CCPC Minutes 07/01/2010 R
July 1,2010
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
July 1,2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Mark P. Strain
Melissa Ahem
Brad Schiffer
Donna Reed Caron
Bob Murray
Karen Homiak
Paul Midney (Absent)
Robert Vigliotti (Absent)
ALSO PRESENT:
Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division
Ray Bellows, Zoning Director
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JULY 1,2010, IN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER. 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.
INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR
GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MA Y BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON
AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HA VE
WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS
MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED
TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC
WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE
A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE
MA Y NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -May 20,2010 and June 3.2010
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - June 22.2010
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. CP-2007-3, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and
Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Man and Map Series, to create the Mission
Subdistrict to allow church and related uses, including schools. adult care and child care and
community outreach, with a maximum of 90,000 square feet of total development. for property
located on the south side of Oil Well Road (CR 858), ]/4 mile west of Everglades Boulevard, in
Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, consisting of ct21.72 acres. [Coordinator: David
Weeks. AICP. Planning Manager]
1
B. CP-2008-2, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and
Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series. to expand and modify
the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict to allow an additional development intensity of
360,950 square feet of commercial uses of the C-4 zoning district, with exceptions, for property
located on the south side of Randall Boulevard, extending from S"' Street Northeast west to the
canal on the west side of the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station, in Sections 26 and 27, Township
4S South, Range 27 East, consisting of ct56.5 acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal
Planner]
C. CP-2008-4, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future
Land Use Map and MaD Series, to re-designate from Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD)
Sending Lands to Neutral Lands property located on the east and south sides of Washburn A venue,
east of the Naples landfill, in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of lc2S. 76
acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt. AICP, Principal Planner!
D. CPSP-2008-7. Staff Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element to add a
new Policy 4.11 pertaining to aligning planning time frames in the GMP. [Coordinator: David
Weeks, AICP. Planning Manager]
E. CP-2009-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future
Land Use Man and MaD Series (FLUE/FLUM), to create the Dade-Collier Cypress Recreation
Area District within the Conservation Designation, for property located along the Miami-
Dade/Collier County border, in Sections 13, 14, 15 & 16, Township 53 South, Range 34 East,
consisting of 1.60Sr acres. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager]
F. PUDZ-2008-AR-13375, The North Naples United Methodist Church Inc" represented by Tim Hancock
of Davidson Engineering, Inc. and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Y ovanovich and Koester,
P.A" is requesting rezoning from the Rural Agricultural zoning district (A) to the Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) zoning district to allow development of a maximum 1,900 seat Church and Church
Related Facilities, a maximum 3, I 00 seat Civic and Cultural Facilities, a maximum 200 student School and
a maximum 209 unit Adult Assisted Living Facility to be known as The North Naples United Methodist
Church Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). The subject property, consisting of 13.0 acres,
is located on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road (CR-951) approximately :t:I500 feet north of Pine
Ridge Road, in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator:
Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner]
G. PUDZ-A-PL2009-2031. Rock Creek Holdings, LLC, represented by R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of
Roetzel and Andress, LP A and Tim Hancock, AICP of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a rezone
from the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project that is currently
known as the Meridian Village RPlJD, to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning
district for a project that will be known as the Meridian Village MPUD to allow for development of up to
480 beds for adult housing which may include assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement
community facilities or independent living units and/or to allow for the site to be developed as a 120-unit
multi-family residential project and/or to allow development of a combination of residential uses and
community facility uses including child care centers and churches. The 11.6Sr acre subject property is
located at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Estey Avenue in
Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP,
Principal Planner]
2
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BD-PL2009-1157 Michael and Debra Rotkvich, represented by Michael A. Kelly of Paradise Docks, is
requesting a 28.5-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot limit as provided in section 5.03.06
of the LDC to allow a 48.5-foot dock facility to accommodate two vessels. Subject property is located at
Lot 43 of South port on the Bay, Unit 2 subdivision in the Lely Barefoot Beach Planned Unit
Development in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (street address: 54
Southport Cove). [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner] {CONTINUED FROM THE
.fUNF 3. 20j() CCPC MEETlNGl
B. BD-PL201O-544 Erik Johnson, represented by Jeff Rogers of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., is
requesting a 60-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot limit as provided in Section
5.03.06.E.1 of the LDC to allow an 80-foot dock facility to accommodate two vessels. The property is
located at 25 Pelican Street East, legally described as Lot 32, Isles of Capri No. I Subdivision in Section
5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Michael Sawyer, Senior
Planner]
C. CU-PL2009-58 Largay Properties, LLC, represented by Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman,
Y ovanovich & Koester, P.A. and D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., is
requesting approval of a Conditional Use for a Collection and Transfer Site for Resource Recovery in
the Agricultural (A) Zoning District pursuant to Collier County Land Development Code Subsection
2.03.01 A.l.c.12 The subject 5r acre tract is located on the east side of Pheasant Roost Trail, south of
Frangipani Avenue in Section 15. Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County. Florida.
I Coordinator: Nancy (jundlach, AICP, Principal Planner]
10. OLD BUSINESS
II. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
6/21 II 0 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/ld
3
July 1,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good morning, everyone.
Welcome to the July 1 st meeting of the Collier County Planning
Commission.
If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, would you mind doing the
roll call.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
Ms. Ahem?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I am here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron
is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is absent.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Ms. Homiak.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
Page 2
July 1,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Addenda to the agenda. Any
changes needed by anybody?
(No response.)
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences.
Next meeting is 7/15/10. Anybody know if they're not going to be
here for that meeting?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought that meeting got canceled
at our last meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right. It might be. Ray was--
good point.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. That meeting has been canceled.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But how many would like to
come anyway? No, nobody? Oh, dam, okay.
Thank you, Ray.
We had, in my -- at some point we had scheduled a meeting for
the GMP on 7/19 and 7/20. I don't find them still on the book. I did
find them on my Rolodex. It looks like they've been canceled, too.
Okay.
Wow, that wipes out the month. We won't be back here until
August. And I don't even know _. what's the first one in August; does
anybody --
MR. BELLOWS: That would be--
COMMISSIONER CARON: The 5th.
MR. BELLOWS: -- August 5th, and we do have items on that
agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We do have?
Page 3
July 1,2010
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody know if they're not going
to be here on the 5th this far in advance?
(No response.)
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 20,2010 AND JUNE 3, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we have two sets of
minutes for approval. We'll need a motion, assuming everything's
okay, for the May 20,2010, minutes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ms. Caron, seconded
by Melissa Ahem. I'll get your last name right here, Melissa. Sorry.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 6-0.
How about the June 3, 2010, minutes?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same, by Ms. Caron, by Ms. Ahem.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
Page 4
July 1,2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 6-0.
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - JUNE 22, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, we have BCC report and recaps.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On June 22nd the Board of County
Commissioners heard the Heritage Bay PUD amendment and the
signed variance for American Momentum Center. Those two items
were approved on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. A couple of things.
The last meeting we had, or two meetings ago, we had a dock
extension for Rotkvich, and I guess it's coming back today. There was
a memo sent out, Nick, by your office to the Board of County
Commissioners concerning that petition, and the petition said the
following: The boat dock petition was continued to July 1 st CCPC
meeting because the applicant has provided a plan that is slightly
different from the DEP plan.
Page 5
July 1,2010
First of all, I'm not sure what the significance of the word slightly
was, because the plan had two things missing on it that we ask of
every other applicant, an accurate depth readings and a mangrove line.
Both of those are criteria involving primary and secondary
considerations.
So I don't think it was a slightly different issue. It was a serious
issue because we had a series of primary and secondary conditions
that were dependent upon it. And I don't want -- I really don't think
it's good to trivialize our position to the board as an independent
memo, or even any memo for that matter.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. It wasn't intended to trivialize
your position, Commissioner. So we'll make a note of that and make a
correction for the future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you.
And then the other thing is, admin. report or I mean admin. code.
I watched your -- Susan's presentation, then yours. Susan's basically
was that we recommended approval and you -- and I've got to give
you credit for standing up for the Planning Commission. You got up
and elaborated a little bit on our position, although at the time you did
I didn't know that the Board of County Commissioners had any
knowledge of the fiscal impact, but you did express a concern about
that.
When I talked with you, I found out it was on the overhead. I
just hadn't seen it either -- I didn't check it on the packet or didn't see it
on the television.
The only thing I wanted to add to that is, they approved the
admin. code at a time when this county has significantly less dollars to
spend on many things that are very important. The admin. code isn't a
necessity. We're doing fine with the LDC. We've been doing it that
way since time began.
I thought the intent of this board was to say, yes, it's a better
concept, but with the budget issues you have, it may not be the
Page 6
July 1,2010
necessity you need to react to at this time.
I'm just kind of making that note for the record, because at least
that was my intent when I was speaking on the admin. code. I
certainly can't speak for the rest of the panel here.
I still don't see the necessity, and I think your numbers -- I think
you told me 160 on the phone, and it might have been around that
number. I think that's woefully shy of the money it's going to cost
when all the factors are weighed in. But so be it. I wanted to clear
that piece up.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, Nick, when you gave your
presentation, there was a slide that -- okay. That makes sense.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move on to the
consent agenda items, and we've got a slough of them, and we'll have
to take them individually.
David, I guess you want to -- why don't you come up and just
walk us through each one. And after you call them out, we'll ask for a
vote.
Item #8A
PETITION: CP-2007-3, AMENDING THE GOLDEN GATE AREA
MASTER PLAN TO CREATE THE MISSION SUBDISTRICT
MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the
Comprehensive Planning Section.
Commissioners, first up is petition -- petition CP-2007-3. And
the -- in your packet you received from Comprehensive Planning staff,
a four-page document identifying the consent agenda changes for your
review today.
Page 7
July 1,2010
The text that has been added or deleted is in double underline,
double strikethrough, bold, and highlight to make it stand out.
For the petition, CP-07-3, one phrase was added regarding
height. And the only change from the text you see here versus the text
that was in your packet from the applicant is the word except. In the
applicant's language it said however; I changed that to except. I think
it reads better. It certainly has no substance of impact.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion or questions?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will move that we forward
with a recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded, by Mr.
Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Murray.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 6-0.
Item #8B
PETITION: CP-2008-2, AMENDING THE GOLDEN GATE AREA
MASTER PLAN FOR THE EXPANSION OF RANDALL BLVD.
COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT
Page 8
July 1,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one is CP-2008-2.
MR. WEEKS: Looking at the handout from staff, the bottom of
Page 1, there's a sentence that has been struck through. And turn over
to Page 2 in the middle. What used to be letter E 1 has been struck
through. Both of those were presented at the -- at your hearing on this
matter, and those were changes made by the County Attorney's Office
to correlate with other changes that have been presented to you, and
that pertains to the fact that tract 71 is no longer a part of this
amendment.
Then turning over to Page 3, at the very bottom, the placeholder
text regarding transportation mitigation has been struck -- stricken
through, and then the actual text has been inserted, and that reflects
what was discussed at your hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you've got the addition on Page 4
on the bottom.
MR. WEEKS: That's for the next petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. Okay. Are
there any --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr.
Murray.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
Page 9
July 1,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Item #8C
PETITION: CP-2008-4, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES
MR. WEEKS: And finally, Mr. Chairman, petition CP-2008-4
on the bottom of Page 4, and that simply reflects what was discussed
at your hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move with a recommendation
of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded by
the same parties.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 6-0.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
Page 10
July 1,2010
Item #8D and #8E
PETITIONS: CPSP-2008-7 AND CP-2009-1
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And David, for the record, the
CPSP-2008-7 and CP-2009-1, because there were no changes in those,
those don't need to be reviewed on consent, and they're going forward
like we approved them at the last meeting.
MR. WEEKS: That is correct, and actually CP-09-1, you
recommended denial.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. WEEKS: You're correct. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Item #8F
PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-13375, NORTH NAPLES UNITED
METHODIST CHURCH, INC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next two items on consent are
PUDZ-2008-AR-13375, the North Naples United Methodist Church,
Inc., on Goodlette-Frank Road.
Anybody have any questions or concerns about the agenda item?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it has nothing to do
with the consent part of it, but I wish we would get the road
right-of-ways dedicated on these kind of sites that go to the center line
of the right- -- what would be the right-of-way. Just a comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would make it simple, huh?
Is that a motion to approve then?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will second it.
Page 11
July 1,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah. Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Murray, first
and second.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 6-0.
Item #8G (Discussed and continued to later in the meeting)
PETITION: PUDZ-A-PL2009-2031, ROCK CREEK HOLDINGS:
MERIDIAN VILLAGE MPUD
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one up is PUDZ-A-PL2009-2031,
Rock Creek Holdings, LLC, the Meridian Village MPUD. And I had a
discussion with Mr. Hancock on this, and it looks like there's a,
maybe, possible discrepancy between what the applicant had agreed to
and what staff had interpreted.
So, Bruce, you want to tell us what's going on?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. This is on Page 14 of the PUD
document. My name's Bruce Anderson, for the record. And it's
paragraph eight.
And first let me say that the discrepancy is the applicant's fault,
or the applicant's agent's fault. There was a change that was supposed
Page 12
July 1,2010
to be made when it was resubmitted to the county. That change was
not made.
I've set out there the paragraph in question, and it has been struck
through and underlined from what you had before you when this was
heard two weeks ago, and those are the changes that we interpreted
what you meant to do.
What you have in the agenda packet gives Collier County an
additional 45 days after the six months that was approved at the
Planning Commission meeting. And our understanding was, six
months was six months was six months, and the county had six
months to act and make an offer and buy the units, just as a qualified
buyer would have, because we specifically discussed seven months or
more, and the compromise was made that it would be six months
instead of seven. If you tack that 45 days on, you wind up at
seven-and-a-half months total.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what you're suggesting is that
within that six-month period, it's open for everybody within the same
time frame, and there is no add on of 45 days after that. Say you
couldn't get the public interested; then the county could have 45 days
to react to that?
MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Instead, their 45 days, or whatever time
frame they want to allot for themselves, is captured within the initial
six months. So if it takes 45 days for the county to react, they have to
do so four-and-a-half months after the game starts?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, correct. The 45 days, when it was put
in there originally -- and I took this from the Heritage Bay language
almost verbatim. The 45 days was put in there because the acquisition
period was tied to the building permit, and there wasn't any extra time
period after the CO was issued.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think the only problem
Page 13
July 1,2010
with that is that puts the county and the public side by side, and then
the county, what, stands in the wings? And I'm not even sure how
they would even know whether the public's interested or not.
So first of all, if we're going to go with just the six months, the
county should be notified, and if you want four-and-a-halfmonths in,
that a sale is not -- it appears a public sale isn't going to happen --
because otherwise, how would the -- I mean, what is the county going
to do, just try to buy it and then just wait and see?
So I mean, the other system that they don't want actually works
because that -- they give them six months to sell to the public, if that
doesn't work, the county has a 45-day period to buy it themselves, and
then it hits the free market.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's not my recollection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. That's not my
recollection. I was the one that put up -- internally put up a very long
period, two years initially, just to start a conversation. And ifI'm not
mistaken, Commissioner Schiffer had suggested in a motion that it be
six months, and I said, fine, I can live with that. And that was my
understanding, straight six months.
And I recall the chairman making a comment, something to the
effect, that we have some pretty good people in the county who I'm
sure will be watching out for it.
So that was my recollection. I didn't see any need to put
additional time on it at this point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad's -- I don't think Brad's looking for
additional time. He's looking for additional notification.
Bruce, as a way to get there, why couldn't there be a stipulation
added into here that -- and four-and-a-half months is an awkward
period of time. Why don't we just say, four months after CO the
applicant will notify the appropriate county staff that there is no buyer
pending for a particular unit and that we have 60 -- 30 -- yeah, 60 days
Page 14
July 1,2010
from that point in order to finish the transaction, something to that
effect? Is that --
MR. ANDERSON: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like that.
MR. ANDERSON: That's reasonable.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, Heidi, this is consent, so
how do we get that kind of language done and in the right format for
us to review it, or is it something that can be done by email and then
have any input prior to going to the board? Or how do you see the
cleanup of this paragraph?
MS. ASHTON: I'd suggest that Bruce and I meet on the break,
and we'll finalize the language and have you approve it at the end of
the agenda, if that's acceptable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for you, Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that'd be fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll defer--
MS. ASHTON: And there is one typo on what he has on the
overhead, which is the sixth word in. It would be offered for sale
instead of referred for sale.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Actually our documents have
offered that --
MS. ASHTON: Yeah. It's just a typo on what he has on the
overhead.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then what we'll do is continue
PUD-2008-AR-1335 -- -3375 on consent 'tillater in the day, sometime
after the break.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- one more comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go ahead? You know, this is
July 1,2010
the first time we see actually a turnaround being drawn in the
right-of-way, and the concern I have is -- and I guess, Heidi,
something -- you might have to research this, but back when they
consolidated this piece of land by vacating the public roads, I'm sure
there was a requirement that a turnaround be put in. I just wonder if
the intent back then was to put the turnaround on the property, because
this turnaround is much smaller than essentially what the fire
department would require.
MR. HANCOCK: For the record, Tim Hancock with Davidson
Engineering.
Commissioner Schiffer, no, sir. The intent was never to place it
on the subject property. As you know, currently there is no
turnaround. It's just a dead-end. This was viewed as clearly an
improvement to the existing conditions and to be done at the
developer's expense. But no, sir, it was never intended to be on the
subject property. It was always intended to be within the existing
remaining right-of-way subsequent to the vacation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Even back when they
vacated the roads to create this property -- because back prior to that,
that Stevies Avenue did have the ability to pull through.
So back when they consolidated this land and they said that they
would put a turnaround there, they never meant that the turnaround
would be a legitimate turnaround on the property itself?
MR. HANCOCK: My recollection of the vacation record, as I
reviewed it, was that the turnaround was not addressed at the time of
vacation. It was actually addressed at the time rezone when this
project came in in 1996.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I'm done. Thank you.
MR. HANCOCK: 2006.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, if I recall, the document
signed by the commission at the time stipulated it shall be between lot
6 and 26. It actually labeled the lots and where that turnaround should
Page 16
July 1,2010
occur. And I'm assuming you matched that up to what's on this
document; is that --
MR. HANCOCK: That sounds correct, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll just come back after
break and try to finish this up.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item on consent is
PUDZ-A-PL2009, 2031 Rock Creek Holdings, LLC, Meridian
Village, M- -- well, wait a minute. That's the one we just got done
with. Sorry. That's the one that's continued 'til after break.
Okay. We'll move into the regular hearing.
Item #9A
PETITION: BD-PL2009-1157, ROTKVICH BOAT DOCK
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First advertised public hearing is a
continued item from a prior meeting. It's boat dock PL2009-1157,
Michael and Debra Rotkvich, and it's Lot 43 on South Port on the
Bay, Unit 2.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to
be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And disclosures on the part of
the Planning Commission? Anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. Okay. Sir, it's all yours.
MR. KELLY: My name is Mike Kelly, again. I'm with Paradise
Docks. I will be the builder for Mike and Debbie Rotkvich for their
dock.
The first slide that I have up here is the Old Hickory Bay area,
and all this slide shows is the location of the selected property where
Page 17
July 1,2010
the dock's going to go with a dock drawn on this overhead.
It also shows the numbers that you see going around on the street
or the distances of protrusion for each of the docks around the area.
And the reason I wanted to show you this particular slide here is
because it is rather shallow in that area, and there is a lot of other
docks that have to go out far enough to get a particular boat on there,
on their slip. They have to go out at least that far.
The other issue that we had that was of interest to you last time is
there was no drip line on the survey. The particular surveyor, when I
questioned him concerning the old survey, he just drew something on
there indicating that there was mangroves. He didn't realize that I
needed a drip line. So he went back, and this is a revision to that
survey, and it shows a drip line.
The distance out from the mean high tide to where the bow of the
boat will be is approximately -- well, it is 15 foot to his -- to the drip
line that he has drawn on his survey. And I'll show you how that
would show on the actual overlay here.
As you can see, the 15 foot is to the bow -- or towards the bow of
the boat from the mean high water, and that's where his drip line was
indicated on his survey.
From the boat that I have drawn on here, that would give us
about three-and-a-half feet to the actual canopy or drip line of the
mangroves.
The other issue that we had run into, that there was a little bit of a
disparity with the depths going out, and so all the depths were
coordinated with the depth chart that the surveyor provided, which I
had on the previous slide.
And as you can see, the smaller lift, the three foot required for
our lift, is actually in the middle of the lift. DEP questioned me on
that initially, and I said, well, I'm going to have to go before Planning
Commission, and we don't -- we don't want to go out any further than
we have to, but they would like for the entire lift to be within that
Page 18
July 1,2010
three foot, but they went ahead and waived that. And they said, well,
if they've got enough depth to run that lift up and down -- and I
assured them they did, because this is a smaller lift for the flats boat or
the jet ski, whichever Mr. Rotkvich decides to purchase. The other
boat is fine. The depths are fine on that.
The bow. Like I said, to move this in any further would mean
that the bow of that boat would be dangerously close to hitting the
mangroves and could either damage the boat or damage the
mangroves, and we didn't want either one of those situations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions? Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: On the -- on the chart where you
show the measurements in relation to the depth, it looks like you have
35 feet on there twice?
MR. KELL Y: On the survey, ma'am, or which --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: The cross-section.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Attachment B.
MR. KELLY: Oh.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: It appears to be in 5-foot
increments, so it probably just needs to be clarified to 30.
MR. KELL Y: That was -- yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the microphone, sir,
when you speak, so --
MR. KELLY: Excuse me. That's correct. That first 35 should
be 30. That is --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
MR. KELLY: -- because it is in 5-foot increments. Thank you.
That's something I missed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, can you go back to the
plan, the prior --
MR. BELLOWS: Do you have the prior?
MR. KELLY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One of the things we try to do is
Page 19
July 1,2010
avoid excessive docks. On the smaller lift, why didn't you pull it out?
Last time I asked you why you didn't pull the top in. But this time,
why didn't you move that smaller lift further out and, thus, not create
such a large dock area?
MR. KELL Y: Well, the smaller lift does not require much depth
to float either a flats boat or a jet ski. And a lift of that size has real
small cradles and bunks. So you don't need as much depth as you
would with a larger lift, such as the one on the right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. KELL Y: You just don't need that kind of depth to float a jet
ski or a flats boat.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my concern is, you don't
really need that large dock area just to access a boat. I mean, these --
what we're supposed to do is allow you to do that, but you're not --
we're not supposed to allow you to put areas where you could have
chairs and tables and make it a retreat, so --
MR. KELLY: Yes, sir, and I understand that concern. And they
don't have any intentions of putting chairs, tables, benches, or
anything like that. They do have family that comes down and visits
them, and they would like to fish off of that area if, you know -- but
they don't have any intentions to store anything in that area.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, the boat that you have, the big boat,
it shows it's 28 feet; is that correct?
MR. KELL Y: That is correct yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The little boat is how long? I think--
because it goes almost -- it goes longer than the 12 foot, two inches
called out on this plan, because the bow goes all the way over to the
walkway. So what is that, around 15 feet?
MR. KELLY: No -- well, yes, sir. You could put up to a 12- to
Page 20
July 1,2010
15-foot vessel on that lift, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the lift, by the diagram you
show here, is made for two. So that's, let's say, 30 feet on top of the
28; you're at 58 feet, and you're only allowed to have up to 45.
Now, I know you're going to say, but that other slip can be used
for a skiffs boat or some light backwater boat, but you'd have to have a
square boat to fit into an Il-by-12 foot square area, and I don't think
there's many square boats like that.
MR. KELLY: Well, most ofthe -- most of the flats boats --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh-huh.
MR. KELLY: -- that would -- that's the purpose ofthis lift is to
restrict the size of the vessel. He doesn't want anything but maybe a
jet ski or a flats boat. He hasn't decided. He doesn't even own a
particular boat at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the way this is shown, he, in
essence, is going to have -- could have two jet skis there, which would
exceed the amount of boat length used -- allowed on that particular lot.
MR. KELLY: It would, and it would also exceed the
requirements by DEP and Army Corps, which allows us to have two
vessels.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't you run this other boat
and this other slip on the opposite side of the 28- foot boat in the same
direction? If it's shorter, which you've -- which it has to be in order to
fit on the property, you wouldn't need to come in from the side, you
could come straight in, and you wouldn't need that big deck that
Brad's concerned about.
The reason I'm saying that is because it looks like a setup. It
looks like you're going to have two jet skis there. And you know how
-- it's real difficult to monitor that stuff out there in the middle of
nowhere. And I'm just wondering why you just don't make it simpler;
have two along side. You don't even need that giant 8-by-12- foot
deck. It just disappears, and you've got two side-by-side slips; one for
Page 21
July 1,2010
each boat. And it's wider; be easier for you to get in and out of.
MR. KELLY: The purpose of -- the reason it's set up like that
and the reason it's -- it is a double -- or it is not a double slip. It is a
slip that's wide enough for two boats; however -- if you were going to
put two jet skis.
The reason we didn't go with a single davit style of jet ski,
because they're very difficult to operate and they deteriorate because
they're in -- either in the water or they put undue stress on the pilings.
This is a setup that we have set up, and we have put dual jet skis
on a particular lift just like this. It's the easiest way for a person to get
on. But I have informed Mr. Rotkvich that he's only allowed to have
two vessels out there. That's what DEP and Army Corps and the
county government, both in Lee and Collier; allow only two vessels.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- and I understand they do, but
unfortunately when rules -- when it's set up so that rules could be
easily broken, sometimes they are broken.
MR. KELL Y: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, you know, whether your applicant
may be -- have no intention of doing that, say he sells the house.
Realtor's going to say, look at that, you can hold two -- put two jet skis
here, plus a main boat, and all of a sudden it becomes a common
acceptance style instead of one that is restricted by the way it's
designed, and I think we're safer by restricting it by design.
Well, anyway, that's my thoughts on it, and I understand your
position. So--
MR. KELLY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll have to go from there. Before
we hear from the staff, is there any other questions or comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Staff report.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy
Page 22
July 1,2010
Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Land
Development Services.
And staff is recommending approval of the Rotkvich boat dock
this morning, and it would be my pleasure to answer any questions
you might have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff?
Okay. Brad, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll ask one. And, Nancy, are
you okay with the dock? I mean, we really don't want to have dock
area that's not necessary for accessing the boat. We've been through
this before in some other applications. Do you think this dock area is
larger than it need be?
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, this is my first dock application.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: So it looks fine to me.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can ask Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I worked on this
project with Ashley Caserta, who was our most experienced boat dock
extension planner. It technically meets the code requirements, but I
agree with you, the concerns are there about how the design is, and
especially in lieu of the two-boat minimum and space for three.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. Caron, did you
have some follow-up?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just going to follow up
on that issue. I don't know why we would be approving a boat dock
extension that clearly shows that three boats of some size can be on
the plan and just take on good faith that somebody's not going to
utilize what they're allowed to build. I'm not sure that that's a really
good policy on the part of the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have no problem if the
applicant wanted to come in with two docks straight in side by side
Page 23
July 1,2010
and so it clearly shows you're only building something that could hold
two boats. But when you show that something could be for three
boats and, in fact, you go out of your way as far as access goes to even
make it more difficult for the other two, it just doesn't make sense.
But -- I mean, I'm not very comfortable with that.
Nick, you had something you wanted to add?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Being creative, ifhe put the boat dock,
as Commissioner Schiffer had noted, still nothing's stopping him from
buying two jet skies and putting it on a boat ramp that would hold two
jet skis. I mean, if I'm an owner, if you turn that 90 degrees, just the
design alone wouldn't restrict that, is my point. If he turned that 90
degrees and faced it the same way the other boat was, he could buy a
lift that could accommodate two jet skis as well. I mean, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Two things. Number one, you
would turn it in the opposite direction, which means you'd eliminate
the excessive deck because you wouldn't have to -- you'd only put one
deck there.
So if they wanted to get to that outside jet ski, they'd have to
jump over the other one. So it's more impractical for them than to
have the outside jet ski. With this design, they've got docks around
both jet ski accesses, which could be the intention.
Plus, if you didn't have the jet skis going in that direction, but
from the other front, this whole facility could be moved back several
feet closer to the mangroves. You wouldn't need the extension of the
dock that's being asked for here today, which is in violation of another
primary and secondary criteria. So anyway, that counters your
argument as far as --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not argument. It's just a statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't mean it as argumentative. Ijust
meant that's your position.
Y .?
es, Sir.
MR. KELL Y: Now, one thing I just wanted to point out, the
Page 24
July 1,2010
cradle on that particular lift is II-foot. That's the smallest cradle
system I could get. Generally speaking, when we set it up for a
double jet ski for a customer that wants that, we will get the 12- to
12-and-a-halffoot cradle, because that just doesn't give you enough
room.
If you put two jet skis, the current jet skis that are made today,
you're talking about four-and-a-half, five foot wide. If you lose a foot
of that cradle because it rides up and down the middle of each of the
outside pilings -- so you subtract a foot, that's 10 foot. You get two
four-and-a-half- foot to five-foot jet skis; they won't fit on this lift very
well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Welln
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the depth of the lift that you're talking
about is no greater than 15 feet. You don't have the dimension on
here. The depth of that long side slip, if you were to turn this whole
thing 90 degrees, come in straight off the bay, you'd have -- according
to this chart, you'd have 20 foot of depth, which is more than you
need. So there's no reason you couldn't turn this in the other direction
and avoid that excessive deck that Brad keeps mentioning and not
provide that access way to a slip that you potentially are claiming
you'll never use.
So what's wrong with coming in straight in? Much easier off the
bay and not having to go through the effort you've got here? And then
we avoid that unnecessary deck.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While he's thinking, Mark, I
mean, a comment is, we really do have to design these so that the next
person is the one. I mean, for example, there was a sign that said I had
to drive 45 miles an hour down Goodlette today, and I'm not so sure I
was as good about that as they intended.
So the next people that buy it, they could have picnic tables down
on the dock, two jet skis, and a nice big boat sitting there.
Page 25
July 1,2010
MR. KELL Y: Well, initially when I went to design this for the
Rotkviches -- DEP allows us to have a terminal area out there of 160
square feet, and that's basically the design of that, which gives you
room to walk around. And I guess you could stick some benches out
there and some umbrellas, the next person coming along, but that's
going to crowd that area. It's only 8 feet -- almost 8-4 wide. You start
putting benches or any kind -- anything out there, and it's going to
crowd that area. It would make it very difficult.
This is kind of meant for egress and getting in and out of the
boat, just pulling it up alongside there.
And the way that the jet ski or the flats boat's set up, it's -- that's
for shallow water area, jet skis and -- or primarily the flats boat, and
they have flat front ends, and they aren't very large. So it's set up for a
smaller vessel.
And I did choose the smallest lift that I could get as far as the
cradle in order to set that up. I'd have to order a special lift.
But if we took that and moved it out, then we've got -- I mean,
we would have ample depth. I think we've got ample depth where it
is. But if this is contingent on moving it, I could go to Mr. Rotkvich
and tell him that's what we had to do, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, we can take a poll before
we vote, and if you want to continue it again, come back with a more
acceptable design that puts it for two slips and not makes it appear as
though three, and move this whole thing around, I don't have a
problem with that. I think you have a right to put a dock there, and
you have a right for a boat or two, up to what the code says. But I
think this will lead 25 excessiveness that goes beyond the code, and
I'm not sure why we need to open the door. But without voting, what's
the thoughts on the board?
Melissa, we'll start with you.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'm comfortable with it as it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad?
Page 26
July 1,2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think it's there yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I brought up the issue the last time
around. I don't think it's there yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either.
Bob?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. It needs to be resized.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think if it's acceptable to the
owners, maybe it should be revised. Either way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've got about five -- most
likely five no votes if we go forward. And I think you've been back
here twice, and I'm sorry. It doesn't seem to be coming out right this
time. Maybe the third time it will work. Do you want to give it a shot
and ask for a continuance?
MR. KELLY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to accept their
continuance?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Murray.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 6-0.
Page 27
July 1,2010
Item #9B
PETITION: BD-PL2010-544, JOHNSON BOAT DOCK
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next advertised public hearing is boat
dock PL2010-544, Erik Johnson, and it's at 25 Pelican Street East.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to
be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures on the part of the
Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- boy, last week -- or the last
couple of weeks have been busy, but I believe I called Turrell's office
to ask a question. I don't even remember what the question was.
Rocky?
MR. SCOFIELD: We didn't talk.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it wasn't you. And -- a girl on the
phone, and something was missing and -- but anyway. Just being safe,
I thought I'd just mention that.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, sir.
MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, Rocky Scofield, representing
Erik Johnson, the owner and applicant.
This -- the overhead is -- shows you the location that's on East
Pelican Street in Isles of Capri. Where you see it says county aerial,
that's the Marco River, is on the back side in Snook Bay.
This shows the lot with the proposed dock on it. If -- just -- to
refresh your memory, this is a -- I'll put it up here in just a second.
The dock just to the east, as you're looking right there to the right
of the blue dock, the proposed dock, that's an existing dock. I was
here in February and we got a BDE for Mrs. Lehman (phonetic),
Page 28
July 1,2010
which is next door. The old dock straddled the property line, and that
dock is being -- is coming out as we speak.
That shows you a little bit better how the old dock -- it's got a
boathouse on the end, then it's got an L dock coming off on Mrs.
Lehman's property. That's being ripped out now. Mrs. Lehman's dock
is going in right now. This is very similar, so -- to what we did back
then.
Zoom out on that, Ray.
Okay. This shows, in the white, that's Mrs. Lehman's dock that
you approved in February. The dock in the middle on the property
line, all of that's coming out, and to the left there, on the west side, is
the Erik Johnson dock.
We're asking for a 60- foot extension, for a total of 80 feet out.
You can see the sandbar, the shoaling in that area. It's aquatic
preserve, so the end of dock is at minus four mean low water, which is
required by the state.
He's putting in two boats; they meet the setbacks. It's -- all the
docks in this area go out anywhere from 50 to 130 feet.
And that's just the overhead showing and -- with the distances out
of all the docks in the area.
The only other thing that Mr. Johnson did -- and a lot of people
on this street in this area, they had land that was ecreeded (phonetic)
out in front of their property line. So he had to go and get the
certificate from the board of trusties, the Internal Improvement Trust
Fund at the state, where they give the certificate for lands filled prior
to 1975.
The state -- it's kind of like a quitclaim deed -- I've told you this
before -- but it's not. It's just, the state has no claim on it. So in the
county records, now the property line is extended out to the mean high
water line, and that's -- the measurements are measured from the mean
high water line now, which is basically viewed as the applicant's
property. And those are the distance we were showing you.
Page 29
July 1,2010
The proposed dock doesn't go out nearly as far as the existing
dock that was on the -- straddling the property line there.
So I'll answer any questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Rocky, Ms. Lehman's new dock,
how far out will that one go?
MR. SCOFIELD: The dock that was approved?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
MR. SCOFIELD: I had it on one drawing here. Just a second.
Okay. Here it is, okay. Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Still going out.
MR. SCOFIELD: The Lehman's dock is 90 feet out.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so why did you choose to --
because looking at what appears to be the undersoil there, why did
you choose to come out only as far as you did relative to Ms.
Lehman's?
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, the Lehman's dock, again, you're limited
by the state to go out to minus 4 feet mean low water. On the Lehman
dock, the front of that dock is at minus 4 feet, and then we're going out
another 12 feet for the lift, which they allow. And Mr. Johnson
wanted to bring his boats straight in and out. To do that -- so not to
interfere with Lehman's boats coming in and out, and it just works out
better this way.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. I'm satisfied. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And Rocky, to support
that, I think you coordinated the two docks, because if you did go out
further, you'd have -- start to cause trouble for her on the inside lift
there, so this is working out perfect.
MR. SCOFIELD: Yep. Thank you.
Page 30
July 1,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, the Lehman docks, what is the
length of the boats that we approved for those docks; do you
remember?
MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah. It was a flats boat on the inside. I think
it was like a 20 -- like a 28- foot boat on the outside and maybe an
18- foot boat on the inside, something like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's -- what size lot width did they
have there?
MR. SCOFIELD: Those lots are 60 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Lehman's received an
approval with two boats greater than 50 percent of the width?
MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I notice this one's got
the same problem.
MR. SCOFIELD: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're looking at a -- 15 feet of boat.
MR. SCOFIELD: And that happens on most -- on most BDEs
we come in front of you on these small lots. We have lots that are
only, some of them, 30 feet or 40,50 feet, and the boats usually
exceed that, and that's a criteria not met.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before I continue, does anybody
else have any questions they wanted to ask?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then Rocky, in your secondary
criteria it says, the criterion met, and it's talking about special
conditions involving water depth related to the subject property, and
your answer is, the proposed dock was designed to leave the existing
mangroves along the shoreline undisturbed. I can't tell by that aerial.
Are there -- where are the existing mangroves?
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I think your reason is because
you need --
Page 3 1
July 1,2010
MR. SCOFIELD: You're reading -- that's the staff report.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're supposed to be
reading.
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, you guys get copies of our application?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
MR. SCOFIELD: You do, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you can make anything up you
want, so I'd rather read the staff reports.
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, the staff report's not always what you
say.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the advantage.
MR. SCOFIELD: There are some mangroves on there. You
know, the -- obviously -- I know what you're getting at and I knew this
question would come up. There's -- the extensive shoaling is the main
reason here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SCOFIELD: So that criteria, I know, is probably
questionable. It's a natural shoreline. It's not some -- it's got a few --
riprap rock on it, and it's got mangroves. The mangroves are to the
west of the dock. They're along the shoreline there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it shows the fringe, the mangrove
fringe and where they lie, but I didn't see that as our secondary
meeting -- I didn't see that as the reason why you met second criteria
number one. I think your reason was because you had to get out that
far for the depth that you're trying to achieve, not mangroves.
MR. SCOFIELD: That's exactly right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any way we can
Page 32
July 1,2010
correlate the removal of the Lehman's old dock with the installation of
this new one? I'm concerned that the Lehmans could leave theirs and
MR. SCOFIELD: No, it's coming out now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you could have -- it is coming out
now?
MR. SCOFIELD: That's what I said earlier.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I heard you say that, but I meant -- now
means you might have gotten approval to take it out.
MR. SCOFIELD: They're building -- they're building Lehman's
dock right now. The L dock there is obviously gone, and the
boathouse and everything else is being torn out. The contractor is
there on site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the questions I have at this
time. Thank you.
Get staff report.
MR. SAWYER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Michael Sawyer, senior planner with Growth Management Zoning
Section.
We are recommending approval of the Johnson boat dock this
morning. If you have any questions, I'm here to answer what I can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't hear any.
Thank you, Michael.
MR. SA YWER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any further comments
from the Planning Commission?
If not, is there any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers have registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody in the public wish to
comment?
Page 33
July 1,2010
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing and
entertain a motion from the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we approve
BD-PL2010- -- let me make sure I get the right one -- yeah, -544 the
Johnson dock.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Murray.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm certainly -- this is refining the dock
length and width and deck area to the minimum. I don't have a
problem with it. So I'm going to be in favor of the motion.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries, 6-0.
MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Item #9C
PETITION: CU-PL2009-58, LARGA Y PROPERTIES, LLC.
Page 34
July 1,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up is CU-PL2009-58, Largay
Properties, LLC. It's the collection and transfer site for the resource
recovery in the east side of Pheasant Roost Trail south of Frangipani
Avenue.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to
be sworn by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning
Commission?
I think I had a conversation Wayne Arnold -- he was acting as the
secretary for Rich Y ovanovich, trying to find out if there was any
concerns -- and I said my only concern was Richard couldn't pick up
the phone and dial himself.
And with that, we'll continue.
Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich. I didn't know I was employing Mr. Arnold, but I'm glad
to see he did a good job of trying to get ahold of you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He did, so.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wayne is -- Wayne is here to help me
with this petition, and so is Lou Sterachi, who is employed by the
petitioner, if you have any questions regarding this particular petition.
I've put on the visualizer an overall aerial of -- basically to the
north is Golden Gate Estates, and you can see in the yellow is the
applicable property which is zoned agricultural, and it's within the
receiving lands of the rural fringe mixed-use district.
We gain our access off Golden Gate Boulevard, which was on
the visualizer to the north, come down 10th, 10th Street Southeast, and
then we take -- you see that kind of dirt road, if you will, which is
called Frangipani, which will then ultimately get you to Pheasant
Roost, which is the private road that provides access to the property.
Page 35
July 1,2010
The current property owner has owned the property for about five
years. It's a wholesale nursery. And in that five-year period,
essentially the entire five-year period, they also have a recycling
business where they go out and they collect oils and food parts that
they bring to the site, they put in a tank, and then they -- someone
comes and -- or their east coast operation comes over, empties the tank
and takes everything for processing over on the east coast of Florida.
They've been doing that for, you know, about five years. There
really haven't been any complaints. There's -- someone complained, I
guess, to Code Enforcement, thinking it was actually a sewer septic
operation, I guess, which pointed out that that -- you needed a
conditional use to do this operation we're in to get the conditional use
for this particular operation.
There's approximately five trips a day related to this. The current
employees that work there, actually who run the nursery, will also run
this operation. So it's not five additional employees. It's the five
current employees that run this operation.
We had our neighborhood information meeting. There was
nothing of note. Once people understood what we were doing and had
been doing it for a while, I don't think there's any objections from the
neighbors.
In a nutshell, that's what we're asking for, and we're here to
hopefully rectify the Code Enforcement case that's pending on the
property.
If you have any questions from me, Wayne, or Lou regarding this
particular application, we'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the Planning
Commission? Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, where are the customers
for this pickup mostly?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're in Collier County. I mean,
various restaurants throughout Collier County, grocery stores.
Page 36
July 1,2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the only problem I
have with the thing is it seems inefficient to go out through the urban
area, gather the stuff, and then bring it deep into the middle of the
agricultural Estates area.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, they're an ongoing nursery. To
then go and buy another piece of property in an industrial portion of
town is, you know, economically --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No fun.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What's that?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No fun to do that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not -- it's just not economically
viable.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But again, the only
negative I have on the whole thing -- and it's not a fatal negative -- is
that it seems like an inefficient location to put this, because it's
gathering stuff in another area, bringing it in the middle of this, and
then somebody has to come pull it out of another area and go into the
middle of this area and bring it out. So that's all.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
Richard, I have one. Apparently there was -- and I really hate
anonymous callers, but you had an anonymous call, a complaint on
this to Code Enforcement about a sewer -- basically a sewer pumping
business as being located in that location.
Did Code Enforcement find a sewer pumping business at that
location?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why are we here today? If
the complaint was about -- and, anonymous, for whatever that's worth
-- was about a sewer pumping business and they went out and did not
find one there, where is the public, health, satisfy, and welfare concern
Page 37
July 1,2010
that we're here today about?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, technically, in order to do this
operation on agricultural land, you have to get a conditional use. And
when Code Enforcement came out and saw what we were doing, even
though it was a different complaint, I guess they were not in a position
to ignore what was going on, and we're addressing that situation and
rectifying that situation.
Obviously my client didn't know that they needed to do that or
else they would have done it ahead of time. But we are where we are,
and we're trying to fix this and trying to do it as quickly and as
inexpensively as we can to get --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did it cost to get here today?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't want to ask Lou. I forget what the
application -- Wayne, do you remember the application fee? You
know, several thousand dollars.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, every bit often, probably.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is a resource recovery that's
probably a valuable thing for everybody involved, and for no
complaint against this operation he paid probably $10,000 to get
through the process to be here today.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And if it -- just as an aside, you
know, as you're dealing with the Land Development Code and times --
maybe something out of a certain size should be a permitted use
versus a conditional use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to fix our code.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's a given. And if that's
what it takes to get these kind of things to stop happening, it needs -- I
mean, there can be criteria, but this just seems so innocuous, I don't
even know why it's $10,000 in damages. It's just phenomenal. But
anyway.
Page 38
July 1,2010
Anybody else have any questions of staff -- I mean, of the
applicant? If not, we'll hear staff report.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. And for the
record, Nancy Gundlach again, Principal Planning with the
Department of Land Development Services.
And Commissioners, we -- staff is recommending approval of
this Talimaster's (phonetic) conditional use station. It is consistent
with the Growth Management Plan.
And it would be my pleasure to answer any questions you might
have.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nancy, hi. Good morning again.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 7 of 10 of your report on
item number four -- and while you're getting there, I'll read it. The
effect the conditional use would have on neighboring properties in
relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects. And I noted that
while you referenced all the other particulars, you made no reference
whatsoever to the odor issue.
Now, I don't know that there is an odor issue, but I was curious
why you didn't even mention it or reference it as being part of it.
Is it our practice when we're going through to actually have
somebody go to site and evaluate the criteria?
MS. GUNDLACH: It's not common practice to go out to site. I
can tell you that I did attend the neighborhood information meeting,
and I did hear some statements from the adjacent neighbors, and one
of the neighbors did state that there is no odor from this facility.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I read that.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But I was curious
because you didn't include it in your comment, and that's very specific
Page 39
July 1,2010
as to the four criteria that are there.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I wanted to qualify that for
the record, that there is no odor issue that has been made a point of.
And so we can construe that this is a clean and effective operation.
Thank you.
MS. GUNDLACH: That's true.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the
staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Nancy.
MS. GUNDLACH: Very welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers have registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any member of the public wish to speak
on this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public
hearing and entertain a motion. Anybody?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward
CU-PL2009-58, Talimaster's Collection Station, with a
recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded, made by
Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Murray.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
Page 40
July 1,2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 6-0.
Heidi, you need about 15 minutes with Bruce?
Item #8G (Continued from earlier in the meeting)
PETITION: PUDZ-A-PL2009-2031, ROCK CREEK HOLGINGS:
MERIDIAN VILLAGE MPUD
MS. ASHTON: No. Bruce has some proposed language. Is he
there? I can put it on the visualizer or he can do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then -- we'll continue then
the item that was on consent for PUDZ-A-PL2009-2031. It's Item 8G,
Rock Creek Holdings, LLC. This is a consent item. This is just
supposed to be a discussion of the meaning of the Planning
Commission's previous motion.
MR. ANDERSON: That's the language that we came up with.
We worked with Ms. Deselem and Ms. Ashton, and it's -- I think it's
acceptable to all of us and believe it will reflect the discussion this
mornmg.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Comments from the Planning
Commission?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Looks fine.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I just want to make sure
-- I mean, you're going to be offering it for sale at the time of permit,
according to this, correct? In other words, that is when you're -- the
beginning of the date of the permit, you're going to start selling the
Page 41
July 1,2010
thing, and then six months after the CO it hits the free market.
In other words, is there any way you would not put these up for
sale prior to four months or anything? I mean, they will be -- does this
thing guarantee they'll go to sale at the issuance of the building
permit?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I think it does.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, from a legal technical aspect,
could they get a CO and just not put it up for sale and in four months
notify the county that it doesn't sell?
MS. ASHTON: I don't believe so. It indicates after the building
permit is issued they have to put it up for sale.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. They shall be --
MS. ASHTON: And then it continues until six months after the
Certificate of Occupancy. So there's a six-month period that it should
be offered for sale.
MR. ANDERSON: Actually it will be more than six since we
have to start when the building permit's issued.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then just as a cleanup question,
how do we know -- when we say they will offer it for sale, what
signifies offering for sale?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we know?
MR. HANCOCK: For the record, Tim Hancock. In order for the
units to qualify for affordable housing or gap housing, the county has
to, in essence, through the Housing Department, sign off on that.
They have to be notified in the process in order for the units to qualify
as affordable housing.
So that process occurs as the building is coming out of the
ground or even before the building permit is issued. If there are, for
example, four units in the building that you wish to offer as affordable
units in order to meet your requirements, you have to notify the
Page 42
July 1,2010
county ahead of time.
So there's a very close relationship when you're doing affordable
housing units between the developer and the county Housing
Department.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Tim, I have -- since -- I just
remembered something. I was at the Professional Bull Fighter's
Rodeo not too long ago, and a lady came up, and her name is Donna
Treadwell. She lives just a block or two down from that, and she has a
concern over water management. They just bought a house there, and
they want to make sure that the water management issues are
addressed on your property. I assured her they were based on South
Florida rules, and also knowing what you and your firm do.
Would you have any -- if I emailed you her address, would you
have any objection to getting in touch with her and just reassure her
before you go to the Board of County Commissioners --
MR. HANCOCK: We'd be happy to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where that's at? Okay. I'll do that
after the meeting then. Thank you.
Anybody else have any questions of the applicant?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on bull fighting, but
we'll skip it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It was interesting. Three people
got hurt that night. It wasn't a good night for the bull fighters.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought it was bull riding, not
fighting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bull riding, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I figured you'd do the bull
fighting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Bull riding, you're right; not bull
fighting. I got mixed up on that one. But it seemed like -- with
everybody injured, it almost seemed like it was bull fighting. I've
never seen so many people go down in one night.
Page 43
July 1,2010
Staff report? Oh, this is a consent agenda. You're not going to
counter him. Nobody has anything against Bruce, huh?
Okay. With all that, is there a motion from the Planning
Commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. I move we forward
PUDZ-A-PL-2009-2031, Rock Creek Holdings, with a
recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Schiffer, second by Commissioner Murray, and I'm assuming it's
subject to the new language that we reviewed here on the screen?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Clearly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Nodded okay from both parties.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All--losing my voice. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motions carries, 6-0. Thank you all.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Got to be a record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, for that many, we did pretty good
here this morning.
Terri, we're going to have you short on hours.
Old business, there isn't anything listed. Anybody?
(No response.)
Page 44
July 1,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: New business? Nothing's listed.
Anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment? Anybody remaining
in the public?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None.
Is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ahern. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. -- oh, good. Ms. Homiak, both
ends.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 6-0.
You know, there's a balance on this board. We've got two ladies
on both ends and one in the middle to keep the peace. This is going to
-- this is good. Thank you.
Page 45
July 1,2010
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:18 am.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS
MARK STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 46
Co~r County
t:.... __.-
- -
Growth Management Division
Planning & Regulation
Land Development SeNices
August 25,2010
Mr. Jeff Rogers
Turrell Hall & Associates
3584 Exchange Avenue
Naples, FL 34104
Reference:
BD-PL201O-544, Johnson Dock
Dear Mr. Rogers:
On July 1,2010, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition
No. BD-PL201O-544. A copy ofCCPC Resolution No. 10-04 is enclosed approving this
petition.
Please be advised that Section 10.03.05 B.3 of the Land Development Code requires an
applicant to remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after [mal action is taken by
the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item,
please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (239) 252-2926.
Enclosure
CC: Mr. Eric Johnson, 25 East Pelican Street, Naples, FL 34113
Land Dept. Property Appraiser
Mariam Ocheltree, Graphics
Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI)
File
(i)'"
~
'l""",>
Land DevekJpmenl Services . 2800 North Horseshoe Drive' Naples, Florida 34104 . 239-252-2400 . www.collier9ov.net
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 10- ~
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-PL2010-544 FOR AN
EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK FOR LOT 32 OF THE ISLES OF
CAPRI NO. I SUBDIVISION IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such
business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC)
(Ordinance 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat
docks; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has
held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 60-foot extension
over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06.E.l to allow for an 80-foot boat
dock facility on submerged lands adjacent to a single family home in the Isles of Capri Subdivision;
and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provIsIOn and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 5.03.06;
and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this
Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters
presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Petition Number BD-PL201O-544, filed on behalf of Erik Johnson by Jeff Rogers of Turrell,
Hall & Associates, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
Lot 32, Isles of Capri No. I according to the plat thereof as recorded
in Plat Book 3, Page 41 of the Public Records of Collier County,
Florida
be and the same is hereby approved for a 60-foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum 20-
foot limit to allow for an 80-foot boat dock facility on submerged lands adjacent to a single family
home in the Isles of Capri subdivision, in accordance with the plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
Johnson Isles of Capri / BD-PL2010-544
Revised 5120/10
Page I of2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this
tT
day of
Jllh]
,2010.
ATTEST:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FL RIDA
~~
Nick Casalan ~.
Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator
~'\
Approved as to form
and gal sufficiency:
eldi Ashton-Clcko.
Section Chief, Land USelTransportation
Attachment: Exhibit A - Plan
CPlIO-CPS-01030\I3
Johnson [sles of Capri/ BD-PL2010-544
Revised 5/20/111.
Page 2 of2
"
_ g :L
__~_ ~~ It
en _ >Z ~~
~ r->' ;:0
o ~-,_:z::z
It 0 ::1- I - _0 in
. ___. Q. ~ w~ \ ~
7- -.. -. -l r I, ~ i I:
" ;-~--q
- - ~NtlN\f,
- -1.J:J!(dl!:!...
-
-
~
'_, ,..>lo...,,~ ::l
-'''...,8 c
, 'N'~lli~ w
.. ,..#11:/ en
.. 0
Q. '..
o '
g;
, .>10"".
-.''',1.38
, "N'vll:Jtlc/l1:/
_3/o/n
- -~~~/>L
-
>- tt:
~ ~ gg '.
~~:il!l!~l!fl
~~iuU~~U
U~~~~~ilij
~~~~~n~~u
Il!iild~~:d~~!
<!!1i<l"i<u;~~ 8
i~2~i~~~~:il~Q
~~;~~o~~~~il~
"1ll~~h~~~8i!i~~
~u~UU~Uh
zC ooOCCO 00 0
'-
I' I
'.1 /
-
c --'---
g
-.. .1
! -.
-
o
.;
-- L~
---
-
i
i
\
-~-
-
-
"
~
P:JOItl"ErIlI;.IDh_Sllll-01-25-Oll.a.g
-
(I
w
o
Z
i<
LL
W
>
g
~
~
0:.
i<
o
Z
ti
~
Exhibit A
'"
uti!
~~;
!::i~
...~;t
(aQ . en
~:::~
N~
Z
J s ~ ~
III
h~ r
e
.. I
i ~ H .
<< I
" ~
~ ~ ~ D
II I i ~
ccu~i
~
()
o t5
Q f3
o
Z ~
o ~
(J) ~
Z ~
a:
I 0..
o
,
~fn
J if
,.Ii;
~"ll~~
lJIJ
it
J