
Capital Improvement Element - Appendix Table: 2009 Amendments APPENDIX H ADOPTION VERSION
FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY
FISCAL YEARS 2015 -2019
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECTS
FY 2015 FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
CONSTRUCTION
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
CIE #
PROJECT
REVENUE TOTAL
SCHEDULE NOTES
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
TOTAL
TBD
County Landfill Cell Construction
0
0
$0
0
0
$0
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECT TOTALS
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
REVENUE KEY - REVENUE SOURCE
FY 2015 FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
TOTAL
LTF - Landfill Tipping Fees *
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
REVENUE TOTAL
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
* Pursuant to the Landfill Operating Agreement (LOA) with Waste Management, Inc. of Florida (WMIF),
landfill cell construction is scheduled and guaranteed by WMIF over the life of the Collier County Landfill.
Collier County landfill expansion costs are paid for by WMIF through agreed upon Collier County landfill
tipping fees. By contract under the LOA, WMIF will construct any future required cells. Landfill cells vary
in size and disposal capacity; therefore cells constructed from FY 10 to FY 13 are substantial enough to
not require new cell construction from FY 14 to FY 19.
NOTE: Collier County has adopted a two -year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for
years three, four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency
Management System but must be financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an alternative
revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not realized. Figures provided for years six through
ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of revenues versus project costs but do not
constitute a long term concurrency system.
WComprehensive \COMP PLANNING GMP DATA \Comp Plan Amendments\2009 Cycle Petitions \CPSP - 2009 -3 CIE\CCPC \11 Jan to ADPTN 2K9 CIE tables (15- 19).)dsx CIE - 5
Capital Improvement Element - Appendix Table: 2009 Amendments APPENDIX H
FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY
FISCAL YEARS 2015 - 2019
ADOPTION VERSION
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS
I FY 2015
1 FY 2016
CONSTRUCTION
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
$ AMOUNT
CIE #
PROJECT
SCHEDULE NOTES
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
TOTAL
$18,070,000
Expansion Related Projects - Other
$17,910,000
$10,140,000
$10,140,000
$10,140,000
$15,900,000
$15,900,000
$62,220,000
$8,030,000
Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects - Other
$9,380,000
$8,030,000
$8,030,000
$8,030,000
$9,380,000
$9,380,000
$42,850,000
$34,140,000
De art mental Capital
$1,160,000
$1,160,000
$1,160,000
$1,160,000
$1,160,000
$5,800,000
Debt Service CAFR
$9,040,000
$9,040,000
$9,040,000
$9,040,000
$7,710,000
$43,870,000
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECT TOTALS
$28,376000
$28,370,000
$28,370,000
$35,480,000
$34,150,000
$154,740,000
REVENUE KEY - REVENUESOURCE
I FY 2015
1 FY 2016
1 FY 2017 1 FY 2018 1 FY 2019 1 TOTAL
SIF - Wastewater System Development Fees / Impact Fees
$2,140,000
$2,210,000
$2,290,000
$2,370,000
$2,450,000
1 $11,460,000
RR - Operating Reserve Revenues
$140,000
$140,000
$140,000
$160,000
$150,000
$730,000
SCA - Wastewater Capital Account - Transfers
$18,070,000
$17,990,000
$17,910,000
$23,570,000
$22,160,000
$99,700,000
REV - Rate Revenue
$8,030,000
$8,030,000
$8,030,000
$9,380,000
$9,380,000
$42,850,000
REVENUE TOTAL
$28,380,000
$28,370,000
$28,370,000
$35,480,000
$34,140,000
$154,740,000
NOTE: Collier County has adopted a two -year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years
three, four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency Management
System but must be financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an alternative revenue source if the
dedicated revenue source is not realized. Figures provided for years six through ten of the Schedule of Capital
Improvements are estimates of revenues versus project costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency
system.
GAComprehensive \COMP PLANNING GMP DATA \Comp Plan Amendments12009 Cycle Petitions \CPSP - 2009 -3 CIE\CCPC \71 Jan 10 ADPTN 2K9 CIE tables (15- 19).xlsx CIE - 6
12/23101
EXPENSES
60092 Collier Blvd (Davis to N of GG Main Canal)
60101 County Barn Road /Davis - CR864
60168 Vanderbilt Beach Rd /Collier Blvd - Wilson
62081B SBB - Copperleaf to Green
68056
Collier Blvd (GGB to Green)
68056B
Collier Blvd (Green Blvd to E GG Canal)
60040
Golden Gate Blvd /Wilson E to Desoto
60065
Randall Blvd
60020
Wilson Blvd (GGB - Immk Rd)
60106
Northbrooke Widen ing /Valewood Ext.
60073
Davis Boulevard - Collier - Radio
60060 175 Interchange @ Everglades
60116 US41 /SR 951 Intersection /Resurfacing
RESERVES
OPERATION IMPROVEMENTS
COLLECTOR RD / MINOR ARTERIAL RD
REVENUES
IMPACT FEES
GAS TAX
GENERAL FUND
INTEREST
11%
CIE CHANGES FROM 2009 TO 2010
15%
20%
INCREASED BY $9,300 FROM FY11 -FY14 LARGELY DUE TO ENHANCED RESURF NEEDS
PATHWAYS UNDERFUNDED FY13-$1,01.'_)/FY14-$3,216 (PREVIOUSLY AT $2,000 IN 2009 FOR OUTER FOUR YEARS, NOW AT $1,825)
ADVANCED ROW REDUCED BY $6,200
INCREASE DUE TO SIB LOAN PAYBACK $12,800
REDUCED $79,500 OR 54%
REDUCED $17,700 OR 17%
DIVISION WIDE REDUCED 11% (001 AND 111 AD VALOREM) DIVISION WIDE REDUCED 15% (001 AND 111 AD VALOREM) DIVISION WIDE REDUCED 20% (001 AND 111 AD VALOREM)
FY10 CHANGE, INDIVIDUAL FUNDS RECEIVE INTEREST, GF TRANSFER REDUCED
ROW FY10 -FY14 REDUCED BY $18,900
ROW FY10 -FY14 REDUCED BY $18,900
ROW REDUCED $20,300
NO CHANGE
CONSTRUCTION IN FY14 REMOVED $17,800
CONSTRUCTION IN FY14 REMOVED $17,800
CONSTRUCTION PUSHED OUT FROM FY12 TO FY14 $27,200 TIED
TO TRIP FUNDING OF $8,400
CONSTRUCTION PUSHED OUT FROM FY12 TO FY14 $27,200 TIED
TO TRIP FUNDING OF $8,400
CONSTRUCTION PUSHED OUT FROM FY12 TO FY14 $27,200 TIED
TO TRIP FUNDING OF $8,400
CONSTRUCTION IN FY13 REMOVED $27,000
CONSTRUCTION IN FY13 REMOVED $27,000
CONSTRUCTION IN FY13 REMOVED $27,000
CONSTRUCTION IN FY13 REMOVED $38,100
CONSTRUCTION IN FY13 REMOVED $38,100
CONSTRUCTION IN FY13 REMOVED $38,100
REMOVED ROW IN FY10 $1,544
REMOVED ROW IN FY10 $1,544
REMOVED ROW IN FY10 $1,544
REMOVED ROW IN FY11 TO FY13 $12,940
REMOVED ROW IN FY11 TO FY13 $12,940
REMOVED ROW IN FY11 TO FY13 $12,940
CONSTRUCTION IN FY09 REMOVED $4,400
CONSTRUCTION IN FY09 REMOVED $4,400
CONSTRUCTION IN FY09 REMOVED $4,400
C /CEI REDUCED BY $5,000
C /CEI REDUCED BY $5,000
C /CEI REDUCED BY $5,000
ADDED PROJECT (FY13), DCA- $8250/FDOT- $8358/CIGP -$3165
ADDED PROJECT (FY13), DCA - $8250 /FDOT- $8358/CIGP -$3165
ADDED PROJECT (FY13), DCA- $8250/FDOT- $8358/CIGP -$3165
UNDERFUNDED - ONLY 1.2% AVG
FUNDED AT 4%
FUNDED AT 5%
INCREASED BY $9,300 FROM FY11 -FY14 LARGELY DUE TO ENHANCED RESURF NEEDS
PATHWAYS UNDERFUNDED FY13-$1,01.'_)/FY14-$3,216 (PREVIOUSLY AT $2,000 IN 2009 FOR OUTER FOUR YEARS, NOW AT $1,825)
ADVANCED ROW REDUCED BY $6,200
INCREASE DUE TO SIB LOAN PAYBACK $12,800
REDUCED $79,500 OR 54%
REDUCED $17,700 OR 17%
DIVISION WIDE REDUCED 11% (001 AND 111 AD VALOREM) DIVISION WIDE REDUCED 15% (001 AND 111 AD VALOREM) DIVISION WIDE REDUCED 20% (001 AND 111 AD VALOREM)
FY10 CHANGE, INDIVIDUAL FUNDS RECEIVE INTEREST, GF TRANSFER REDUCED
MEMORANDUM
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
To: Collier County Planning Commission
From: Susan M. Istenes, AICP
Date: January 21, 2010
Subject: Transmittal memo for minutes and staff analysis per December 22,
2009 memo
The following staff reports items and minutes should be added to your agenda packet in the
order indicated below.
Staff analysis for private petitions:
1. Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay AR- 14280 — begins on page 34.
Add the attached report after page 43.
2. Used Merchandise Stores and Industrial zoning PL- 2009 -338 — begins on page 56.
Add the attached report after page 58.
3. C -5 Zoning district and SIC Code 3841 PL- 2009 -491 - begins on page 59.
Add the attached report after page 68.
4. Density for timeshare units in RT zoning PL- 2009 -467 — begins on page 69.
Add the attached report after page 76.
BCC Minutes:
There is one set of minutes for two different amendments. The hearings were held
concurrently and if read together it will help you frame the scenario and information the Board
considered when they directed both of the amendments to the LDC.
1. 1.08.02 Definitions — re corner lot measurement —begins on page 80.
The majority of information pertaining to Board direction begins on page 165 of the
attached minutes.
2. 10.02.02. Lot Line Adjustments re chord methodology — begins on page 193
The majority of information pertaining to Board direction is contained on pages 160-
164.
If you have any questions or need any assistance please feel free to contact me at (239)
252 -2464.
FOLLOWING THIS PAGE IS THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE PRIVATE
PETITION LDCA- 2009- AR -14280 VANDERBILT BEACH
RESIDENTIAL TOURIST OVERLAY.
PLEASE READ THEN INSERT THIS STAFF MEMO INTO YOUR
BINDER BEHIND PAGE 43
MEMORANDUM
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
To: Collier County Planning Commission
From: Susan M. Istenes, AICP
Date: January 13, 2010
Subject: Staff Comments on Private Petition LDCA 2009 AR 14280
Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay
Staff has completed its review of the above referenced private petition and offer the following
comments /recommendation.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency Analysis: The amendments as proposed are consistent
with the County's Growth Management Plan.
Zoning Analysis:
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist
Overlay District (VBRTO) as follows:
1. Adding text for clarification purposes as it relates to processes and procedures
(2.03.07.L.1. ).
Staff comment: Staff recommends the applicant add the words "and the Gulf of
Mexico" to the end of the paragraph to read as follows: ... right of way, and
assure reasonable use and access to Vanderbilt Lagoon and the Gulf of Mexico.
2. Adding text for clarification purposes to ensure that the overlay development criteria
and proposed procedures apply to both development and redevelopment.
(2.03.07.L.2.).
Staff comment: No comments.
nma
3. Removing the ability to have a multi -slip docking facility greater than 10 slips as a use
permitted by right (2.03.07.L.5.b.iii.). These types of facilities would be allowed via
the conditional use process (see number 5 below).
Staff comment: No comments.
4. Require notice to be provided to the Vanderbilt Beach Resident's Association for ALL
multi -slip docking facilities (docks containing greater than 1 slip) (2.03.07.L.5.b.iii.).
Staff comment: Staff recommends the notice provisions be limited to those required
through the proposed requirement for a conditional use for facilities greater than 10
slips. As currently worded, this amendment would require that any property owner
proposing to construct more than one slip on their property, to provide notice. Staff
believes this is unnecessarily burdensome and it is unclear as to what purpose this
will serve. As an alternative, perhaps the property owner could post their property
with some type of temporary signage giving notice, upon submittal of an application
for a development order for a multi -slip dock.
Add a new land use to the list of uses requiring conditional use approval specifically
for multi -slip docking facilities that have more than 10 slips (2.03.07.L.5.c.iii.).
Staff comment: Staff has no issue with requiring the approval of a multi -slip
docking facility to be obtained through the conditional use process. Section
10.02.02.4.h.i requires that for multi -slip docking facilities with ten slips or more,
and for all marina facilities, the applicant's development plan is required to show
how the project is consistent with the marina siting requirements and other criteria
in the Manatee Protection Plan. The applicant's proposal is inconsistent with
10.02.02.4.h.i. which imposes the requirements for facilities with 10 or more slips (the
applicant's proposal is for more than 10 slips). Staff recommends a modification to
the proposed amendment to require conditional use approval for facilities with 10 or
more slips (rather than more than 10) to be consistent with the intent and
requirements set forth in section 10.02.02.4.h.i. and to eliminate confusion as to when
the requirements of this section apply.
6. Add a reference to require review under the criteria set forth in section 5.05.02.
Marina's (5.05.02 is currently only applicable to multi -slip docking facilities with ten
slips or more and all marina facilities). As proposed by the applicant, these criteria will
now be applicable to multi -slip facilities for greater than 10 slips and noncommercial
boat launching facilities (2.03.07. L.5.c.iii).
Staff comment: Section 10.02.02.4.h.i requires that for multi -slip docking facilities
with ten slips or more, and for all marina facilities, the applicant's development plan
is required to show how the project is consistent with the marina siting requirements
and other criteria in the Manatee Protection Plan. The applicant's proposal is
inconsistent with 10.02.02.4.h.i. which imposes the requirements for facilities with 10
or more slips (the applicant's proposal is for more than 10 slips). Staff recommends
a modification to the proposed amendment to require conditional use approval for
435
facilities with 10 or more slips (rather than more than 10) to be consistent with the
intent and requirements set forth in section 10.02.02.4.h.i. and to eliminate confusion
as to when the requirements of this section apply.
7. Require the applicant to provide notice to the Vanderbilt Beach Resident's Association
at the time of application to the County for a Site Development plan or site
improvement plan review (2.03.07.L.5.d.).
Staff comment: Staff supports the apparent desire of the Community to enhance
their awareness of any proposed development or redevelopment within the VBRTO.
Site plan review is a County administrative review and approval process and
theoretically the proposed required notice will provide the Vanderbilt community
enhanced awareness of potential development and will likely provide the opportunity
for affected parties to file a timely appeal to the administrative approval of a site
plan should they so desire. The burden to provide the notice will be placed upon the
applicant and requires the County staff to monitor compliance of the requirement to
provide the notice, which is acceptable to staff. The County will have to amend its
administrative procedures to determine specifically how notification and proof
thereof is to be provided. Staff also recommends that the requirement to provide
notification by the applicant is noted simply as a courtesy that the applicant is
willing to provide but further clarifying that any errors or omissions with this
requirement either on the part of the County or the applicants or the recipients shall
not delay the review process nor shall it automatically cause the County's
determination of approval of a site plan to be in error or invalid.
8. Disallow certain encroachments into setbacks (portions of structures and their
allowable dimensions as noted in 4.02.01. D. 4. through 8., and 10 are no longer
acceptable encroachments). (2.03.07.L.6.c).
Staff comments: There are practical difficulties and the potential to create non-
conforming situations with disallowing encroachments that have been historically
permissible. In effect, the proposal to remove the ability to encroach into yard
requirements with these types of building attributes (awnings, architectural/design
treatments, bay windows, pilasters, balconies, stairways, etc.) is simply reducing the
yard requirements by the greatest amount of the allowable encroachment. This will
potentially result in buildings with less architectural features and /or functionally
obsolescent features such as roof overhangs, decks and balconies. It may further
reduce the volume (habitable or useable space) of a structure. Most of these features
that encroach are non - structural and /or are not substantive structures and their
allowable encroachments, which range from 12 inches to 5 feet, are not significantly
discernable to the eye, in the opinion of staff. Furthermore, the original Vanderbilt
Beach Overlay was drafted in accordance with a Planning study the conclusion of
which resulted in the current development standards included in the Overlay. Staff
is not aware of additional planning studies nor has any data and analysis been
presented regarding this proposal that would justify a reduction. As proposed, staff
recommends disapproval of this specific portion of the proposed amendment.
3 4-3C-
9. Clarify that the measurement of required yards is based on upon building zoned
building height (rather than actual height). This clarifies current staff practice.
(2.03.07.L.6.c.i., ii., iii.)
Staff comment: 6.c.i.,ii.,iii. — no comment. This clarifies staffs current practice.
10. Reduce the allowable building height from 75 feet zoned building height to 75 feet
Actual building height (disallowing those structural components that may exceed the
actual building height measurements by those distances defined in the LDC under the
definition of actual building height.) (2.03.07.L.6.d)
Staff comment: There are practical difficulties and the potential to create non-
conforming situations with disallowing encroachments that have been historically
allowed. In effect the removal of the ability to encroach with these types of building
attributes is simply reducing the building height allowances by the greatest amount
of the allowable encroachment. This will result in buildings with less architectural
features and /or functionally obsolescent features. It may further reduce the volume
of a structure then application of the current ordinance would allow. Furthermore,
the original Vanderbilt Beach Overlay was drafted in accordance with a Planning
study the conclusion of which resulted in the current development standards
included in the Overlay. Staff is not aware of additional planning studies nor has
any data and analysis been presented regarding this proposal that would justify a
reduction therefore staff is not supportive of this portion of the amendment. Should
the Board opt to approve this change staff recommends the following wording
modification. 6.d.: Reword to read as follows: d. Maximum height: 75 feet actual
building height (as defined). This will eliminate the conflict between the words
Maximum and Zoned height in the proposed amendments (the zoned height does not
represent the maximum height of the building, only the Actual height does.
11. Amend the "distance between structures requirement." 2.03.07.L.6.f by removing the
reference to section 4.02.01 for dimensional regulations applicable to accessory
structures and instead requiring a 15- foot separation between accessory structures. For
Principal structures requiring a minimum separation equivalent to one -half the sum of
their zoned building heights and eliminating the option to have a fifteen foot
separation as a minimum separation distance; excluding structures for essential
services from those same requirements; reference to 4.02.01.D.4. — 8 and 10;
correcting an existing incorrect reference to 4.02.01. to correctly reference 4.02.03.;
adding language to provide guidance in case of a conflict. (2.03.07.L.6.f)
Staff comment: The proposal does not address the distance between structures
requirement for an accessory structure- to- principal structure relationship (it
addresses accessory- to- accessory and principal- to- principal). The proposed
sentence "except that for all buildings, the provisions of section 4.02.01.D.4. through 8.,
and 10., will not be applicable" is not necessary here. The distance between
structures is a structure to structure relationship as a function of building height and
doesn't take into account allowable encroachments into yard requirements. The last
proposed sentence "except that in the event of any conflict between these provisions,
4 $3l�
the more restrictive will apply" doesn't make sense in the context of the proposed
changes. The amendment to the section reference 4.02.01 to change it to 4.02.03 is
acceptable to staff (corrects a previous error). Staff isn't sure what the applicant is
trying to change here therefore the proposal will need to be discussed further before
a staff recommendation can be made.
12. Modify the Vested Rights provisions to require that all applications submitted after the
adoption of the VBRTO provisions shall be subject to the VBRTO provisions in effect
at the time the application was deemed to be complete. (2.03.13).
Staff comment: No comment.
Additional comments:
1.Although not stated in this section of the ordinance it is important to note that development
and redevelopment for any reason may be subject to other applicable standards of the Land
Development Code (not solely limited to the development standards in the VBRTO) including
but not limited to regulations related to non - conformities, buildback regulations /policies and
interpretations. Therefore the expectation, should it exist, that the overlay regulations are the
only governing development standards may not necessarily be correct.
2. Re 2.03.071.6. Reword as follows:
6. Dimensional standards. The following dimensional standards shall apply to all permitted,
accessory and conditional uses structures in the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay
District ( VBRTO).
3. Re 2.03.071.6.c. Minimum yard requirements. The following wording that is proposed to
be added (specifically including ramps for parkingfacilities ... ) is unclear to staff when
used in the proposed context as to the intent of the regulatory change. There are two issues.
The first, the text "ramps for parking facilities" likely would be viewed by staff as a ramp
structure that is part of a parking garage. However staff's understanding of a previously
related issue had to do with the location of an elevated driveway (that was sometimes referred
to as a ramp) and its required setback. At issue at the time was the proper way to calculate the
required setback for the elevated driveway. Normally driveways aren't considered structures
but in this case a portion of the driveway was elevated and met the definition of a structure.
When using height of a structure to determine required setbacks (i.e 'h the building height; %2
the sum of the building heights, etc.) the height is typically taken from the subject structure
from which one is attempting to apply a setback. For instance if the setback requirement for a
principal structure and an accessory structure were required to be one -half the sum of their
heights then each respective height would be taken and the setback would be applied
accordingly. For example, one -half the height of a principal structure that was 100 feet tall is
50 feet which means a 50 foot setback is required for the principal structure. One -half the
height of an accessory structure that was 50 feet tall means a 25 foot setback is required for
the accessory structure. It was staff s understanding that the Community expected that the
same setback would be applied to any structure be it a principal or accessory structure and that
the required setback would be measured from the principal structures (assuming that was the
4-3 E
tallest building). The proposed amendment does not address that issue /concern and there is
ambiguity as to the meaning and intent of the above referenced wording regarding a ramp.
4. Add the following to 2.03.07.L.5.d.: Failure to provide proper or correct notice by the
applicant or the County shall not cause a delay to the review of a site plan application by the
County nor shall it cause a change in status to an already approved site plan.
5. The deletion and addition of uses to the list of permitted and conditional land uses as
proposed (for multi slip docking facilities) require hearings which meet the time and notice
requirements of section 10.03.05.E. of the Land Development Code.
/+3 F
FOLLOWING THIS PAGE IS THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE PRIVATE
PETITION LDCA- 2009 - AR- 338 USED MERCHANDISE STORES AND
INDUSTRIAL ZONING.
PLEASE READ THEN INSERT THIS STAFF MEMO INTO YOUR
BINDER BEHIND PAGE 58.
MEMORANDUM
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
To: Collier County Planning Commission
From: Susan M. Istenes, AICP
Date: January 19, 2010
Subject: Staff Comments on Private Petition PL- 2009 -338 Used
Merchandise Stores and Industrial zoning
Staff has completed its review of the above referenced private petition and offers the
following comments and recommendations.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency Analysis:
The applicant is proposing a Land Development Code amendment to allow used merchandise
stores (SIC 5932) as a permitted use in the Industrial zoning district. This classification
includes stores engaged in the retail sale of used merchandise, antiques and secondhand
goods.
The industrial land use district is reserved primarily for industrial type uses and comprises
approximately 2,200 acres. Besides basic industrial uses, limited commercial uses are
permitted. Retail commercial uses are prohibited, except as accessory to industrial or business
park uses. Intensities of use shall be those related to:
a. Manufacturing;
b. Processing;
c. Storage and warehousing;
d. Wholesaling;
e. Distribution;
f. High technology;
g. Laboratories;
h. Assembly;
i. Computer and data processing;
Business services;
I
k. Other basic industrial uses as described in the Industrial Zoning District of the Land
Development Code;
1. Business Park uses as discussed below and as described in the Business Park Zoning
District of the Land Development Code; and
m. Support commercial uses, such as child care centers and restaurants.
There are two subdistricts that also allow industrial land uses:
1. Business Park Subdistrict
The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non-
industrial uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment with low structural density
where building coverage ranges between 25 percent to 45 percent and landscaped areas
provide for buffering and enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the Park. Business Parks
shall be allowed as a Subdistrict in the Urban Industrial District subject to the criteria set forth
under the Business Park Subdistrict in the Urban-Mixed Use District.
2. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict
The Research and Technology Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of targeted
industry uses - aviation/aerospace industry, health technology industry, information
technology industry, and light, low environmental impact manufacturing industry - and non-
industrial uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment where landscaped areas,
outdoor spaces and internal interconnectivity provide for buffering, usable open space, and a
network of pathways for the enjoyment of the employees, residents and patrons of the park.
Research and Technology Parks shall be allowed as a subdistrict in the Urban - Industrial
District subject to the criteria set forth under the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict in
the Urban Mixed Use District.
In conclusion, the amendment proposes to allow retail sales as a stand -alone use (not as a
support service or an accessory use) in the industrial zoning district. The proposed amendment
does not meet the purpose and intent of the Industrial zoning district nor could it be classified
as a support or accessory use to industrial land uses. The proposed amendment, allowing
retail land uses as a permitted use in the Industrial zoning district is inconsistent with the
Growth Management Plan.
Zoning Analysis:
The applicant, who has an existing retail commercial business that is currently unlawfully
located in an Industrial zoning district, appears to be pursuing this amendment for a specific
property; the Homer Helter's Antiques and Military Mall located at 5510 Shirley Street. The
subject property has a future land use designation of Urban Industrial and the property is
located in the Industrial zoning district. Amending the Industrial zoning district as proposed,
would remove the unlawful use issue associated with this address, however it would open up
the ability to allow a structure comprised of 100 percent retail sales of used merchandise (SIC
5932) as a principal, permissible use anywhere in the County with an industrial zoning
designation. The Industrial zoning district currently allows retail sales as an accessory use to
industrial land uses allowed by right. Accessory sales are limited to 20 percent of the gross
floor area of the permitted principal use. These limited retail commercial components are also
subject to retail standards for landscaping, parking and open space. The purpose of the
allowance is to provide a limited opportunity for the industrial business owners to showcase
the products they produce, assemble, and manufacture to the end user of the production
process.
Commercial building vacancy rates (located in commercial zoning districts) are currently
relatively high. Lands with a zoning designation allowing for industrial uses; and
manufacturing and industrial facilities are important for the creation and preservation of good,
high paying jobs, for a wide variety of skill- levels and occupations. It is important that Collier
County protect large, contiguous areas zoned exclusively for manufacturing and industrial
uses since some manufacturing businesses utilize large quantities or particularly dangerous
types of hazardous materials, or operate in a manner that would create excessive noise, dust,
traffic or other nuisance conditions not compatible with other uses. Once an industrial area has
been broken up by non - industrial uses, significant limits on future industrial and
manufacturing occupancies may result as unintended consequences. Therefore, it is important
that existing contiguous industrial or manufacturing areas be safeguarded. Adequate industrial
zoning districts provide the opportunity to create well - paying manufacturing jobs and offer
affordable space for industrial entrepreneurs. The presence of industrial zoning provides for
diversification and value added benefits in the community. In manufacturing, the value added
represents the difference between the cost of raw materials and the value of the final good due
to how the materials have been transformed (for example, pieces of wood and metal worth a
couple of hundred dollars are worth thousands when they are made into custom furniture,
etc.). The good part is that high value -added businesses generally lead to higher wages
because the workers are the ones adding a good share of that value to the end product.
Maintaining the integrity of the Industrial zoning district offers protection of existing
manufacturing and industrial operations from the encroachment of incompatible non-
industrial land uses and occupancies that might impede ordinary business operations. The
future economic viability of industrial enterprises will be compromised if retail land uses are
permitted in the industrial zoning district; non - industrial land uses can easily price out
industrial land uses such as manufacturing.
Comparability: The proposed commercial retail land use is not comparable to those uses
permitted by right in the Industrial zoning district. There are commercial land uses that are
permissible in the Industrial zoning district that aren't related to manufacturing, processing,
wholesaling, etc. that are intended to serve the employees and users of the
business /employment services in the Industrial zoning district, specifically eating places (SIC
5812 — coffee shops, lunch counters, etc) and beauty and barber shops. These have been
deemed to be consistent with the provision of the Growth Management Plan which allows
non - industrial support services as noted in the Urban Industrial subdistrict of the Growth
Management Plan. The proposed retail use is not, in staffs opinion, a support service
comparable to the overriding intent of the Industrial zoning district, nor is the proposed use
ON
comparable to those uses permissible by right, which are non - retail land comprised of uses
related to wholesaling, manufacturing and production, construction and storage. Therefore, it
is staffs opinion that the proposed retail use cannot be comparable to the uses currently
permitted by right in the Industrial zoning district.
Compatibility: A zoning code is a collection of regulations established to promote
compatible patterns of land use within the County. The County has one industrial zoning
classification which encompasses a wide range of industrial uses ranging in intensity from
those "clean" industrial uses with minimal nuisance characteristics to heavy industrial uses
where the potential nuisance factor is the greatest. Industrial land uses often require the
outdoor storage of materials and shipping through heavy trucks, etc. Retail land uses provide
goods and services to residents within a certain trade area and in locations around major
roadways and locations able to provide adequate parking and traffic support. Retail
commercial and industrial land uses are not compatible both in their form and function, their
locational needs, their infrastructure needs and their operational characteristics, therefore the
proposed commercial land use is not compatible to those uses permitted in the Industrial
zoning district.
Conclusion: The proposed amendment will open up the Industrial zoning district to allow a
variety of retail land uses that are currently only permissible in commercial zoning districts,
thus competing with industrial land uses and generating conflicts between land uses that are
typically classified in different zoning district. The proposed commercial land use is
inconsistent with the intent of the industrial land use classification and retail sales as a
principal use is incompatible with industrial land uses; hence their typical separation within
two different zoning districts.
The proposed amendment is largely driven by the need to resolve the conflict between an
existing retail use and its present location in an Industrial zoning district which does not allow
the retail use in its present form. The tenant has several options to address this issue:
1. Seek to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan and rezone
the property to allow for commercial zoning.
2. Re- locate the business to an area that has the proper zoning designation.
3. Modify the business to comply with the 20 percent retail sales limitation in the
industrial zoning district.
4. Modify the industrial land use classification and purpose and intent of the growth
management plan to allow retail sales to an extent sufficient enough to provide
consistency between the Plan and the proposed use.
Amendment of the Industrial zoning district is required to be consistent with the Growth
Management Plan and should ensure that uses within the same district have a high degree of
comparability and compatibility. None of these attributes are present in this proposal. Staff
certainly recognizes the poor economic conditions and the impact of denying this amendment
on the tenant/business owner. Perhaps the Board would be willing to grant the applicant some
additional time to pursue any of the above suggested alternatives.
Staff recommends denial of the proposed amendment.
52 E
FOLLOWING THIS PAGE IS THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE PRIVATE
PETITION LDCA- 2009 - AR- 491 C -5 ZONING AND SIC CODE 3841
SURGICAL AND MEDICAL INSTRUMENTS.
PLEASE READ THEN INSERT THIS STAFF MEMO INTO YOUR
BINDER BEHIND PAGE 68.
MEMORANDUM
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
To: Collier County Planning Commission
From: Susan M. Istenes, AICP
Date: January 13, 2010
Subject: Staff Comments on Private Petition PL- 2009 -491- C -5 zoning
district and SIC Code 3841 surgical and medical instruments
Staff has completed its review of the above referenced private petition and offers the
following comments and recommendations.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency Analysis: The amendments as proposed are consistent
with the County's Growth Management Plan.
Zoning Analysis:
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the C -5 Heavy Commercial zoning district to
allow Surgical and Medical Instruments and Apparatus, Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) number 3841 as a permitted use in the C -5 Heavy Commercial zoning district; the C -5
zoning district is the County's most intense commercial zoning district. The specific uses
within SIC Code 3841 encompass establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
medical, surgical, ophthalmic, and veterinary instruments and apparatus, for example: surgical
clamps, corneal microscopes, surgical forceps, retractors, surgical knife blades and handles,
etc. Many of these types of businesses tend to use computer numerical controlled precision
milling and laser welding, milling and turning machines and hue employees such as skilled
machinists and programmers to operate them along with support staff (sales, administration,
supply, custodial, etc).
Comparability: There are some light industrial type of uses already permitted by right in the
C -5 zoning district of a similar nature such as commercial printing (2752, excluding
newspapers), Armature rewinding shops (7694), Dental and Medical labs electrical and
electronic repair shops ,miscellaneous repair shops and more intense land uses such as
automotive repairs including automotive body shops. Therefore, the proposed use is
comparable to many of the uses currently permitted by right in the C -5 zoning district.
trial types of land
Compatibility: The proposed uses are more closely related to light indus
use characteristics rather than commercial land use characteristics. While staff is not
advocating the creation of a light industrial zoning district it is important to recognize that
there are some industrial uses that are comparable and compatible to commercial uses
permitted by right in the C -5 zoning district. Normally these types ptes nature of what they produce
of what is generally considered clean manufacturing. Given
and what the production characteristics of these uses are, these types of uses are typically not
detrimental to the surrounding area by reason of smoke, noise, dust, odor, traffic, physical
appearance or other similar factors. In this case the activity that occurs on site is comprised of
precision manufacturing with lasers and turning machines, milling laser markers, laser
welders, electrical discharge machining, etc. Waste production is very limited and deliveries
of supplies and products are usually by light carriers such as FedEx and UPS. These types of
uses do not normally create a nuisance discernible beyond their property lines. The C -5 zoning
district is replete with allowable land uses that generally tend to utilize outdoor space in the
conduct of the business, especially those that have a need to store construction associated
equipment and supplies, although not all of the permitted uses in the C -5 zoning district
utilize outdoor storage. It is staff s opinion that precision manufacturing of medical
instruments is compatible to and appropriate in the C -5 zoning district under certain
conditions. The primary condition staff recommends is that these types of uses occur solely as
an indoor operation.
Conclusion: There have been significant technological advances in the manufacturing of
surgical and medical apparatus and overall the operational characteristics of the use can be
described as clean, quiet light manufacturing utilizing precision computerized technology.
Within the C -5 zoning district regulations there are permissible uses that are comparable to
the proposed uses and there are uses that are more intense than the proposed uses such as car
repairs and auto work and businesses which contain an outdoor storage /space element. The
proposed uses are both comparable to and compatible with those uses in the C -5 zoning
district and it is staff's opinion that the proposed SIC classification is an appropriate use for
the C -5 zoning district and recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Add the following: (Indoor onlvl after the SIC code.
2. The addition of this use to the C -5 zoning district requires that the amendment comply
with the notice and hearing requirements of 10.03.05.E. of the Collier County Land
Development Code.
•
FOLLOWING THIS PAGE IS THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE PRIVATE
PETITION PL- 2009 - AR- 467 DENSITY FOR HOTELS/MOTELS WITH
TIMESHARE UNITS IN THE RT ZONING DISTRICT.
PLEASE READ THEN INSERT THIS STAFF MEMO INTO YOUR
BINDER BEHIND PAGE 76.
MEMORANDUM
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
To: Collier County Planning Commission
From: Susan M. Istenes, AICP
Date: January 20, 2010
Subject: Staff Comments on Private Petition No. PL2009 467 Density for
hotels /motels with timeshare units in the RT zoning district.
Staff has completed its review of the above referenced private petition and offers the
following comments /recommendation.
Comprehensive Plan Consistencv Analysis: The amendments as proposed are consistent
with the County's Growth Management Plan.
Zoning Analysis:
The applicant is requesting an amendment to section 2.05.00 Density Standards to allow
multi - family structures with a time share form of ownership to be constructed at a density of
26 units per acre in the RT zoning district, provided the units meet the dimensional
requirements for a hotel/motel, otherwise the structure will have to comply with the current 16
unit per acre standard.
The petitioner is proposing an amendment to a section of the Land Development Code which
is inconsistent in its identification of and regulation of related land uses. Of the two related
land uses ( Hotel/motel and multi- family), timeshares are the only "use" the LDC regulates
based on the form of ownership. Because a timeshare unit may function as a (multi- family)
dwelling unit or as a transient lodging facility unit, the LDC should recognize and
accommodate these potentially two different uses of a timeshare unit. This situation could be
compared to the form of ownership commonly referred to as a condominium. Just as the
various residential zoning districts that allow multi - family dwelling units do not list
condominium as a permitted use (neither do the commercial or industrial districts) arguably,
the RT zoning district should not list timeshare facilities as a permitted use. The petitioner
asserts that a "timeshare plan is a form of ownership and is not a land use" and that zoning
M
codes must regulate the use "without regard to the form of ownership." Based upon the in
statutory definitions provided by the petitioner, this assertion truut simply comply with the
purposes the form of ownership is irrelevant. Any
permitted uses, permitted density, maximum building height, minimum yard requirements,
etc. of the relevant zoning district.
Staff recognizes these are existing issues within the current structure of the LDC and the
changes proposed by the applicant are, for the most part, in concert with the existing
regulatory language.
Staff comments and recommendations:
1. Regarding the proposed new definitions of timeshare estate, timeshare properly and
timeshare unit: Statutory reference will be cumbersome to the reader, is not typical and
if amended by the State could potentially cause conflict with other provisions of the
LDC. Staff recommends these not be adopted.
2. Of note, 2.05.01A. footnote number 3 is only applicable to hotel and motel uses.
However, logically, under the current regulatory structure such units should be subject
to the same size requirements as he t LDC Section 4.0(minimum/maximum , Table l oh the a of
200 square feet1500 square feet, p
petitioner has proposed. The end result is that the transient lodging units are subject to
the same size limitations, whether owned by a single entity, as a condominium or a
timeshare plan.
3. 2.O5.01.A. footnote number 4 is only applicable to residential uses and density for
lands within an Activity Center. A reference to transient lodging use – hotels, motels
and timeshare units per hotel/mote enter. I standards is not appropriate at this footnote. The
proposed new sentence and the proposed addition to the table ( "or 26 ") should not be
adopted. However, an amendment to this footnote is needed for clarification as the
first sentence does reference "timeshare." Staff recommends the following revision:
For RT zoning located inside Activity Centers as designated on the Growth
Management Plan's Future Land Use Map, residential units (including these
for- timeshare units when develo ed in accordance with and multifamily
dwelling unit standards uses) are allowed at a maximum of sixteen (16) units
per acre.
4. 2.05.0l.A. footnote number 5 is also only applicable to residential use and density, but
for lands located outside of an Activity Center. To make this o Iasi and to avoid uses,
possibility of a reader from somehow believing this applies
staff recommends the following revision:
For RT zoning not located within Activity Centers and not in existence at the
time of adoption of this LDC (October 30, 1991), residential units —are
at a density is per the density rating system up to sixteen (16) units per acre.
z 16U
5.
31
With this suggested revision along with the suggested revision to footnote number 4
pertaining to timeshare units it should be clear that the term "residential units" in
footnote number 5 would also include timeshare units as clarified in footnote number
4.
Staff recommends a related amendment to delete ,timeshare LDC2 30 in supplement
use in the RT zoning district (Section 2.03.02.E.l.a.r, page
number 5) to eliminate the reference to and regulation by a form of ownership.
This is beyond the scope of the petitioner's request and is more aligned with the
deficiencies in the current structure of the LDC as it regulates timeshares but because a
timeshare unit could potentially function as two different types of units /two different
land uses (residential or commercial) it is appropriate to include in the amendment a
provision (s) that accounts for, and regulates the different use of timeshare units and/or
simply classify them as transient lodging facilities and treat timeshares as
hotels /motels.
Of note, Timeshare land uses are also referenced in the Vanderbilt Beach Residential
Tourist Overlay District ( VBRTO) and any amendments related to timeshare may
necessitate concurrent amendments to the VBRTO to ensure consistency.
-7 (0C,
FOLLOWING THIS PAGE ARE THE BOARD MINUTES FOR TWO
DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS. THE FIRST BEGINS ON PAGE 80 AND
THE SECOND BEGINS ON PAGE 193.
PLEASE SEE TRANSMITTAL MEMO FOR DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS.
PLEASE READ THEN INSERT THESE MINUTES AFTER ONE OF THE
TWO ABOVE REFERENCED AMENDMENTS.
March 10, 2009
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, March 10, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala
Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Sue Filson, Executive Manager to the BCC
Page 1
March 10, 2009
you're talking about. One of the things you have the opportunity to do
is to go out, and based on that program, buy foreclosed homes.
So Marcy will bring that item to you at the next meeting, if she
can get all her stuff together. But that's what we're planning on the
24th. And then Mr. Barlow, no doubt, can be a speaker on that
particular item, and his ideas are always welcome.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we can give him more than three
minutes on that item because this is an excellent idea, and I'd love to
see some of that money going just for that. I'm sorry I had to cut you
off, but we're way over time.
MR. BARLOW: I understand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We'll give him ten minutes on the
public petition and then some.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much. We'll
Item #7A
RESOLUTION 2009 -60: ADA- 2007 -AR- 12312, S. MELISSA
ROSS TRUST, REPRESENTED BY CHEFFY, PASSIDOMO,
WILSON & JOHNSON, LLP, REQUESTING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REGARDING THE DECISION OF
THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON
LOT 28 IN THE OLDE CYPRESS PUD, APPLICATION
NUMBER LLA- 2007 -AR- 12140. THE APPLICANT IS
APPEALING THE DECISION PURSUANT TO SECTION NO.
250 -58 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODES OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES - APPROVING APPEAL CITING
INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
— ADOPTED
Page 117
March 10, 2009
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2009 -61: ADA- 2007 -AR- 12313, S. MELISSA
ROSS TRUST, REPRESENTED BY CHEFFY, PASSIDOMO,
WILSON & JOHNSON, LLP, REQUESTING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PURSUANT TO THE ISSUANCE
OF THE STAFF CLARIFICATION NUMBER SC -07 -02
PURSUANT TO SECTION NO. 250 -58 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. THE
APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
REGARDING THE STAFF CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE
MEASUREMENT OF A FRONT YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENT ON A CUL -DE -SAC LOT FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON LOT 28 IN THE OLDE CYPRESS PUD -
APPROVING APPEAL — ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 7A and 7B, and I'm going to try to read them both. And I
believe you're going to, based on your county attorney's suggestion in
a memo that he sent to you, do both of these items at the same time
and do separate votes for each as you have done before on items when
they are pretty similar.
First item is 7A. This item requires that all participants be sworn
in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's ADA- 2007 -AR- 12312, south (sic) Melissa Ross -- excuse me.
S., not south -- S. Melissa Ross Trust, represented by Cheffy,
Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, LLP, requesting an administrative
appeal regarding the decision of the lot line adjustment for property
located at Lot 28 in the Olde Cypress PUD, application number
LLA- 2007 -AR- 12140.
The applicant is appealing the decision pursuant to section
number 250 -58 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances.
Page 118
March 10, 2009
Next item, 7B. This item, again, requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
It's ADA- 2007 -AR- 12313, S. Melissa Ross Trust, represented by
Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, LLP, requesting an
administrative appeal pursuant to issuance of the staff clarification
number SC- 07 -02, pursuant to section number 250 -58 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
The applicant is requesting an administrative appeal regarding
the staff clarification regarding the measurement of a front yard
setback requirement on a cul -de -sac lot for property located, again, at
Lot 28 in the Olde Cypress PUD.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And now, Commissioners,
we -- for declarations of ex parte, we'll start with you, Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Madam Chair, in addition to
all of the meetings that I have had when this was heard before in 2007
and 2008, I have also had recent meetings just yesterday with Clay
Brooker, Melissa Showalter, Carol Kolflat, and that applies on both of
these petitions, as a matter of fact.
And I have also read the documents and guidance provided by
the county attorney and the staff, and that's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I also have a huge amount of
email that I received on this through the last couple of years in regards
to this home. Recently I met with Clay Brooker and Carol Kolflat on
January 9, 2008, and also March 5, 2009, this year; Clay Brooker, on
September the 4th, 2008. 1 also met with another attorney, David
Bryant, on November the 8th, 2005, and September 2 2008.
I have met with the -- one of the persons from the neighborhood,
Diane Ebert, October 10, 2007, and September 30, 2008, and that's
Page 119
March 10, 2009
also in regards to the same people I met in regards to item number B.
So I hope I've covered everything. And as I said, all my
correspondence are here for people here to observe.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I failed to mention
that I also met with Diane Ebert yesterday to talk about both these
petitions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Of course this
has been an ongoing issue for many years, and there's been numerous
meetings, correspondence, emails, and phone calls. But recently, met
with Clay Brooker, Melissa Showalter, and also Diane Ebert, and my
-- everything is in my files up here for anybody that would wish to see
it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Same as before, and in addition
to, briefly talked to Rich Yovanovich, met with Diane Ebert, Clay
Brooker, Michelle (sic) Showalter, and Carol Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Add Richard Yovanovich to
mine. I'm sorry. I had to get that in before it got away. Thanks for
reminding me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all I have on this
particular petition.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Do you need to have dates
that we talked with these people or just that we've spoken with them?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you can just mention that you've
spoken.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Because I go way back into the '07s.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but you did a lot of this back on the
original hearing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, okay. So -- okay, then just since
then. I did go over to the home itself to see -- I went to -- with
Page 120
March 10, 2009
Melissa and her mother Carol over to the home to -- and viewed from
her bedroom the other house and drove down the street and
everything, and I think I met Diane Ebert there a little bit, too.
Also, of course, we've had many BCC meetings and I've met with
staff, I've met with Clay Brooker, Melissa Showalter -- and these are a
number of times -- Carol Kolflat and Diane Ebert. But just over, you
know -- I even have down here Blain Spivey, but that must have been
way back in'07, so -- okay, that doesn't count.
And I can't remember if I met with Rich Yovanovich or not but
I'm -- no, okay, good. I didn't think I forgot any. Thank you, Rich.
Thank you.
And now we need to swear in everybody who is going to be
speaking.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. And now we move on to you.
We have one hour for you.
MR. BROOKER: Madam Chair, thank you for your patience
and time. Commissioners, thank you.
My name's Clay Brooker with the law firm of Cheffy, Passidomo
here in Naples, 821 5th Avenue South.
My understanding is that these two appeals have been read
together already. I don't want Colonel Mudd to repeat that long
description, but I believe they're being -- they're companion items and
will be heard together in accordance with a memorandum that the
County Attorney's Office issued maybe a week ago or so.
The only caveat to that is, in my discussions with Mr. Klatzkow
are that whatever I present here today in my hour's worth of
presentation -- and hopefully it won't take that long -- all of that will
be considered part of the record for both items so we don't have to try
to figure out which item is which.
MR. KLATZKOW: That is correct.
MR. BROOKER: Okay, thank you.
Page 121
March 10, 2009
As you recall, everyone in their ex parte communications, this
matter's been around for quite some time. The issues that we are
discussing today were discovered at the same time the preserve
setback issues were discovered by my clients. That preserve setback
issue was a 25 -foot setback.
What you'll be hearing about today is less than that 25 -foot
setback, and so a lot of people have asked or have wondered, why are
we here? If we've given you 25 feet, why are you here for something
less? And the reason is for a complaint filed by the Griders against
the county with respect to the preserve setback issue.
That litigation is pending. There are hearings coming up, I
believe, in the next week or so. My clients have no choice, not being
able to control what a judge ultimately will decide, have no choice but
to bring these other issues to your attention, and we appreciate your
time and patience.
First -- what I'd like to do is first talk about the lot line
adjustment that is the first appeal we have filed. This is the subject
lot. My client's house is here on this side abutting, I guess that would
be the west side of the subject lot.
This is what the lot looked like back in 1999, if you erased the
house for a moment, back in 1999 the actual configuration of the lot as
platted. You can see here what happened was the house was permitted
and was permitted as a corner lot. The staff permitted it as a corner lot
without actually checking to see, in fact, or confirming to see if it was
a corner lot or met the criteria for a corner lot on the Land
Development Code.
The issue becomes, if it's not a corner lot, the Olde Cypress PUD,
which this lot is subject to, has in the dimension standards, a 20 -foot
rear yard setback, and that is what's indicated by what I'm showing
here, this dashed line toward the back of the lot. Everything in the
yellow is portions of the house that encroach that 20 -foot rear yard
setback.
Page 122
March 10, 2009
Now, how -- what happened when this house was permitted and
actually built, there was supposed to be some sort of confirmation that
this was, in fact, a corner lot to allow this rear yard to become a side
yard setback, a 20 -foot setback converted to a five -foot setback.
And here is the provisions of the code -- if you could slide that
up. Thank you. This is the definition of a corner lot in the code.
Typically a corner lot deals with two streets. As you see here, we do
not have two streets, but the second sentence starting there, of the
definition, reads, a lot abutting a curved street or streets shall be
considered a corner lot, and here's the operative language.
If the straight lines drawn from the foremost points of the side lot
lines to the foremost point of the lot meet at an interior angle of less
than 135 degrees; 135 degrees being the threshold.
So let's apply that to the lot as it existed when it was first platted.
You draw straight lines and you -- can you back out a little bit.
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you. You draw straight lines from the
foremost points of the side lot line, there and there, and you draw a
straight line to the foremost point of the lot somewhere around there,
and you measure the interior angle that is created by those two lines.
If this number is less than 135 degrees, it shall be considered a
corner lot under the Land Development Code's definition. If it is
greater than 13- -- or 135 degrees or greater, it is not a corner lot. As
you can see here, the interior angle as platted was approximately 144
degrees; therefore, it is not a corner lot.
When this issue was discovered we brought this to staff s
attention, and staff admitted their error. I believe it's conceded that
when initially platted, this was not -- did not meet the criteria of a
corner lot and, therefore, the house that was permitted on the -- on the
lot was potentially running into problems with regard to that rear yard
setback.
So what the staff then did -- then did was cleverly come up with
Page 123
March 10, 2009
the idea of a lot line adjustment. What if we can actually create a
corner lot by reducing this angle to something less than 135 degrees,
and how do we do that? Well, the only way you do it is you've got to
pull in the side lot line just enough to reduce that interior angle to 100
and -- less than 135 degrees.
So that's what they did. Down here in the red hashed portion p n is
what we call the tail that was lopped off the lot. And b lopping off
that amount of property -- and this distance ranges anywhere from 20
to 23 feet -- you have -- you have slid the foremost point of this side
lot line in towards the rest of the lot and, therefore, when you now
recalculate the angle, you come up with approximately 134 degrees,
just under 135.
So now, voila, you meet the criteria of a corner lot and, therefore,
what was the 20 -foot setback line now becomes a 5 -foot setback line
because in corner lots you have no rear yard. And in Olde Cypress
PUD, the side yard setback is 5 feet.
Let me show you the Land Development Code portions. These
are more definitions that deal with rear yards and side yards. This is
the authority by which, when you create a corner lot, the rear yard
automatically disappears.
At the top is basically a second half of the definition of a rear
yard. It says, in the case of corner lots, there are no rear yards but
only front and sides. And then further down in the definition of a side
yard, it, again, talks about, in the case of corner lots, yards remaining
after the front yards have been established on both frontages shall be
considered side yards.
So going back to the -- the previous exhibit, these two frontages
are now considered front yards and everything else is now a side yard
pursuant to the code. That then becomes a 5 -foot setback because that
is the applicable side yard setback in the Olde Cypress PUD;
therefore, as you see, nothing in yellow, the house is no longer,
according to the staff, in violation of the Land Development Code in
Page 124
March 10, 2009
the Olde Cypress PUD dimension standards.
So the question becomes, if this was an after - the -fact fix of an
admitted error of staff of initially permitting this as a corner lot and
create -- yes, and creating what was, in fact, a non -corner lot to a
corner lot, was that proper? Was this a proper lot line adjustment?
And that is the issue before you today.
As you might suspect, there are criteria in the Land Development
Code that you must satisfy -- all of these that are listed, A through D,
you must satisfy all of them in order to approve a lot line, in order for
the staff to approve a lot line adjustment.
This is, for the record, 4.03.04 of the Land Development Code.
What we -- what we contend is that the first criteria is not met by
the circumstances at hand. And you'll see here in order to grant a lot
line adjustment, you must demonstrate that the request is to correct an
engineering or surveying error or is to permit an insubstantial
boundary change between adjacent parcels.
It is that latter half of the criteria that we'd like to focus on. And
the question becomes, is this an insubstantial boundary change --
which is undefined in the code. That is for your determination here
today. But by converting a non -corner lot to a corner lot, is that
insubstan- -- an insubstantial boundary change?
We contend it isn't for several reasons. Number one, if you go
back -- sorry I keep switching on you. If you go back to this exhibit,
LLA number 2, in the bottom right -hand comer, this red hashed area --
this red hashed area here approximates about 240 square feet.
What happens here is when the -- when the 20 -foot -- the 20 -foot
setback is reduced to a 5 -yard setback, all the area in here, that
difference of 15 feet that now becomes buildable, according to our
surveyor, is 1,337 square feet.
So by deeding off 240 square feet, that's never -- never is it
buildable under any dimension standard under any criteria, the Grider
lot improved or increased its buildable area by 1,337 square feet,
Page 125
March 10, 2009
nearly a five -and -a- half -to -one return, and we believe that's not
insubstantial. It is substantial.
criteria one last time and focus here on
I'd liked to go back to the
D as well, criteria letter D as in David. You also must demonstrate
before the staff can approve a lot line adjustment application, that the
adjustment will not affect the development rights or permitted density
or intensity of use of the affected lots and so forth.
We contend, again, that by increasing your developable -- did I
say that right -- developable building envelope by 1,337 feet, you are
actually increasing the development rights of that parcel, and,
therefore, we contend that in addition to criteria A, criteria D is not
satisfied either.
At the back of your packet the staff attached a list of 39 other lot
line adjustments that have been approved by staff over the years. And
I think it's worthy to note that none of those are an example of an
after - the -fact conversion of a non -corner lot to a corner lot.
I've reviewed others than those 39, and I have yet to discover any
lot line adjustment in Collier County in the history of lot line
adjustments ever being used for this purpose, to convert -- to correct
an error after the fact by converting a non -corner lot to a corner lot.
And what of the deeded portion? Remember that red hashed
area, the tail that was lopped off? Well, where did that go? Well, it
went to his neighbor. You can remove that, thank you. Just for your
purposes, here to the left of the yellow shaded area is the subject lot.
This is the neighbor's lot. This little portion here equates to the red
hashed portion on the previous exhibit. This was deeded to this lot.
So the question becomes, what is that? What does the yellow
highlighted area become? Is it a -- I assume it's not a lot. It's quite
small. But then how do you measure setbacks? You know, just what
is it? It creates so many difficult questions that it would suggest to
you that using the process in this way was improper.
And I can tell you that had this initially been platted this way --
Page 126
March 10, 2009
in 1999, had a developer come in and drawn a lot with this tail on it,
staff would never have approved it.
Again, the fact that this is an after - the -fact error only, I think,
exacerbates the circumstances. Pure speculation, but if I were to go in
today and I have a lot in a similar configuration and asked to lop off a
piece 240 feet so I can get 14 -- about 1,400 square feet more,
I don't
think that would get me very far in the staff s eyes.
Some people have said that this is an irregularly shaped lot.
There has been some -- in going through all of this over the last two or
three years, there's been some talk about how. Well, this is a difficult
situation. It's a unique situation. It's an irregularly shaped lot that
actually also happens to be on a cul -de -sac which creates more
problems and so forth and so on, and how are we possibly going to
apply the rules in a fair way to place a reasonable house on this lot?
Well, our response to that contention is twofold. First of all,
everything I've discussed here with you today, the lot line criteria, the
corner lot definition, that 135 - degree threshold, all of that has existed
since at least -- I believe since 1991. But certainly by the time when
this lot was platted by the developer, everyone knew the rules we were
playing by, everyone knew or should have known exactly what was
going to be permitted on this property given the fact that it was an --
admittedly not a corner lot.
So to come now and say, we need -- staff needs to exercise a
little bit of discretion to give a -- to place a reasonable house on this
lot, we believe, is just flaunting the rules that existed after the fact,
once again.
Finally, we believe a reasonable house can be placed on the lot.
And to give you an example, we don't have to go outside of Olde
Cypress, the Olde Cypress neighborhood itself.
Up here in the top middle -- you've got to zoom out a little bit.
Yeah, there you go.
This horse's head, what we like to call it, the horse's head, is
Page 127
March 10, 2009
Lone Pine Lane, Ibis Landing. That is the subject lot we've been
talking about so far.
I'd like you to -- I direct your attention to the lot right down here
on Wild Orchid in Olde Cypress -- in the Olde Cypress neighborhood,
and here's a blowup of it. Again, this house is just serving an
example. It is not part of the appeal in any way today. But does that
-- a configuration of that lot may strike you as somewhat similar to the
subject lot we've been talking about.
And to and behold, when you go onto the county's website to
determine how this lot was permitted -- if you come down just to get
the permit number now. This is the permit that, when you type in that
address, that shows up on the county's website, 2004080386.
And you'll notice in highlighting, the rear yard setback that was
applied to permit this was 20 feet. It was permitted as a non - corner
lot. There was no conversion to a corner lot just to fit something on
this -- on this lot because it's so irregularly shaped and so impossible
to get a reasonable return or a reasonable house placed on the lot.
Those are my comments with regard to the first appeal of the lot
line adjustment. We would respectfully request that you overturn
staff s approval lot line judgment and return the lot to the status quo it
was platted and approved by the county back in 1999.
And at this point, Madam Chair, I can either move -- everything
I've just showed you, I have an extra copy for the manager or the court
reporter, or I could take questions --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, right now, how about the zoning
director might have questions.
MS. ISTENES: Good afternoon, Susan Istenes, Zoning Director.
Mr. Mudd, would it be possible to use those exhibits just for a
few questions, okay. That way we can just stay consistent.
I just have a few questions for clarification purposes. Clay
mentioned -- and I don't need an exhibit for this question.
You mentioned 1,337 square feet, and then you said 1,400 square
Page 128
March 10, 2009
feet more of developable area was gained. How did you come to that
conclusion?
MR. BROOKER: My mistake. I meant to say 1,340, just to
round up from 1,337 to 1,340. I should not have said 1,400. 1
apologize.
MS. ISTENES: You didn't answer my question. How did you --
how did you get that number and what are you talking about?
MR. BROOKER: That number was, as you can see -- let me see.
If you could bring up the -- oh, that's fine, that's fine. As you can see
at the bottom, we asked our RWA consulting surveyor planning firm
to assist us in this regard, and I asked the surveyors to calculate the
difference of buildable area between a 5 -foot setback and a 20 -foot
setback once you come over to here, and other setbacks may start to
come into play here.
So roughly this area here that I'm pointing to, which is essentially
the difference between applying 20 feet versus 5 feet, that 15 feet of
depth versus some width, I asked them to calculate it, and they gave
me the number 1,337.
MS. ISTENES: My next question was, I was cunous how you
studied the records of the lot line adjustments. You made a statement
that a lot line adjustment to change a lot to a corner lot has never been
done before. I'm curious only because our records are pretty
uncleared. Did you -- I mean, that would have been hours of work.
Did you pull all the surveys from 2003 and study all those to -- how
did you come to that conclusion?
MR. BROOKER: You're right, it was a lot of hours. It was -- I
did a public records request of every lot line adjustment approved in
the last ten years. I will not sit here before you today and say that I
went through every single one of those and the detail necessary to
determine whether never has it been used to convert a non - corner to a
corner, but that's why I stated it the way I have.
I did not see anything. I looked at the 391 believe you listed,
Page 129
March 10, 2009
although there were some left on your desk that weren't given to me to
review. But of those 39 that I reviewed and of others I reviewed,
nothing -- I saw nowhere an indication of a non - corner lot being
converted to a corner lot by a lot line adjustment.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. So you -- that's your statement, because
you kind of said two different things. You said you can't conclusively
come to that conclusion, then you said nowhere did I see. Is that based
on what you saw and the extent of what the research you did?
Because the records, in my opinion, were very deficient in
explanation.
MR. BROOKER: Yeah. I mean, I don't have anything more to
add. Of course, I'll ask you if you know of any.
MS. ISTENES: No. I didn't research to that extent because, like
I said, it would have been hundreds of hours because of the lack of
detail in the records.
You mentioned also -- and this is my last question, just for
clarification -- staff would not have approved the transfer of the tail,
that being the eastern part that was transferred to Mr. Dunkleberger.
Why and what do you base that on, or are you just guessing, or why
did you make that statement?
MR. BROOKER: Based on my experience in platting and
representing developers in platting, that this configuration would not
satisfy the subdivision regulations, but I don't have the exact cite for
you.
MS. ISTENES: So you're not exactly sure. You're just sort of
guessing staff may not have looked favorably on that for some reason
or another.
MR. BROOKER: And we can ask Stan that question.
MS. ISTENES: I'm just curious why you made that statement or
what basis you used for that so I can understand it.
MR. BROOKER: If you're telling me that might be possibly
permitted, then I'm sure some of my clients would be interested.
Page 130
March 10, 2009
MS. ISTENES: Okay. That's all I have right now. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Next we have -- maybe the
Griders have their attorney.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I just have two questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, Susan just asked the question.
I didn't -- I thought your expertise was in the law. I didn't realize you
were an expert in surveying and platting.
MR. BROOKER: I'm not a surveyor.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. I realize that. I just wanted to
ask you a question. You said you've never seen the code applied the
way it's being applied, correct?
MR. BROOKER: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Have you ever been the first one to use a
county code provision to resolve a problem for your client?
MR. BROOKER: I don't know if I can answer that question. I
don't know.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You don't know if you've ever been the
first one, but there also is a first one to use a code provision when it's
been drafted or put into place? There's got to be a first, correct?
MR. BROOKER: If, in fact, the code provision has been used,
yes, that would be a first time.
MR. YOVANOVICH: There's somebody -- right.
MR. BROOKER: But I don't know. I can't tell you whether I
have used any code provision for the first time ever.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So the fact that it's never been used
before doesn't mean it's not being properly used today?
MR. BROOKER: You're absolutely correct, it does not mean
that, but it certainly suggests that perhaps that's improper.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I don't know how you get to that
suggestion, but that's certainly not responsive to the question. Thank
you.
Page 131
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have one question before he
leaves. It's my understanding --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Me or him?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- you -- that you're representing
Mr. Grider; is that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Grider works for your
corporation.
MR. YOVANOVICH: He is an attorney in our firm.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I sometimes wonder if that's not
perceived as a conflict of interest.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd like to perceive it as helping out
someone in my firm like I would expect other lawyers in my firm to
help me out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I don't look at it that way.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's okay, but I'm just helping Craig
and Amber because they needed my assistance, and this is the area of
law that I practice.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Brooker, the house on Wild
Orchid, what -- I didn't see the square footage that was permitted.
MR. BROOKER: If you'll give me a minute, I'll flip that permit
to see if the square footage of that house is indicated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or for time, we can just move
on and I can ask it again.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, what I'm going to do, before we
have the other party then come up, because we're giving them an hour,
I thought we'd take a break, get ten minutes, and then we'd come back
and do the rest. So why don't --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just hold onto that question. I
mean, I'll ask that question again.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. When we finish the break, you
Page 132
March 10, 2009
want to start with that, and then we'll go on to the other party. Very
good.
We'll take a ten - minute break. It's a few minutes early, but this
way then we won't have to interrupt them.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Now we're going to move on
to a presentation by our staff and the Griders' representation.
MS. ISTENES: Thank you. Susan Istenes, for the record.
I'm not going to give a formal presentation. I think, kind of, Clay
outlined the history, and the executive summary outlines it as well,
and -- so I'm going to jump around, and I hope this doesn't get too
confusing, but I just want to make some points, and then we'll kind of
move on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If it gets confusing, we'll tell you.
MS. ISTENES: If you would fucus in on the star. Hopefully I'll
be -- I always do this. I don't -- I can't read it when I put it up there.
But, for the record, our position is -- well, the areas of the Land
Development Code that govern lot line adjustments are 4.03.04 and
10.02.02138, which are essentially -- state the same things.
I just wanted to go ahead and put on the record that staff is of the
opinion that the lot line adjustment that was approved for the Grider
lot is consistent with the Land Development Code and the criteria
found therein.
The first criteria is that it is demonstrated that the request is to
correct an engineering or surveying error in a recorded plat or is to
permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels.
We would submit this is an insubstantial boundary change. It
was 247 square feet, which is the tail, I guess we're now calling it, and
247 square feet out of a 10,400- square -foot lot, plus or minus, and
Page 133
March 10, 2009
moving a lot line approximately 22 feet we would opine as being
insubstantial. It does not rise to the requirement for a plat, although I
did want to point out to you that this process could also be
accomplished by replatting.
And this lot line adjustment process, based on what I know about
it, is -- has been somewhat of a hybrid process to allow landowners to
come through and make boundary changes as long as they meet this
criteria without going through a full -blown replatting process, which is
expensive and time consuming. So that's why, in our opinion, the
process exists, and that's what staff has regularly been using it for and
the citizens of Collier County have been regularly using it for, is to
move boundary lines for various reasons.
The second criteria is both landowners whose lot lines are being
adjusted provide written consent to the lot line adjustment. They do
that through the lot line adjustment application process. Yes, they did
do that, so they do meet that criteria.
The third criteria, C, I won't read the whole thing, but it just
requires evidence that the lot line adjustment is filed in the official
records and that it meets the standards of and conforms to the
requirements of the LDC, including the dimensional requirements of
the district and the subdivision in which the lots are located and,
however, in the case of a nonconforming lot of record, which is not
the case here.
So, yes, we review the lot, the before- and -after scenario, to make
sure both lots are of the dimensions, minimum dimensions, required
by the PUD and the LDC and that they don't result in nonconforming
lots. So, yes, that criteria was met.
And the last criteria, D, it is demonstrated that the lot line
adjustment will not affect the development rights or permitted density
or intensity of use of the affected lots, and this is qualified, by
providing the opportunity to create a new lot or lots for resale of
development. Yes, in our opinion, they meet that criteria because no
Page 134
March 10, 2009
new lots are created.
Intensity, just for your information, sometimes that word gets a
little confusing. Intensity normally deals with commercial
development. Density deals with residential development. So no new
lots were created, no additional dwelling units could be built as a
result of this change; therefore, it meets criteria D.
And those are the four criteria the staff uses, and they reviewed
those and approved the application for the lot line adjustment.
One point I want to make, and then that's -- I guess that's really
all I want to say with respect to the executive summary. It's important
to remember, too, that this -- there are two processes to move a lot
line. One is this lot line adjustment process, and one is the replatting
process. So they opted to move -- to do the lot line adjustment
process, and they met the criteria, and it was approved.
One thing I don't think that was coming out, and a point I want to
make in the change, was when Clay got up -- and my exhibits are not
as professional as Clay's. I like color and I have to draw stuff out by
hand and fiddle around with it by hand, so I apologize.
But the important thing to remember here is that you all decided
through the official interpret- -- or I rendered an official interpretation
regarding the preserve setbacks as they apply to this lot. You all
upheld my decision on an appeal. So whether or not this is considered
a corner lot, it really doesn't matter because -- at least this day and
time. I'm sorry?
The preserve setback is 25 feet, and that is also in a corner lot
configuration considered to be a side lot line which allows 5 feet,
except the 25 feet prevails over the 5 feet. So regardless of whether
it's a corner lot or not, 25 feet is the required setback on the north
property line, which, under the corner lot configuration, is considered
a side; under the non -corner lot configuration, is considered a rear.
The only way that could possibly change -- and I understand
there's been a lawsuit filed regarding your decision of the appeal of the
Page 135
March 10, 2009
preserve setbacks -- is if that attorney who filed that lawsuit was to
prevail and the judge was to decide that the preserve setbacks don't
apply.
Am I stating that correctly, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. So at this point in time, I sort of feel like
Clay represented to you that there are no issues with this structure on
this site as far as encroachments into setbacks. That's not correct.
They encroach into the preserve area setback because the requirement
is for 25 feet, and they don't meet 25 feet; therefore, they either need
to correct the situation by removing the encroachments or obtaining a
variance.
They have held a preapplication meeting for a variance but are
awaiting the outcome, I think, of these appeals, and Rich can speak to
that, because the outcome of these appeals could determine what type
of variance they need.
So I just wanted to make that clear, because at this point, whether
it's a corner lot or not, it just doesn't matter because the setback for the
preserve is 25 feet whether it's a side yard, rear yard, or front yard, and
they don't comply with that.
The last point I'd like to make is, I was a little concerned over --
Clay somewhat implied that staff made the Griders lop the tail off
their lot and give it to Mr. Dunkleberger so they would comply. That
was at the Griders' and the Dunklebergers' own volition. Staff did not
force them to do that. Under the criteria of the lot line adjustment, if
they could meet the criteria -- we review the application and approve
it if they meet the criteria.
It was a suggestion by staff because at the time they were
permitted mistakenly as a corner lot, and so in order to legitimize that
corner lot situation, it was discovered that if they changed that angle,
they would meet the definition, because I think there was 6 degrees
difference between a corner lot and a non - corner lot. So that's all I
Page 136
March 10, 2009
really wanted to say about that.
That was really all the points I wanted to make. I hope I didn't
lose you on some of that, but I'd be happy to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Also -- well, also the Griders might have
somebody representing them that wants to say something at this time,
but I have Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Susan, no question in my mind
you have the ability to try to fix issues, and this is just one of the tools.
I'm just scratching my head to where I almost have a bald spot on
how you got there, that's all. And if you can provide an example, not
on this lot but lots that you were saying that you turned them into a
comer lot -- do you have examples on how you made that happen so I
can kind of understand that?
MS. ISTENES: Let me make sure I understand what you're
asking me. You're asking have other --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Other lots --
MS. ISTENES: --lots --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- it has been stated, I think
everybody agrees, that you have done lot line adjustments to make
corner lots. Is that a fair statement?
MS. ISTENES: Yes. I mean, lot line adjustments are, I'll be
honest with you, are a pretty liberal way to change the configuration
of the lot because the criteria is very minimal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have an example with
you that's not a cul -de -sac lot to where you take a -- if you want to call
it -- irregular- shaped lot and made it a corner lot?
MS. ISTENES: No, I don't have an example with me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't have an example. Is it fair
to say that Mr. Brooker, one of the examples he pointed out was the
Land Development Code on how you measure, and it can't have that
degree of 135 feet -- 135- degree angle? Is that the criteria used to it?
Page 137
March 10, 2009
MS. ISTENES: Yeah, for a corner lot, and that's the definition
for a corner lot, part of the definition of a corner lot, I guess.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And you're supposed to
go from lot line to lot line to make that measurement?
MS. ISTENES: This is where it gets tricky. And I may call on
Stan. It's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to understand.
MS. ISTENES: I guess I'm trying to figure out what your -- what
your question is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Stan understands what
I'm asking, is, where you measure from lot line to lot line.
MS. ISTENES: How you measure the angle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. Let me get him to explain it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And maybe if we have the code.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Stan
Chrzanowski with Engineering Review.
Joe told me to be prepared to make the geometry 101
presentation but not to do it if I didn't have to, so it looks like -- some
of what you saw is just a little wrong but not a whole lot.
If I could get Mr. Mudd to -- it looks real simple. There's a
bunch of basic types of curves you use when you're laying out roads
and lots and whatever. If you're -- you have circular curves, you have
parabolic curves, you have spiral curves. Circular curves are used
where you have a -- this; if you go to sleep, I won't mind.
Where you have a road with constant speed and you're going
around a circle, you want it to be a circle because you have constant
motion in one direction. If you have a road where you're coming off a
high -speed road onto a low -speed road, you do a spiral curve because
the rate of curvature is constantly changing as the deceleration
happens.
And if you're going over an overpass or say you're building a
Page 138
March 10, 2009
roller coaster, you do parabolic curves because a vertical curve feels
better when it's parabolic, not circular.
The kind of curve you're dealing with here is a circular curve.
An arc is any portion of a curve, whether it's a parabolic, circular, or
whatever.
What you're looking at on that exhibit is a circle with a radius
point in the middle of it, and you're looking at another point out in
space.
Now, if you wanted to find the farther point on that circle from
that point out in space, you would go and draw a line through the
center of the circle, the radius point, and there's only one point on that
circle that is the farthest -most point from that point in space, okay.
Now, what you have here is like three different lots. The green
lot, the pink lot, and the blue lot. They all have exactly the same
frontage. But if you look at the points where -- can you zoom out a
bit?
If you look at the points where it intersects the arc, you'll see a
blue point, a red point, and a green point. Well, those are the
farthest -most points from that -- those back corners.
And what I was told by the planning department when I asked
them, what do you mean by the foremost point, they told me that it's
the farthest -most point on the curve from the back corner of the lot.
Now, everything I've seen so far from what people have done,
they have picked the middle of the arc and called it the farthest -most
point. I saw a memo recently claiming that our codes were, I think the
word was incomprehensible to the point of being unintelligible to the
average person. This is a classic example. Instead of -- if they had
wanted to say the middle point of the arc, they probably would have
just simply said, the center point of the arc. If -- and when you extend
the are out, not the arc but the two lines that form the arc, the point
where those two dotted lines comes together on this piece of paper,
that's the point of intersection.
Page 139
March 10, 2009
If an engineer had written this definition, he probably would have
said something about the angle at the point of intersection. But you're
stuck with a definition that says the foremost point.
Now, I have a couple other examples here, but it will just muddy
the water. What you have is -- I'll show you something. Olde Cypress
Unit 2, you were looking at those -- the other lot that Clay Brooker
was talking about, and you have Lots 15 and 24. Well, Lot 15, this is
a blow -up of that plat. And could you zoom out, Jim?
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's a blow -up of Lot 15 on the plat.
And if you look, the pink line is from -- well, there's your circle that
the radius forms, there's the radius point. If you go to the corner, that's
the foremost point of the lot, not the center of the arc, which would be
here.
When you do the measurement from this corner to the foremost
point of the arc to that corner, you come up with 162 degrees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where are you measuring the
162? In the road there?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The internal part of the arc here. This is
a 180, a straight line. This is a 135, the blue line. So that lot there is a
162 - degree lot. That's definitely not a corner lot.
Lot 24, roughly the same case. You have the -- this time it's a
little closer to the center of the are because when you start at the far
point, you come through the radius point, you come to here. That's the
farthest -most point of the lot from the back corner, and the angle
through there is 163 degrees, this being the 180, the straight lane, this
being the 45 off the 90, which is the 135.
Now, the Grider lot is that lot there. And if you look --
MR. MUDD: That's 28, right?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's Lot 28, right. If you look at Lot
28, when you draw the arc, the farthest -most point is here. It's very
close to this corner, which opens up this -- I'm sorry. It closes up this
Page 140
March 10, 2009
arc a bit. And you end -- originally they had 140 degrees, about 5
degrees off.
This is the 135- degree, and they came to 133. They said 134
because they picked the foremost point. I couldn't see any reason to
say anything about it because they both work, and I wasn't about to
muddy the water any more.
But by the definition that the zoning department has given me,
the foremost point of the lot is not necessarily the center of the arc, but
this lot works from a geometry point of view.
Now, is that in answer to the question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. You even dumbed it down
enough for me to somewhat understand.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- now, let's go to language
in the Land Development Code.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't do that. I think Susan does that
for you.
MR. MUDD: I can get it for you. It's right here. Is this the
language you want to see, sir?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Corner, a lot located in the intersection
of two or more streets, a lot abutting a curved street or street shall be
considered a corner lot if straight line drawn from the foremost points
of the side lot lines to the foremost point of the lot meet at an interior
angle of less than 135 degrees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And that's what we have, 133, as of my
measurement using my -- zoning's interpretation of the foremost point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, can you go to that -- your
graphic and show me the straight line?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, the straight line is the -- you
mean the 180?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When you get the measurement,
Page 141
March 10, 2009
it says to go from lot line to lot line.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: This is the foremost point of your
corner lines.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Zoom out, County Manager.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: This is the foremost point of this corner
line, and this is the foremost point of the present corner line.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Now show me the
straight line.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The straight line is the 180 here; is that
what you mean? And when you come off that, 30, 45 degrees to the
135, that's the minimum, and this is 143 right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just trying to -- the code
says it goes -- you draw a straight line from one corner of the lot to the
other.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, that's this straight line here from the
point and the straight line from the furthest point to this corner here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the code should say, draw
two straight lines.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: As an engineer, the code should say the
point of intersection of the two tangents should be -- but it doesn't. It
says --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, then I have to ask the
question. Was the code written intentionally so you can't take a
cul -de -sac lot and turn it into a corner lot?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It says, a lot abutting a curved -- shall
be considered a corner lot if straight lines, that's two lines --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Straight lines.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- going from the foremost points of the
side lot lines to the foremost point of the lot meet at an interior angle
Page 142
March 10, 2009
of less than 135, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got it.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Should I sit down and let Susan take
over again?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's -- Stan, there's one other
thing, and I'm sure you can answer it. Now you changed the lot to
where you have two sides and two -- no -- yeah, two sides and two
fronts. How did we come to determine that the width of the new lot
meets the PUD standards, the development standards?
MS. ISTENES: Are you asking to describe that measurement as
well or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, yeah. How do you --
how do you come to that conclusion?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't have the PUD in front of me. I
don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sorry to take up so much time.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what Susan just told me is she
needs a couple seconds to look that up --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
MR. MUDD: -- in order to get that particular issue. So if you
want to move to a different item, she'll look it up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas has a question.
We'll go there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't know if it's a question or
just a conclusion I've come up with here.
Number one is, we had an individual who designed a home that
was bigger than could encompass the lot using our Land Development
Code. The person who designed this house basically just thumbed his
nose at -- or her, whoever it was -- thumbed their nose at our Land
Development Code.
And the issue with the 25 -foot setback from the preserve was
Page 143
March 10, 2009
something that came into the equation later on. What came into the
equation was that when staff realized they had made a mistake
because someone wanted to build a house bigger than was
incorporated on this lot, they then came to the county to try to figure
out the best way to encompass this huge house. The only way they
could do it is to adjust the lot line.
And so here we are today with this lot line, even though we have
litigation pending on the 25 -foot setback from the -- from the preserve.
What this amounts to is where there has never been a change that I
could find using a cul -de -sac and manipulating the lot to encompass a
building that shouldn't have been built, and instead of saying to the
developer or the builder or whoever it was, you are in violation, you
have a responsibility even though we issued the building permit, the
end result was we wanted to find a way to play the game to try to
make this house conform on the lot. That's the bottom line.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: About the lot width?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Susan tells me that the minimum lot
width is 60 feet for a single- family detached, but I'm not sure how you
would compute -- okay. All right.
The -- the lot is supposed to be 60 feet wide, and it's measured by
drawing the chord and then a straight line parallel to the chord through
the middle of the lot. And in this case, that would be -- let's see. This
being the chord, you set back, and the measurement would be through
here.
And you can see that this is 46 feet, so this width is probably
double that at least, more than 60 feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, as I read the code, on a
corner lot, the frontage of a corner lot is the shorter of the street,
shorter side of the streets, and actually there's a -- there's a pictric of it
in the Land Development Code.
Susan, you know what I'm talking about? It's under definitions.
Page 144
March 10, 2009
MS. ISTENES: Yeah, and I'm not sure I have all the definitions.
But the frontage is going to be that which is -- well, the front of an --
oh, an interior lot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I could get my code.
MS. ISTENES: No, I've got it right here. For the purpose of
determining yard requirements on corner lots and through lots, all
sides of a lot adjacent to streets are to be considered frontage. So
anything adjacent to the street is your front. And then in a corner lot
configuration, anything not adjacent to the street would be your -- a
side lot line.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you put that on the
visualizer, please?
Well, that's the old code. Are we -- are we going by the old
code? Because you permitted this -- you did this lot line adjustment in
2007, right?
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you used the new code,
unless it was not carried forward from the old code.
MS. ISTENES: Correct. So I just -- in this case I used the old
code for the whole thing because it's the same, because some stuff
wasn't carried forward. So rather than try to go back and forth
between the two and confuse everybody, I just took everything from
the old code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let's start out where you
were reading where it says corner lot on how you measured the width.
Where's that -- where's that in the writing?
All right. The minimum lot width on a cul -de -sac, which we
know -- we don't want -- we're not a cul -de -sac anymore.
MS. ISTENES: We are in a cul -de -sac.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Huh?
MS. ISTENES: Yes, this lot is on a cul -de -sac.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a corner lot now.
Page 145
March 10, 2009
MS. ISTENES: It's still a cul -de -sac. Cul -de -sac lots can be
corner lots.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the -- it's a corner lot. I
mean, I --
MS. ISTENES: A corner lot by definition of the code doesn't
necessarily have to be a 90- degree angle fronting on two different
streets. I do have the language that describes that, if you want to see
that as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. How are other corner
lots in this development, the sidewalk access measured?
MS. ISTENES: Well, it's by definition depending on the layout
of the lot, so you would take the definition and apply it depending on
the layout of the lot. They all have to meet the minimum for a
single - family of 60 feet. So as long as they meet 60 feet or more, they
are legal lots.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MS. ISTENES: And that's all reviewed at the platting stage. So
the plat isn't approved unless the lots meet the minimum dimensional
requirements.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll tell you what, I'm going to
let this go for now, but I want to come back to it, I want to go get the
old code, I want to go get the new code and address it because, again,
I'm going bald of trying to figure this out because I'm reading it --
MS. ISTENES: Are you contending that the lot isn't wide
enough per the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know. That's what I was
wanting an answer on. But you're measuring -- you got -- you now
have two fronts, and the reason that you have two fronts is so you can
create two sides. That's the whole purpose of that, to try to get to that,
you know, that size building in that envelope.
So the way I see your -- the code is laid out on a corner lot --
because that's what you created is a corner lot -- you measure one
Page 146
March 10, 2009
width of the front, so -- and I'll get back to that, because I don't want
to belabor the point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So then we'll go on to the
representative for the Griders.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I apologize. I'm a little confused on the
process. Do I get to ask staff any questions or do I make my
presentation and then 1 ask staff questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, that's what we're doing is actually --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Asking questions of staff now, or are we
making presentations?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. Well, according to -- we have --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll go either way.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- a little sketch here, and right now it's,
the staff and Griders present their case, and then the appealing party
can ask questions, and certainly you can as well.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, I can -- I can do that
through my presentation by -- I'll ask questions of some staff as part of
my presentation.
I'd like to start out with a confession. I had a flashback to ninth
grade geometry, and I remembered what my grade was. It was barely
passing, and that's when I decided that I should not become an
engineer.
I didn't understand a whole lot of what Stan said, but I -- and I
think that's why we are where we are in this process. What I want --
what I want to do is, since the Griders have really never had an
opportunity to explain how they got to this situation -- and I think by
some of the comments that have come out, there's some information
that clearly you all are not aware of on how we got to where we are.
And I want to go back to before Craig and Amber bought the lot
and the information they had and the information they sought so they
would know what the building envelope was for their lot so that they
could, by using an analogy, color within the lines and not go outside
Page 147
March 10, 2009
of the lines.
And it started with an email to David Hedrich on August 26,
2005, and I'm going to put the email up and show you the attachment
to that email. And I finally remembered to bring my glasses.
Okay. It's an email, it's very short. It says, here -- it's to David,
and you all can read, but I'm just doing it for the audience. Here is the
sketch showing the lot along with the radius and chord setbacks.
As we discussed, I would like to use the chord setback in the
front yard cul -de -sac side. Can you confirm this is okay
conceptually? Thanks.
Okay, and then eventually he says yes. But this is what was
attached. And this document is the marketing piece that Stock
Development was utilizing for what the building envelope is for this
particular Lot 28.
And what Craig was trying to confirm -- as you can see it had a
25 -foot setback on this portion of the road, on the cul -de -sac portion
of the road. It had a 5 -foot setback over here, and here it was 10 feet.
And the reason that it was 10 feet was because there used to be a golf
course easement over that 10 feet.
That golf course easement ultimately went away because there's
no golf course there. But if you look at the document that went there,
at the very top -- and we think that's being shown right now -- is the
word preserve.
So the county was told that to the north of this property was
preserve. The county at no point ever said to Craig, because you're
adjacent to a preserve, you've got a 25 -foot setback. So your question
about -- that 10- foot's not applicable. It's really a 25 -foot setback.
So that question was put to the county and the information
provided. It was followed up with another email later on because it
was determined that he was a corner lot, and then Craig realized he
has two sides.
Now, with the two sides it would be 5 foot adjacent to the
March 10, 2009
northern property line, which is -- this is the northern property line.
So what he -- what he realizes, if he made the golf course easement go
away, he would get an extra 5 feet because he has a 5 -foot setback.
He follows up in November of the same year wanting to confirm
what the envelope is. What I've underlined, again, he says, also the
rear of the lot is preserve.
So Craig and Amber had always pointed out to the county to the
rear of the lot that there was this preserve. The county never said to
him, hey, it's a 25 -foot setback from that preserve. A mistake
happened, okay. There's no question a mistake happened. We
understand the results of the official interpretation. We're not here to
argue that.
But I don't think it's fair to say that Craig and Amber tried to get
the biggest building envelope possible, design the house, and then
tried to use the process to make it fit. They attempted to get the right
information to come up with what is the envelope that needs to be
built.
It went through the review process, county staff approved the
house, it got built, it got substantially complete and then, oops, it was
discovered that this is not a corner lot. For all the geometry reasons
that Stan explained to everybody, this may not be a corner lot under
the county's definition.
So what was the fix? The fix was two -- there's two options to
fix this. Go through the lot line adjustment process, which is cheaper
than going through the replat process, or replat his lot and Mr.
Dunkleberger's lot to create the corner lot. Either one of those
processes are legal. The results may not make the neighbor happy, the
maybe neighbor to -- I forget which direction that is. I think that's
west. It may not make the neighbor happy, but it fixes a problem
that's out there, short of tearing the house down.
So he started with information provided to him that gave him a
building envelope, he confirmed with the county what was the
Page 149
March 10, 2009
building envelope, the county permitted that building envelope, and
then it was discovered that there was a mistake, and how do you fix
the mistake? You use the legal processes available to fix the mistake.
It's not wrong. It's not wrong to be the first one to use code
provision to fix a problem. This is a problem. We utilized the lot line
adjustment process to fix the problem.
Now, I know people are trying to imply that, you know, staff
came up with a solution. I also told Craig that there's a lot line
adjustment process to fix this problem. So it wasn't just staff who
suggested the resolution of this. I also suggested that you can do a lot
line adjustment to fix the problem.
So -- and I will tell you that the argument that somehow using the
lot line adjustment process to give you more of a buildable area has
never been the standard for the review of lot lines, and you can't find
that anywhere in the written terminology.
You have four criteria that you can apply for a lot line
adjustment. And as Susan has eloquently pointed out, we meet all
four. It's a fact. We meet all four of those criteria. If you wanted
other criteria out there like what's the impact to the neighbors to the
west, you would have put that in there as criteria. You don't have that
as a criteria.
I can pull Stan up here really quickly to talk about unusual lot
configurations through the platting process. But I will tell you that
Twin Eagles, if you were to look at the plat of Twin Eagles and how
they came up with those 5 -acre lots so that they could fit the golf
courses around there and meet the minimum that was required in the
agricultural zoning district for 5 -acre lots, I think Stan will confirm to
you that they're rather irregularly shaped. Did Stan leave? Where'd
he go? There he is. I think he can come up -- and maybe he should
for the record so if there is -- there's an appeal of this.
Stan, can you come up and answer the question about whether or
not had we platted that lot originally with the tail, would the county
Page 150
March 10, 2009
have approved the plot? Because I think that's important.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good afternoon. Stan Chrzanowski,
again. Yes, we'd have approved it. Like Rich said, there's a project
called Twin Eagles that needed 5 -acre lots. They ran their lots in all
different configurations up through wetlands and across lakes.
Only the first half acre on most of them was buildable. The back
four and a half was totally unbuildable. You couldn't even get to a lot
of them. And it's the lot size that we care about.
If we had seen this, the tail on the one lot, they moved the tail to
the other lot, we probably wouldn't have cared. We generally
discourage odd - shaped lots, but we don't -- if somebody has to do it
for a reason, we allow it, like we did with Twin Eagles.
MR. YOVANOVICH: This is plat -- and I've drawn -- that's my
arrow to the lot. That's the Grider lot, Lot 28.
I think when you look at that, my first reaction to looking at that
is, clearly that's a comer lot. I mean, I looked at the angle. The angle
I looked at was this right here, and I would have -- I would have said
that, you know, that looks like a corner lot to me. I think that's what
your staff person did when they reviewed it, keeping in mind that
when the recodification happened in 19 -- I'm sorry -- 2004, some
definitions were left out and not available to -- probably to that staff
person.
And there's been confusion for a lot of us since 2004 as to what is
or is not within the Land Development Code, so mistakes do happen,
and I think that's what happened here was a mistake. Staff assumed it
was a corner lot and permitted it as such.
To now -- so now what we're trying to do is fix -- fix an issue
through the legal process, and the lot line adjustment is one legal
process available to us. A replat of the property is another legal
process available to create this as a corner lot.
I think the real issue here is -- let me go back. I take that back. I
was involved in a case, an eminent domain case involving Collier
Page 151
March 10, 2009
County where Collier County had taken a portion of a platted lot in
Pine Ridge. It's on the corner of Goodlette -Frank Road -- it's the
northwest corner of Goodlette -Frank Road and Pine Ridge Road.
When they took the frontage along Pine Ridge Road, they created
a lot that was no longer legal. And I said to the county, guess what?
You just bought the entire property. And they said, why? I said,
because I can't build on that lot. And they said, well, we'll buy the lot,
but will you agree to sell us another ten feet from the property to the
north and go through the lot line adjustment process to fix the
problem?
So the county itself plans on using the lot line adjustment process
to make an illegal lot now buildable. That's got -- if this is considered
substantial, that's certainly substantial because you've taken a lot that
can't be built on at all and making it buildable. That's never been the
way this has been applied historically.
I think it's a stretch to say that what we're doing is improper
under the code. I think you're stretching the English language to come
up with the arguments that Clay is making. I think your staff is
absolutely correct on the lot line adjustment. I think the facts all show
that we're allowed to use this process.
What it all comes down to is -- in my opinion is that I think that
people may not be so sure on the preserve argument. They don't want
to trust a judge to back you up on your decision.
If you're wrong on your decision, then the Grider residence
should stay as it is. If you're right on that decision, then there's a
25 -foot setback and Susan's correct that it doesn't matter whether a
5 -foot side or a 20 -foot rear -- and I'll point out to you -- is that under
the PUD, the front yard requirement is 25 feet. The rear yard
requirement is 20 feet.
When you become a corner lot -- and you have your two sides.
You always have the two sides. When you become a corner lot, you
now have a 25 -foot setback and another 25 -foot setback where you
Page 152
March 10, 2009
normally had a 25 -foot setback and a 20 -foot setback, so you're more
restrictive in going to the corner lot because you have a larger setback
because now you have two fronts instead of a front and a rear.
So we are, as a couple of predecessor county attorneys said, we
are where we are. We're in a bad situation. There's -- I don't think it
was intentionally anybody's fault. The box didn't get drawn properly.
We have to find a way to solve this.
Craig and Amber have availed themselves to the lot line process,
and they're allowed to do that. And we'll let a judge decide on the
preserve issue.
We have applied for the variance. I haven't submitted yet
because it didn't make any sense to submit until we find the results of
today's proceedings, because I don't know if I'm asking for one or
multiple variances.
That's my comments regarding what you have. I'll leave copies of
all these emails and plats for the record. I don't think I have anything
else to add, and I'm available to answer any questions that you may
have regarding my presentation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Henning has a
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Yovanovich, wasn't this a
similar issue in the City of Naples where you represented your client?
MR. YOVANOVICH: And you know -- and that's why I
originally told Craig and Amber, no, I didn't want to be involved,
because that was a bad situation as well, and it was similar. The city
staff in that instance permitted a building, approved the plans, and
decided they made a mistake.
But the difference there and the difference here is they caught
that when the block was up for the side walls, roof wasn't up. You
didn't have a substantially completed house. And ultimately we
reached a compromise on that one through the variance process.
Here, this is a tough case. I didn't really want to be here, but
Page 153
March 10, 2009
Craig and Amber asked me to help them, and I agreed to do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I just have -- I
found a -- Madam Chair, the figure from our Land Development
Code.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do you want to have the county
manager put it up for you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And it's figure 2.
Actually, it's over on -- go down. There it is.
I guess the question, Susan, I have for you, on this corner lot
here, it gives you the frontage.
MS. ISTENES: The Grider lot, is that what you're referring to or
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This figure on the visualizer
now. What was the purpose of this figure?
MS. ISTENES: Off the top of my head, I'm not -- I don't have
the reference, just based on this figure, but my guess is it's just to show
what the definition of frontage is, where it would be located. Are you
referring to -- I mean, there's several things on the drawing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. ISTENES: Are you referring to the line here that says
frontage? I'm going to give you a really basic answer. It's just
defining where the frontage is. I don't know if it's in reference, as a
comparison of these two lots or that, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think you would want to
measure your width from the frontage -- your front, frontage of the lot.
I mean, that's where I'm -- what I'm taking from the new code.
MS. ISTENES: There is descriptions about where to take width
measurements from double- fronted lots. Is that what you're possibly
referring to?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MS. ISTENES: I'm not sure that's consistent with this drawing
though because that description talks about the main entrance to the
Page 154
March 10, 2009
house as being the point at which you look at the road and the frontage
and determine the lot width. Am I on the right track? No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To me you want to measure the
frontage of the lot to figure out what your width is -- I think that's
what it's trying to tell us.
MS. ISTENES: I'm looking at that as two lots though. That's
why I'm not understanding how you would measure the width of one
lot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you have to pardon me. I
go from MUNI now to the printed -- printed code, and what I seen out
of the MUNI code, it is, that's how to measure the frontage on a corner
lot.
MS. ISTENES: I'm looking for the reference to figure 2 here so I
can put the reference --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we could deal with that
later.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right. I have Commissioner
Halas, and then we're going to have the appealing party ask any
questions.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I tell you, to be honest with
you, I'll just see where this goes, but I've -- I think we've spent a lot of
time on this thing. We could spend here till midnight, and I make a
motion to approve the applicant's appeal that this lot line adjustment is
inconsistent with our Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second. Now --
MR. KLATZKOW: We're not done with the presentation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we can't -- we can't move
Page 155
March 10, 2009
forward on that motion? We have to --
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. Thank you for your
guidance. All right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I was just waiting to see if there's any
questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But that stands. The motion and the
second still stands, right? Okay.
So now the appealing party may ask questions.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you very much. I have two questions,
one of Rich and then one of Stan, and so I'll be very, very brief, and
then maybe we can entertain the motion.
First, Rich, you mentioned an example of another lot line
adjustment on Pine Ridge and Goodlette, I think you gave -- you gave
that example. Was that yes?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
MR. BROOKER: Was that a conversion of a non -corner lot to a
corner lot?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, it would -- it did involve a
corner lot.
MR. BROOKER: Did it convert a non - corner to a corner?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It actually made the lot -- the corner lot
that became an illegal corner lot a legal corner lot.
MR. BROOKER: Typical lawyer answer. So if I could dissect
that, what that means is in the before case it was a corner lot and in the
after case it was a corner lot. In the after case it simply became legal.
It wasn't a non - corner lot to begin with, correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct. Is that good?
MR. BROOKER: Thank you. That's all I have for asking
questions of an attorney. They tell you in law school, never ever
cross - examine an attorney.
Second, Stan, very quickly, there was a lot of talk about where to
Page 156
March 10, 2009
measure this foremost point of the lot and determining how to measure
that interior angle, and I believe Stan will simply confirm that even
though my exhibits may not match up with your definition of where
the foremost point of the lots is, as a matter of fact, can you confirm
that in the before condition, before this lot line adjustment was
approved, it was, in fact, a non -corner lot?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, it was 140 degrees.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you. I have nothing further.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, any members of the public
registered to speak?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. I do have one person. Diane Ebert.
Do you want to speak, Diane?
MS. EBERT: Yep. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Diane Ebert.
You're right, we've been involved with this for a long time. All I
want to say is -- there's a lot of things I'd like to say, but you cannot
take our PUD development standards for residential lots as a county
employee and be changing them for your preference.
They took our PUD, standard development -- development
standards and they tried to change this. We are 55 villa
single- detached homes, and this is what they used for all of them. It
was never platted as a corner lot. It really can't be one. And even --
they admit at the beginning that it says, we'll have to put the builder
on official notice that the house is not in compliance with the
development standards as prescribed in the PUD and pursuant to the
LDC.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we will close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ma'am?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do have my light on.
Page 157
March 10, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. But we still close
the public hearing now that the public has spoken, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: There's no one else.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you. I have several
questions, and I'm not too sure, but may I address them to our county
attorney?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. There's a lot of things
that were brought up here, and I'm still trying to separate the -- all the
issues to find -- get down to really what we're talking about here.
And I just need to clarify something. Mr. Yovanovich and his
clients are a member of the same law firm. Is that anything we should
take into consideration in our deliberations?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think it's relevant.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That the home was built
on a lot inexclusive (sic) of the lot lines as we're going through right
now, is defined by some as a megahouse. Is that something that we
should take into our considerations?
MR. KLATZKOW: Only to the extent if you think that the
house is too large for the lot.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, inexclusive of the lot lines
itself, the size of the house.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what a megahouse is except
my own -- if a megahouse is a house that's too large for the lot, then
yes, but it's only because they have exceeded the setbacks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If it exceeds the setbacks,
correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the word megahouse in
itself isn't reason enough to be able to refuse.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what else megahouse could
Page 158
March 10, 2009
mean.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That the application of
the corner lot, being it's the first time that this was -- this application
was used, whether it was or not, we really don't know for sure, but if it
is the first time, is that something that we should keep in
considerations?
MR. KLATZKOW: They either have the right to ask for it or
they don't. Whether or not it's been used before, I don't -- if it's been
used customarily then, yes, you could take that into consideration.
But the fact that this might be the first time -- and we have no
evidence one way or the other -- I don't think that that should bar
somebody from utilizing it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. We just heard testimony
that it was never platted as a corner lot.
MR. KLATZKOW: You didn't hear any testimony. You heard
Mr. Yovanovich say that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then the next question, I
guess, would be for Stan, if I may.
There -- the statement -- I may have picked it up out of my book
or somebody may have said it, but that the county has been using the
core (sic), am I saying that right, core method for over 20 years? Did I
hear that or is this something I'm reading into it? And explain exactly
what that means.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: A chord is the straight line between any
two points on an arc. So when you have -- and it's -- you got the
concept of concave and convex, the concave side of an arc is the arc --
is the part of the arc that looks like the cave, which would be the street
side of a cul -de -sac lot. The convex would be the lot side.
So on the concave side, you draw the chord from side lot line to
side lot line across the lot, and it -- Susan has some exhibits. We have
some industrial lots where the lot takes up half of the cul -de -sac, so
the chord actually cuts through the middle of the cul -de -sac. The
Page 159
March 10, 2009
setback puts the building out into the cul -de -sac. It would be a very
complicated decision, or situation.
But that's what the chord means, C- H- O -R -D, chord. It's simply
the straight line between two points on an arc.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have more commissioners that
would like to ask questions, but at the same time, we still have -- we
still want to hear a summation by the zoning director, the Griders, and
the applicant.
So would Commissioners mind waiting just a minute?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How we going to do that after you
closed the public hearing?
MR. KLATZKOW: The public hearing isn't closed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's been closed. So we're going to
have more presentations from the Griders?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is the summation.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is just the summation of their cases.
By the public hearing, it was people outside the parties.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. I can -- I can open the public hearing
back up if you would like, okay. I closed it a little early. I just
thought after the public spoke we should close it.
MR. KLATZKOW: I thought you meant the public speaking.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Okay, fine. So I'm opening
it back up then, and now we have -- we have public comment from the
zoning director and then from the Griders and then from the applicant.
MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes, Zoning Director.
I don't really need to sum up. I think the executive summary
does that pretty clearly. All I would ask is if you do deny the -- I'm
sorry. If you do support the appeal, meaning you deny the lot line
adjustment, if you would explain your reasons why. Because like we
put on the record, this is a pretty standard, common application, and if
Page 160
March 10, 2009
there's things that staff is doing that you feel are inconsistent with the
code, we would just ask for that clarification. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And now we hear from the
Griders.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we're all in an unfortunate
circumstance. I don't know how it spun so out of control, but it did.
And we need to objectively look at what does your Land Development
Code say, and your staff who is charged with interpreting and
implementing the Land Development Code has clearly stated that the
lot line adjustment is consistent with the Land Development Code.
I, for the life of me, can't think of anything in the criteria that we
don't meet other than we're the first one to use it for a corner lot. I
think people are struggling with, this is the first time this is happening,
and you're struggling with, that perhaps the neighbor will now have a
house that can be built closer to the north property line.
Keep in mind that the law does not give the neighbor any right to
a view. I am sorry that the neighbor will have a house built closer to
that north property line. Had the proper envelope been given to Craig
and Amber, they would have built within that envelope and, candidly,
could have built a house bigger than what's there today.
And we have provided that information to the neighbor. We've
shown them, if we lose every argument, every argument, the 25 feet
from the preserve, the -- we're not a corner lot, that we can't use the
chord, the result will be the house will have to be torn down if we lose
the variance -- and I don't have any reason to believe we won't win --
we will lose the variance other than to believe we'll lose the variance,
the house -- and if the judge says, tear the house down, the house will
get torn down and someone will build a bigger house than there is
today with the same configuration.
Is that truly the result that is intended by the board? No. The
law gives them the ability to fix this. They can fix a part of it. They
can fix the front yard setback and the side yard setback by -- through
Page 161
March 10, 2009
the lot line adjustment process.
This is the first time it's being utilized. That doesn't mean we're
not utilizing the code properly. Your staff has said we've met all the
criteria. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary that we haven't
met the criteria.
And as you know, if we meet the criteria, we're entitled to use the
process, and that's all we're asking to do is apply the facts to the
criteria and uphold staff s determination that the lot line adjustment is
valid and proper under the code.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And now we'll hear from the
applicant.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you. Briefly, Clay Brooker, again, for
the record.
Again, we will rely on the criteria in the Land Development
Code for a lot line adjustment. Is this an insubstantial change where
you lop off 240 square feet of non - buildable area to gain 1,337 square
feet of buildable area? We believe that's substantial, we believe that
increases your development rights and, therefore, the criteria are not
met for approving the lot line adjustment.
Secondly, we -- we've heard from Ms. Istenes that this lot line
adjustment was approved to, and I quote, legitimize a staff s error.
That staff s error was used to -- or resulted in a bigger house being
placed on this lot than would otherwise have been permitted and,
therefore, we ask for your support in granting the appeal of the LLA.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now we will close the public
hearing.
And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- Susan, I found my answers.
You're correct. I'm going to try to do this differently so I don't have to
waste so much time, everybody's time.
The only concern that I have is the intensity of the lot. And it's
Page 162
March 10, 2009
no different than a case that we had a few years ago where a staff
member says, well, you could candidly build the seawall to increase
the setbacks. I think the intent of our code is to allow staff to make
some insubstantial changes. Not to increase the intensity of a
particular property, but to try to assist our residents to come into
compliance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes: The motion -- the motion that
I made, this is in regards to 7A, and there will have to be a second
motion for 7B, but it's for 7A. And, again, this is a motion to approve
the applicant's appeal that it's inconsistent with the lot line adjustment,
and this is in favor of the LLA, and the reason being is it demonstrates
that the lot line adjustment in this case does affect the development
rights, and I believe it also permits more density on the property. So
that's my -- what I put into the motion.
And County Attorney, is that sufficient?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. My understanding is that you're ruling
basically on Clay's position.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now does everybody understand
the motion? Did you want to say something. Oh, yes, you do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to say that
there is no good answer here. I believe based upon the information
that was presented here today that the Griders did ask for approval
from the staff and they got the wrong answers. And I think it's a
tragedy that somebody will build a house based upon a set of
assumptions that are validated by the government and then be faced
with the possibilty of tearing it down. It is a terrible situation.
But the -- it's just as bad for the plaintiffs in this particular case.
They have every right to believe that the government will accurately
and fairly implement the provisions of our Land Development Code,
and I do not think that we have.
Page 163
March 10, 2009
I think that -- that from the time this lot was permitted as a corner
lot, in error, the staff moved from one attempt to cover it up and
justify it to another, and that that effort continued even after the house
was completed. Based upon the emails I have seen, there were senior
members of our staff who were trying to solve the problem by making
other decisions, administrative decisions, so it would go away, and
that is clearly not defensible.
And my reason for voting in favor of this motion is that it was
not an insubstantial change in accordance with Paragraph 4.03.04 of
our Land Development Code because it did let larger development
occur in violation of setbacks, and the impact on the neighborhood,
particularly the neighbor to the west, was not insubstantial.
I also find that it violates the spirit of Paragraph 4 of that same
provision concerning the densities and intensities of use. I agree that
it did not create additional lot or lots, but it did increase, in my
opinion, the density /intensity of the lot that was in existence. And I
think that is a violation of the spirit of that particular provision.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I also believe not only was the
government possibly at fault, but I also think that the designer and
builder could have been at fault because of the fact that this is their
occupation, they should have a full understanding of what they're
dealing with before they get started building a particular -- whatever it
is, whether it's a residential home or whether it's a commercial piece of
-- a commercial property.
They have a -- should have a full understanding of what the
regards are, and if they're not, then make sure they've got true
clarification prior to moving on. So there is a responsibility by the
developer also.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
Do we have any further discussion?
Page 164
March 10, 2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. You have a 4 -1 vote. Thank you
very much.
Now we're onto 7B.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I only know one commissioner that
-- on the dais that might have had some experience with chord, and
maybe Commissioner Coyle can lead us in that area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I don't have any argument
with the staff that they have, in fact, used the chord method in the past,
but the chord method doesn't provide for violations of setbacks. And
in this case, it did violate setbacks.
As I understand the guidance from the county attorney, the LDC
does not permit the chord measure methodology to result in an actual
setback less than 18 feet, and in this case it did.
So in my opinion, the issue is not whether the chord
measurement can be used. It is that the chord measurement cannot be
used to allow a violation of the setback.
So I would vote also to approve the appeal of that particular
decision by staff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I have a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't -- I have concerns to the
process. I think we need to go through the process.
Page 165
March 10, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Tell me what you mean.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we set up a process to
where our staff can explain, and actually the applicant paid money to
petition the Board of County Commissioners. Some of the
commissioners agree with that. I haven't heard our staff or I haven't
heard Mr. Grider's representation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: These were all grouped into one. You
mean you want to separately address this particular --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, are these grouped
together?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you present on this item
separately?
MR. BROOKER: Not yet, unfortunately.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I thought that's what we did in the
beginning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There was some explanation of the
chord here early on.
MR. BROOKER: And based upon the comments, with your
indulgence, I will be five minutes. This one's a lot less involved. If --
because this is a separate appeal that deals with the front yard setback
-- have not been talking about specifically the front yard setback
appeal yet. What we've been talking about up to this point was a lot
line adjustment to convert a non - corner lot to a corner lot and
everything that's involved in that.
You're going to hear the word chord here in the next appeal, but
this is, in fact, a separate appeal.
Is that fair, Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think the prudent thing to do would be to
hear Mr. Brooker and just go through this. And I don't think we
should spend nearly as much time on this as we did the prior one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, please. You're going to lose us all.
Page 166
March 10, 2009
MR. BROOKER: And I'm already lost. But the danger here is if
I don't make a presentation and someone in the public wants to appeal
this particular vote, I've got no record to rely upon, so I will be very
brief. Thank you.
And I'm going to piggy -back on Commissioner Coyle's opening
statement, if you will. This is the definition of a -- the front yard in
the LDC. And I will simply go right to the second sentence that's
highlighted here.
In the cases of the irregularly shaped lots, including culs -de -sac,
the depth may be measured at right angles to a straight line joining the
foremost points of the side lot line. That's a lot of verbiage, by the
way, just to mean the chord.
But then that last caveat becomes important, starting with the
word provided. Provided the depth at any point is never less than the
minimum length of a standard parking space as established within the
code. If you go to that particular section of the code which has been
updated since then -- that's not the right cite -- but the minimum length
of standard parking space is 18 feet.
This will be hopefully the last exhibit I show you. What the
county did here was, to permit this house, they measured just a
straight 25 feet. The Olde Cypress PUD requires 25 feet for front yard
setbacks.
A straight 25 -foot measurement along the straight portion of the
road. And then once you get into the cul -de -sac portion of the lot,
they utilized the chord method. That chord method, again, you would
have to then measure 25 feet from that chord. That is fine. No part of
the house actually encroaches into that section of the 25 feet measured
from the chord. But, again, you hit that last caveat, provided that the
resulting front yard depth is no less than 18 feet.
I have noted here this arced dashed line is the 18 -foot minimum
line. And you can see right there -- I guess that would be the
southeast corner of the house -- that there are encroachments even
Page 167
March 10, 2009
utilizing this half and half straight line here, chord measurements here.
There are encroachments here that violate the definition of how a front
yard setback should be measured and what its minimum of 18 feet can
be.
Granted, the encroachments are small, relatively small, anywhere
from six inches to 16 inches. We fully realized that an administrative
variance could be issued to cure this, again, after the fact, but we felt
when we are investigating everything that occurred with permitting of
this house, that this was yet another example of what -- all the chips
that had to fall into place to place this house on this lot.
And so our contention is that the front yard setback measurement
and the staff clarification that was issued to justify how this was
measured on the lot violates the Land Development Code and,
therefore, we respectfully request that you vote in support of our
appeal of this issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. The Grider representative, please.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm supposed to ask him questions right
now? I have a quick question --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- based on what he just said. He said he
fully recognizes under the code that my clients can apply for an
administrative variance to fix this problem. I just want on the record,
if they do apply for an administrative variance to fix this property, this
issue, I'm not going to be back here with a challenge to that
administrative fix, for this 6 -inch and 16 -inch problem on the very
corner of this house. Would you state on the record? Because, I
mean, I'm a practical kind of guy, you know.
Why spend all this time and effort to go through this process
when if someone would have simply called me and said, apply for an
administrative variance to fix a 6 -inch problem, I clearly would have
told my client, just do it and save the aggravation of what we just went
through today.
March 10, 2009
MR. BROOKER: If that's a question to me, I -- I would not -- I
cannot answer without consulting my client, and if, in fact, they're
going to have to go through the process to fix another error, then I
think my client has a right to say, yes, go through that process.
Whether we can determine if there's any problems with granting an
administrative variance between now and then, I cannot state on the
record.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just -- again, never ask a lawyer a
question. I thought he just says he's fully aware that we can fix this
through the administrative variance process.
I just want to -- apparently the answer to that question is, I don't
know. I'm not sure, Rich, that if your client does it, we're not going to
put you back through this process again. And let me know when it's
my turn to present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Then it is your turn to present, yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me just try to simplify this. Mr.
Brooker, the only issue you're bringing up on this appeal is the 18
feet? You're not challenging the chord method itself?
MR. BROOKER: Technically, we disagree with the fact that a
hybrid method of using both a straight line and a chord measurement
are improper. The code doesn't permit that, we don't believe so.
They're using both. The code says you either do one or the other.
That's in that definition; however, based upon, you know, the time
constraints and the comments, I focused my continents only on the
fact that even if you agree that that hybrid method of measuring is
correct, there's still a violation and -- of the setback, and that's what --
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But the only issue you're presenting
to the board right now is the fact that it doesn't meet the 18 feet?
MR. BROOKER: I will rely on the appeal, but yes, that's the
only -- that's the only issue I've spoken on.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And then Rich Yovanovich said
Page 169
March 10, 2009
he would like an opportunity to present as well.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The only thing I'm going to argue, and
it's been pointed out in your staff report, is that this appeal was
untimely. The appeal needed to happen within 30 days of the issuance
of the building permit. What he has chosen to appeal is a staff
clarification that does not apply to this property. It applies to a
process on how you implement that term in the Land Development
Code.
So if you want to say from this point forward, staff, this is the
process you must follow, fine; but you cannot retroactively apply this
appeal to this piece of property because it is, in effect, an appeal of an
interpretation without going through the official interpretation process,
I might point out.
But this was an -- this was a clarification on how the code is
applied that was issued many, many, many months after the building
permit was issued, and it wasn't even applicable to this particular
property. It was guidance for future implementation of the code. I
think the appeal was untimely. It shouldn't be here. It should have
been -- it should have been -- I guess you're the only ones who can
decide whether to dispense with it or not, but I think it should be
dismissed as untimely or only applied prospectively, and not
retroactively, to this lot.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So nobody has any comments. We have a
motion on the floor. Does it stand?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we hear from the county
attorney?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jeff, somebody lost me out in
left field with this one.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I think -- the chord appeal always
struck me as a bit odd. But if what Mr. Brooker's trying to do is say
that staff has utilized the wrong methodology for the chord, I would
Page 170
March 10, 2009
say that we've been doing this for 20 years. We have -- Lord knows
how many lots have been utilized this way.
And so if you want to direct staff to utilize a different method, it
should be on a prospective basis only, on a going - forward basis. It
should not go back in time, including the Griders' lot. This is how the
county's customarily done business for at least 20 years.
If the issue is that they missed the 18 feet, you can direct staff as
you wish at that point in time. But, I mean, to me, the cure is an
administrative remedy here. And for six inches, I'm not sure why
we're arguing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, forgive me, but -- I think
there's probably a motion. But one of the suggestions that was made
-- and I'm not sure how that would work, would be to dismmss it
because of --
MR. KLATZKOW: You can dismiss it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- because you have to have a
rationale and a reason for doing it. Something about an untimely
filing?
MR. KLATZKOW: There are issues whether or not it was a
timely. There are issues whether or not it has any substantive merit
anyway because you can't require the house to be demolished based
on a later clarification.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So then what would happen with this?
Say, for instance, the motion went through as it is, then what are the
ramifications of that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Would you repeat the motion, sir?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The motion is that -- the
motion does not -- I'll clarify it first. The motion does not challenge
the staff s opinion that the chord method may be utilized, but the
motion is to grant the petitioner's appeal that the application of the
chord measurement that resulted in a setback of less than 18 feet was
improper.
Page 171
March 10, 2009
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- that's what the motion was.
And it doesn't -- it doesn't provide any guidance with respect to the
use of the chord method, to the proper use of the chord method. But
the staff was clearly in error by permitting this less than 18 -foot
setback.
MR. KLATZKOW: And the result of that motion then would be
the Griders are going to have to get an administrative -- go back and
get an administrative variance if one is appropriate.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I just make sure I clarified my
argument, if you don't mind? And I appreciate your indulgence.
I think that he had -- it is untimely on the 18 -foot argument. He
should have raised that argument within 30 days of the issuance of the
building permit. That -- it's -- he's not filed his appeal. The
administrative action he should be appealing is the issuing of the
building permit, and that happened more than 30 days prior to his
filing the appeal.
So I think even the -- putting us through the administrative
process is untimely and, frankly he -- you know, for the six inches and
the 16 inches, he should lose on being untimely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, would you like for me to
respond to that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'm just telling you what my
argument was. You don't have to respond. I'm just -- I understand.
MR. BROOKER: I may be -- may be able to offer help out of
this quandary. What happened was when this was discovered, yes, the
house had already been permitted. The building permit had been
issued for some time. We have no way of knowing when someone
measures a front yard setback. No neighbor does.
The neighbor comes in, they file for their permit. Your next -door
neighbor has no idea what any of you are doing. So -- in a sense, it's a
little unfair to say we were untimely because what happened here was
Page 172
March 10, 2009
once we alerted the staff to this issue, that's when they issued the staff
clarification to say, oh, well, what we did was right.
So -- but what we're offering is, we will withdraw this appeal
with the caveat that the Griders go through the administrative variance
procedure to fix, if they can under the code, to fix the 6 -inch to
16 -inch encroachment, and I say that knowing I had a motion on the
floor, so you've got to grant me something here. But I'm offering that
help, if that is help.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Clay, they're going to have to
come through a variance process anyways. Doing an administrative
variance on that -- and if he wants to, I'm fine with that -- but it's going
to cost him. My opinion, just lump all these issues into one variance
but also give the Griders an opportunity to do an administrative
variance on that issue.
I mean, we're talking about variances of setbacks. And bundle it
up and bring it the board. Are you okay with that?
MR. BROOKER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're basically saying the same
thing.
MR. BROOKER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I can support that. But I
guess we're going -- after that, we're going to have to give staff some
direction on this whole chord measurement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But now, Clay would like to withdraw his
appeal. Okay. Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think what we need to
do is give direction -- make a motion for direction to have staff to do
-- to go either through an administrative variance process or just a
general variance on all the setback issues.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have Commissioner Coletta and
Commissioner Coyle waiting also. Commissioner Coletta.
Page 173
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Just very briefly. From
what I understand, regardless of how we vote on Commissioner
Coyle's motion, they still go in for a variance. So I kind of wonder
why we're stalling this whole thing.
But here's something I'm just going to throw out, and I know I'm
probably going to get trounced to death on it. This whole thing has to
do with the back end of the property that faces the neighbor, right?
Could we make a requirement, direct staff to correct all these
variances and make them chop off that back corner as part of the
variance? We can't? Could we?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think we want to go there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I thought it might be fun
to try, bring some end to this, but maybe we won't -- okay. We're not
going to get there from here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You think it would actually solve the
problem?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm going to take a shot at
your suggestion and say that that's probably best resolved between the
two parties here to see what can be accomplished that would make
both of them happy, and let them get together and come up with a
settlement of some kind.
But nor am I going to make assumptions about what either of the
parties should do here. I mean, if the Griders want to come in for an
administrative variance here, that's up to them to decide. It's not for us
to tell them that's what they should do.
I was merely making a motion which was intended to convey my
position that the chord measurement in this case was improperly
applied because it resulted in less than an 18 -foot setback. That's all
I'm saying.
The chord method as the staff has used it in the past is perfectly
fine. I don't know of any reason why we want to tell the staff to
Page 174
March 10, 2009
change that process as long as they do it in a way that is consistent
with the rest of the LDC.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All right. Call the motion,
please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, So I have a motion on the floor
and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 5 -0.
Okay. Commissioner Henning, you're trying to say something,
and then we're going to break.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Does everybody agree
that if the Griders or Mr. Yovanovich's attorney -- or client comes in
for a variance, they can take care of this inches? And the reason why
I'm --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, but that isn't really the problem at
all. You know, Commissioner Coletta hit it right on the head. It's the
back end there that's looking into their neighbor's house. That's what
it's all about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand that, but it -- what
I'm trying to offer is one variance, one fee, instead of having to do an
administrative variance if they don't want to do that, just take care of it
all at once. Does everybody agree with that or not?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know if it would work that way, so
I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Susan?
Page 175
March 10, 2009
MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes, for the record. They could do
that, assuming they do apply for a variance. They could wrap
everything into one. That is an option. If they qualify for an
administrative variance, they could apply for one, and if they meet the
criteria, it likely would be approved. That is another option.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wish somebody could bring
these people together and maybe bring an end to this. And all the
money they could save, they could feed all the hungry people out
there for a hundred years.
MS. ISTENES: I don't make enough money to do that,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about a campfire?
MS. ISTENES: May I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do a campfire, cook some
marshmallows.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Yes?
MS. ISTENES: May I ask for further direction from the board
on this?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle is up next. Hold on
just a minute.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I was going to say that I
didn't want to get involved in providing the staff direction because
administrative variances are your authority. You have the authority to
do that. I don't want to jump in there and start telling you how you
handle -- should handle an administrative variance in this case.
But I would -- I agree with Commissioner Coletta, it would be
good if the two sides were to get together and say, okay, you know, if
I lopped off a little bit of this and a little bit of that, cut it down to one
story and all that sort of stuff, will it work? You know, that would be
good if they could work that out.
But I don't want to -- I don't want to give you advice about
Page 176
March 10, 2009
whether or not you should take an administr- -- do the administrative
thing, and however way you do it is fine with me.
MS. ISTENES: I'm not looking for that, if that's what you were
concerned about. And I didn't want to -- I could see the way this was
heading, and I didn't want to interject some more confusion into it, I
guess. But what I do need to do and what I'm asking to do is clarify
the 18 -foot setback requirement.
The intent of the 18 -foot setback requirement is to ensure that
there's adequate parking in a driveway, that cars don't park over
sidewalks or end up in the street, and that's why you have the 18 -foot
requirement consistent with the parking space requirement.
That really is only applicable where you're parking a car;
however, I will admit the code isn't entirely clear on that. It think it's
also not entirely clear where you take that 18 -foot point. You could
read it as taking it from the chord versus the property line the way it's
worded.
So my -- I guess my question is simply just, if it's okay, we could
bring this back in the LDC amendment cycle this round and just get
this cleaned up at least to the extent of this issue. The whole definition
of chord and front yards and all that needs to be cleaned up, but I don't
really think we'll get there this cycle, to be honest with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I agree. Let me -- I've read
that. I understand how the chord works. It makes no sense measuring
it from the chord on a cul -de -sac, but it's not -- it is clear, as you point
out. But you're still going to have to design some setback from the are
derived from the chord.
MS. ISTENES: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And whatever that happens
to be should be specified, and it should be consistently applied and
accurately applied. But with that guidance, that's about all I could do
to help you.
MS. ISTENES: That's all I'm really looking for.
Page 177
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I think we're now finished with
this subject.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I hope so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's all take a little bit of a break. We'll
give ourselves about a 12- minute break here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hour and a half.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I would love to get it all done.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're going to try and finish this up by
six o'clock. So we'll just cook right along.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2009 -62: APPOINTING TOM CRAVENS AND
KEITH J. DALLAS, RE- APPOINTING MARY ANNE WOMBLE
AND GEOFFREY GIBSON TO THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION BOARD — ADOPTED; STAFF DIRECTED TO RE-
ADVERTISE FOR VACANT COMMERCIAL POSITION
MR. MUDD: That brings us to our next part of our agenda,
which is Board of County Commissioners, and we're at 9A, which is
appointment of members to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about 8A, when we moved
that to 17A to 8A?
MR. MUDD: Well, it's an advertised public hearing. We'll
recognize it, and we'll -- when we do, they want -- and the board voted
that they wanted to hear it after 12A.
Page 178