CCPC Backup 05/21/2009 R
CCPC
REGULAR
MEETING
BACKUP
DOCUMENTS
MAY 21, 2009
c~r+ ~;Jf1,fctz..
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 2], 2009, IN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BU]LDlNG,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE L1M]TED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.
INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGAN]ZATlON OR
GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED] 0 M]NUTES TO SPEAK ON
AN ]TEM IF SO RECOGN]ZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE
WRITTEN OR GRAPH]C MA TERlALS INCLUDED ]N THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS
MUST SUBM]T SAID MATERIAL A M]NIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEAR]NG. ]N ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS
INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPR]ATE 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 W]LL BE
A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO TilE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
]1' APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DEC]SION OF THE CCPC W]LL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERT A]NING THERETO, AND THEREFORE
MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD ]NCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APR]L 16, 2009
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MA Y 12,2009
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: SV-2009-AR-14140, Red Roof Inn, represented by Brent Forte of Site Enhancement Services,
Inc. is requesting four Sign Variances from LDC Section 5.06.04. The first variance is from Subsection
5.06.04 C.l. which requires a minimum separation of I,OOO-foot between signs to allow 262* feet between
signs. The second variance is tram Subsection 5.06.04 c.I.a. which allows a ] 5-foot high sign to allow a
23-foot high sign. The third variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 C.I.c. which allows a sign area of 80
square feet to allow a sign area of 96* square feet. The fourth variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 CA
which permits one wall sign to allow an additional wall sign. The subject property is located at 1925
Davis Boulevard, in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Nancy Gundlach, A]CP)
1
B. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13679, Edward Larson of Messiah Lutheran Church Inc., represented by
Dwight Nadeau ofRWA, Inc.. is requesting a Conditional Use in the Estates (E) Zoning District to expand
an existing church and to add an accessory child day care center, pursuant to Subsection 2.03.0I.B.I.c.] of
the Land Development Code. The 5. I 5-acre subject property is located at 5800 Golden Gate Parkway in
Section 29. Township 49 South. Range 26 East. Collier County. Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss,
AICP)
C. PUDZ-2008-AR-12804, Avow Hospice Inc., represented hy Tim Hancock, A]CP, of Davidson
Engineering Inc., requesting a PUD Rezone from Community Facility (CF) and Agricultural (A) Zoning
Districts with a Waterfront Special Treatment Overlay to a Community Facility Planned Use Development
(CFPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as Avow Hospice CFPUD. The 15.25* acres subject
property is for the expansion of the existing Hospice use. The subject property is south of Pine Ridge
Road at 1095 Whippoorwill Lane. in Section 18. Township 49 South and Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone)
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13245. Collier County through its Solid Waste Management Department.
represented by David Deans of PI3S & J. is requesting Conditional Uses within the Rural Agricultural
Zoning District within the North Belle Meade Overlay and Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMU)
Overlay fix Sending Areas to allow]) a "Collection and Transfer Site for Resource Recovery." pursuant to
Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 2.03.0I.A.l.c.12: and 2) "Public Facilities,
including Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Facility" and "Public Vehicle and Equipment Storage and
Repair Facilities" pursuant to LDC Section 2.03.08.AA.a.(3)(b) of the RFMU District for a project to be
known as the Resource Recovery Park. The subject property. consisting of approximately 341 acres. is
located approximately 1.5 miles east uf Collier Boulevard and 1 mile north of White Lake Boulevard.
in Section 25. Township 49 South. Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem,
AICP) CONTINUED FROM 5/7/09
10. OLD BUSINESS
A. Discussion of Boat Dock Extension Review Criteria
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSS]ON OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
5/21109 C('PC Agenda/Ray Bellows/cr
2
AGENDA ITEM 8-A
RESOLUTION 09-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION
NUMBER SV-2009-AR-14140, GRANTING FOUR (4) SIGN
VARIANCES; VARIANCE ONE IS FROM LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE SUBSECTION 5.06.04.C.1 TO ALLOW
AN ON-PREMISES SIGN LOCATED LESS THAN 1,000 FEET
FROM ANOTHER SIGN; THE SECOND VARIANCE IS FROM
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SUBSECTION 5.06.04.C.1.a TO
ALLOW A 23-FOOT mGH ON-PREMISES SIGN; THE THIRD
VARIANCE IS FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
SUBSECTION 5.06.04.C.1.c TO ALLOW A SIGN AREA OF 96 *
FEET; AND THE FOURTH VARIANCE BEING FROM LDC
SUBSECTION 5.06.04.C.4, TO ALLOW A SECOND WALL SIGN;
ALL VARIANCES FOR THE RED ROOF INN, WHICH IS
LOCATED AT 1925 DAVIS BOULEVARD IN SECTION 2,
TOWNsmp 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and
such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC)
(Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner now owns and operates the property located at 1925 Davis
Boulevard in Collier County, Florida and seeks to alter the signage on the property; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner wishes to have signs with less than 1,000 feet of separation for
on-premises signs; and
WHEREAS, without a variance, Petitioner cannot have on-premises signs within 1,000
feet of each other pursuant to LDC Section 5.06.04.CI; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner wishes to have a sign of 23 feet in height; and
WHEREAS, without a variance, Petitioner cannot have a sign in excess of 15 feet in
height, pursuant to LDC Section 5.06.04.C.l.a; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner wishes to have a sign with an area of 96 * square feet; and
100
.~
."~...
WHEREAS, without a variance, Pctitioner cannot have a sign in excess of 80 square feet,
pursuant to LDC section 5.06.04.C. Lc; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner wishes to have a second wall sign on a three story building; and
WHEREAS, without a variance, Petitioner is entitled to only one wall sign on its building
pursuant to 5.06.045.CA; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board) has held a public hearing with due
notice made, and has considered the advisability of granting these variances; and
WHEREAS, the Board has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by the Land
Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested partics have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board
in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considercd all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that tbe Board hereby approves four variances from LDC
Sections 5.06.04.C.1, 5.06.04.C.I.a, 5.06.04.C.Lc and 5.06.04.CA, subject to the Conditions of
Approval in Exhibit B, as requested in Petition SV -2009-AR-14140 filed by Brent Forte of Site
Development Services, Inc., on behalf of the Petitioner, Red Roof Inn, concerning the subject
property at 1925 Davis Boulevard in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East in Collier
County, Florida.
BE IT FlJRTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number SV-
2009-AR-14140 be recorded in tbe minutes ofthis Board.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and super-majority vote, this _ day of
,2009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:_.~_~
By:
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
, Deputy Clcrk
20f3
Approved as to form and
legal suffj ciency:
STEVEN T. WILLIAMS ~,jl .0"-
Assistant County Attorney ') ~.~
Attachments: Exhibit A - Sign and Site Depictious
Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval
CPI09-CPS-00925\22
Rev. 5/11109
30f3
-
I I
fii I~
~~
a:
w
~
~
~
,
5
z
. z w
00 ~
.....J
'" LL>-
>- 011. a
~ "'LL
W iuD r--- ~
~ "'Cj w
-z a:
a: "'- ~
-....
;z: o~ I
0 ~1li 5
'" w
a: '" ~~ ~
W cr:
.o::r ~ W (f)LL~ I ~ I
"00 S lU",O CO I
oa:_
>T'"" ..J <(w~ .... ,..
.... u..~>U) 0 ~
-o::r ::J .... t: w~
alM W ::> '" ~..Jm~ ...-
0 0 -' Q) w
l1'. UJ .... - 0-, :;
rn...J .J :Jz~ tCWzo OJ W
"> U. rozec oQw luzgz ro a:
...0.... ........0 a:~>-", I Q... :l
m o"'w :S~z :1:11._ *
C rn w""o LLW", i"occoo ,
">z .J _ Cooon: <{ :;
Q) ow", ;'wcn xwu..o
LO - ~uJUj "'a:cr: "'....Jr--LL I f- ~
C'IIo. u'oo (J5'w",,,, I
"'a:cr: OLLU, ""-OWW OJ u:
mm LLOO all-lOW -""",,,, I ~
T'""Z OLLLL lUWlU ZN'lL""if.
<(Iu~::; "'",,,, -zo- ><
"'",,,, Zsif.et e"o~tlJtlJ w ~
Z set et e"www -l':o",UJ
Zww en. ..
e"www -oCJ)cn z
Zww en. . .
-OCl}CI) (j
en. . . ;;
(/j
z
"
" ii
Cl ~
Ui
c c;; a:
c w
Cl 0 ~
<f) ""
u ~
Cl Q)
c .::
'ti 0 0
c Z z
'" ~
- :?;
III "
Q) 0-
Q) 0 ~
~ 0
LL t>:: 0
0- W" 0
DO c Q)
,,:I: Clt>:: ..1....
Cl Ui
Ui
~
s
..
'1s
&
l"-
e')
C'II
I"-
:tt::
ro i
u..
0
N
~--'[
S u.._ ~
-'"
'-'- ~ ~
Cl -
Q '" ~
&2 ~
I 0
~1:iffi
~ ~
Cil'" I
~
~
z: 0
0 Z
~ I;:
u b
0
~ Z
ill
(/)
~
~
~
Z
ill
c:
ill
CO "
"
'<- 5
0 ill
N I
~
OJ ~
en
ro ~
0.. (/)
~
Z
<( ill
Z
!::: ill
CO
CO ::>
I ~
>< ~
W 9
w
c... iL
~
~
~
Z ro 0
<t u.. '" Z
a: u.. N
0 ::J N 0
:2 I N ~
z w '"
I a u.. Z
0 Z Cf) ~
..., <t a: Vi
Vi B
w '"
<i' :;E '" ii'
V) 0.. "" W
~
c: ~
ea ~
c
.c:'-
i=lCo! 0
Co= z
cE,Sl ~
C:1:lI~ ~
~ ~
0
0
'" ~
.; LL
<C LL 0
.;- '"
Z en
G '" ~ ~
-
- a;; ~
en 0 SLLIJ)
- _ en Z
~S!!~
(;) g- f/J
,e~ ~
~[;;ffi
~ ~
Qt'" ~
:2 0
0 z
~ ~
u 6
0
~ Z
LIJ
~
a
~
LIJ
a:
w
CO It
..... 0
0 W
C') ~
rJ) <t Q) ~
e-
z c: Ol
tTl CO
Vi D- III
~
.; W
11. <( :;
.;- I- w
en n:
:>
N ro ~
-
.,; J:
M X :;
N W '3
w
ii:
~
'" ~
Z Z
~ LL 0
LL N d
0 ::l N
::;; :r: N ;:;
-
z W III
:r: (5 LL Z
0 z rJ) CJ
-, << a: 10
u; ~
w "-'
~ ~
<< '" if
V1 "'- << W
j ~
.c;! 2
~ 91[
c ~ CJ
~ ~
l)
Q) i
u.
rn 0
w v
::J
[l,
~ [l, S:.J
Z ::>
<( 00 rn Su.0
0:1- 0:
Z U.O W _ 0 ~
Ww ;;; ""'- -! Ui
CJ "'I- ~tu () .. ~
Oz
1-- ~~ -
- rn;t Zrn
en 0, ~a: .... It
~ I-m!z'ZQ '" W
m ffi :a N ~
" 0:',(000:
UJ 1< ~ z ~ ~rfifug~ Ca{1i; ~
'-' l':'
;1: in " ~ a:
UJ "' :J(.)rrt- It
0 '-' II: Q. ;1: ::; O~Orn_ 0
II: ~ " Q. =>
=> ~ z :!: 1-->:0 Z z
>- z "'
'-' ::; g II: ~ ~ >l rn~(1)~~ 0 6:
" => ~ ~ IXXI rJ) fi
Q. UJ Z :;; ~t-..~o::J 5
'" II: " il u
0
'-' :i: 3 g Q. z<(~.J ~ Z
::; "' ~O:E. ?_
~ ~ '" W
N ~
lL
r ~
rn W
Z a:
i'o w
t- o: It
::> co
tu n
<<-
0: 0 W
'" <t '<t' ~
(,)
:5 [l, ~ <ll ~
~ en
L ED c( ._ Cll
Wu en
~ ~::;; LL ~
zffi~~~
9u(,)::Ew <( ::1
W
zifc:t:::>1- f- a:
<( [Dz::l "
oO::;;5Ew CO *
~~~3~ :c
::1
~Cl~~~ >< 9
I-W::loo l1J
::Jo:~;g:5 w
~~cr>~0l Ii
~ r-- co. .. ~
LL:N~~:-
. . .
~
0
Z Q) z
~u.,,!,
U. N .
O::JC\!U
r on :E:C~6
~ ZW'VI
'" Iau..Z
0 OZ"'I:!
~ -:l<(D:cn
D t Vi .. C' ~
". 0 w
:0:< rn ~ ~ '" it
'"
W .J tI) "- '" W
.J ;! ! ~
<(
(,) 0
'" I-
,! 2
.% ~l 6 Cl ~
=CQ= !::1
@Q ~~
-'I!:!
=....
::l
.'" 9',~~
m
z
CJ
-
en
~T..
.
,
~,
1','.
,
(.
.
"
~
~,
r,:
r
t...
I~,
[,
,
fl'
i.
f
ti..
~-,-"
. ~,~:,<,:".
~~?:":~_:;j
:i..
,
r.
,
t"...
ri.,
,Z..
tif,;':,
1,-,,",:
1.<:.0-
u:
0-
m
to
"':
'"
'"
en
!z
il (~~l
-~~
.'7~cr9
u::
0-
m
o
.,;
'"'
-'
~
~
~==
~~=
;"1-::-1-
"
'"
en
I-
Z
.~h9
Cl
c:
Cl
en
'"
LL
o
U"l
i
~.J@
S LL UJ
_ 0~ z
'-.L.. ~ \'I
() g. UJ
cl}~~
"'\:s t:; ffi
-~ ~ ~
Q2"~
o
z
1;:
g
z
~
~
w
~
w
II:
5
IlJ
~
~
~
w
:<
w
~
:0
~
:<
9
IlJ
II
~
:2
o
~
u
o
~
~
W
f-
Z '" Oz
<( LL 0
a:!S~Li
~I<oi~
ZW~CI)
I(3LLZ
Q~~~
8:i ~
~ ~ ~ ffi-
Ul 0.. <(
~
.c~~ ~
~~S1 ~
c:caca Cl
~~
'"
....
o
l!)
Q)
Cll
'"
c..
<:(
?-
m
::r:
x
ill
lD
Z
G
-
en
r
~ ~
~ 0(1)
z ffi ~ffi
j: ()~:z:
~ :t 5~
~ ~ z~
~
o
:g
Cl
~
~
o
"
~
t
..
.....
'1s-~
.a1L6
t:: 1~.j>O
'1~ GG--\:
. .anOI-,j>
no/~O-.9
'"
":
gj
~
o
00
~
o
....
~
u.
u.
o
Co
o
UJ
~
::J
o
~::tn
UJoo
m::5
Oel
....-
(1)(;)
a:-J
UJe..
~8
-Ju..
. .
~
,-----
00
a:....
z
[Xl
c:
Cl
rn
'"
u.
o
'"
i
~--,2
~u..",
.~i~
""'"- Q. f/)
Q '" ~
~~ Q
... oc
"'~~
&~ ~
o
z
~
o
z
~
Q.
!z
w
oc
~
0Cl is
"- w
o ~
CD
& ~
ro
CL ~
~
w
oc
:J
~
~
9
w
iL
z
o
~
~
o
--'
<l::
~
CD
I
><
W
~
~
z '" z
<<u..q,
a:: u. '" .
o ::1 C\! 0
:::;;:r:~~
ZW'(I)
:z:au.z
OZrJ)!2
....., <:( a: 0)
e:i " ~
....J . ~ I- Q-
<<:Ea:ffi
Vl "- <<
c: ~
i~! ~
c:;r g
~~
()
z
~
-
en
,.------.
oJ
LL
,;.
<J)
'"
.,;
a>
(J)
f-
Z
o
c:
C1l
(i.j
'"
"-
o
....
i
~..J~
$"-",
-. u) z
,. ~ Cl
~a.-
Q"''''
&~ ~
~~ i
&~ ~
o
z
~
5
z
~
..
1z
w
a:
w
It
co a
w
~
~
~
w
:;
w
a:
:0
~
:;
~
Ii:
~
~
'" z
C! ,
'" .
"! 0
~ ~
. Ul
"- Z
(J) 0
a: iii
z
o
~
u
o
-'
-
o
I"-
(l)
OJ
co
0..
~
l-
ce
:r:
><
w
c
z
~t::
OJ!
::;;
z~
ICl
OZ
..,<<:
Vi ~
~ ""' i)
~ ~ ~ ffi
a ~
.sa ~
"fSi~ ~
~;'r ~
~~
o
z
C5
-
en
'"
t=
~
'"
If
;- ;.
(0 Co
Lh
tu
z
ii'i
'"
<>
"
z
tii
x
w
w
u
;t:
tu
z
~
"
:>
z
'"
"
:?
w
"-
a:
I-
'"
~
u
u
'"
w
~
z
K'
o
'" "
a: Z
~ ~
--' w
--' >-
w 1i'
z '"
~ .
<> ~
~ it
if 9
z "'
w "
fj ~
'"
w
:::J
0.
n.
:>
'" u
a: j;:
w <>
5 ~
0. W
1 t- ,'kL8 L .D~
.0/. ;;-,B
,BILo-m
.9-.~ ~
"'
a:
w
~
~
~
~
::>
'"
.BIS9
z
'"
I-
Z
o ~
I-- '"
@ Ii- 0
_ J: ~~::E: 0 ~ (/)
~ ~ 6~ ~ lJJW
o I-- 1=- 0:J
;: tc (J):2:w fa ~&:
i=- U) ~~F ~ tu11l
~ ::':00 ~ za:
if: g~6 ~z~~
::E ;.rCJ)W ir~OO
:J ;'zZ mz::>D...
~ U,)u:~ >i::-a:6j
::E rrtlrCf.)cnUJ~~~
3 ~g:it~i::>oa:
c:((l)wEe(l<(z'-w::S
OUJJgLLlU.<t~~::>
~ ~ ...J'q g t:i 9 ~:: g
ou.:~'tU~U)~g!:E
wtuz~wtOQCI)zz
~z~a:(J()~~o<
zoo{)~lfowo~9
U;(3~a:~~~~~~
W(!]c:t (j)t-:::t....
f~tL.~fi3z~r.;=!~
. I-z:r::EU: '" >::::1 9
o!Qw:;::::Ew::>u-o
i!!ii'ig;;;,!J!c:o~filz
.. .... o..~.. 7W
o
;::
I-
@~
=- en
::;
'"
u.
o
'"
i
~-'~
Su."
_., z
\.a- -5. ~
0'"
&~ ~
..... a:
"l::s '" tu
&~ ~
~
o
z
~
5
z
w
~
"-
~
tu
a:
w
u.
u.
n
w
~
~
~
w
:;
w
a:
:>
~
;:;;
cl
Ii:
~
~
~lt~z
~~~~
z!::!::! Co?
::x:CJLLZ
OZCIJ~
""":I<ClI:Cii
Ui ~
~~~U
Vlo:~ffi
c ~
.c~~ ~
~~& z
-- ~
...~ !:!
~~
z
o
~
u
g
u
c:
Cl
en
ex)
.....
o
ex)
OJ
C)
11l
a..
<(
f-
ID
:r:
x
UJ
L
CONDITION OF APPROVAL
FOR
SV-2009-AR-14140
1. The existing directional sign (Sign E shown on Exhibit A page 2 of 8) for the Red Roof Inn
located at the eastern entrance on Davis Boulevard shall be removed.
EXHIBIT B
AGENDA ITEM 8-8
~
RESOLUTION 09-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW THE
EXPANSION OF A CHURCH IN THE ESTATES (E) ZONING
DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.03.01.B.1.c.1 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5800 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY, IN
SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida,
and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish,
coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection
of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code
(Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among
which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly appointed and constituted
planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said
regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of allowing the expansion of
a Church as a Conditional Use pursuant to Section 2.03.0LB.Lc.l of the Collier County Land
Development Code (LDC) in the Estates (E) Zoning District on the property hereinafter
described, and the Collier County Planning Commission has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit
"A") that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable
matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 1O.08.00.D. of the Land
Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board
in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented.
Rev. 5/8/09
Page I of2
......."""..........
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier
County, Florida, that:
The petition filed by Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc., representing Messiah Lutheran
Church, Inc. of Golden Gate, with respect to the property most commonly described as 5800
Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Collier County, Florida, within Golden Gate Subdivision, as
further described in Official Records Book 1380, Page 401, Plat Book 7, Page 58, Tract 81, Unit
30 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, be and the same is hereby approved for a
Conditional Use pursuant to Section 2.03.0LRLc.1 of the Collier County Land Development
Code (LDC) in the Estates (E) zoning district to allow the expansion of a Church, in accordance
with the attached Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "B"), and subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "C," which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Board.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and super-majority vote, this ~ day of
,2009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
By:
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
, Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
STEVEN T. WILLIAMS
Assistant County Attorney S1''-'1 ~
s. .tJ-r
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Planning Commission Findings
Conceptual Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Rev. 5/8/09
Page 2 of2
FINDING OF FACT
BY THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
CU-2008-AR-13679
The following facts are found:
L Section 2.03.03.C.S of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and conveniencc, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
No affect or _ Affect mitigated by
Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) be
recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
DATE:
COMMISSIONER:
Exhibit A
+~-
. \
---I
i
!
I
--_.---_._~--
r.-----------.
I
,
L
~~
I
,~
:?'i~
~ ~~m
~~H
~s:8; l'
~~~g ~~
1'1\~~ ,1;1
I~!II!
~~~~
;:I~~~
;;'''~
0;"
I
~-
I
JULY.2ro/I
1i10000.IXJ,OO
m~
, . ,
11"
, '
l,i
!
!
I I
__~--+ -i
! I
I
II'
'>:~
) r-"''-:'''K.:<",..-,~7>''---------
i- I~ L
----::rr-----' .
j-' "r:,i",_-c,-.-"-'- -"
- .Tn 1-'--' .
~ l I I ." ( ~..
1 !'. 'OL._~ "ii, eO
IL1=-t:1"'>i i!l !:~ \;~l... U ':. I
" I ~ ,,;:, I ~ ---.-----Jt.~~
I "~.~I ~; ,--- ~!h .
------<:; :~: --1 ~ p
11_ __J; :.!~"..~- ...;'(1111TI1
___l'.c __ _],' _._",1,_. ,._ ,
I J Lo- U \.J_ -- '::::t' :
E :. _ i';"', I!! / ~ I'lllll
-:fW b-'-..":::.;l /, "11"1\1'1:
: ~= ~~!' j: "~~;, ' ,I ,
:-_:1J~LlL.~IL~K ~4~).iJLU.qL
I" \- .., jL 5BTHSTREfTSlt' ~
L \.~
. -- - - - ~ --~~:~- ",-"'"--'":~-J~~,, -
--:fJ~i ,'~
" "0 '"
~ '" ~ ~
o '0 0 <;:
~ ~. ~ j; z
~ ,,~:
~~ ~
~ !2~ ~
I
I
~I
<::
:1
ci
'"
r"
...,
)>
="
o
z
iF;~i-
"~_.'_._-.: I
~ --.::1:-
-,
__I.
e: II "t:C_1
~- --j--
}:+,,-, I
~ I r
,j' ,- I -
~~ I [
,,- I
I, -'. -
, l!lli "I'
___I ~~__I_\'JL,
-==\----
[. -, \
I Ii.'
~~~~
I' ~~h
.~Jq
~-r~
>
n
"
. . , ~
en
I O't I
L _U__U_~
""""",, JlU
2'J.os lfiC
.~
MESSIAH LUTHERAN
CHURCH
CONDITiONAL USE
SITE PL.A..N
r-<{f
"
,~
I
~p
"
"
~-='''~~J--
~
~ 't ~. ~
~~ ~~ g
H ~~ ,,< ~
;;1, ~~ ~~ '
"'8 > ~c '"
ti ~~
;:i ;~ ,,0 -u
>., ..,c '7 "'. ~
'! ldl ~..~,: ~
~~ :~ """ :;:~:
, >. H ,,~
ii ~::;
~~ Q'; o. '"
~;; ~,': ~6
<c,-, " c,~,~
~~ ~
ff,
I ~ '
II. ~ ~~ ~
O' ~< ~
8
~
,
j::
';;
:;,~
~B
,
CU
"'
'~
".
2~
"
~
C
<
<
. >
~ ~
o '
{
~tL
'I I ~ 8~
, '
IT .11 -- :
1.1. I,.:: ' ~~
_L~L_l
\
i
i
:
I
I
f1
c
,
1-
,
,
I
L-
I
'r--
,
I
I
,.:,:3<;;'
~i!'i
~:...
",g~
8~o
"',-,~
m
=0
~g
n"
,
t:\
, '
,
, ,
II
c
, ,
.:
I
,
,
I,
Exhibit B
~_.--~_._.__.~
MESSIAH LUTHERAN
CHURCH
~ ~
'0'
p
::1
o;l6
I';
':'~?
~~~
"
~8
~g
DlXTA"'''=.oo
ceNSULTING GvilEogineering
..L "" fA.. .... Surveying&~g
..,.-....-----."..
,...................---
-,.,-::::.<::..,-=..~
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CU-2008-AR-13679
May 8, 2009
L The Conditional Use is limited to what is shown on the Conceptual Site Plan,
identified as "Messiah Lutheran Church Conditional Use Conceptual Site Plan,"
prepared by R W A, Inc., and dated July 2008. The site plan noted is conceptual in
nature for Conditional Use approval only. The final design must be compliance
with all applicable federal, state, and county laws and regulations.
2. Supplemental native plantings in all three strata shall be added to preserve areas
where the removal of non-native and/or nuisance vegetation creates open areas
with little or no native vegetation coverage.
3. The maximum area of the buildings on the site at build-out shall be limited to
65,569 square-feet.
4. If building height exceeds one story, the front yard setback of 75 feet shall be
increased by 25 feet for the additional floor; or the building shall be stepped back
to provide a vertical slope of two to one.
5. Irrespective of that shown on the Conceptual Site Plan, the property owner shall
provide a five-foot wide pedestrian connection to the site from the existing six-
foot sidewalk along Golden Gate Parkway, with the exact location to be
determined by the County Transportation Planning Department at the time of Site
Development Plan review and approval, pursuant to the requirements of the LDC.
Exhibit C
AGENDA ITEM 8-(
ORDINANCE NO. 09-_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSNE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE
HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A
COMMUNITY FACILITY ZONING DISTRICT AND
AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH WATERFRONT
SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLY TO A COMMUNITY
FACILITY PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD)
ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS AVOW
HOSPICE CFPUD, LOCATED AT 1095 WHIPPOORWILL
LANE, IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHlP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF
15.25+/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTNE
DATE.
WHEREAS, Tim Hancock, AlCP, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing Avow
Hospice, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification
of the herein described real property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 18,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Community
Facility (CF) Zoning District and Agricultural (A) Zoning District with a Waterfront Special
Treatment Overlay to a Community Facility Planned Use Development (CFPUD) Zoning
District for a 15.25+/- acre project known as Avow Hospice CFPUD, in accordance with
Exhibits A through E attached hereto and incorporated herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map
or maps, as described in Ordinance Nwnber 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly.
REV. 4/1 3/09
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County
day of
,2009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E, BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
, Deputy Clerk
By:
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
/.p.!.-.c~
.,.\" lu \
"'\'"
0'
HEIDI ASHTON-CICKO
Assistant County Attorney
Land Use Section Chief
Attachments: Exhibit A - Permitted Uses
Exhibit B - Development Standards
Exhibit C - Master Plan
Exhibit D - Legal Description
Exhibit E - Developer Commitments
09-CPS-00944/IO
REV. 4113/09
2
AVOW HOSPICE
A
COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PREPARED FOR:
Avow Hospice, Inc
1095 Whippoorwill Lane
Naples, FL 341 05-3847
PREPARED BY:
Tim Hancock, AICP
Davidson Engineering, Inc.
3530 Kraft Rd Suite 301
Naples FL 34105
DA TE REVIEWD BY CCPC
DATE APPROVED BY BCC
ORDINANCE NUMBER
AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL
EXHIBIT A
PERMIITED USES:
No building or structure, or part thereof. shall be erected, altered or used, or land
used, in whole or in part, for other than the following:
A. Principal Uses: Community Facility
1 . Assisted Living Facility including Group Care Facilities, Family
Care Facilities. and Continuing Care Retirement
Communities (Group 8059)
2. Churches and Places of Worship (Group 8661)
3. Civic and Fraternal Organizations (Group 8641)
4. Educational Services (Group 8299)
5 Educational Services (Group 8211-8231)
6. Essential Services
7. Museums and Art Galleries (Group 8412)
8. Nursing Home (Groups 8051 except mental retardation
hospitals. 8052, 8249 except construction equipment
operation schools and truck driving schools)
9. Parks, public or private including Play areas and Playgrounds
10. Parochial Schools public or private (Group 8211)
Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with
the foregoing list of permitted principal uses. as determined
by the Board of Zoning Appeals ["BZA") by the process
outlined in the LDC.
B. Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the
permitted principal uses and structures.
EXHIBIT B
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the
proposed Community Facilities PUD (CFPUD). Standards not specifically set forth
within this application shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC
in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or Subdivision plat.
Table I
COMMUNITY FACILITY PUD STANDARDS
PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES
MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 Square Feet N/A
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 80 Feet N/A
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1,000 Square Feet N/A
FRONT YARD SETBACK 25 Feet 10 Feet
SIDE YARD SETBACK 15 Feet 10 Feet
REAR YARD SETBACK 15 Feet 10 Feet
WATERFRONT SETBACK o Feet or 20 Feet o Feet or 20 Feet
PRESERVE SETBACK 25 Feet 10 Feet
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN 25 Feet 10 Feet
STRUCTURES
MAXIMUM HEIGHT Zoned: 35 Feet Zoned: 35 Feet
Actual: 47 Feet Actual: 47 Feet
Development of The Avow Hospice CFPUD shall be in accordance with the
contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and GMP in
effect at the time of issuance of any development plan. excavation permit. and
preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these
regulations fail to provide development standards. then the provisions of the
most similar district in the LDC shall apply.
,.
0<
z ~ ~
o.:;~~ :I:()
.el;;::lO"-:
~~g~~
j;'~ ~ n
<i_r m
~~:...
~~
"
U;
~ ~;:l ;I::
, ~" ~ :...
ni C5
. .
8 .
~~~.~~
; ~! ~ R
:i: _." ~
:: ~ ~ ~
"
i
~ ,
-~ 5
<> ~"] ; ~
~ ~ ~ ~ i:'i
~ ~ ~ ~
." ,
~ ~ ~
,. "
. <
It ~ :!; I!i ~ ..
u : l'l l'; ~ i.' ~
~'Hii'
~ : '" .. .. ..
~ ~ i i
_._----,.,,-
.
~
z
~ ~
~
m
~
e
~
~
,.
~
~
.
'":';; Q
:; - ~
.. .
;g'I!;~i;!I;!!i: I~
" I' "~"."l" ,.
~~d~ ~~c~~S~~<t I;
',P8"'~ ~~}~'~~"~llo
ti'I "I .. ~ ~':I -f
~~g~~ i~ i!ig~-~ u:
,.,"", ..-1-...
~~;i! 'I! ;!:l~1
"1<1 "'~!\'
'~';3 .. ,...,
'::1' Ie 11;ljl
~~5:=: u;~ "~;~ilt
!'" S, c.;"!
~!:;a ;l:~ i~Rn~
~)8a ~l' 'i' '{:"
'~,l" . ;',
~o:!~ ~~ ~l? ~~;
",-, ,~ \' ,"
:::U,l;~"" "; ~
"80 ~~ ~~ ;;:~
'" l" ,.,
j ! z'" ~~ _ '2~
~~~ ~~ ~~ :~:.
~~~~d~;~
.
~
e
~
~
r
m
~
m
z
"
I~
r
,.
z
"
Z
~
g * ~$ ~ ;: fR ~
I n\q:!l ~
,:; !~ i ~ ~s !E
~ ~: ~ "gg :i
l~!!; 'I ~
~ ~ ~ ;; ~
~ i" ~ ~<
~ :Ji
m
~
m
~
"
5
~
'," P'j';U~~~
~ "I. Sg. "
t' . ,., ",I
'" g; U;j ~-~
IHp;;i!!
~ a B~ ~~ ~ ~;
. to I i: ~~
~ ':l::l ~a.
i ,. ",
g ~ ~
,
i
;~x~
!i:!
'I".
-',
"'1
ail,
",
;j!
IS' I ji i I~!!ll
'g'., "'c'
3o~~Il~ ~:!~~~
'! '. _"'00
~~e~~9 i:~:e
o;"~~ ~"'f"'~
~~~~10\ ::l~~i~
..~...." ~81"l<i
~ >- ci':; r_:::~o
""0 o~~.
~~n~~ ~~o~
~~;~ d
:~ ct)
,
'. I
".
I:.
iF "'\i[ :i I
f ~'II ,::
III till :11
III ~"l I: .
III III' 1:-
':1
III ~., HI ,',
III H!l1 I
ii' 'C"iI '!:L
"
III .ill d _~_._~
II! III -ill
III :~) _ i:
:;:/~'8 :i!1
\0~" "
-, ~ 8 i
.c :.
~.r '"
lJ
I ii
J ~;'~
, :1
.
"
I
I
_.~,,-~ 13^l:I3S3l:klOOOM>U.llll~O.rtd'::'lN~1. _..__
~.._..-...
1'// ,.;E)
rr f' ~~I
!j .
~~. ~~ ~
ii-I ~i n~
!i i: '!'
J~. ~~I ',~
ii -I ~~ .i
!! Ii ~~
~- ~ ~J
u.:~ ~o
if ~i ~~
i,l!1 ,I
. , .,
~ . ~~ L
. i ~a
I ~
"
I
"
.
I
I
"
I
"
I
"
I
"
"
I
"
"
I
"
"
I
"
I
"
I
I
I
~
,
I
I
I
I
I
{
I
I
I
,
I
.._..~
_.\~".'-"'-'''----...,
I ':
- II-
':i
I,"
1:-
'ii
"
:d
~
!
.
m
x
~
"
Z
Q
~
^
m
Co
I::~
~~
o.
".
':::;::
'-
'.
~z
<p
~.
.'
~.
3;
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
" I
tT-~._~~
I
I
I
I
I.i
Ii
",.
"Il.!
"
.ii
"II
Ii
.~ :
.
I
I
I
I
\
I
\
I
\
I
I
I
\
: ,
I : __1__
l:":: ""~." ~*:~;~~~::o:=.::J::j; ;,:M"OOOdlHM
-""j--
CN
.~
"
~i
~j
u
om
00
g~
~"
.~
~~
~
',I
.
"
I
-J
CN
.0
'Z
"
-0
g~
~i
m.
o'
00
'0
8"
1"
~~
'.
~
m
X
:r:
OJ
-I
o
CN
.0
,,:,z
",
oP
'0
~,
~o
;!1
<
.
,
o
m
<~
me
5~
~~
~m
z
"
~,~j ,~
I 1
: i
EXHIBIT D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH. RANGER 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 18 RUN S 00'25'40" E ALONG
THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 1260.53 FEET TO AN
INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 60 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 18; THENCES 89'34' 19" W ALONG SAID LINE 30.00
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 89'34' 19" W 25 FEET; THENCE S 00'25' 40" E
15.00 FEET; THENCE N 89'34' 19" E 25.00; THENCE N 00"25'40" W 15.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
AND
PARCEL 13.2: SOUTH \12 OF THE NORTH \12 OF THE NORTH Y, OF THE SOUTHEAST ';' OF THE
NORTHWEST V. OF SECTION 18. TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY.
FLORIDA; CONTAINING 4.952 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.
AND
PARCEL 13. I; NORTH Y, OF THE NORTH \12 OF THE NORTH Y, OF THE SOUTHEAST V. OF THE
NORTHWEST ';' OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST. OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA.
AND
THE SOUTH 60 FEET OF THE EAST \12 OF THE NE V. OF THE NW v., SECTION 18. TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA.
SUBJECT EASEMENT. RESTRICTION AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD.
AND
PARCEL 13.3; THE NORTH Y, OF THE SOUTH y, OF THE NORTH \12 OF THE SOUTHEAST ';' OF THE
NORTHWEST ';' OF SECTION 18. TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, LESS THE EAST 10.00 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
EXHIBIT E
DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments
for the development of the project.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL
A. A Preserve Area Management Plan shall be provided to Environmental
Services Staff for approval prior to site/construction plan approval. The
Preserve Management Plan shall identify methods to address treatment of
exotic species. fire management. and maintenance.
B. The minimum Native Preservation requirement will be a minimum of .30
acres (0.88 acres of native vegetation x 15%= 0.30 acres).
3. TRANSPORTATION
At the time of site development plan (SOP). the petitioner agrees to
contribute a proportionate fair share cost for Ihe planned improvements
at Pine Ridge/WhippoOlwill intersection. as well as the Whippoorwill
improvements. The proportionate shore will be based on the highest peak
operational impacts produced by this site. which ore present during the
AM Peak hour. The proportionate share will be calculated during the
Development Order application process.
ITEM 9. A.
~
PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13245 COLLIER COUNTY
THROUGH ITS SOUD WASTE MANAGEMETN DEPARTMENT
- RESOURCE RECOVER PARK IS A CONTINUED ITEM FROM
THE MAY 7, 2009 MEETING, ITEM 9. B.
THUS YOU RECEIVED THE BACKUP MATERIAL FOR THIS
PETITION IN YOUR PACKET FOR THE MAY 7TH MEETING AND
NO NEW MATERIAL HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED.
AGENDA ITEM 9-B
Co~r County
~ -.........-- ~
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING: MAY 7, 2009
SUBJECT: CU-2008-AR-13245, RESOURCE RECOVERY PARK
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner:
Collier County Board of County Commissioners
Collier County Solid Waste Management
Daniel R. Rodriguez, Director
3301 East Tamiami Trail, Bldg H
Naples, FL 34112
Agents:
David E. Deans, P.E., BCEE
PBS&J
482 Keller Road
Orlando, FL 32810
REQUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a
Conditional Use (CU) within the Rural Agricultural Zoning District within the North Belle
Meade Overlay and Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) District Overlay for Sending Areas to
allow 1) a "Collection and Transfer Site for Resource Recovery," pursuant to Collier County
Land Development Code (LDC) Section 2.03.01.A.1.c.12; and 2) "Public Facilities, including
Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Facility" and "Public Vehicle and Equipment Storage and
Repair Facilities" pursuant to LDC Section 2.03.08.A.4.a.(3)(b) of the RFMU District for a
project to be known as the Resource Recovery Park.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
As depicted on the conceptual site plan, the proposed Resource Recovery Park is located
adjacent to the Collier County Landfill site. The subject property, consisting of approximately
341 acres, is located approximately 1.5 miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR (951) and one mile
north of White Lake Boulevard, in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida. (See location map on the following page)
GU-200B--AR-13245 Page 1 of 13
Revised 4/15109
..,
.
~ z
0
~ a w-
!::~
, ",0 .
0 .
l ~ > ~
a..
0( i ~ <(
g ~
i
! "
i Z
-
s Z
!
> l 0
RH N
,
!
.
.
.
. ~
. I
o'
, ~
. .
I
)"l\Q5(lLiOM "L- 5
'"
z
0
...
...
III
..
,
~ 0 " . "
o-z
00 a..
w-
,!;o
00 i <(
~ , "'0 i
5:. ~~
". ...~: ~ ~ i ~
...~~ . ~ . "
- ~
. a !
; z
, , 1- 0
, 5.. ,~ -
'. I-
- , .- . . ~! ,
- ~I ~ a~ i
. <(
l ;
()
, , 0
, I , -I
, ,
:. '" " ~i
:: ~~ ' . " ~~ . =
.' <!i!' - i; IS
i , a
; 1 .
..
i~ -- .~
, !~ !
5 ~ ~l ~! i.
0' , " - '"0
-;i , ji If .
a . . i
a . R
N<
O~
Zo
m~
Oz
~-<
u~
~I
() d!
o ~[l
~ HI'
NO
~~ if I
~:;!
~ i
~11'
F
r
i
~
~
.
-~!
"0.
'~i
'.
.
.
:
I
,
"lril
H[i
ili[
,
t $iW l't; l'!; In; ~i't" H f~ .~.
li!l!' Jf" iH '" ~i! ~ 'i .~ h~
I "~lf .tl iil Hi! ~l~f h,t~ m
l_l I.t '~~ 'IS! !t~i !,Ii to.
lt~j 1[~ l~ "l~ J}J~ ti:i~ !!~
"Iu phi ~ ItH 1, Ih
! ii .~ i~ II~ ~ fO l.~~ .~-
'~~i l~ ~p _(' =," ;!fE II
Nl' . .' ," ,_ ~ i
o ~ ~ -
z
m
o
~
o
Im~~
.>
-~!
~!l
Q
~m~
z-l~
I m>z
9filG'J
, m"'~
I -<
II m
I! MAIN GOlDEN Go\TE CANAl
11
. 11
1" 11
m~ I 11
If 1
I 1
~~" I 11
1
1
1
11
I 1
1
II 1
If 1
11
I 1
~ 1
1
II. 1
11
11
.; 11
11
11
11
1
1
1
I
I
I"
Ii
.
~~
;i!~
~l:..~
~S!
.~
,,'
'I"
,n
...
'Ii
~
L::J
l
!
I
~E~o
moillS
~~"
,
"
-!~
;;l!:..
~!'
0>1
!a
"
;U
m
Ol
~
m
)>
~
s;~8
~~2
O~
II
i~.N
~r!!ii
Fr,!o
-~l i
I
~
8
z
m
~
m
x
:I:
a;
=<
PBSJ SJDO West Cyprtlu Str~..1 5<Jite 200
Tampa, Florida 33607
r~_ (813) 282-721~
F(J~. (813) 286-1207
hHp://ww,,_pb!Jjcam
Conceptual Site Plan
Resource Recovery Park
Solid Was'ht Management Department
,
i
I
"
~ OJ. JD m
0
. 0
oro, ~
. s a~~
e . ~mm
Q ~~~!~
t
~ ~~I~;
, >' ,.
> 0~~-~
0
d~"!i f'
~~a ~
- .
~~
z>
~:
.0
[;$
>
0
.
!
I
I
"
Nm
00
ZC
m-<
~8
,r
o~
CO
r
C
~
8
z
m
~
liE ------
~(~
SEenoN "-m-_..s..""",, ""t
March 11, 2008
Revised December 22,
2008
~
o
"
-.
~-
-
NOli ":'11
8
-I
i
I
I
@' ..,
.~
~
"
PBSJ
.5.JOO lllr.rt C)prfts StrNt sun. 200
romp<7. n<IridQ :13$07
:':;.. (~tJ) ~~--71Jj7
http://.......pb.j.co<n
COLLIER COUNTY
__ Recovwy ...rk
AerIal
FIGURE 2
su;_zs.~..s._~~
Oec8mber 22, 2008
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner has stated that the landfill operation itself will not be expanded into the subject
tract; however the Conditional Uses being sought would allow some of the non-landfill
operations or those operations that are accessory to the actual land-filling operation. The
proposed operations include areas set aside for yard waste and storm debris processing (72
acres), Construction and Debris processing (14 acres), a recycled material processing facility (14
acres), a household hazardous waste facility (5 acres), an administration and equipment
maintenance facility (9 acres), and tire processing (3 acres) and white goods (old appliances)
processing (3 acres). These items are not necessarily buried in the landfill; they are separated
and removed from the site for further processing.
The Resource Recovery Park is located on vacant, county-owned property. It is generally
situated one mile east of Collier Boulevard and one mile north of White Lake BoulevardlI-75.
Primary vehicular access will be via an interconnection with an existing north-south service road
through the landfill site onto White Lake Boulevard. Future accesses are planned from the south
via northward road extensions along the western and eastern landfill property lines, and by
bridging over the canal to the west providing for an emergency and administration access road
across from 31st Avenue SW.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: (Please see attached the applicant's exhibit
entitled Figure 2, Collier County Resource Recovery Park Aerial for a pictorial rendering of the
adjacent uses.)
North:
Hideout Golf Course and several large tracts with single-family homes, with a
zoning designation of Rural Agricultural (A)
East:
scattered single-family homes and vacant tracts along Garland Road, with a zoning
designation of Rural Agricultural (A)
South:
Collier County Landfill on 31 H acres and a 30H acre undeveloped tract, both with
a zoning designation of Rural Agricultural (A)
West:
a canal then scattered single-family homes with a zoning designation of Estates (E)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated as AgriculturaVRural,
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) - Sending Lands, on the Future Land Use Map of
the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The RFMUD generally provides a transition between the
Urban and Estates designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural/Rural and
Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The RFMUD employs a balanced approach to
protect natural resources and private property rights and provides for large areas of open space.
The RFMUD allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service.
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 2 of 13
The Sending Lands have been identified as being least appropriate for development within the
RFMUD. Based on the evaluation of available data, these lands have a greater degree of
environmental or listed species habitat value than Receiving Lands or Neutral Lands and
generally have avoided being disturbed through previous development or agricultural operations.
The RFMUD allows for resource recovery activities within Sending Lands, stating,
Public facilities, including solid waste and resource recovery facilities, and public vehicle and
equipment storage and repair facilities, shall be permitted within Section 25, Township 49S,
Range 26E, on lands adjacent to the existing County landfill. This shall not be interpreted to
allow for the expansion of the landfill into Section 25 for the purpose of solid waste disposal.
In application materials, the petitioner explains, "Single stream recycled material collection
centers will collect glass, cans, paper, plastics and other materials in an unsorted single stream of
materials to be recycled. Once collected, these materials would be brought to a central
processing center, such as the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) proposed for the Resource
Recovery Park where they would be sorted, processed and packaged for shipping to a secondary
materials market where they would be reused."
Staff points out this Resource Recovery Park proposal seems less like a typical resource recovery
facility, and more like a collection-and-transfer site, as collected materials will go through
sorting, processing and packaging operations here before being shipped to secondary markets.
No incineration facilities are proposed to convert any materials to energy, The proposal does,
however include a facility for converting the adjacent landfill's methane gases to energy - which
simply flames-off currently. Nonetheless, the proposed uses are without question, "public
facilities",
RFMUD Sending Lands provision C) 10 requires that native vegetation be preserved as set forth
in Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1.2., which requires 80
percent of the native vegetation present to be preserved. This issue is discussed later in this
report.
Consideration of the Collier County Resource Recovery Park also extends to other elements of
the GMP, including the Capital Improvement Element (CIE), Economic Element, and Solid
Waste Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element.
Landfill related resource recovery activities are supported by the provIsIons of the CIE,
particularly how the project is programmed into the Five-Year Schedule of Capital
Improvements. The CIE identified the present proposal in previous years' Five-Year Schedules
of Capital Improvements. Moneys were accumulated in previous fiscal years toward this project
with the actual project completion date reaching into 2009. To this extent, the proposed
Resource Recovery Park is consistent with the CIE. However, staff notes the present CIE does
not include this project in the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements.
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 3 of 13
Recycling programs protecting natural resources, conserving energy, prolonging the useful life
of landfills and maintaining a positive public image are supported by Policy 1.6 of the Economic
Element. This Element also encourages the preservation of sensitive natural resources by Policy
1.8. This proposal adheres to these policies by establishing the resource recovery facilities on
approximately one-half the 341 acre subject property - while the other half is to remain
undeveloped and improved by removal of exotics.
Numerous Policies in the Solid Waste Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element instruct
Collier County to evaluate full-service recycling centers, develop means to divert solid waste
from the landfill, explore emerging conversion technologies, and maintain leachate and gas
management systems in compliance with its (landfill) permit. The proposed Resource Recovery
Park is consistent with the provisions of the Solid Waste Sub-Element.
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed Conditional Use may be deemed
consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) ofthe Growth Management Plan,
Transportation Element (TE): Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and has
determined that the proposed Conditional Use does not significantly impact the adjacent roadway
network. As such, the roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project
within the 5-year planning period, and staff recommends that this project be found consistent
with Policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the Transportation Element ofthe Growth Management Plan (GMP).
CR-951 Impacts: Additional traffic impacts are found to be present in the proposed Conditional
Use. The project proposes a peak direction impact of 3 trips during the PM Peak hour on link
32.2, Collier Boulevard from 1-75 to Golden Gate Parkway. This represents a 0.001 percent
impact on this concurrency link, which is listed by the 2008 AUIR to have a remaining capacity
of 449 trips and is currently at level of service "D".
Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME): The Collier County Resource
Recovery Park (CCRRP) project has been found consistent with all applicable sections of the
Growth Management Plan, including the following objectives and policies. Please refer to the
Environmental Impact Statement for further detail.
Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management
Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all
applicable federal. state, or local water quality standards,
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of
stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water
does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and
quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system.
This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or
enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected dry and wet
detention areas and a wetland(s) to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation
during storm events,
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 4 of 13
Objective 6,1 The County shall protect native vegetative communities through the application of
minimum preservation requirements.
Policy 6,1.2 For the County's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, native vegetation shall be
preserved on site through the application of preservation and vegetation retention standards and
criteria.
Policy 6,1,6 allows exemptions from the native preservation retention requirements of CCME
policy 6.1,2 on County owned land located in Section 25, Township 26E, Range 49S. ifpermitted
uses are restricted to the portions of the property that are contiguous to the existing land fill
operations: exotic removal will be required on the entire site.
Policy 6,1.2 and requires 80 percent preservation of native habitat outside the Natural Resources
Protection Area (NRP A) sending lands. Under the current GMP all of Section 25 is currently
zoned A or Rural Agricultural within the North Belle Meade Overlay and Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District Overlay for Sending Areas. Sending areas by definition include significant wetlands,
uplands, and habitat for protected species and have been determined to have the highest degree
of environmental value and sensitivity. The land preservation requirement is reduced where
lands contiguous to the Collier County Landfill are to be developed pursuant to CCME Policy
6.1.6 is specific to this site and states "On the County owned land located in Section 25,
Township 26E, Range 49S, [sic](+/- 360 acres) the native vegetation retention and site
preservation requirements may be reduced to 50 percent if the permitted uses are restricted to the
portions of the property that are contiguous to the existing land fill operations; exotic removal
will be required on the entire +/- 360 acres." The proposed development will require the
preservation of 50 percent of the native vegetation on site, The Conceptual Site Plan adheres to
this requirement to preserve native vegetation and the site preservation requirements will be met
as follows:
Total project area = 341 acres. 341 acres X 0.50 (50 percent preservation) = 170.5
acres of native vegetation preservation required. Proposed total acres of on-site native
vegetation to be preserved = 170.8 acres
Policy 6,1.4 Prohibited invasive exotic vegetation shall be removed from all new developments,
All invasive exotic vegetation will be removed from the project site during the development
process and the entire site shall be kept free of exotic vegetation in perpetuity.
Policy 6.1.7 The County shall require native vegetation to be incorporated into landscape
designs in order to promote the preservation of native plant communities and to encourage water
conservation. The final site plan landscape design will include the required preservation of
native plan communities, supplementary planting of drought tolerant native vegetation, and the
inclusion of littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds.
Policy 6.1,8 An Environmenta/1mpact Statement (E1S) is required to evaluate the impact of a
proposed development. This EIS is being submitted to fulfill the requirements of the GMP and
LDC.
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 5 of 13
Objective 6.2 The County shall protect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of
wetlands pursuant to the appropriate policies under Goal 6. Policy 6.2.1 Wetlands shall be
verified by jurisdictional field delineation.
A copy of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) specific purpose Formal
Wetland Delineation Survey, the FDEP letter documenting the field verification of the wetland
boundary, and email communication with the FDEP which denotes informal approval of the
wetland boundary have also been included with the survey (Figure 10 of EIS).
Policy 6.2.3 Collier County shall implement a comprehensive process to ensure wetlands and the
natural functions of wetlands are protected and conserved. The process outlined within this
policy is primarily based on directing concentrated population growth and intensive
development away from large interconnected wetland systems.
The project site has been affected by surrounding development and the on-site wetlands have
been effectively isolated by road construction and utility easement improvements. Natural
hydrologic patterns have been altered by the construction of the Golden Gate Canal, adjacent
development, and private roadways. The project will adhere to all applicable State, Federal, and
local wetland regulations. Wetland impacts have been limited to lower quality wetlands with
impaired functions. Mitigation will be provided to ensure that the project will not result in a net
loss of wetland function. The development and associated stormwater management plan will
improve the hydrology of the site's existing wetlands and restore the habitat value of
approximately 67 acres of project site uplands through the removal and continued maintenance
of exotic vegetation.
Policy 6.2.5: Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. and that portion of the Lake
Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System which is contained within the lmmokalee Urban Designated
Area, Collier County shall direct land uses away from higher fUnctioning wetlands by limiting
direct impacts within wetlands based upon the vegetation requirements of Policy 6.1,2 of this
element, the wetland functionality assessment described in paragraph (2) below, and the final
permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District,
GMP Policy 6.2.5. (6) states, "Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetlands in order
to result in no net loss of wetland functions," In addition, the policy states, "No net loss of
wetland functions" shall mean that the wetland functional score of the proposed mitigation
equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of the impacted wetlands. However, in no case
shall the acreage proposed for mitigation be less than the acreage being impacted."
The Solid Waste Department (SWD) has stated in the EIS that they will "adhere to the policy of
'No net loss of wetland functions' through the use of appropriate mitigation." Onsite
preservation will not be considered as mitigation. Proposed wetland impacts total 39 acres and
will be mitigated for offsite, Currently a mitigation plan has not been finalized for this project.
The mitigation plan will be finalized during the development and permitting phase of the project.
Policy 6.2.6 Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, required preservation areas, buffer
areas, and mitigation areas shall be dedicated as conservation and common areas in the form
of conservation easements and shall be identified or platted as separate tracts. All preservation
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 6 of 13
and mitigation areas will be placed under conservation easements dedicated to the appropriate
state and federal agencies as required by their respective permits.
Objective 7.1 The County shall direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species
and their habitat. Protected species surveys have been conducted on the site. Only the bald
eagle was observed on the site. No eagle nests were observed on site. Eagles have been
observed flying overhead and scavenging within the adjacent landfill. Please refer to listed
species details in the EAC staff report, item B. 4.
Policy 7.1.4 All development shall comply with applicable Federal and state permitting
requirements regarding listed species protection During the permitting process the project will
additionally comply with all applicable Federal and state permitting requirements regarding
listed species protection.
Stormwater Management: This northern portion of this site lies partially within the Main
Golden Gate Canal Basin and the southern portion lies within the Henderson Creek basin. Both
basins have allowable discharge rates of 0.15 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre. This project
has not yet been submitted to SFWMD for permitting because of the conceptual nature of the
design prior to the Conditional Use, but the petitioner realizes that a SFWMD permit must be
obtained.
Section 8.06.03 0.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code states "The surface water
management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt from review by the Environmental Advisory
Council (EAC) except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged
into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05,07."
The proposed storm water management system is designed to provide floodplain compensation
volume and water quality storage treatment in the proposed pond and attenuation by storage in
wetlands, so the water management aspects may be reviewed by the EAC.
The proposed water quality treatment volume is based on 150 percent of the one inch
requirement, which is the same as the present 1.5 inch requirement. Treatment is accomplished
in the wet detention area and recovery is accomplished by V notches in the control structure
sized not to exceed one-half inch of rainfall over the developed area in a 24 hour period.
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the petition may be deemed consistent with the
overall GMP.
ANALYSIS:
Before any conditional use can be recommended to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), the
Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) must make a finding that: 1) granting approval of
the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest; 2) all specific requirements for
the individual conditional use are met; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made concerning
the following matters, where applicable:
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 7 of 13
1. Consistency with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan.
As noted above, this proposal is consistent with the applicable provisions of the FLUE, the
Transportation Element and the CCME Element; therefore the petition is consistent with the
overall GMP. With the conditions of approval included by staff, the proposal may also be
found consistent with all of the applicable provisions ofthe LDC.
2. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
and access in case of fire or catastrophe.
Transportation Planning staff indicates that they have reviewed this petition and determined
that there are no outstanding issues concerning vehicular access and traffic control. As
shown on the Conceptual Site Plan, vehicular access to the site would be afforded through
the existing land fill operation to the south. An emergency access is also proposed to the
west, to access 31st Avenue SW. That access will only be viable if a bridge is constructed
over the main Golden Gate Canal which separates the site from 3151 Avenue SW. The
proposed access through the existing landfill operation will help maintain traffic flow and
control, and help ensure visitor safety. In addition, the petitioner has indicated that fences,
signs and cameras will most likely be placed strategically in and around the subject site to
prevent uncontrolled pedestrian or vehicular access.
3. The effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to
noise, glare, economic or odor effects.
The proposed activities will be accessed through the existing landfill operation except for
emergency access points that may be developed in the future. As such, the traffic generated
from the Resource Recovery Park should not significantly impact any neighboring property
owners on a regular basis. In addition, the petitioner re-designed the site to address concerns
raised by the neighboring property owners during the Neighborhood Information Meeting
(NIM). The petitioner rearranged the water management areas and preserve areas to relocate
the proposed uses more internal to the site. The petitioner also included additional buffering
and increased the setback on the east side to 200 feet width. With the exception of the 2.57
acre outparcel, all outparcels are now surrounded by preserve areas, not active recycling uses.
In the petitioner's narrative statement, he characterizes the uses on site as follows:
The proposed uses are for the open and temporary storage of white goods, tire
processing, (Construction and Demolition) C&D recycling, yard waste and storm
debris piles which are all located in a central area of the site and not visible from
adjacent properties. The Dirty MRF (materials recovery from the solid waste stream).
Household Hazardous Waste Facility. Maintenance Building and Recycled Material
Processing Facility all occur within warehouse-type structures, The uses that they are
closest to are the industrial uses to the south which may all be housed in similar type
structures, The perimeter of the site will meet the required landscape buffers to
provide visual screening to the adjacent properties.
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 8 of 13
As noted above, the more intense operations will take place indoors to reduce the noise, odor
or dust that the uses could create. Staff believes the subject site is a good location, as
identified in the GMP for the uses proposed, Additionally, the site already houses several
Collier County water well sites with others proposed on site, Those well sites require
considerable security and the security for those well sites can be incorporated into the
security required for the proposed uses, thus maximizing the county's resources (staff and
expense). Given the major relationship between the uses proposed and the existing landfill
operation, this site is the most appropriate location for this use. The petitioner has not
offered to limit the hours of operation, nor would such a limitation be appropriate because the
uses should be adequately buffered or housed to limit the impacts upon the neighboring
property owners,
With staffs additional conditions, staff is of the opmJOn the project will not generate
additional glare, noise or odors or otherwise create any adverse economic impacts on the
neighborhood.
4. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district.
As previously noted, the site is surrounded by agriculturally zoned lands on three sides and
estates zoned lands on the remaining boundary. To the east there are scattered single-family
homes and vacant tracts along Garland Road. To the west there is a canal then scattered
single-family home sites within the Estates zoning district. To the south is the existing
landfill, also zoned Agricultural. To the north are the Hideout golf course and several large
tracts developed with single-family homes.
At the NIM, several attendees expressed concern about possible flooding, Federal, state and
county regulations require the water management system to be designed to address flooding.
Precise engineering measurements must be made to determine this specific site's flooding
potential, and the water management system is designed to meet the needs of the site in
relationship to the surrounding area,
Within the overall tract boundaries for the subject site there are three parcels that are not
owned by the petitioner. Those tracts are not included in the CU petition; however staff has
included conditions to allow access for the tracts that would appear to be land-locked (see
boundary survey). It should be noted that the County is exploring the possibility of acquiring
these land-locked parcels in the future.
Staff believes that with the conditions imposed by staff and the limitations proposed by the
petitioner for increased setbacks and buffering, the project will be compatible with the
neighborhood. Additionally the petitioner will need to comply with all Federal, State and
other local regulations governing the uses. Staff believes that the proposed Conditional Use
may be deemed compatible with the neighboring properties subject to the inclusion of staffs
recommended conditions of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition to
address any environmental concerns, The site was surveyed in August and September 2006;
January 2007, April 2008, and October 2008. Species surveys were conducted in accordance
with, Wildlife Methodolof!V Guidelines for Section 18D of the Application for Development.
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 9 of 13
There were minimal observations of threatened and endangered wildlife. Tree cavity surveys for
Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) were conducted; neither RCWs nor tree cavities were
observed. Habitat on the site would not appear to support RCWs. However, this area has known
active RCW colonies in the vicinity and with proper management additional foraging will be
provided to this endangered species. An RCW management plan will be required to be
submitted and approved as part of the next development order. A condition to that effect was
included in the EAC staff report and it is carried over as a recommendation for the CCPC as
well.
The site encompasses approximately 341 acres and contains 144.4 acres of wetlands and 196.6
acres of uplands. The proposed development will require impacts to approximately 39 acres of
low quality wetlands and 131.2 acres of uplands. The Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) completed field inspection of the site on October 24, 2008. A copy of the
FDEP correspondence verifying the site wetland boundaries has been included in Subsection (c)
of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) along with a copy of the specific purpose Formal
Wetland Delineation Survey for the property. The developer will be required to provide offsite
mitigation for the 39-acre wetland impacts. A condition to that effect was included in the EAC
staff report and it is carried over as a recommendation for the CCPC as well. The petitioner was
required to submit an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) which was presented to the
Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) as noted below.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
This petition was heard by the EAC on April 1,2009 and they recommended approval by a vote
of7 to 1 (Mr. Penniman made the motion and Dr. Williams seconded the motion) subject to the
conditions of approval contained in the EAC staff report. The EAC further added the following
stipulation:
The developer shall submit the Site Development Plan (SDP) to the Environmental
Advisory Council for review and approval.
Mr. Bishoff cast the dissenting vote, stating that he could not support this petition because the
site plan showed the hazardous waste processing area too close to water wells.
A copy of the EAC staff report is included in the back up material. Please refer to that document
for environmental review details.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on September 4, 2008, at 5:30 p.m. at
Golden Gate Community Center. Thirty-three people from the public attended along with the
applicant's team and zoning staff members.
Mr. Rodriguez, Director of Collier County Solid Waste Department and the applicant, presented
an overview of the requested Conditional Use (CU). The CU is being requested to allow
development of a Resource Recovery Facility for the collection and transfer station. The site will
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 10 of 13
house some of the uses that are currently being done at the existing landfill site, e.g., yard waste
processinglcomposting, tire processing, recycle processing, etc. Mr. Rodriguez explained how
approval of this CU would allow those uses to move to this new facility thus extending the life of
the existing landfill site.
Of those who had questions or concerns, the Mr. Rodriguez responded as follows:
I. One of the main concerns from the participants was the increase in noise volume. The
participants stated that they felt that moving the heavy machinery closer to their property
lines would increase the noise they would hear, as they hear some noise now. Mr.
Rodriguez said he does not think the noise level will increase, the participants disagreed.
The participants also wanted to know how much of the machinery would be housed in a
closed building setting. Mr. Rodriguez commented that the recycling processing would be
located in a closed building setting (inside a building).
2. The second main concern was flooding, based upon surface water flow and heavy rains.
The participants claim that the site is currently underwater and any development of the
site would flood adjacent properties. Mr, Rodriguez stated that the storm water system
would be graded (designed) to flow on site to the retention ponds that will be constructed
on site and the retention ponds would be constructed to standards that should prevent
flooding pursuant to the (South Florida Water Management District) SFWMD criteria.
However the participants did not agree that the SFWMD criteria would adequately
prevent flooding, stating their contention that the water management areas shown on the
conceptual site plan were not large enough to prevent flooding on their properties.
3. The participants asked if a berm/buffer could be built on the east/northeast side of the
proposed location. Mr. Rodriguez said that they would consider that option when
designing the project in the Site Development Plan (SDP) process. [STAFF NOTE: The
petitioner revised the site plan to address this issue in the subsequent resubmittaL]
4. One participant asked what was going to be done to protect the protected wildlife
(Panthers, etc.) in the area, Mr, Rodriguez stated that an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) had been prepared and submitted to the county and it was being reviewed now, but
in any case, environmental issues would be addressed specifically during the Site
Development Plan (SDP) and permitting processes and all those questions would be
addressed at that time,
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition CU-
08-AR-13245 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Resource Recovery Park shall be limited to that which is depicted on the conceptual
site plan, identified as the "Collier County Resource Recovery Park" dated March II, 2008
and last revised December 22,2008, prepared by PBS&J,
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 11 of 13
2. The site plan noted is conceptual in nature for Conditional Use approval. The final design
must be in compliance with all applicable federal, state and county laws and regulations.
3. The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Director may approve minor
changes in the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements
authorized by this conditional use, so long as these minor changes remain consistent with
all applicable development standards.
4. Expansion of uses identified and approved within this Conditional Use approval, or major
changes to the approved plan, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use
application, and shall comply with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the time of
submittal, including Chapter 10.02.03, of the Collier County Land Development Code,
Ordinance 04-41, as amended, for Site Development Plan (SDP) review and approval.
5. If it is judicially determined or otherwise agreed to by the County, then the County shall
provide access to the outparcels identified on the Boundary Survey as #40, #41, and #42
(all of which are located within the easternmost tract identified on the site plan as "Out
Parcel 10.20 Ac Zoned-A"). Said access shall be to Garland Road or other public or
private road. Preserve area calculations shall not be affect by such access.
6. The "Emergency and Administration Access Road" shown on the site plan shall be to a
declared emergency events only.
7. The 39 acres of off-site mitigation shall be identified prior to Site Development Plan
approval.
8. An RCW management plan will be required to be submitted and approved as part of the
next development order.
9. The developer shall submit the Site Development Plan to the EAC for review and approval.
GU-200B--AR-13245
Revised 4/15/09
Page 12 of 13
PREPARED BY:
Jj~ 3-30-09
KA DE LEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
4--6-0'1
D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE
MENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
o/toh~
SU AN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
1JA~ Uro
H IDI AS 0 -CICKO
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
~,~
Cf!/()/O/
I DATE'
APPROVED BY:
~/.> /'i
J S PH K. SCHMITT, ADM ISTRATOR ' DATE
o MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Collier County Planning Commission:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the June 23, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
GU-200B-AR-13245
Revised 4/1/09
Page 13 of 13
.
Item VI. A.
ENVIRONMENT AI.. ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF APRIL 1.2009
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT
Petition No.:
Petition Name:
Applicant/Developer:
CU-2008-AR-13245
The Resource Recovery Park
Collier County through its Solid Waste
Management Department, represented by
David Deans ofPBS & J
PBS&J
PBS&J
Engineering Consultant:
Environmental Consultant:
II.
LOCATION
.
The subject property, consisting of approximately 341 acres, is located approximately
1.5 miles east of Collier Boulevard and I mile north of White Lake Boulevard, in
Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
III.
DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
ZONING
DESCRIPTION
N - Rural Agricultural (A)
Hideout Golf Course and several large tracts with
single-family homes
S - Rural Agricultural (A)
Collier County Landfill on 31 10= acres and a 3010=
acre undeveloped tract
E - Rural Agricultural (A)
scattered single-family homes and vacant tracts
along Garland Road
W - Estates (E)
a canal then scattered single-
family homes
.
EAC Meeting
Page 2 of J2
.
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The petitioner is requesting Conditional Uses within the Rural Agricultural Zoning
District within the North Belle Meade Overlay and Rural Mixed Use District Overlay
for Sending Areas to allow 1) a "Collection and Transfer Site for Resource
Recovery," pursuant to Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section
2.03.01.A.1.c.12; and 2) "Public Facilities, including Solid Waste and Resource
Recovery Facility" and "Public Vehicle and Equipment Storage and Repair Facilities"
pursuant to LDC Section 2.03,08.A.4,a.(3)(b) for a project to be known as the
Resource Recovery Park.
The petitioner has stated that the landfill operation itself will not be expanded into the
subject tract; no authorization to do that is being sought. The Conditional Uses being
sought would allow some of the non-landfill operations or those operations that are
accessory to the aclual land-filling operation. For example, as shown on the site plan
there are areas of the site se1 aside for yard waste and storm debris processing and tire
processing. These items are not necessarily buried in the landfill; they are separated
and removed from the site for further processing.
.
The site lies immediately north and west of the Collier County Landfill, on vacant,
county-owned property. It is generally situated one mile east of Collier Boulevard
and one mile north of White Lake BoulevardlI-75. Primary vehicular access will be
via an interconnection with an existing north-soulh service road through the landfill
site onto White Lake Boulevard. Future accesses are planned from the south via
northward road extensions along the western and eastern landfill property lines, and
by impermanent bridging over the canal to the west providing for an emergency and
administration access road across from 31" A venue SW,
V.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
A. Future Land Use Element
The subject property is designated as Agricultural/Rural, Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District (RFMUD) - Sending Lands, on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP), The RFMUD generally provides a transition between the
Urban and Estates designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural/Rural
and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The RFMUD employs a
balanced approach to protect natural resources and private property rights and
provides for large areas of open space, The RFMUD allows for a mixture of urban
and rural levels of service.
The Sending Lands have been identified as being least appropriate for development
within the RFMUD. Based on the evaluation of available data, these lands have a
greater degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than Receiving Lands
EAC Meeting
Page3 of 12
.
or Neutral Lands and generally have avoided being disturbed through previous
development or agricultural operations.
The RFMUD allows for resource recovery activities within Sending Lands, stating,
Public facilities, including solid waste and resource recovery facilities,
and public vehicle and equipment storage and repair facilities, shall
be permitted within Section 25, Township 49S, Range 26E, on lands
adjacent to the existing County landfill. This shall not be interpreted
to allow for the expansion of the landfill into Section 25 for the
purpose of solid waste disposal.
In application materials, the petitioner explains,
Single stream recycled material collection centers will collect glass,
cans. paper. plastics and other materials in an unsorted single stream
of materials to be recycled. Once collected, these materials would be
brought to a central processing center, such as the Material Recovery
Facility (MRF) proposed for the Resource Recovery Park where they
would be sorted, processed and packnged for shipping to a secondary
materials market where they would be reused.
.
Staff points out this Resource Recovery Park proposal seems less like a typical
resource recovery facility, and more like a collection-and-transfer site, as collected
materials will go through sorting, processing and packaging operations here before
being shipped to secondary markets. No incineration facilities are proposed to
convert any materials to energy. The proposal does, however include a facility for
converting the adjacent landfill's methane gases to energy - which simply flames-off
currently. Nonetheless, the proposed uses are without question, "public facilities".
RFMUD Sending Lands provision C) 10 requires that native vegetation be
preserved as set forth in Conservation and Coastal Management Element
(CCME) Policy 6.1.2., which requires eighty percent (80 percent) of the native
vegetation present to be preserved. Comprehensive Planning leaves this CCME
consistency determination to Environmental Services personnel as part of their
review of the petition in its entirety.
Consideration of the Collier County Resource Recovery Park also extends to
other elements of the Growth Management Plan, including the Capital
Improvement Element, Economic Element, and Solid Waste Sub-Element of the
Public Facilities Element.
Landfill related resource recovery activities are supported by the provisions of the
Capital Improvement Element (CIE), particularly how the project is programmed into
the 5- Year Schedule of Capital Improvements. The CIE identified the present
EAC Meeting
Page 4 of 12
.
proposal in previous years' 5- Y ear Schedules of Capital Improvements. Moneys were
accumulated in previous fiscal years toward this project with the actual project
completion date reaching into 2009. To this extent, the proposed Resource Recovery
Park is consistent with the CIE. However, staff notes the present CIE does not
include this project in the 5- Year Schedule of Capital Improvements,
Recycling programs protecting natural resources, conserving energy, prolonging the
useful life of landfills and maintaining a positive public image are supported by
Policy 1.6 of the Economic Element. This Element also encourages the preservation
of sensitive natural resources by Policy 1.8. This proposal adheres to these policies
by establishing the resource recovery facilities on approximately one-half the 341 acre
subject property - while the other half is to remain undeveloped and improved by
removal of exotics.
Numerous Policies in the Solid Waste Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element
instruct Collier County to evaluate full-service recycling centers, develop means to
divert solid waste from the landfill, explore emerging conversion technologies, and
maintain leachate and gas management systems in compliance with its (landfill)
permit. The proposed Resource Recovery Park is consistent with the provisions of
the Solid Waste Sub-Element.
.
The petitioner has provided Exhibit II, Narrative Answers for Evaluation Criteria
Questions as part of their application materials, with complete explanations regarding
the consistency of the proposed Resource Recovery Park with numerous provisions in
the GMP. They can be referred to there in their entirety, as staff has surrunarized the
explanations as parts of our Comprehensive Planning Comments portion of this
reVlew.
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed Conditional Use may be
deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth
Management Plan.
B. Conservation & Coastal Manaeement Element
The Collier County Resource Recovery Park (CCRRP) project has been found
consistent with all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan, including the
following objectives and policies. Please refer to the Environmental Impact
Statement for further detail.
Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the
Growth Management Plan states" All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging
into estnaries shall meet all applicahle federal, state, or local water quality
standards.
EAG Meeting
Page 5 of 12
.
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative
impacts of stonnwater runoff, stonnwater systems should be designed in such a way
that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to
enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine
system.
This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to
mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing
interconnected dry and wet detention areas and a wetland( s) to provide water quality
retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events.
Objective 6.1 The County sbaD protect native vegetative communities tbrough
tbe applicatiou of minimum preservation requirements.
Policy 6.1.2 For the County's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District shaD be preserved
on site through the application of preservation and vegetation retention
standards and criteria.
.
Policy 6.1.6 allows exemptions from the native preservation retention
requirements ofCCME policy 6.1.2 on County owned land located in Section 25,
Township 26E, Range 49S, if permitted uses are restricted to the portions of the
property that are contiguous to the existing land iIll operations; exotic removal
wiU be required on the entire site.
Policy 6. I .2 and requires 80% preservation of native habitat outside the Natural
Resources Protection Area (NRP A) sending lands. Under the current GMP all of
Section 25 is currently zoned A or Rural Agricultural within the North Belle Meade
Overlay and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Overlay for Sending Areas. Sending
areas by definition include significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for protected
species and have been determined to have the highest degree of environmental value
and sensitivity. The land preservation requirement is reduced where lands contiguous
to the Collier County Landfill are to be developed pursuant to CCME Policy 6. 1.6 is
specific to this site and states "On the County owned land located in Section 25,
Township 26E, Range 49S, [sic](+/- 360 acres) the native vegetation retention and
site preservation requirements may be reduced to 50% if the permitted uses are
restricted to the portions of the property that are contiguous to the existing land fill
operations; exotic removal will be required on the entire +/- 360 acres." The
proposed development will require the preservation of 50% of the native vegetation
on site. The Conceptual Site Plan adheres to this requirement to preserve native
vegetation and the site preservation requirements will be met as follows:
Total project area = 341 acres. 341 acres X 0.50 (50% preservation) = 170.5 acres of
native vegetation preservation required. Proposed total acres of on-site native
vegetation to be preserved = 170.8 acres
EAC Meeting
Page 6 of 12
.
Policy 6.1.4 Prohibited invasive exotic vegetation shall be removed from all new
developments. All invasive exotic vegetation will be removed from the project site
during the development process and the entire site shall be kept free of exotic
vegetation in perpetuity.
Policy 6.1.7 The County shall require native vegetation to be incorporated into
landscape designs in order to promote the preservation of native plant
communities and to encourage water conservation.
The final site plan landscape design will include the required preservation of native
plan communities, supplementary planting of drought tolerant native vegetation, and
the inclusion of littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds.
Policy 6.1.8 An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required to evalnate
the impact of a proposed development.
This ElS is being submitted to fulfill the requirements of the GMP and LDC.
.
Objective 6.2 The County shall protect and conserve wetlands and the natural
functions of wetlands pursuant to the appropriate policies under Goal 6. Policy
6.2.1 Wetlands shall be verified by jurisdictional field delineation.
A copy of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) specific
purpose Formal Wetland Delineation Survey, the FDEP letter documenting the
field verification of the wetland boundary, and email communication with the FDEP
which denotes informal approval of the wetland boundary have also been included
with the survey (Figure 10 of EIS) following this section.
Policy 6.2.3 Collier County shall implement a comprehensive process to ensure
wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands are protected and conserved.
The process outlined within this policy is primarily based on directing
concentrated population growth and intensive development away from large
interconnected wetland systems.
The project site has been affected by surrounding development and the on-site
wetlands have been effectively isolated by road construction and utility easement
improvements, Natural hydrologic patterns have been altered by the construction of
the Golden Gate Canal, adjacent development, and private roadways. The project will
adhere to all applicable State, Federal, and local wetland regulations. Wetland impacts
have been limited to lower quality wetlands with impaired functions. Mitigation will
be provided to ensure that the project will not result in a net loss of wetland function.
The development and associated storm water management plan will improve the
hydrology of the site's existing wetlands and restore the habitat value of
approximately 67 acres of project site uplands through the removal and continued
maintenance of exotic vegetation,
EAC Meeting
Page 7 of 12
.
Policy 6.2.5: Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and that portion of the
Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System which is contained within the
Immokalee Urban Designated Area, Collier County shall direct land uses away
from higher functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts within wetlands
based upon the vegetation requirements of Policy 6.1.2 of this element, the
wetland functionality assessment described in paragraph (2) below, and the final
permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District.
GMP Policy 6.2.5. (6) states, "Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to
wetlands in order to result in no net loss of wetland functions." In addition, the
policy states, ""No net loss of wetland functions" shall mean that the wetland
functional score of the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland
functional score of the impacted wetlands. However, in no case shall the acreage
proposed for mitigation be less than the acreage being impacted."
.
The Solid Waste Department (SWD) has stated in the ElS that they will "adhere to the
policy of 'No net loss of wetland functions' through the use of appropriate
mitigation." Onsite preservation will not be considered as mitigation. Proposed
wetland impacts total 39 acres and will be mitigated for offsite. Currently a
mitigation plan has not been finalized for this project. The mitigation plan will be
finalized during the development and permitting phase of the project.
Policy 6.2.6 Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, required preservation
areas, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be dedicated as conservation and
common areas in the form of conservation easements and shall be identified or
platted as separate tracts.
All preservation and mitigation areas will be placed under conservation easements
dedicated to the appropriate state and federal agencies as required by their respective
permits.
Objective 7.1 The County shall direct incompatible land uses away from listed
animal species and their habitat.
Protected species surveys have been conducted on the site. Only the bald eagle was
observed on the site. No eagle nests were observed on site. Eagles have been
observed flying overhead and scavenging within the adjacent landfill. Please refer to
listed species details given under B. 4. below for further details.
Policy 7.1.4 All development shall comply with applicable Federal and state
permitting requirements regarding listed species protection.
During the permitting process the project will additionally comply with all applicable
Federal and state permitting requirements regarding listed species protection.
EAC Meeting
Page 8 of 12
.
VI.
MAJOR ISSUES
A. Storrnwater Manal!ement
This northern portion of this site lies partially within the Main Golden Gatt; Canal
Basin and the southern portion lies within the Henderson Creek basm. Both basins
have allowable discharge rates of 0.] 5 cfs per acre.
This project has not yet been submitted to SFWMD for permitting because of the
conceptual nature of the design prior to the Conditional Use, but the petitioner
realizes that a SFWMD permit must be obtained.
Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the Collier COWlty Land Development Code states "The
surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and
permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt from
review by the EAC except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated storm water to
be discharged into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07."
.
I
The proposed stormwater management system is designed to provide floodplain
compensation volume and water quality storage treatment in the proposed pond and
attenuation by storage in wetlands, so the water management aspects may be reviewed
by the EAC.
The proposed water quality treatmen1 volume is based on 150% of the one inch
requirement, which is the same as the present 1.5 inch requirement. Treatment is
accomplished in the wet detention area and recovery is accomplished by V notches in
the control structure sized not to exceed one-half inch of rainfall over the developed
area in a 24 hour period.
B. Environmental
1. Site Description
The proposed CCRRP encompasses approximately 341 acres and contains ]44.4
acres of wetlands and 196.6 acres of uplands. The proposed development will require
impacts to approximately 39 acres of low quality wetlands and 131.2 acres of uplands.
2. WetIands
The total wetland area within the project site is 144.4 acres. A total of 39 acres of
wetlands will be impacted by the proposed development of the CCRRP. The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) completed field inspection of the
site on October 24, 2008, A copy of the FDEP correspondence verifYing the site
EAC Meeting
Page 9 of 12
.
wetland boundaries has been included in Subsection (c) of the EIS along with a copy
of the specific purpose Formal Wetlaud Delineation Survey for the property.
3. Preservation Requirements
The GMP (Policy 6.1.2) and the LDC Subsection 3.05.07.C.3.a requires 80%
preservation of native habitat on non-NRP A sending lands. The land preservation
requirement is reduced where lands contiguous to the Collier County Landfill are
developed, in which case the preservation requirement would only be 50% (CCME
Policy 6,1.6). Therefore, 50% preservation of the 341-acre site requires 170.5 acres
of native vegetation preservation. The on-site native vegetation to be preserved is
170.8 acres.
4. Listed Species
The site was surveyed in August and September 2006; January 2007, April 2008, and
October 2008. Species surveys were conducted in accordance with, Wildlife
Methodolow Guidelines for Section 18D of the Aoolication for Develooment, There
were minimal observations of threatened and endangered wildlife.
.
Bald eagles were observed perched in the canopy trees along the periphery of the
project area. Eagles were observed flying overhead and scavenging at the adjacent
landfill. Eagles may use the CCRRP site for perching and resting given its proximity
to the landfill. There was no evidence that the eagles were regularly roosting or
nesting onsite. In addition to the bald eagle the endangered hand fern (Ophloglossum
palmatum) was observed on the site.
The site falls within the primary range of the black bear. FWC black bear telemetry
data indicates that a bear was recorded on the site in 1988. No bears, scat, or tracks
were observed during the wildlife surveys conducted on the site. Collier County
Solid Waste Department will be required to utilize the guidelines provided by the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) with respect to the
black bear and will incorporate the recommendations and guidelines developed under
the Be Bear Aware Program.
The site falls within the primary zone of the Panther Focus Area. Figure 15 of the EIS
details the location of the Panther Focus Area and panther sightings near the CCRRP
site. The nearest recorded panther sighting was a deceased panther recorded in 1995.
No panthers were observed on the site during field surveys. The SWD is aware that
compensation for impacts to habitats within the Panther Focus Area will be required
by the USFWS. The details of the compensation will be determined during
Environmental Resource Permitting.
EAC Meeting
Page 10 of 12
.
Tree cavity surveys for Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) were conducted; neither
RCWs nor tree cavities were observed. Habitat on the site would not appear to
support RCWs. However, this area has known active RCW colonies in the vicinity
and with proper management additional foraging will be provided to this endangered
species. An RCW management plan will be required to be submitted and approved as
part of the next development order.
Surveys were also conducted for the Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (BCFS). Neither the
BCFS nor nests of the BCFS were observed on the site.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval ofCU-2008-AR-13245 Collier County Resource
Recovery Park with the following stipulations:
Stormwater Manaeement:
No site specific stipulations.
.
Environmental:
I. The 39 acres of off-site mitigation shall be identified prior to Site Development
Plan approvaL
2, An RCW management plan will be required to be submitted and approved as part
of the next development order.
EAC Meeting
Page 11 of 12
.
PREPARED BY:
STAN CHRZANO
ENGINEERING IEW MANAGER
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE
J~t~
o~!/09
DATE
SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPAR1MENT
.
~k)~
KA D ELEM, A.I.C.P.
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
3 -/3 -Oq
DATE
EAC Meeting
Page 12 of 12
.
REVIEWED BY:
SON
AL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
3- ('3--0<7
DATE
~?iifJ D3'30j
LIAM D. LO Z, Jr.,$.E DATE
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR
.
it.-. 7. w 1L-----
5R-ve" -r. w: II:a....5
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY
$. fb -Or
DATE
APPROVED BY:
~~~ ~JK.N'T
. r .
PH K. SCHMITT DATE
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR
.
RESOLUTION NO. 09-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF CONDITIONAL USES FOR A
RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY WITHIN A RURAL
AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE NORTH
BELLE MEADE OVERLAY AND RURAL MIXED USE
DISTRICT OVERLAY FOR SENDING AREAS PURSUANT
TO SUBSECTION 2.03.01.A.l.c.l2 AND SUBSECTION
2.03.08.A.4.a.(3)(b) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS
THE RESOURCE RECOVERY PARK, ON PROPERTY
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MILES EAST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD AND 1 MILE NORTH OF WHITE LAKE
BOULEVARD IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida,
and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish,
coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection
of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code
(Ordinance No. 2004-41) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing
regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the
granting of Conditional Uses; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), being the duly appointed and
constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as
in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of Conditional Uses
for a Resource Recovery Facility within a Rural Agricultural Zoning District within the North
Belle Meade Overlay and Rural Mixed Use District Overlay for Sending Areas pursuant to
Subsection 2.03.01.A\.c.l2 and Subsection 2.03.08.A.4.a.(3)(b) of the Collier County Land
Development Code on the property hereinafter described for a project to be known as the
Resource Recovery Park, and the Collier County Planning Commission has found as a matter of
fact (Exhibit "A") that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all
.applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection IO.08.00.D. of
the Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board
in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
Petition Number CU-2008-AR-13245 filed by David Deans of PBS & J, representing
Collier County through its Solid Waste Management Department, with respect to the property
described in Exhibit "B", be ,and the same is hereby approved for Conditional Uses for a
Resource Recovery Facility within a Rural Agricultural Zoning District within the North Belle
Meade Overlay and Rural Mixed Use District Overlay for Sending Areas to allow I) a
"collection and transfer site for resource recovery" pursuant to Subsection 2.03.01.A.l.c.12, and
2) "public facilities, including solid waste and resource recovery facility" and "public vehicle
and equipment storage and repair facilities" pursuant to Subsection 2.03.08.A.4.a.(3)(b) of the
Collier County Land Development Code, for a project to be known as the Resource Recovery
Park, in accordance with the Conceptual Site Plan described in Exhibit "C" and subject to the
conditions found in Exhibit "D", Exhibits "A", "B", "c" and "D" are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Board,
This Resolution adopted after motion, second, and super-majority vote, this _ day of
,2009.
2
'ATTEST:
Dwight E. Brock, Clerk
By:
. Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
HEIDI ASHTON-CICKO
Assistant County Attorney
Exhibits attached: A.
B.
C.
D.
08-CP8-00845/12 HFAC 1/21/09
{to\" 0'"
0,,\'
\'
Findings of Fact
Legal Description
Conceptual Site Plan
Conditions
3
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
CU-2008-AR-13245
The following facts are found:
1. Sections 2.03.02.E.1.c.5 and 2,03.07,L.5.c.v. of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes No
c. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
No affect or Affect mitigated by
_ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) be
recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals,
DATE:
MEMBER:
EXHIBIT A
81!QIYX3
\
I,
tl~ ~ ~
~~~~
i!!'! .. ;
"ll'! !<'
iliih!i ,!1I! "I'
Ii li!i!!!h'I!!!!! .,
. I"'\l!< II'!"'! "
. ;/lhilll lilkl'.iilW!1
"[I! ..,',<,",.",,'" II"
~ e~~~~~~~ ~ ~'a!~~g!;a~U; ~~~aa
, ~ ~ b I i~
! !Ii" !'l "
! i I!!I II; Iq
.. , 11,1 ,Ii I i
1 i ~ ~ ill' f .;' ~ ~
'!' 'hI 1!lll I !"
i I i Ii; j ~ - i i I ~ t <
I!, I"il iill!. ! i! i
il! 1 I dh' i 1 l~ 1
~!~~tgli~t~~i.~~~ ~
',! 'I!! ,j.,,' i H !
~ i: : ~ ~ . f1 I J i I": i ~ s
!" '!lllil'!: !'..,
li'ill II;!;! ! ill1!,
I~ ~ i Ii ,~' ~ ~ t i1.~11 ~
I" "<! ill'! 'II !;h I ,
i~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~1'!~1 i I
JI J.' H~f !c J ~ l . L'I I ~
'!i!!'I!'1 !l'!111 il*i:
\I !I<' ," . ,,' ,I"
Ii II! I,! i! ! I"::;;
'I!l ~hjl.hl,:!: :ml! I
'I
;.
ih
'j'
!'!
1'1
,I.
Il!
Il'
',i
'I'
, !
, ,
~; i
Ii;
..,
i ~ I
I!' i ,
!Ii
'I! !I ,II
!i! Ii 'I'
~H ~i ~ a
L
~~
,I
ii
Ii
; Ii
!. "
,'i II
, !,,'
'I ~.
! il H
:;t :1
f-
en
cii
! !
If ,I !!! I ! !
, I I ,! ',' ! I ' I I I
I . . , I I I' I . . .
. ! i ! ! ! .!oi ! , ! i ! !. !. . i
, ' , , , I 1111 I ! ' . , , , ' .
i I I I ' , 'I " , ~ I 1 I I I I ;
1\ {( ll\ {( I; \!\ I!! ; J {\ ~ [1\ J ! I!
!III .1111111 ~"l'! II; II " I 'I Ii 11 ii'
~;!~l;!;!;!;!,~!!,!~ij!;lh~,!,!~'~~t
h .~ ~~ .f .~ .:> l~i ObI f' 'X .:> ~. f' I:> ~" ~. .b
'II ~lll .Ij ~I<:! ''I ~;Il " :!.; l Illilli ~;
1-,'l.!':lltl'ti:!,',!'iil'!I!: ,tl!:!!,j!,!!'.;!,,!, l!,l
- ~~ ~t i~; ~a I~a ~ I, xi!~ II! ~B !~t Fa ~e ~B!~ ;i
II!l~I!'ll~llllll~.~'ll~~',~ill~lilu~.
~ ~ -I. " 3 ~&! ~ g ~ " .DB ~!B ~ " ~h ~I! 'I~ 'Is 'IS ~ 3 '~i ~i~
! h, hI il, h. h. ill hI hi hi h. II, hl i.. h, i.. i.l hl
.. ~ . ~ .
b',li!!il: .Ii
;1~i!l!!i!! Iq
lil!illi!!! Il(,,!
'lli!"i~!l ·
u;~;~ iig i:1i
!IMII!m :11
ri~..!~",'ol I'!
tio!l!o~i~i ;~I
~:!I'!.I'I- !i'i!i il~
Ii; I ~ i J ~"
<, ,,!Ii, 11'1
! !;:al~,jil~ j!il
~ :i;~~II-;;;~! i;~i ~
'1Ii"I'lli!l, , il'i
!1!,li,!:I!i! li!I;!
I "!!!i'i,I'!l I ~!i. i
~ ;~,it'= ;I;~l r !'Vi; !
Ihi!li'iiill! ill i
~
N
ill
"'
Z<{
~9
-'"
IO
f-~
:0"-
o -
eniC
mZ
~:o
"-0
'1'0
en",
Zill
3:::0
O~
f-O
o
~
N
Z
o
r=
u
ill
en
" , i""'", , 1 , - , ! Ii' .. I ' ,
I ~ . I ! I ' ! ! ! ' i , , , i , ' , I i I ;, ii'" 'I
I ill 1 , . I ! ! ! ! ' ! I ; I ! , : ' , ~~, , 'I! ' I I
" 1 ' , ' L ' , , j 1 Ii' ! ' I I ~ I I I! I I :.1 i . ,
'. ' I ! i ! I I I " I I I.. - I " ! I I
!, ; t t; _ _ I I ~ ! ~ ~" I l i ~ i J: ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~a ~ I
it ; ! ! ! 'i ' , , i ; ! ! ' ! ' ! I I; ! ! !I! I Ii' ! ' ,
~ - .t . J ~ ~ ~ il ~ ~ ~ , 'I ~ d ~~ ~ ~ ~il ~ ~ g I . , ,
" , I " ! Ii . . . , , , <' ." ," . . .. < ,< !..
10 , I ,\ . ~ ~ ~ I I 1 j- ~ - ,; , . ,; ; I' 'I j- -I j;' . ~ ~
I ~ J ~ 1 a ~~ :' ) ) ! ~ i ~ ~ :c-~ 0: ~ i ~- I i pI ~ - "
,ill-' .I! 1.1,1 ',Ii 'II II -,II! I! I', I:. II ,I ,i!ll Ii '_"',i I:. I: !,II" I' 1'1: 'Ii J i
"~f J ~ J ~ r r ~ ~ ~. . -" _0 -J OJ _ -r~ II Ii E". -~~ ~ -~ ~! j"
;~I ll~ ~ _s~ IS ~I ~ ~ !~ i~ i~ ~~ !5 h !~i i.: ~J ~r ~s !5 !s F~ :; !s !sr j -~ ~
m H H II! il il'l' i', H H H H !l !! n !idj'i H !: iI!!1 !I ill i! !! *i hl!i 'i'
il:> 11 I. -I. ~r a H ; ~il Hi H H 'I iii" ~ I iJ Ij all h ~J ah!J ir ill! !i h
:;i ~: ~~ ~~~ i~ hI! II II I. !: !; ;~ :~ !r :.~ !.~ ~~ H H. ~~ ~~ !~B I~ ~~ ~~ i h~;~ !:
~5j is It ~i~ Ii j~~ i~ i~ i~ ~5 is q q ~~ ~;; ~t. ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~s Rj ~i~ Ii Ij !j:. I~~ ~5 ~5
:I! a :, ill:' :!!:h :,< :lj il :1 i'l i'l iI, il!< iil i, ii ii, ill:tj ili :,1 :'1 ill"l :'-1' 'l.lll
'; 1I 1 _, ~1 -I. Ie ,! ~ i; i~' i=" ii~ ill 91 I i,,.llt ." i.-i'.i' r~ ~ i! i~
1;:1 h h hi h hi 1:\ hi 1:\ h I; rl,;1 1;1 h! hi 1;1 hi I:! w hi ,:11:1 gl hu 1;I!a !:!
"'!!' 01 '1. 'II I" Isl I", Isl.!' I' !Il !ll !" !", !,! !il n II, 'II 'II III 'II !!l 'l,'l !'I' ~ii ".
'I, +";.., ""1"' .,'"' -,.-il-,,-'--"-l'-"-' -I', """'l"'"""I"" .Il',i
hJ h~ h~ ht ~~il lr. ~;~ il~ ~i~ i~! he ~f. ~J; hg il5 h! ~J~ ~.~ h; h. h. h~ h. ~h h R~ ~h h3 hs
----,--._----------------~---
! !~:,~ :
l i
.
~ lH,~
~
I ~
^ I
~
~ !
, I
" '.
~ I t ~.
111I
; dil'
il!Hi!
r
W
o ~
Z 0
~ "
r u
~ "
I~ ~
z ~
0 U
0
0 0
~I
I
l
~
OC
~
~
r
OC
W
>
0
U
W
~
IW
lu
I~
0
"
W
OC
I
"
OC
W W
Z C
0 "
" ~
" ~ -
" 0
, ~
0 0
U "
~ ~
Z z
5 .6
u u
" OC
o ~
o ~
OC 0
~ U
, 0
~ 0
~
j
1L
li~J:i!'!
"lot
! ;;;;
~ ~ t,!l
! iB "
~ NmO
0 f' ocn5
0 z:;!m
~ .1 I 9iTl~
0 m"'~
" , -<
. !! m
. J: MAllIIGOUlENGA7ECANAL
~ " ~ DCL '"
0
" ~ 0
, . ~!t " ~ ~~~1i\~ ~
N_, I " ,<~.m
~~~2 'JI II
i I, " ~ ~~~I~
~~J!l-l " ~ "';!ll~~
l " ~
" ~~~~~
" ; ;:~~~~
" >
p g~!l1e~
i II
" ~~i ~
II " ~ .
N< " I e"
0> H " 8'
20 ~ Jr
m~ ;~ , II ~~
1'2 ~ ~~ I . " .>
~-< ~~ ~p
" . " ala
~ " 0 d " g:~
" ,
p
jl "
"
.1 ! "
:S::l "
! \ "
~~i:t " '"
, " a
\, II ~8
I
" z~
m"
10 _(II }~
" 81 t. .11 o~
8S ;::----, -I co
~i' iii :: r
gIll ''-.1 , ~ ~~ c
;lil~ ~ o~ . ro
"U "I' 0 "II " I
~i ~ m E filo
:i~ 'I ~ ~ _l:-:n , "
0 ~o " I
, ~ zO " "
~I:~ . . c:F ;0
~ "
.~ I m -~~ rn '~
0 . en
\l T <0 rn
i J!!g ;0 "
" " ~z < "
;:p~ m:< rn "
,e-~~ 00 J> I
"i ]li ;0 :n
~~= rn
~=-"~ mm J>
0 h ZO
0 m~iii or " I
r ~plO) ~~
r "'g mZ
m '. ~~-!!l .0 " .
" 1.1 -t....;!:; -" " '
NO ~~ ~~o 00 " !
00 s:~ . " m "
ZC "i .30 0 "
mz ~ -<
1'::< a "
! z HI::
>.,; N
~
Z -TI 11::
0 ~~g N
~ , " 0
F 1;[!!.... 2
r " m
" ~
"
rn
x
:J:
;;;
~
I
Hit~ it~ i
llh! ii" ~
~~!;~~ ~h! ~
dill ~i. ~
,;", i ~f
"'I~i 'f-
Hit Hi
5~J~ ~8i.
!11~f U
i"I'" .~
~5-? '"
II
ii
itt!"
<Tiil5"
HI
, ,~
'z,
~!!.
."
"!g
i~~
.;'
[~
i~
9-~
I
<i"
Ii!
i, ~
ii'
~"l.
,"
.0
zO
~6
!~
I~
!h:
.'
~,
iilgg!"
;'"
'''1
~ ;;~
~I~8
, H~
_io
,-a
,'r
"j8
~~~
:E~~
;. ~,...
~ ILl'"
".
>0
"-j'l.
'(/;001'"'
~it~
~ll;
:;tla._O
.. .-
",lOllS'
.~ ~
..h
n~o
fh~
!i1:ei
"r~i
;: Ii
~~l
llltm
i I -H!
, I ~i~'
rh--
InH
I'n~
~<>-ai'
"0-
I -<.,
"~
, < ."
ift~i
N<
o
Z
m
"
~
i
"
-"
...Ill'"
"I:
~~~
,.~
,
"
;0
m
en
rn
;0
<
rn
J>
;0
rn
J>
Ii,
hi! '
~o8
zl1c
o~~
I
!I
h
r
--------- ~l.~
h~!lj
"Z~O 0
3~~g'
Exhibit C
i
i
N
o
z
m
~
!l~ ------
i!~
!;JOO West Cyprus Street Sw-te 2CJCJ
TO'mpa. norjdD 3.3607
Tt!I. (B13) 282-7275
Fa>:.. (81.1) 285-7207
~r/p.-I/",,,,,._pbSf<=<Jm
Conceptual Site Plan
Rescuu:e Recovery Park
So~ld W8Iste Management: l/lIeparrtl"li1ltJIllllli
March 11. 2008
Revised December 22,
2008
!ifC1l<><B,m......p...........""...t
~
CONDITIONS OF APPRO V AL
Collier County Resource Recovery Park
CU-2008-AR-13245
1. The Resource Recovery Park shall be limited to that which is depicted on the conceptual site
plan, identified as the "Collier County Resource Recovery Park" dated March 11, 2008 and last
revised December 22,2008, prepared by PBS&J.
2. The site plan noted is conceptual in nature for Conditional Use approval. The final design must
be in compliance with all applicable federal, state and county laws and regulations.
3. The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Director may approve minor
changes in the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized
by this conditional use, so long as these minor changes remain consistent with all applicable
development standards.
4. Expansion of uses identified and approved within this Conditional Use approval, or major
changes to the approved plan, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use application,
and shall comply with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the time of submittal,
including Chapter 10.02.03, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41,
as amended, for Site Development Plan (SDP) review and approval.
5. If it is judicially determined or otherwise agreed to by the County, then the County shall
provide access to the outparcels identified on the Boundary Survey as #40, #41, and #42 (all of
which are located within the easternmost tract identified on the site plan as "Out Parcel 10.20
Ac Zoned-A"). Said access shall be to Garland Road or other public or private road. Preserve
area calculations shall not be affected by such access.
6. The "Emergency and Administration Access Road" shown on the site plan shall be used for
declared emergency events only.
7. The 39 acres of off-site mitigation shall be identified prior to Site Development Plan approval.
8. A Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) management plan will be required to be submitted and
approved as part of the next development order.
9. The developer shall submit the Site Development Plan to the EAC for review and approval.
Revised 4/9/09
Exhibit 0
r------ .
1
,
AG""^ '''M T",ct..{fPJ! rr ~
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
9-~_
PLACE COMPLETED FOciHE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROO~O THE SUBJECT R=ZARD.
NAME: ~~ Jjl-v<--t) ADDRESS: :J. s- c;; S- " ~4.-K.-d, e!
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER: OTHER:
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT
THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES FL
, ,_.
You ARE LIMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE To ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR.
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: ~~ Sl:;>L}]) tA/ liS f C
'pE,)} I) fJ AI
qA
C I J <i(OO 'ir-i]R-/3), ~S
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: VJ_ .
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
NAME: WinNE
Tr::NKINS
ADDRESS: d..~OO :y-c tJ K Ill! S'
wl1Y
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER:
OTHER:
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07 -24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT
THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST T AMI AMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL.
You ARE LIMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE To ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR,
~A
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
~~:'~~~
-- .'- PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: C u -.zoo~:A!?- - J :l.J{01
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
NAME: S:TEIlF:
<; I'STRt.Jrv 1<"
ADDRESS:
2.1000 TEN K/.vS
L<.J It Y
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER:
OTHER:
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES T
(INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONEPS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD A
THE BOARD'MINUTES AND RECO~DS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST T AMI AMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL
You ARE LIMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE To ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR.
loA
This Packet contains a brief introductory memo
The minutes of the Monte Carlo Boat Dock extension
The Land Development Code 5.03.06 Dock Facilities
With the exception of the memo you are already familiar with the other two documents. Staff had met
on this issue as late as yesterday. The memo outlines the Zoning staffs application of the Land
Development Code when it comes to reviewing boat dock petitions. Depending on your discussion you
mayor may not find this useful.
Memorandum
To:
The Collier County Planning Commission
From:
Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Director
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
Date:
May 18, 2009
Subject:
Opening remarks on Boat Dock Extension discussion for May 21,2009
The Collier County Zoning staff evaluates and presents its recommendations to the Planning
Commission pursuant to Boat Dock Extensions requests based on the Land Development Code
section 5.03.06. H. which states that a dock facility may extend into any waterway beyond the
limits established in subsection 5.03.06 E. if it is determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary
criteria (H. 1. a-e), and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria (H.2. a-g), have been met.
Staffs analysis is based on determining whether or not the application and supporting documents
meets the LDC criteria, in their professional opinion. Once the analysis is complete, ifthe
applicant meets the numerical requirement (4 out of 5 primary and 4 out of 6 secondary) then the
staff recommends approval. If the applicant fails to meet the numerical breakdown as set forth
by the LDC, then the recommendation is for denial.
Comments from Planning Commission members in the past indicate that there is some concern
over whether or not the current code structure and current code requirements function as a
checklist rather than an analytical tool. As such I recommend the following options for
consideration! discussion:
Options:
1. ModifY the Land Development Code and boat dock criteria so the evaluation and
subsequent determination for approval or denial of a boat dock extension is
administrative (doesn't require a hearing). This could be further modified to allow single
family boat dock extensions to be approved administratively and multi-family to be
approved by the Planning Commission.
2. Expand the distance into the canal one can extend a boat dock before they have to seek
extension approval. This would reduce the number of applications either for
administrative or public hearing consideration.
3. ModifY the existing criteria to contemplate more closely the impact of boat docks on the
community and modifY the text of the LDC to reflect those findings (the current criteria is
dated and criterion g. in the secondary criteria list functions more as a statement than an
statement for evaluation).
4. Amend the Boat Dock Extension process to consider the criteria currently used for a
variance and keep the final approval with the Planning Commission.
In summary, we are open for discussion on how to improve the Boat Dock Extension review
process and criteria for review. Until modifications occur in the Land Development Code staff
will continue to apply the criteria and make their recommendations in the manner set forth in the
fust two paragraphs above.
Cc: Joseph K. Schmitt, CDES Administrator
Community Development and Environmental Services
Office of the Administrator
August 7,2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion carries 9-0.
Cherie', I bet I'm talking too fast already, huh? This
housekeeping stuff, I try to get through it, you know. Thank you.
Okay, let's move into the regular items on the agenda.
Item #9 A
PETITION: BD-2006-AR-9061, MONTE CARLO CLUB
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first one is advertised public
hearing, is 9(A). And it's Petition BD-2006-AR-9061, the Monte
Carlo Club Condominium Association, which is up on Gulf Shore
Drive at Baker-Carroll Point Subdivision. Dock extension.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise
to be sworn in by the court reporter.
Anybody intends to speak on this, please rise so the court
reporter can swear you in.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the
planning commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have -- like all of us, I think we've
received e-mails, they came in our packet. But I did talk to Mr.
Scofield resolving (sic) a question about, I think, the surveyors. And
I'm sure it will -- 1'11 have the question back up here again today.
So other than that, we'll move forward with presentation by the
applicant.
MR. KURTH: Good morning. For the record, Quin Kurth,
Turrell & Associates, representing the Monte Carlo Club.
In may, I'd like to pass out some exhibits.
This morning we're requesting a IS-foot extension from the
Page 13
August 7, 2008
allowed 20 feet for a total protrusion of 35 feet from the mean water
high line, which is located on the seawall. This extension is needed to
facilitate the mooring of 20 additional vessels, for a total of 34 vessels.
We do meet the Manatee Protection Plan, marina siting criteria,
and we have a moderate ranking, which allows 10 slips per 100 feet of
shoreline. That allows us 70 total vessels. However, as mentioned
before, we are only proposing 34.
We do not exceed 25 percent of the width of the waterway. We
meet setbacks. The remaining navigable channel is 140 feet wide
versus the 60-foot navigable channel under Bluebill Bridge, as you
can see on the exhibit. Therefore, we're not proposing to impact
navigation.
We have received state and federal permits to dredge in order to
reduce our total protrusion. Weare and do wish to include a
three-foot draft restriction as requested in the Manatee Protection Plan.
The wet slips are only to be utilized by Monte Carlo residents.
And I believe that's it, unless you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why don't we start with the
questions.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: The existing 14 docks, what's the
length of those?
MR. KURTH: Those are 30 feet. There is a sovereign
submerged land lease via the state that is out 40 feet. And in may, I'd
like to describe that a little bit. Right now the submerged land lease
boundary is still at 40 feet; however, the state likes a five-foot
clearance just for, you know, to prevent any future compliance issues.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It looks like according to the
permit that you have for those 14 docks that it's 10 feet out and then --
MR. KURTH: It does vary. Forty is the average.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, the line that's sitting here--
MR. KURTH: Are you talking about the submerged land lease
Page 14
August 7, 2008
boundary or the protrusion?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, the boundary is 10 feet from
your seawall.
MR. KURTH: That is the property line.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And those docks extend beyond
that property line 20 feet --
MR. KURTH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- for a total of30 feet.
MR. KURTH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the existing docks you're talking
about?
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's the existing docks.
MR. KURTH: Correct, the existing dock, and were originally
permitted through the county, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, while we're on that same
question, in the same line with Ms. Caron's question then, if you have
-- 10 feet of these docks exist on your own property, then; is that what
you're saying?
MR. KURTH: Correct. That's what the survey shows.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then you're got 20 feet for
what should be on the waterway --
MR. KURTH: Though in reality --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then you want five more feet on top
of that. So you're looking at a five-foot extension beyond the point of
where a property line is measured from, but it's 15 feet beyond the
seawall because you moved the seawall 10 feet in on the property that
-- do you know why that would -- why would anybody give up 10 feet
of their property --
MR. KURTH: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on that waterfront?
MR. KURTH: I couldn't tell you.
Page 15
August 7, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's pretty odd.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's an old development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on -- from
the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I might have a couple, so hang on a
second. I think my questions will be of staff.
Are you intending to install boat lifts here?
MR. KURTH: They are optional, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, my questions will be of
staff. Thank you.
Hearing no -- oh, Mr. --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Lifts and covers, it says.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, section three criteria,
which is some of the secondary criteria three, indicates that the length
of the vessel or vessels along the docks should not exceed 50 percent
of the linear waterfront frontage. And this looks to me like it does
exceed that.
MR. KURTH: Correct. And I believe that is pertinent to
single-family homes, not multi-family.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But if it's applicable to
single-family, what differs it from being applicable to multiple
family? I mean, isn't the object to keep a little openness there and not
to close everything in?
MR. KURTH: Well, single-family you're allowed two vessels.
Multi-family it's depending on the state, federal or local criteria. I
mean, you have so many more units.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Another question I had was can
they release or rent these slips, the people that own them?
MR. KURTH: The slips may be rented. However, they will be
only utilized by residents of Monte Carlo.
Page 16
August 7, 2008
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And they're the only ones that
can rent it then?
MR. KURTH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
The other thing was, looking at your dredging drawing you're
bringing the dredging all the way up to the seawall. And it goes down
to minus four as far as the depth of it.
MR. KURTH: Correct. Actually, the dredging -- it does start
from the seawall, it goes down at a two-to-one slope to four feet, so it's
not a straight four-foot dredge next to the seawall.
But yes, we are dredging to the seawall as close as we can to
prevent any further protrusion.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But if you dredge there,
wouldn't you be able to draw the boats all the way up to the seawall?
MR. KURTH: Not necessarily. I believe we can with what
we're doing now. That has been proposed in order to prevent any
structural damage to the existing seawall.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: See, I don't see the justification
of extending the pier when you could dredge it and you're going to
dredge it up and draw the boats up to the seawall. Then you still
would be within the 20-foot extension that is permitted.
MR. KURTH: In may, I'd like to present a cross-section
drawing.
As Mr. Kolflat had described, the dredging does start from the
seawall. In order to prevent any structural damage to the seawall or
have to replace that seawall -- and if I may start from there, in most
cases if you replace a seawall most times people just put another
seawall in front of that, which would actually increase the protrusion.
So what we're doing is we're taking the dredging of a two-to-one
slope and going to four feet. As you can see there's just a couple feet,
maybe a few feet, I can measure it if you'd like, between the vessel
and the seawall now. I don't think it would be that appropriate to put
Page 17
August 7, 2008
it right on the seawall just to prevent any damage to the vessel or the
seawall, so --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But you can see from the bow
of the boat that's the shallowest draft on the boat and therefore it could
go pull up toward the seawall.
MR. KURTH: Correct. Ifwe dredge four feet all the way to the
seawall, yes, you may be able to pull in a couple more feet. But like I
said, you don't want to put the bow of the boat on the seawall itself,
just with waves and wind.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's the only questions I had,
Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Besides saying that I agree with
Mr. Kolflat, I had another question here with regard to these are an
older -- this is an older condominium and it's a real three-story
building, as opposed to what we consider three-story buildings now.
If you do lifts and boat covers on these, will you be blocking the
view of those on the first floor, or is the slope -- I mean, I know that--
but it does slope upward slightly.
MR. KURTH: That's a good question. It really depends on the
boat, on how high they put the boat on the lift. Normally I would say
no, you're looking at a three-foot increase in rise with the vessel. I
don't think it's personally going to make that big of a difference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna, in the ordinance for
boat lift, it would be 12 and a half feet from the top of the seawall,
which would be the first story.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's why my question.
MR. KURTH: I'm sorry, say that again, please?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the ordinance for the canopy,
it can't be higher than 12 and a half feet measured from the top of the
Page 18
August 7, 2008
seawall, which would totally block out the first floor.
MR. KURTH: Correct. And I was speaking specifically towards
boatlifts, I'm sorry.
For the canopy, yes, that may cause an issue. And if you'd like,
we can get a motion to exclude boat houses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I still have concerns about the
density or the magnitude of boats in this area.
Our primary criteria number one says whether the number of
dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to
the waterfront length location upland use and zoning of the property.
Well, looking at this petition, every part of that waterfront
lineage is -- with a boat in it. In other words, it uses up 100 percent of
the space.
MR. KURTH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So there leaves no latitude for
what is appropriate. I mean, if it's going to -- you can block out the
whole waterfront with boats, what's the purpose of this first criteria?
MR. KURTH: If! might respond to your question, per the
Manatee Protection Plan, like I said, we're allowed 70 vessels. We're
only proposing 34. With the multi-family residence, I believe there's
98 units. With that we're trying to get as much as we can. We have
dredged to prevent the total protrusion.
Also, if! might add, with the state agency, we have completed a
proprietary deed of conservation easement, which states that we're not
allowed to propose any additional docks.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, but this application will
have 34 boat slips and there are 54 residential units there that
subscribe to that. That's 60 percent of the residential units would have
boats, supposedly. Now that compares to the rest of the Collier
County which has 25,000 registered boats and say a population of
350,000 to six percent.
Page 19
August 7, 2008
In other words, there's a substantial difference there between the
density of boats in the living area, this area, than there is for the whole
county. And that concerns me as far as this waterway becoming so
congested that both from the observation impacts to other neighbors
and other people in the area plus the usage of the water becomes a
problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a -- did you have a question there
or just making a statement?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, I think I made a statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ijust wanted to make sure we
weren't expecting a response.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'd welcome a response, but it
was a statement.
MR. KURTH: And I agree. I think Vanderbilt Lagoon has got
lots of boats. I don't -- as a consultant, it's tough for me, because I
don't see too much more going on in Vanderbilt Lagoon.
Fortunately for my applicant they do have 712 linear feet of
shoreline, they do meet the Manatee Protection Plan. And as tough as
the environmental permitting is with state and federal agencies, you go
for as much as you can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at
this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll hear from staff now.
MR. KURTH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. CASERTA: Good morning. Ashley Caserta with the
Department of Zoning.
I've received five letters from neighboring property owners.
Have you received them?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Three.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two came in yesterday in the e-mail.
Page 20
August 7, 2008
MS. CASERTA: According to staff review, they meet all of the
criteria that are applicable.
And I'd like to answer any questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are the prior docks permitted?
MS. CASERTA: The existing docks?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MS. CASERTA: Yes, they were approved by building permit.
That was before the requirement for planning commission approval.
And I've got a copy of that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And did they get an extension
permit or --
MS. CASERTA: It wasn't required at that time. It was done by
building permits, so they were approved out to 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ashley, the requirement
for the code is 20 feet, correct?
MS. CASERTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So everybody is expecting to
have a 20- foot dock.
MS. CASERTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why do you think we should
give them the 10 feet, this additional dock, just because we can or --
and the concern I have is the criteria, is that, you know, back in 2006
when we added that to the LDC, prior to that it was just a staff method
of coming up with what's an acceptable dock.
And again, to my fellow commissioners, this was the problem
expressed, that once we put it in in 2006, the appearance is that it's a
score card, we just check it off, correct?
MS. CASERTA: Well, staffs job is to evaluate the petition
according to the criteria and recommend approval or not.
Page 21
August 7, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the way you do that is with
a scoring method of, you know, five of these and four of those,
correct, of the criteria? Unfortunately it's been dragged into the code.
But the impression is that we don't have to give them the thing. I
mean, the code requires 20 feet. If there's a circumstance where they
need to go further, then I think we can use that criteria to do it.
The scoring part of it I think's a disaster. And I expressed it in
2006 and we're having a problem today.
But anyway, is there any reason why they shouldn't have the
code required 20 feet?
MS. CASERTA: Well, it's -- staff doesn't have an opinion on
whether or not they should get an extension. I think --
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
The projects that come in before us, the property owners have the
right to request further extension for the boats that they feel they need
and for the water depth available.
It meets the criteria. Ashley's correctly noted that this petition is
consistent. If the planning commission has other opinions of the
consistency, please express them and we'll have the vote reflect that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But with the addition of the
criteria as part of our mandate that we have to now keep score too, is
the intent that we solely just run through the criteria, and if we agree
with it and then we add up the score at the end then they're allowed it
if we -- criteria, is that what we should be doing today?
Jeff?
MR. KLA TZKOW: This isn't scoring. You review the criteria.
If there's something about this criteria that you find particularly
onerous to give it, then you say no.
If they meet all of the criteria, then they're entitled to it. If they
do not meet all the criteria, they are not entitled to it. We don't keep
score. It's not like it's 5-2 here or 4-3 there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But here it says it must
Page 22
August 7, 2008
be determined that at least four of the five.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right, but it's at least. But you can say
because of criteria one we don't believe we should grant this.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So we can -- all right.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron -- I'm sorry, go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, one of the criteria--
let's just kind of run through to make sure. You stated that it needs
this because there is that oyster bed area. It meets the criteria because
the water's too shallow up against it. But then in that same paragraph
you're noting that they're removing it. So do you agree that criteria
two is still met?
MS. CASERTA: Which one are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Criteria two.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Primary or secondary, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let me -- it's a primary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be on Page 4.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Some of these are like, they're
just -- I mean, I really think we have to look at this section again.
But do you agree with number two, that it's met? Because what
you're stating is that it's too shallow because of the oyster bed, and
then the end of that paragraph you're citing how they're removing the
oyster bed. So don't you think it's not met?
MS. CASERTA: Well, I think it has to do with the maximum
length of 35 feet as described in the petitioner's application as well. A
35-foot boat would never fit in a 20-foot protrusion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the hardship here is
to try to get 35-foot boats. Okay, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, actually I was just going to
follow up with that, because they have a dredge permit so that negates
first criteria number two.
Page 23
August 7,2008
It also does the same for secondary criteria one and criteria
number two on secondary. I mean, if the docks are only 20 feet in
length, the same thing would apply, they would still have reasonable
safe access.
So, I mean, I think we're not looking at what's being proposed, I
think we're checking off. And so I guess it's definitely up to us to look
and say that these criteria are not being met and there is no need for
this. They have docks right now, that there's no reason they can't
extend the docks that they have right now. I mean, extend them
around, not out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- did you want to ask -- are you
asking that as a question of -- a statement? Do you want a response to
it from anybody?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think Ashley has just said
she's, you know --
MS. CASERTA: The one thing that I can say is in primary
criteria number two, it reads whether the water depth at the proposed
site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as
described in the petitioner's application.
So I have to take into consideration what they are proposing and
not have an opinion on what should be there.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And I would just say that that
might be true if there were no docks here at all. They have 14 docks
with boats currently there that seem to be doing just fine. So there
isn't a water depth problem.
If the goal is just to bring bigger boats into the backwaters and
into the lagoon, then I guess we should cite that as criteria, but I don't
know that that's the point of the criteria.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to follow up with Donna
too is that he stated that the draft's going to be three feet. The section
Page 24
August 7, 2008
he showed us, they're going to dredge it to four. So the 35 feet has
nothing to do with the boat they want to bring in, unless they want to
bring in a large length boat.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing on that, I know from
experience, that you've got to dredge at least a foot deeper than what
you're trying to moor.
I'm not trying to defend it or say it's right, I'm just telling you
why they may have gone to four. If they're going to go to three-foot
draft then they have to go to four feet to --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Any other questions? Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, a statement. I'm not taking
issue necessarily, but just to say under criteria number two I read that
as well, but I saw it as the dredging was not to reverse the issue or not
to -- I don't see it as negating it, as was mentioned. I see it to help
accommodate, and there's a safety issue, you're dealing with
equipment. A vessel too close to the wall is not a good condition. So
I didn't see it as absolutely negating it. So I don't take the same
position.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think, Mr. Murray, what's
happened here is because the seawall has not been used for dockage
right along, it's built up with oyster beds, and so that's the reason that
they need to dredge. It's not that there's not enough depth there, they
have to get them out of there in order to -- or they'd be extending out
even further.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand that. Just
briefly a dialogue. I -- in relation to that, I wondered if this were
approved after all is said and done and the docks are in there and even
the lifts, I wonder how they would dredge the next time when all those
beds fill in again. So that was going through my mind.
Page 25
August 7, 2008
But I think this is an interesting conversation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney and then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, just a comment. I noticed
that one of the letters of objections talked about the congestion of the
waterway and especially Wiggins Pass. And somebody that uses the
park, I notice quite a bit of erosion along the banks because of just the
heavy, constant traffic of boats going in and out. It doesn't seem as
though this is the best idea. But according to the criteria we have
here, that's irrelevant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hence the problem with what
we did in 2006, I might add.
But Ray, what is the reason we have a requirement for a 20-foot
dock? I mean, the problem I have with these boat docks is I assume
that the county says you can have a 20-foot dock. If in fact you have a
water situation -- and we've done this before, there's been shallows
and we've had to let these docks go out to get to the water where they
could actually get a lift under it, we've gone along with that.
But there is a requirement to 20 feet. The reason we give them
the extension is because they can't even get the 20- footer, so we let
them go out far enough to get 20 feet in deep enough water. But why
do we have a 20- foot requirement?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
I've been with the county 20 years and it's been a 20-foot
standard since that time. It was before I came here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And we just live with 20
feet then. That's what the law says you can have is a 20-foot dock,
unless you have a depth problem. Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ashley, I have one. Manatee Protection
Plan. The area that this particular facility is in on the Manatee
Page 26
August 7,2008
Protection Plan, Page 74, shows that it has adequate depth. And then
we get into areas going through Turkey Bay that does not have
adequate depth in Turkey Bay.
Do you know what that means in regards to the maximum depth
then that would be allowed typically for docks along here?
MS. CASERTA: I can explain it as I understand it. But I had a
conversation over e-mail with Quin and Susan Mason from
Environmental Services yesterday. And as I understand it, that's why
they're being restricted to the three-foot draft is because of water depth
that's going out into the open waters.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But does the determination of
the Manatee Protection Plan on the number of boats you're allowed to
have, is it based on the adequate depth of the immediate area you're in,
or is it based on the depth that you need to get to in order to utilize
your boat to the purpose intended, which is to the Gulf?
Because those two different areas have absolutely different -- for
use of -- lack of a better word, scoring within the Manatee Protection
Plan. And I'm just wondering how one affects the other.
MS. CASERTA: If it's okay with you, I'll refer to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MS. CASERTA: -- Susan Mason, she's a little more
knowledgeable.
MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason
with Engineering and Environmental Services Department.
The Manatee Protection Plan does require an evaluation of the
water depth, adequate water depth from the property out to open
water, whether it be some dredged navigable waterway or the Gulf.
And that is part of the evaluation.
This site does meet the standard of moderate, and -- because it
doesn't have adequate water depth all the way out. But it does not -- it
also does not have a problem with manatee use. And the way that's
judged is the number of manatee deaths in that area.
Page 27
August 7,2008
And then also there's no impact to either mangroves or sea grass
beds, any kind of marine habitat. So that's how they earned a
moderate ranking. So what they've requested is well under what
they're allowed. Moderate rankings allow 10 slips per 100 feet of
shoreline. So I think they're allowed up to 71 boats -- 712 feet of
shoreline is what they have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ms. Mason.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Susan, didn't the county just
get money from the federal government to look at water quality here
in Vanderbilt Lagoon because of an overabundance of boats and poor
water quality caused from both boating and runoff and probably
multiple things? There obviously is no sea grass around here --
MS. MASON: Not in this immediate area.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- because of the water quality.
MS. MASON: I don't know about any federal grants that may
have been done. That section is now a different division and I'm not --
it used to be in my department, I was able to sort of hear about things
that were going on. And I really don't know. I don't know if anyone
else here does.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see if we can get a response. Did
you have a response to that question?
MR. KURTH: Yeah, I think I might be able to answer your
question.
If! recall correctly, I believe that water quality was requested in
order to permits -- to dredge the channel from Vanderbilt Lagoon out
to Wiggins Pass to four feet. I know we have a survey from I think it's
'04 -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's actually two different things.
We actually got some additional funding to study water quality in the
lagoon itself, having nothing to do with dredge permits for the pass
Page 28
August 7, 2008
itself.
MR. KURTH: Okay, I thought that -- okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's two different.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, my point's quick. To
correct the math is that we have 712 feet of shoreline, so the answer is
not 71, it's seven. One per 100.
MS. MASON: No, it's 10 per 100 feet at moderate. It's one per
100 with --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, okay, then I sit corrected.
MS. MASON: -- restrict -- I can't think of the opposite of the
preferred.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifit was one per 100, I think it would
have not gotten quite this far today. With everybody that's been
looking at this, it would have been pulled back a long time ago.
Anybody else have any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have three registered speakers. The
first is Carol Wright, to be followed by Lew Schmidt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And when you come up to
speak, please identify yourself and five minutes to speak, please.
MS. WRIGHT: Carol Wright. And I'm going to relinquish my
speaking time to Mr. Lew Schmidt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Lew
Schmidt. I live at 405 Pine A venue in the VanderbiJt Beach area. I
live on a finger street.
I am also a member of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association board.
There are a few of us in the area at this time of year.
Unfortunately we don't have all of our board members here to come to
Page 29
August 7, 2008
you with a decision by the board. But I am here on behalf of myself
and the board members that are here to express our concerns about a
trend that we seem to be seeing in the Vanderbilt Beach area. And the
trend is to bigger docks and bigger boats.
And this is an example of the trend.
We're not so much concerned about how far the dock goes out in
the water, it's what size boat can you put on a 35-foot dock. And I
think you all well know that a 35-foot dock can handle a 40-foot boat
or more, depending upon where it's at and where it's configured.
A 35 to 40-foot boat has a beam of 12 feet or more of width at
the widest point. It has an operating draft of three- and- a-half to four
feet. And I put emphasis on operating draft. The draft, the three-foot
draft that you're seeing is a dry draft. A wet draft with fuel and water
on board puts that boat further in the water.
You also have a concern about the depth from the waterline to
the bottom of the prop. The depth you're looking at is to the lowest
point in the hull. Props often are lower than the hull depth. And that's
particularly true of these new go fast boats that have 750 to
900-horsepower on the back of them. And you could put one of those
on these docks.
The problem is the channel. As you know, Water Turkey Bay is
very restricted. It is narrow. It is posted as having three foot at mean
low tide. But Florida Fish and Wildlife within the last year actually
measured that and found that it was only 22 to 27 inches deep, not
three feet.
How do these big boats get up and down the channel? They have
to hold themselves to the center of the channel and they must play the
tide. And that's okay except what do little boats do that share this
waterway with these big boats? They have to avoid them. They run a
chance of being pushed out of the channel, they run a chance of being
grounded. And it's all to accommodate boats that were never intended
to be taken care of in our community.
Page 30
August 7,2008
The reason for the 20-foot dock restriction is to control the size
of the boats. You can get a 20 or 25-foot boat on a 20-foot dock, and
you will hold your draft to two, two-and-a-half feet, which works in
that waterway. But the deeper draft does not.
And we would ask you to consider what -- the dangers to
navigation through that narrow channel, narrow and shallow channel.
Could it be dredged? It could. Is it realistically (sic) to think that
that channel can be dredged to more than three foot? I don't think so.
Water Turkey Bay is very shalIow in a very large body of water.
Any channel you dig through there is going to silt in very rapidly and
you're going to have the same or worse problem than what we have at
Wiggins Pass trying to maintain that channel.
We would urge you to hold the line on the current LDC permit of
a maximum of a 20- foot boat dock length. That would give us
comfort.
And in the meantime, from this time on, we would urge you to
support a study of that waterway to determine how many boats can
share that waterway and what is the maximum size of the boats that
can use that water safely, navigate it safely.
And I thank you for your consideration and I'd be glad to answer
any questions you may have.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, are you -- you mentioned
35-foot boats would be docked here, could be docked at these piers.
Are you aware that the state land lease agreement that they have
allows them to put a 40- foot boat in there if they want?
MR. SCHMIDT: That's the point, yes, they probably could.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So really we're talking about the
possibility of 40-foot long boats there rather than 35-foot long boats.
MR. SCHMIDT: Exactly. And in fact, in the illustration, the
illustration showed the boat going to the end of the dock. But as a
Page 31
August 7,2008
matter of fact, the boat will extend out into the waterway an additional
five feet, give or take, to allow for the engines and the hull itself.
Thank you, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, sir.
MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand your enthusiasm.
But you've said quite strongly that the reason that the dock is 20 feet is
in order to restrict the size of the boat. You heard that staff was
unable to say that with the certainty that you did.
How is it that you know that, sir?
MR. SCHMIDT: I'm relying upon some research that some of
our board members have done, and couldn't be here. I think you know
Bruce Burkhard and Susan Snyder. Neither of them could be here.
And they are both very good researchers. And I get the impression
from them that this is the reason for that length.
And it makes good sense to me and I think you should stick to --
I would urge you to sustain that length until you can look into it more
and make a study --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I appreciate that. I just --
you said it with such certitude that I just wondered if you knew
something that they didn't know. Thank you.
MR. SCHMIDT: No, sir, I don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I have one. The crux of your
comments seem to be on the size of the boat, thus related to the depth.
They have a right -- they're here today only for one reason: For
an extension. Basically the extension is five feet more than what
comparable locations are like in that area. They don't have to be here
if they were only to go to 20 feet.
If they were to go to 20 feet, they could put in 70 boats. They
Page 32
August 7,2008
could do that by going down to the building department and getting a
building permit. Is that more preferable to your organization than 34
boats -- or actually, how many, there's nine or so many in place, the
additional boats they're asking here today, is it more important for you
to stop those additional boats to the number that they're talking about
because of their length versus allowing 70 to go in unrestricted?
MR. SCHMIDT: I will first answer your question directly, and
then I would like to expand upon it.
Our residents and members of the board have no objection to the
20-foot dock. We are concerned about the allowance under the
Manatee Protection Act. But you have to be reasonable about this.
They can have 10 in 100 feet. But if you put 10 slips within 100 feet,
the slips can only be 10 feet wide. Then you have to have pilings in
there, and then there is no walkway to get from the shore to the boat.
You can't practically put that many boats in that space.
They might be able to get more than the 34 that they're asking
for, but it certainly is not going to go to 70; they're prohibited by
common sense and facts of measurement. They just won't fit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but if they were not to receive the
extension today and they came back with an application and just got
as many boats as they could fit in there, whether it be 50, 40, 60,
whatever, that is more preferable to your organization than the
extension that they're asking for today?
MR. SCHMIDT: I have to say that is correct. We're very
concerned about the large boats and trying to share the waterway with
very large boats.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under new business in this meeting, I
have a letter from The Conservancy in a response to an issue that I
brought up to them a month ago or two months ago involving loading
capacity on waterways.¹
Page 33
August 7,2008
They've agreed there is a problem. They would like to see
something done and would help in any kind of study that's initiated.
And I would hope that your organization, as well as Turrell &
Associates and all the others, would want to participate in such a
program so that we can have a count as to what the waterways can
hold.
And under new business I was going to discuss that possibility
today.
MR. SCHMIDT: I think we would absolutely support that
endeavor and we would participate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? And it's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it's kind of what you were
saying. Ashley, isn't the most they could have is 54? They can only
have one per unit, correct?
MS. CASERTA: Yes. Well, that's under the extension criterion.
I would have to get back to you as far as how many they could
actually have without an extension.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, the 10 per 100, isn't
that for a commercial establishment?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was for a multi-family
docking facility but -- or multi-slip docking facility. But I don't know
if it differentiates, to be honest with you.
MS. CASERTA: I'm sorry, I missed the question.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is the 10 per 100,
that's for a commercial facility, or--
MS. CASERTA: That's Manatee Protection Plan.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. For commercial, right?
MR. KURTH: That's for all the above.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there's 54 residential here,
correct?
Page 34
August 7, 2008
MS. CASERTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if they left it only -- okay, so
there would be 54 at the most at 20 feet. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ashley, the gentleman just got
up and spoke and he's concerned about 40-foot boats. Can we put a
40- foot boat? What is the largest that can go in that?
MS. CASERTA: That's what I wanted to put on the record. The
extension is for 35 feet, and that's for the dock facility including boat.
So nothing could protrude further than that 35-foot mark. That's the
edge of the boat, the motor, whatever is back there cannot protrude.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ashley, how do we monitor that
those boats do not protrude?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ashley, before you answer, since I have
a lot of involvement with an issue like this, the DEP does the
monitoring. They send inspectors out on a routine basis. They inspect
very carefully. Not only do they inspect the length of the boats, they
inspect every inch, lineal foot of every piece of wood that's placed out
there and added at any time in the future.
So -- and I know that for a fact because I'm dealing with some
issues in that regard already. They've been very I think overly
conscientious sometimes, but maybe that's to the good.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Strain, they've been out
there monitoring. And once they're done with this monitoring that
you're going through now, when will they be back again to monitor?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next month. They come out every
month.
COMMISSIONER CARON: They're going to come out
monthly?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have been doing that for 10 years.
They've come out --
Page 35
August 7, 2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: Geez, it wilI be interesting to find
out how often they come in Vanderbilt Lagoon. I guarantee it's not
monthly, it's not yearly --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From what I see in that aerial, I would
hope they don't come out in Vanderbilt Lagoon too often, because
some of those houses on the right side seem to have issues already that
show up on the aerial that, I don't know, I would think maybe it's a
good thing they don't.
But anyway, go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, this points out that when
the county established the 20-foot regulation -- and Commissioner
Murray, you know, the fact that Ray doesn't remember it doesn't mean
that it's not a good number, it means that it happened before Ray got
here. That means that they really intended to have 20-foot boats,
because it does limit the size of the boat.
The extensions that we've favored in the past is where obviously
the person couldn't get the boat up close to his house and we had to
take that 20-foot boat and move it further out. So the extension was
not to allow bigger boats, it was to allow that person the right, if it
didn't violate our criteria, to have his 20- foot boat further out than 20
feet.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
I can put on the record that the LDC does not restrict boat size.
So the boat dock extensions can and have been in the past used to
allow for larger boats. There's nothing in the LDC that says the boat
has to be 20 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's get through this hearing.
But after this hearing, Mark, let's have a conversation about boat
docks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to have a -- under
new business I have an issue involving this. And we need to get this
one going forward.
Page 36
August 7, 2008
Mr. Kolflat, then Ms. Caron again.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, I'd like to ask the attorney
a question. As I understand it, they have a land lease agreement with
the state here that allows them 40 feet as far as a boat they could dock
there. Does the county ordinance negate that right that they have from
the state?
MR. KLATZKOW: I wouldn't say it negates it, but we have a
20-foot limitation. We can be more restrictive.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But we are limiting to 20 feet?
MR. KLATZKOW: We limit to 20 feet unless they get an
extension, which requires this board to approve it.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And that would limit the boat
extension length to 35 feet.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, that's what we're asking for here
anyway.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Even though the state allows
them to go to 40 feet if they wish.
MR. KLATZKOW: We can be more restrictive.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate that
most of the extensions that we have given have been for individual
homeowners as well. It's very difficult to get these dredge permits. So
for somebody with a water depth problem, individual residential home
site would be very difficult. So the most cost effective way to go
about it is to extend out as long as it doesn't interrupt the channel.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions before we go
to the next public speaker?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, would you call the next public
speaker.
MR. BELLOWS: Joe Connolly.
Page 37
August 7, 2008
MR. CONNOLL Y: Mr. Schmidt covered everything that I
would say. I yield.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Connolly re -- yeah, isn't going to--
MR. BELLOWS: He has --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Withdrawn.
MR. BELLOWS: Withdrawn his request.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Anybody else? Ray, that's it?
MR. BELLOWS: That's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant, you have an opportunity
to say any closing comments, if you'd like.
MR. KURTH: Thank you, and I'll be very brief.
I just made a list in response to the public comments. Thirty-five
protrusion includes the boat and the dock. This is what we're
requesting today. This is going to be the total protrusions allowed, 35
feet.
The submerged land lease is at 40 feet. It actually varies from 37
to 40 feet, and this is to prevent future compliance issues with the
state. As Mark knows and I know, with three other projects in the
immediate area compliance with DEP is not fun. It's nothing you
want to get involved with.
Today is 35 feet protrusion, that's what we're asking for.
We do have a three-foot draft and that is to the bottom of the
boat. If compliance were to go out there and check, it's three feet to
the bottom of the boat, whether it's full of gas or it's empty.
Ultimately we meet the criteria. I think we could request 40-foot
boats today, but we're not. We have a lot of room in between the 25
percent width of waterway. We do meet the setbacks.
If 54 is the upland units, then yes, 54 vessels would be the max
we could have, if that's the number of upland units.
And I believe that's it.
As far as the submerged resources, the oysters along the seawall,
Page 38
August 7,2008
it's just oyster debris, they're not live oysters. I have done --
completed a submerged resource survey and I have a drawing, if you
would like to see it.
That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions?
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I don't have a question, I'd like
to have a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have to close the public
hearing first.
Hearing no other questions, we'll do that. Public hearing -- we'll
close the public hearing and now we'll entertain a motion.
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Based on my judgment, I do not
believe this petition meets primary criteria one nor primary criteria
two, nor secondary criteria three, nor secondary criteria four, nor in
concert with some of the opinions rendered by the neighbors here at
this public hearing. Therefore, I move that we recommend to the
county commission denial of this petition.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion has been made by Mr.
Kolflat, seconded by Ms. Caron. The motion needs discussion.
Mr. Kolflat, you're citing primary criteria one and two.
MR. KLATZKOW: This doesn't go to the Board of County
Commissioners, this is your vote.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was going to be another item I was
going to ask.
It ends here, Mr. Kolflat. So when we get done we'll amend your
motion to recommend either approval or denial. And it's this board
that makes the decision. It only goes to the BCC upon appeal.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm sorry, I misspoke.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But knowing that the appeal has
Page 39
August 7, 2008
occurred in the past, one thing the Board of County Commissioners
has asked, and you did this, is for us to state specifically why we are
denying it. And you got into those issues, and I want to make sure
they're real clear, so that if there is an appeal to the BCC, they
understand why this board took that position.
Primary criteria one is the number of boat dock or facilities or
boats such proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length,
location, upland use and zoning of the subject property.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I do not believe it's appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Primary two is talking about the
water depth. And I think this was the one where they're dredging so
the water depth is not an issue; is that where you're --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's correct. The water is
being dredged to begin with, so regardless of what boats they put in
there they will have the depth necessary to use a 20- foot dock.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you got into your secondary
criteria, and I believe the numbers you cited are? Can you say those
again?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, it says the length of
vessels or vessels -- vessel or vessels does not exceed 50 percent of the
linear waterfront frontage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's number three, right?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. And this does exceed 50
percent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Mr. Kolflat, it very clearly says--
and I'd rather we catch this concern now rather than have the BCC
point it out to us -- it says for single-family dock facilities. It doesn't
say for this application.
So do you have another secondary criteria that you're concerned
with? Because I don't know if that one really applies like you may
believe it does.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I think it applies, but 1'11--
Page 40
August 7, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But no, well, then I'd like to understand
your reasoning, because it says for single-family dock facilities. And
I'm not criticizing you, I want to make sure we send the message that's
consistent and clear based on the language in front of us.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I think the rationale for
that is for open space, some open space when you have boats along
the waterfront there. And therefore, the open space should still prevail
and would be extended whether the upland use is single-family or
whether it's marina or whatever it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it's your motion, so if you
want to leave that one in there, that's fine. Is there another one in
secondary criteria?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Secondary four.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the proposed facility would have
a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property
owners.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I think that's been brought up by
some -- the testimony today by the public speakers that neighbors
would have to look at this, and plus the traffic of the waterways.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, Mr. Kolflat, on
the primary criteria?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Jeff, this is to you. You
know, our 2006 where we've added the wording about the criteria,
that's really only to approve it. I mean, do we need -- how do we
disapprove a thing? Can we focus on one of the criteria and --
MR. KLATZKOW: I think Chairman Strain's approach is the
proper approach, that if you're going to be voting in the negative that
you state your reasons for the record why you're voting in the negative
and then take your vote.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the scoring system to
Page 41
August 7, 2008
approve conversely is the scoring system to disapprove?
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, I don't really view this as a
scoring system.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's in there, I mean, it's--
MR. KLATZKOW: It's criteria that you're looking -- certain
criteria. And from what I've heard from this planning commission's
discussions is that you view the general rule in this county is 20 feet,
then you want to see if there's a reason why you're not giving 20 feet
here, such as lack of adequate depth of water.
So now you're giving the reasons why you think they should not
vary from the 20- foot mandatory requirement.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, we'll save it for new
business.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. I will not be voting with
the motion maker. I think we're here to decide whether this petition
meets all the criteria required. We make the rules, we tell the
petitioner what they must or must not do. They went through Army
Corps, they went through DEP. In my opinion they've met all the
criteria need be.
Whether we like it or not or we think it's a great idea or not really
doesn't factor in, in my opinion. I don't want to go off on tangents, as
I said last time. I think we need to stick to what is presented to us, and
I will not be voting with the motion maker.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have something else
you wanted to say?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I'm fine right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's a motion made and it's
been seconded. Needs a little bit of cleanup.
The primary reasons that the motion maker has stipulated are
numbers one and two and the secondary are three and four. And in the
motion, he indicated recommend approval of the BCC. He needs to
Page 42
August 7, 2008
change the motion to I'm assuming recommend denial? Is that what
you're saying, Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the second--
MR. KLATZKOW: Not recommend denial, to deny.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Deny, I'm sorry. Yeah, to deny.
COMMISSIONER CARON: To deny.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does the second concur?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I do agree with the motion with the
exception of secondary criteria number three. I would include
secondary criteria one and two as being more appropriate than three.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the motion is for primary one and
two, secondary three and four. So we either vote for the motion or we
amend the motion or we have a new motion if there's any corrections
needed.
So I think if the second isn't going to vote for the motion and
feels the criteria needs to change, we need to get that on the table.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll ask the motion maker ifhe
were willing to change his motion.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Change his motion to what?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Change the criteria stated in your
motion.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I recommended primary criteria
one and two, secondary three and four.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Agreed with one and two on
primary. Three only applies to single-family residences, so it can't be
used on this multi-slip facility.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I'll withdraw that one.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So we probably should be looking
at one, two and four, if you want to use four.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I would agree with that, as
amending the motion.
Page 43
August 7, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now the motion is for
primary one and two, secondary one, two and four? And does the
second agree to that?
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded for
primary one and two, secondary one, two and four.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some discussion. It's very short.
I looked at these criteria, and when Mr. Klatzkow said something at
the beginning of the meeting, it changed my position. I thought that if
they met four out of six of the primary, then it was a given they had --
there was no way we could turn it down. But I think what you said in
the beginning of the meeting, that we can turn down for not meeting
anyone of the criteria.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. If you have a substantial reason to
turn it down, you should turn it down.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. However, in reading the actual
language of the code, I cannot concur with the motion maker's
reasoning on primary one and secondary two and four. So based on
that, I cannot support the motion as it's stated.
Now, there is going to be a discussion under new business as to a
loading of waterways. This is before that. Obviously this doesn't fall
under any new criteria. So if that helps.
But right now I can't support the motion maker, but only because
they picked the wrong criteria that I feel isn't consistent with the
reasoning of the code. So with that said, Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm also agreeing with you,
I don't agree with all of his criteria, but I'm definitely agreeing with
primary criteria two. Is it possible that we might have a new motion
to deny based on different criteria?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we could if the first motion fails,
Page 44
August 7,2008
yes.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is again something we
did in --
MR. KLATZKOW: You guys, if you want, you could just make
a motion to deny, then each of you give the various reasons why
you're denying it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that would be much better, if the
motion maker would accept that.
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you accept just making a motion
to deny? The second then would confirm that, and then as we vote we
can state our reasons why we agree or disagree with you.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're making a motion to
deny?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, do you second it?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The reason I stipulated that was
that we were instructed at our last meeting that if we were to make a
motion of this nature, it would be helpful to, whether it was the
County Commissioner or anyone else, to state exactly what we are
basing our motion on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand, sir--
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: In the past we haven't always
done that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and we've still got to do that. But
Mr. Klatzkow gave us a really good way to handle it, because we each
have different reasons.
Now during the motion, either affirming your position, we can
Page 45
August 7,2008
state what primary and secondary criteria we're concerned with.
So there's been a motion made and seconded to deny. I think
we've had a lot of discussion, so now I'm going to ask starting with
Mr. Kolflat, working our way across for a vote yea or nay. And if it's
a support ofMr. Kolflat's motion to deny, then I need you to state your
primary and secondary reasons, if any.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I say something?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is to Jeff.
Jeff, we have criteria to approve a boat dock, and it lists things
like, you know, the number that -- things like that. But the reason is
we have a requirement for 20-feet docks in Collier County. So isn't
the first test is, is there a need to extend this dock past the requirement
of 20 feet?
Why do we --1 mean, it's going to be embarrassing to go through
and come up with the criteria to approve, using it as a criteria to deny.
Now I realize in the appeal they're going to go up before the
commission and say look, we met all the criteria, why didn't they
approve us. But that's not -- you know, we've messed the code up
with this, but the code is to criteria to approve. And some of them are
just, you know, adding up the numbers and stuff, it has nothing to do
with really criteria.
So can't we just deny this on the fact that there's no need for an
extension?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think that can be one of your reasons, yes.
But I do think you should, if you believe they are not consistent with
either the primary or the secondary, also state those as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Brad, I think individually we can
make our own minds up on how to say we want to deny it or not. I'm
not going to go along with your reasoning at all, so I'm going to still
say what I'm going to say.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's okay, Mark. But the
Page 46
August 7, 2008
point is that making the commission go through the criteria I don't
think is fair. I think, you know, we have a requirement of 20 feet. A
lot of people in the county honor that and build 20-foot docks. This
isn't fair to them to just not let that be the criteria.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have to list criteria. No one
has to do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The BCC asked us to be clear why we
vote for denial. I'm just trying to make sure we're as clear as possible.
If you feel there's a better way to do it, then by all means in a minute
or two when you get to vote, express yourself the way you want to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fire away.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, your reasons for denial.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Do you want the criteria?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever you'd like, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Criteria primary one and two,
secondary four.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm going to vote to deny.
There's no reason to not build the county required 20- foot dock.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Deny because of primary criteria
two and secondary criteria one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Deny based on primary criteria
two and secondary criteria one and two.
Additionally, I think there is just no reason why the extension --
why there is a need for an extension past the required 20 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm going to recommend -- I'm
going to vote for support of the motion for denial for primary reasons
two and three and secondary reason one.
Mr. Adelstein?
Page 47
August 7, 2008
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm going to do it on primary
one and two.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein recommended denial as
well -- or, yeah, support of the motion for denial.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to vote to approve, not
the motion, but approve the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you would be against the motion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I am also against the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I am against the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion carries 6-3. Thank you
all.
And I think we have -- Cherie', how are you holding out?
THE COURT REPORTER: Fine, thank you.
Item #9B
PETITION: CU-2007-AR-12419, ABC LIQUORS INC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that said, we will go on to
the next case, Petition CU-2007-AR-I2419. It's a conditional use for
ABC Liquors on the corner of95I and U.S. 41.
All those wishing to speak on behalf of this petition, please rise
to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there testimony -- I'm sorry,
disclosures on the part of the planning commission?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
Page 48
ITEM 10. A.
-
THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL IS BEING PROVIDED
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY.
.....
Subject: Remanding of Petition BD-2006-AR-9061& ADA-2008-AR-13731 to the CCPC
( Date: May 11, 2009
From: Tor Kolflat
To: Ray Bellows
Ray. Please include this in the record and forward to interested parties prior to the
CCPC meeting scheduled for this item.
At the December 2,3, 2008 BCC meeting, the Monte Carlo Condominium Association
Petition ADA-2008-AR-13731 to appeal the CCPC denial of Petition BD-2006-AR-9061
for boat dock extensions was heard. The BCC voted as follows: Motion to uphold
Planning Commission's findings - failed. Motion to remand this item back to the
Planning Commission with a request for formal interpretation and reasons for initial
denial in accordance with the LDC - approved.
In order to ascertain, some of the issues raised in the BCC meeting, for which the
matter was remanded, I read the BCC meeting transcript and cut various excerpts from
the transcript and grouped them under five topical subjects numbered 1 through 5
below. The relevant transcript page and line numbers are listed over each excerpt,
( The next topical subjects 6 through 12, contain some comments, relative to the LDC
for boat docks, for possible discussion at our meeting.
1. BCC direction to remand back to cepc
Page 114 Lines 5 through 9 (Coyle)
-
So, I guess I've come to this conclusion, either we conclude that
your guidance is correct and there, therefore, is no basis for this
appeal, or, secondly, we remand it to the Planning Commission with
instructions to use the ordinance and to specifY all of their reasons for
refusing this boat dock extension reQuest.
------------
,- '0"
I. 1",
"~'"
--~---- - ~_._--~--
- - ---- - ------- --
1.
(
l
Page 158 Lines 24 through Page 159 Line 1
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. r, as the seconoer ofthe
motion, I would like to say that I would feel more comfortable
remanding this to the Planning Commission. I don't know that the
result will be any different. But for the integrity of the process, I
cannot -- still cannot reconcile the differences in position between the
County Manager (sic), our county staff, and the Planning
Commission. And I would like to bring all that together and get it
resolved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you mean County Attorney?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I meant County Attorney, yes. Did
I say something -- County Manager?
Page 162 Line 27 through Page 163 Line 7
- -,,- ---,- -.....----............... --"~-_.._--- ---
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll give C~~~i~Sio~~; Halas'the
first shot at that, if you'd like to do it.
,.,
<?OMMTSSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Let's send this back to the
Plannmg Commission with guidance so that we can get this thing
taken care of once and for all.
COMMlSSIONE~ COYLE: And I'll second it and ask that it be
ma4e clear to them that they should not only list-the criteria they used
in accordance with our ordinance, but list any other criteria which they
think: is -- was important in their decision; is that okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. And I'd like to -- that vote,
that last vote we took, I'm in -- I was in favor of that. I wasjust
sleeping at the switch, okay. So that's a positive vote for me in
regards to holding up the fmdings of the Planning Commission.
"
2.
Page 166 Lines 13 through 26
(
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So there's amotfonand Ii' secon<fto--
reprimand (sic) it down to the Planning Commission.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
2. Directions reQardin~lication of criteria
(
Page 111 Line 11 through Page 113 Line 10
----- - -._~_._-_.~---
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. This will take about two minutes to-
go through my analysis, and I'll use the visualizer with Mr. Mudd's
help.
The first piece of the ordinance that's relevant is that you're only
allowed a 20-foot dock or boat protrusion into the canal, okay. So we
have ourselves an LDC requirement that if you're on a lot that is 100
feet or greater -- now, this could be 200 feet, 400 feet, 1,000 feet, it
doesn't make any difference, okay -- what we said is that your dock
and boat combination cannot protrude more than 20 feet into the
waterway, okay.
We then give an ability for a form, of what is really a variance to
this. If Mr. Mudd could put this on.
MR. MUDD: Absolutely.
.5
c
MR. KLATZKOW: Anerit's really In rwcrpans. l~UW, 11. (111 we--
wanted the Planning Commission to look at was the primary criteria
and the second criteria, there'd be one sentence, and that sentence
would read, if an applicant can demonstrate at least four of the five.
primary criteria or four of the secondary criteria wO\.lld be met, then he
would be entitled to an extension, but we don't say that.
What the ordinance says is something different. It breaks it down
into two parts. It says, an additional protrusion of a dock facility into
aI1Y waterway b~Yond the limits established in subsection 5.05.06.E,
which is the 20 feet, may be considered appropriate under certain
crrcumstances. So it's the exception rather than the rule, and there's a
period there, okay.
. It then goes on to say, in order for the Planning Commission to
approve the boat dock extension, then you've got to at least meet these
criteria, four out of five or -- of the primary, and four out of six -- at
least four out of six of the secondary.
So the Planning Commission really looks at two things. They
say, is this boat dock extension request appropriate given the
circumstances? And these circumstances could be many and varied.
And again, the general rule is you only get 20 feet irrespective of the
size of the canal, all right, but you are entitled to a form of a variance
ifthere are certain circumstances you can demonstrate.
These circumstances conclude, for example, that it's too shallow -
near shore, so you have to go out in order to put your boat down,
okay. But in order for the Planning Commission now, once they've
, found the special circumstances exist to actually give it to you, then
these criteria kick in and they have to say, well, okay, we think you're
allowed to do that.
In addition to that, you meet at least four of the six primary and
you meet at least four of the six -- four of the five, four of the six
secondary, all right. So it's a two-part analysis by the Planning
Commission.
4.
~----And again, if you wanted to limit the Planning Commission to
just the one- analysis where all they looked at was the criteria, then
you'd have one sentence and you tell the Planning Commission, if the
applicant meets four out of five or four out of six, then he gets. But
we don't say that. We broke it down into two different steps.
Now, this particular provision in some form goes back to at least
1965. And we've gone through the legislative history, and I cannot
tell you why we even have this, okay. It goes back to at least an outfit
called NAZAC (phonetic), which we're assuming is Naples zoning -- .
some sort of Naples zoning group, who recommended this be the
standard through the county. But the report wasn't -- isn't in our
record.
So I don't know what the public purpose of limiting 20 feet is. I
don't know if we want smaller boats in the waterways, which is why
we had this 20 feet, or if we simply wanted to be able to increase the
navigation throughout the canals. But since we don't differentiate
between 100 feet and 200 feet and 400 feet and 800 feet, all right, my
inclination is that what we're really trying to do is keep the size of the
boats down. That's just hazarding a guess though.
,
/
,.
- - - -- -- - -. -
Page 115 Lines 11 through 21
(
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm saying is that you look at the
circumstances surrounding that area where you want the dock
extension, and if you think it's appropriate, okay, they can grant that
extension; but in order for them to do it, it has to meet those criteria, at
least four out of the five and four of the six.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: So it's a two-step analysis. First they say,
yes, we think it's appropriate that you get this extension.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Based upon the criteria?
MR. KLA TZKOW: No. Based upon the circumstances
surrounding where your dock is.
s-
Page 160 Lines 2 through 6
~ ..
MR. KLA TZKOW: I think the Planning Commission's decision'-
is legally justifiable in every respect. If, however, it's the view ofthis
board to send this back to the Planning Commission, I would ask that
you ask Susan to render an official interpretation on this so we can put '
this issue to bed.
---'--,
Page 113 Lines 16 through 21 (Coyle)
(
If you are correct in this interpretation, then there is no basis for
this appeal that we have before us today because the appeal presumes
that the Planning Commission had to use the criteria that were
established in the ordinance. But if your guidance is that they do not
have to use that criteria, then the appeal is baseless because a majority
of the Planning Commission members voted against it.
. ^ .'" -... ..
--- -.--------~ "'r---~
- - --- - -------
--------
--
3. Criteria and its use
.._-~
,'"
- --------_.._-_._~--~---
Page 143 Line 26 through Page 144 Line 7
-~-
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before we leave that issue; I think
it's important to understand it under criteria -- the secondary criteria.
If we're going to continue to use this for anybody's good purpose, we
can't continue to use it the way it's set up there. You have one criteria
there that is applicable only to single-family dock facilities.
So when you're talking about meeting four of the six criteria,
does that mean a multifamily development automatically meets that
6
particular criteria, or is that criteria to be ignored? S~ you really have
~o clean that process up because it doesn't make sense to include th t
In~re. a
, So it's -- for multifamily dock facilities, we should either say
y.ou ve got .to meet three of the five or four of the five' and for '
smgle-famIly. d~ck facilities, you've got to meet four ~fthe six.
you know, thiS is not a good criteria to use. But,
__.~2_~...J 1._........:.=-~-:-~:~ _~____~______ __~__"_____ _~.~___ __~___,..---"::
,1
Page 163 Lines 21 through 28
COMMisSIONER COYLE: Y ~;h: i-~nderstand that. But the
County Attorney has opined that if you have a good reason -- I mean
they're ~ot potted pl~ts.. If you hav~ a good reason for voting against
so~e~hIng, then speCIfY 1t. If there 1S a reason for appealing that.
deCISIon because their logic is flawed, then you can come back and .
______';"e'll hav~_~omething to deal~__ ____________ _ ____L~-n
(
3"
Page 165 Lines 16 through Page 166 Line 8
---- COMMISSIONER COYLE: --='-':'1Qur out or SiX ofThe second-'-------
criteria. Many of the Planning Commission members did not do that.
So they didn't comply with the ordinance, but they also didn't comply
with the guidance from the County Manager -- or County Attorney
because they didn't say, oh, and by the way, here are my other reasons
that are not in the ordinance why I voted against this.
So I think we need to make sure they understand that according
to the ordinance, they have to identifY those things that they think are
wrong here, and they should vote against it if you don't meet the
specified number.
If there are overriding considerations of another nature, we
should understand that. And if it comes back to us -- if you appeal
whatever decision they get and it comes back to us, then we will make
a decision on how we judge this particular petition.
Does that help a little bit?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, yeah. I think it does, so let me just
say it one other time so I make sure I'm on the same page. Let's just,
..,
7
hypothetical, PI~nning Commi~sioner says, I think: they m~ct all five
out o~ ~ve of pnmary and all SIX out of six, but I think: there's this
overndmg concern, so I vote no anyway.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I "
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that --
. COMMISSIO~ER COYLE: And if that overriding concern is
Important to ~he ~elghborhood and important to boating safety, I mi ht
very well be mclmed to accept that. g
---------- --_._--~~._--
I
4. CCPC criteria vote to deny boat dock petition
Page 130 Lines 16 through 30
c
_ ____------ ~ ------.;77 ~ JI.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's go to Page 5 and 6 of the
executive summary, start with primary criteria. We'll start with
primary criteria number A, and Tor Kolflat and Mr. Adelstein said that
was one of the reasons that they cited. And for lB, Tor Kolflat, Mr.
Midney, Commissioner Caron, Commiss~oner Strain, and
Commissioner Adelstein cited that one as reasons they voted against
it. And for primary criteria 1, paragraph C, Commissioner Strain cited
that as a reason for voting against it.
. And then if we'll go to secondary criteria, Commissioners
Midney, Caron, and Strain cited 2A as a reason for voting against it.-.
And under secondary. criteria number B, Commissioner Caron cited
that as a reason for voting against it.
And then under -- on Page 6 under subparagraph D, Tor Kolflat.
identified that as a reason he voted against it. So that's the complete
compilation of all of the votes against the petition.
(
~.
e
----------- ---~--~---------
Recap of criteria cited for CCPC vote of denial - not part of BCC meeting notes
Commission Member
Vote
LDC criteria cited for vote
Mark Strain
Donna Reed Caron
Lindy Adelstein
Brad Schiffer
Paul Midney
Tor Kolflat
Robert Murray
Robert Vigliotti
David Wolfley
For
For
For
For
For
For
Nay
Nay
Nay
Primary B, Primary C, Secondary A
Primary B, Secondary A, Secondary B
Primary A, Primary B
LDC 5.03.06 E 1 is applicable
Primary B, Secondary A
Primary A, Primary B, Secondary 0
Motion to deny passed 6 to 3
(
5.
-------------.---
Issues beyond the criteria for consideratl6,,--
Page 138 Lines 25 through Page 139 Line 12
.,.-------------.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't kTIow -why -staff is saying the
Planning Commission's totally in error. To me there's a lot of
judgment that goes into these things, and there's a lot of close calls
going into these things.
Now, I've just read the transcript, so T know exactly what I told
the Planning Commission. What I told the Planning Commission is,
just concentrate on the criteria but it's not a scoring system, all right.
What I also told the Planning Commission, when you make your
l\
q
motion, give the reasons, which criteria you're relying on, your
motion, if you're going to vote or deny.
COM:MISSIONER HALAS: And they did that. /'
MR. KLATZKOW: And they did that. That's what r told them. "3
Now what I'm telling you is -- and I didn't tell them this -- because I
just read through this, okay. I didn't tell them that you can go beyond
the criteria. I think you can. I think this is a form of a variance. I
think this is very similar to 9.04.03A where it requires special
conditions and circumstances before you go in for a variance, all right;
otherwise, if you want -- if you want this as of right, the LDC should
say, if you meet four out of five, you get this as ofright, period, all
right. It doesn't say that, all right.
Page 146 Lines 12 through 26 (Lew Schmidt)
(
" ----TlllinK1Ile---prarming Commission -- and thanks to your County -----=-=~---
Attorney -- used good judgment, and it wasn't just how they felt -- in
denying this application. And their judgment was, in measuring the
overall effect of putting these docks and big boats into that small area
and setting a precedent for others to come in was going to create a Ii /(
hazard in that waterway -- restricted waterway.
I asked them and encouraged them to support the Land
Development Code, and I did say to them that I felt there was a reason
for the Land Development Code restricting the dock length to 20 feet,
and the reason has to be apparent to us now. It's to prevent people
from putting boats that are too big for the waterway on those docks
and attempting to operate them on the waterway.
There was an intention, and thankfully there's an option for the
commissioners, per our County Attorney, to see that and to deny the
permit to extend them to that length. ~~.
(
10
(
6. LOG 5.03.06 E 1 Standards for dock facilities states
For lots on a canal or waterway that is 100 feet or greater in width, no boathouse
or dock facilitv/boat combination shall protrude more than twenty (20) feet into
the waterway.
Note the use of the mandatory "shall" for this prohibition .
Note the term "dock facility/boat combination" indicates that the boat protrusion
into the waterway, when moored at the dock, is also limited to twenty (20) feet.
7. LOG 5.03.06 G Dock facility extension states
Additional protrusion of the dock facility into any waterway beyond the limits
established in subsection 5.03.06 E of the code may be considered appropriate
under certain circumstances.
Note that "may be considered appropriate" is not mandatory, but discretionary.
It is subject to the reviewer's judgment
8.
LOG 5.03.06 G 1 Primary criteria
Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate
in relation to the waterfront lenqth, location, upland land use, and zoning of the
subject property.
"Appropriate" is in the judgment of the reviewer
The number of units in a multi-unit dwelling is used as the appropriate number of
dock facilities and/or boats. However, the LDC states that the number of docks
shall be appropriate in "relation to the waterfront length", not the number of units.
The LDC also states the number of dock facilities shall be appropriate to the
"upland land use". However no examples of this land use, required for boat dock
servicing, such as maintenance and/or fueling is provided.
11.
9. LOC 5.03.06 G 1 b Primary Criteria 2
Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the
general length, type, and draft is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (ML T)
Dredging, rather than a dock extension, solves this problem.
10. LOC 5.03.06 G 2 b Secondary criteria 2
Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable and safe access to the
vessel for loading and/or unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of
excessive deck area not directly related to these functions.
A "safe" dock area should have access ladders from the water to the docks.
11. Verification of ownership of land under RrQPosed dock
(
Ownership should be verified
The preceding excerpts from the Bee meeting of December 2,3,2009 (Topics 1- 5)
and my comments (Topics 6 - 11) are offered for discussion
12.
5.03.06 Dock Facilities
A. Generally.
Docks and the like are primarily intended to adequately secure moored vessels and provide safe
access for routine maintenance and use, while minimally impacting navigation within any
adjacent navigable channel, the use of the waterway, the use of neighboring docks, the native
marine habitat, manatees, and the view of the waterway by the neighboring property owners.
B. Allowable uses. The following uses may be pennitted on waterfront property:
1. Individual or multiple private docks.
2. Mooring pilings.
3. Davits or lifts.
4. Boathouses.
5. Boat lift canopies.
C. Measurement of dock protrusions and extensions.
1. Measurement is made from the most restrictive of the following: property line, bulkhead line,
shoreline, seawall, rip-rap line, control elevation contour, or mean high water line (MHWL).
2. On manmade waterways less than 100 feet in width, where the actual waterway has receded
from the platted waterfront property line, the County Manager or Designee may approve an
administrative variance allowing measurement of the protrusion from the existing MHWL,
provided that:
a. A signed, sealed survey no more than 60 days old is provided showing the location of
the MHWL on either side of the waterway at the site, as well as any dock facilities on the
subject property and the property directly across the waterway; and
b. At least 50% of the true waterway width, as depicted by the survey, is maintained for
navigability.
3. On manmade canals 60 feet or less in width, which are not reinforced by a vertical seawall or
bulkhead, at least 33 percent of the true waterway width, as depicted by the survey, must be
maintained for navigability.
4. The allowable protrusion of the facility into the waterway shall be based on the percentages
described in subsection 5.03.06(E)(2) of this LDC as applied to the true waterway width, as
depicted by the survey, and not the platted canal width.
D. Determination as principal or accessory use.
1. On unbridged barrier islands, a boat dock shall be considered a permitted principal use;
however, a dock shall not, in any way, constitute a use or structure which permits, requires,
and/or provides for any accessory uses and/or structures.
1
9. Riparian lines for all other lots shall be established by generally accepted methods, taking
into consideration the configuration of the shoreline, and allowing for the equitable
apportionment of riparian rights. Such methods include, but are not limited to, lines drawn
perpendicular to the shoreline for regular (linear) shorelines , or lines drawn perpendicular to
the centerline (thread) ofthe waterway, perpendicular to the line of deep water (line of
navigability or edge of navigable channel), as appropriate, for irregular shorelines.
10. All dock facilities, regardless oflength and/or protrusion, shall have reflectors and house
numbers, no less than 4 inches in height, installed at the outermost end on both sides. For multi-
family developments, the house number requirement is waived.
II. Multi-slip docking facilities with 10 or more slips will be reviewed for consistency with the
Manatee Protection Plan ("MPP") adopted by the BCC and approved by the DEP. If the location
of the proposed development is consistent with the MPP, then the developer shall submit a
"Manatee Awareness and Protection Plan," which shall address, but not be limited to, the
following categories:
a. Education and public awareness.
b. Posting and maintaining manatee awareness signs.
12. Information on the type and destination of boat traffic that will be generated from the
facility .
13. Monitoring and maintenance of water quality to comply with state standards.
14. Marking of navigational channels, as may be required.
F. Standards for boathouses.
Boathouses, including any roofed structure built on a dock, shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission according to the following criteria, all of which must be met in order for the
Planning Commission to approve the request:
1. Minimum side setback requirement: Fifteen feet.
2. Maximum protrusion into waterway: T twenty-five percent of canal width or 20 feet,
whichever is less. The roof alone may overhang no more than 3 feet into the waterway beyond
the maximum protrusion and/or side setbacks.
3. Maximum height: Fifteen feet as measured from the top of the seawall or bank, whichever is
more restrictive, to the peak or highest elevation of the roof.
4. Maximum number of boathouses or covered structures per site: One.
5. All boathouses and covered structures shall be completely open on all 4 sides.
3
H. Dock facility extension.
Additional protrusion of a dock facility into any waterway beyond the limits established in
subsection 5.03.06 E. of this Code may be considered appropriate under certain circumstances.
In order for the Planning Commission to approve the boat dock extension request, it must be
determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria, have
been met. These criteria are as follows:
1. Primary Criteria:
a. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to
the waterfront length, location, upland land use, and zoning of the subject property.
Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the
primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate;
typical, single-family use should be no more than 2 slips; typical multi-family use should be I
slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be
appropriate ).
b. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length,
type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at
mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the water
depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring ofthe vessel(s) described without an
extension).
c. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an
adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked
or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel).
d. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the
waterway, and whether a minimum of 50% of the waterway width between dock facilities on
either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the
required percentages).
e. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would
not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of
legally permitted neighboring docks).
2. Secondary criteria:
a. Whether there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject
property or waterway, which justifY the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock
facility. (There must be at least I special condition related to the property; these may include
type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds).
b. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for
loading and/or unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not
directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area).
5
County. The location of seagrass beds shall be verified by the County Manager or designee prior
to issuance of any proj ect approval or permit.
2. All proposed dock facilities shall be located and aligned to stay at least 10 feet from any
existing seagrass beds, except where a continuous bed of sea grasses exists off the shore of the
property and adjacent to the property, and to minimize negative impacts to seagrasses and other
native shoreline, emergent and submerged vegetation, and hard bottom communities.
3. Where a continuous bed of sea grasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the
property, the applicant shall be allowed to build a dock across the seagrass beds, or a docking
facility within 10 feet of seagrass beds. Such docking facilities shall comply with the following
conditions:
a. The dock shall be at a height of at least 3.5 feet NGVD.
b. The terminal platform area of the dock shall not exceed 160 square feet.
c. The access dock shall not exceed a width of 4 feet.
d. The access dock and terminal platform shall be sited to impact the smallest area of seagrass
beds possible.
4. The petitioner shall be required to demonstrate how negative impacts to seagrass beds and
other native shoreline vegetation and hard bottom communities have been minimized prior to
any project approval or permit issuance.
(Ord. No. 06-63, !i 3.CC)
7
.----.- ...-
I
I
I
I
I
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
/0
~L~ t. 0 ~1
M 1 ,'t:().(:rf'Y<.. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
81 \/ ,(..{:~v
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
NAME: hl\vct'- /fufl-(/I,f.l:,i)
ADDRESS: ;( tf:.; ( /11-<. It, / t ~
A../1 PI t's 1'l :1 'II!'>?
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER:
l7
OTHER:
L' Ii f: II
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT
THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL
You ARE LIMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE To ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR.
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
:ltfl
"
1'?t6\.
-p IiC 6.: s
.. ,) . ti-. r~' ..
;..t,lt~f 4"\-, [v h 0'\4 . 'H"-o. ,1'-11./
ck J.'f {k~-;t'" /\ ~~..di. K."".
PLEASE PRINT CtE!ARL Y
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
,
-Ji'IL _
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
NAME: M n+LC&7J ~f)f) I rJ S
ADDRESS:
]) 12.. .:if:z 3 I
., J'"
I 0 ')' 2- \ (y u I.-F ,) (fr;';(i:
OTHER: _ V;J'.~Lo...ij.lQt- 1?f.<:-R~i"
.~
jl{(()p;
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER:
('\ 1"
I(.L.~ L l J..4...-1A--
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT
THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPI_ES, FL
You ARE LIMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE To ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR.
'.,1 C
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: I tJ . c! 1.J !,)j,
~-
AGENDA ITEM NUMBE~: ' ~
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD,
NAME:
13 J S PI V AR..[) - t:)OY t ~
ADDRESS: t-/ 7 q /'} /f L jl)
(1/
_. ,
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER:
OTHER:
~ ,.., ~i.._J
\/ /', A f I
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT
THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL
You ARE LIMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE To ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR"