CCPC Minutes 01/06/2000 RJanuary 6, 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, January 6, 2000
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:
Russell A. Budd
Ken Abernathy
Michael J. Bruet
Michael Pedone
Russell A. Priddy
Sam M. Saadeh
Karen Urbanik
Gary Wrage
NOT PRESENT: Joyceanna J. Rautio
ALSO PRESENT:
Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager
Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 6,
2000 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON
ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE
ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED
BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR
GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS
MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO
THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN
MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE
SUBMITTED TO TIlE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED
IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A
PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF
APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING
THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH
RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH
THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
ROLL CALL BY CLERK
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES:
BCC REPORT
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. BD-99-04, Jerry Neal, P.E., of Custom Dock and Repair Inc., representing Alfred Luckerbauer, requesting a
101-foot boat dock extension to allow for a 121ofoot boat dock and boat-lift facility for property located at 9
East Pelican Street, further described as Lot 40, Isles of Capri No. 1, in Section 32, Township 51 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to V-99-21) (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
Bo
V-99-21, Jeny Neal, P.E., of Purse Associates, Inc., representing Alfred Luckerbauer, requesting a 7.5-foot
variance from thc required 15-foot side setbacks to 7.5 feet from the reparian line, for property located at 9
East Pelican Street, further described as Lot 40, Isle of Capri No. 1, in Section 32, Township 51 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to BD-99-04) (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
V-99-08, James M. McGann, representing Society of St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store, requesting a 15-foot
variance from the required 15-foot side yard setback to 0 feet for property located at 3196 Davis Boulevard,
further described asLot 133, Naples Grove & Track Company's Little Farm #2, in Section 11, Township 50
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
V-99-26, James M. Boswell II, on behalf of the property owners, requesting a 7.5-foot variance from the
required 7.5-foot side yard setback to 0 feet for properties located at 266 3"t Street West, Lots 3-10, Block H,
and 267 3'~ Street West, Lots 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, Block G, Little Hicko~ Shores Unit 3
Replat, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram
Baclarntchian)
R-99-08, Terrence Kepple of Kepple Engineering, representing Community School of Naples, requesting a
rezone from "A' and "A .... CU" to "CF" for a private school and related facilities for property located
adjacent to the NW corner of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road in Section 12, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 51.785: acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
DRI-99-02, Karen Bishop of PMS Inc. of Naples, representing Ronto Livingston, Inc., requesting approval
of the "Ronto Livingston DRI/PUD", a mixed residential development consisting of a maximum of 1,380
residential dwelling units, and a golf course and related facilities, for property located generally east of the
future Livingston Road, west of Interstate 75, and immediately contiguous and south of the Collier/Lee
County boundary in Section 7, Township 48 South, Range 26 East and Section 12, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 462.725: acres. (Companion to PUD-99-09)
(Coordinator: Ron Nino)
PUD-99-09, Karen Bishop of PMS Inc. of Naples, representing Ronto Livingston, Inc., requesting a rezone
from "A" Rural Agriculture with "ST" overlays to "PUD" Pl_aoned Unit Development to be known as Ronto
Livingston PUD for a mixed residential development consisting of not more than 1,380 dwelling units for
property located generally east of the future Livingston Road, west of Interstate 75, and immediately
contiguous and south of the Collier/Lee County boundary in Section 7, Township 48 South, Range 26 East
and Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 462.'/25: acres.
(Companion to DRI-99-02) (Coordinator: Ron Nino)
PUD-92-04(1), Rich Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, representing Bonita Bay Properties,
Inc., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development by amending the PUD document
having the effect of changing the name from Golden Gate Health Park to Golden Gate Commerce Park,
eliminating hospital/medical center use, adding an activity center mixed-use development, including retail
commercial, office, hotel, assisted living facilities and residential uses, for property located on the west side
of C.R. 951 north of 1-75, in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 74.2+ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
PUD-99-04, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole, Montes & Associates, Inc., representing North Port
Development, Inc., requesting a rezone from "RT" Resort Tourist and "CON" Conservation Dislrict to
"PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as North Port Bay for a multi-family development consisting
of a maximum of 300 dwelling units for property located at the northeast comer of U.S. 41 and Faka Union
Canal, in Section 1, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 502: acres.
(Coordinator: Don Murray)
2
o
9.
10.
11.
12.
Ko
Lo
No
PUD-98-17(1), Blair A. Foley, P.E., of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Transeastem
Properties, Inc., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as
Whittenberg Estates PUD for the purpose of revising the PUD document having the effect of reducing the
side yard setback requirements for single-family detached dwelling units from 7.5 feet to 5 feet, reducing the
minimum distance between principal structures from 12 feet to 10 feet and allowing lots fronting on multiple
road right-of-ways one front yard setback, for property located on the north side of Davis Boulevard (S.R
84), east of Whitten Drive, in Section 6, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 38:t: acres. (Coordinator: Susan Murray)
PUD-99-22, Richard D. Yovanovich of Ooodiette, Coleman & Johnson, P. A., representing James D. Vogel,
Trustee, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture and "A-ST" Rural Agriculture with special
treatment overlay to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as San Marino PUD, a residential
development and golf course with a maximum of 353 multi-family residential units, for property located on
the east side of C.R. 951 approximately 1.5 miles south of Davis Boulevard, in Section 11, Township 50
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 235.33+ acres. (Coord/nator: Don Mumly)
CU-99-25, Amin Farah of First Stop, representing Raida Hamdan, requesting Conditional Use "13" of the
"C-4" zoning district for a bus stop for property located at the comer of Boston Avenue and First Street,
Immokalee, further described as Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Carson Subdivision, in Section 4, Township 47
South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1+ acres. (Coordinator. Susan Murray)
CU-99-32, Gloria Goddard of Coldwell Banker, McFadden & Sprowls, representing Mike Walczuk,
requesting Conditional Use "Y' of the "RMF-6' zoning district for a daycare facility per Section 2.2.5.3 for
property located at 853 - 857 101~ Avenue North, further described as Lots 17 and 18, Block 72, Naples
Park #5, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 EasL Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram
Badamtchian)
CU-99-29, Timothy P. Durham, P.E., of WilsonMiller, Inc., representing Southwest Florida Wetlands Joint
Venture, requesting Conditional Use "1" of the "A" zoning district for earthmining per Section 2.2.2.3 for
property located north and west of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, 2 miles south of Corkscrew Road at the
Collier and Lee County line, in Sections 5, 6, 7, 18 and 19, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 2,778+ acres. 0NITIIDRAWN) (Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
I/6/2000 AGEND/RN/im
3
January 6, 2000
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we're going to call this meeting of the
Collier County Planning Commission to order. We'll start with our
roll call.
Mr. Priddy?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Urbanik?
COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Pedone?
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Budd is here.
Mr. Wrage?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Bruet?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Present.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Saadeh?
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Rautio is absent.
Addenda to the agenda. Do we have any addenda?
MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, we've had a request to delay hearing
Item 7 so that the participants have a chance to negotiate something
different. So can we replace it at -- between C and D -- A and B?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sure. Any --
COMMISSIONER URBANIK: So moved.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Urbanik.
A second?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second.
MR. NINO: We'll do D first?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion and second to move item A behind B. All
those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries.
Any other addenda to the agenda?
There being none, I don't think we had any minutes from prior
meetings, so we don't have any approvals there.
Any planned absences in the future that anybody can identify?
Looks like we're all going to come to work. Board of County Commissioners report?
MR. NINO: Board of County Commissioners met last night. Their
meeting ran until about 10:00. The entire thrust of the meeting was
the discussion of the sign regulations. All other amendments were
supported by the board.
It appears that the board continued their hearing until February.
And it does appear that by and large, the board is going to adopt the
sign regulations as proposed by staff. With some modification, but on
the whole, in principle there -- even though there was substantial
opposition from the commercial community, it looks like we're going to
Page 2
January 6, 2000
go ahead with those sign regulations. But we won't know until
February.
Otherwise, all of your material that went -- pretty well went on
summary agenda, I don't believe there were any decisions made that
were contrary to that taken by the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Did the tennis court -- have they heard
that?
MR. NINO: Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Tuesday, okay.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: On the signs, Ron, are we still going to get
a five-year drop dead date, or --
MR. NINO: It appears that pre-1991 signs will have a three-year
amortization schedule, and there will be no other amortization
schedule after post-'91 signs.
Other than -- other than provision will be made that upon change
of ownership or attempt to change the name of the sign that's now --
that's then nonconforming, the sign will have to conform. So in
effect, that did what the amortization schedule would have done, but
in a more of a hit and miss fashion.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: But for the newer signs, Ron, how long do
they have to comply? The newer signs, mostly the bank signs.
MR. NINO: The newer signs that would be nonconforming as a
result of the new regulations would have to be made conforming upon
sale of the property or change of name on the sign copy.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And if neither takes place, then --
MR. NINO: Then there's -- then it could there forever and ever.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you.
MS. STUDENT: Yeah, just to clarify, the board decided that after
the '91 code, those signs could stay. It's the pre-'91 signs that
have the three years to bring them into compliance.
And then as Ron stated, I guess there's two ways -- if you say
there's no amortization, you could conclude that oh, they've got to
bring it into, you know, compliance right away or they don't get to do
anything. And they don't have to do anything unless, as Ron said,
they sell the business or change the copy on the sign.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Nothing else from the Board of County
Commissioners?
MR. NINO: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. We have no chairman's report. We'll
move into our regular agenda.
Passing by Item A, moving to Item B, V-99-21.
All those that wish to testify -- yes, sir?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Sir, I believe Item B was also --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: A and B?
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah, they're related.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: My mistake. So then we'll move on to C. V-99-08.
All those that wish to testify before the Planning Commission on
this item, please stand, raise your right hand and repeat after the
court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
Page 3
January 6, 2000
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, Fred, are there any board disclosures
on this item? We have none. Go ahead, Mr. Reischl.
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners. Fred Reischl,
planning services.
This is a request for a variance from the required 15 feet to
zero feet at the St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store. If you're not
familiar with the location, see Davis Boulevard, Airport Road, and
it's just to the southwest of that intersection.
The current building is in yellow, and the proposed addition is
what's in pink. The current building was constructed when the C-5
district permitted zero lot line, zero setback for the side yard.
St. Vincent de Paul would like to construct an addition to the
building, make it continuous with the existing building, and not have
it bump back 15 feet.
They've come forward with this variance request. They've
supplied us with letters of no objection from the surrounding property
owners. And because it is continuous with the existing building
lines, staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, sir, I have a couple.
Your report indicates that the subject property is located at
2874 Davis Boulevard. The applicant indicates it's located at 3196
Davis Boulevard. Apparently 2874 is the headquarters, and 3196 is the
thrift store; is that right?
MR. McGANN: That's correct. One is the --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, sir, can you come forward and state
your name for the record, and then you can respond, so we can have an
accurate record of the proceedings.
MR. McGANN: Thank you. My name is Jim McGann and I'm a
volunteer with St. Vincent de Paul, and I'm acting as their project
manager for this particular item.
And the gentleman requests a definitive location? We direct
this, that 2874 is our administration building, and 3196 is our thrift
store. They're about a block and a half away from each other.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, my question to planning staff is,
are your surrounding land uses those that apply to the headquarters or
to this building?
MR. REISCHL: No, to the thrift store. That was my error. I
just took the address off the application from the wrong section.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The other question I have is you talk
about it being an extension to the existing building, and their
application indicates it's a separate building. There's air between
the two.
MR. McGANN: I might be able to address that. On the
preliminaries to doing this here, we met with the Planning Commission,
and we met with the various departments there, the building department
and the fire department, et cetera. And they stated that we would
have to have a separate wall built between the existing building and
the new building because of the current fire codes. In other words,
Page 4
January 6, 2000
that would be a firewall that would be built between the two
buildings.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But the buildings are smack dab against
one another?
MR. McGANN: Well, the new wall would be up against as close as
possible to the existing wall.
MR. REISCHL: Right, they would not be 10 feet apart as current
fire code would require. MR. McGANN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for staff?
Any comments by the petitioner?
MR. McGANN: No, none other than what has been presented, except
that there are buildings that are right nearest there. In fact, the
next lot that has -- has this same situation. And they're built right
under lot line. So it's not a first-time event here. It's been done
before in the same area.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?
Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this
item? If not, we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I move we recommend Petition V-99-8 for
approval, and forward it to the BZA. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Urbanik, second by
Commissioner Brueto Any discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries.
MR. McGANN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Now we want to hear A and B?
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: They're not back.
MR. NINO: Ross, do we want to do A and B now?
Let's go on to C. They're not here, apparently.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We will move on. Moving on to Item D, V-99-26.
Do we have any disclosures relative to this item? There being
none, anyone from the public that wishes to address the board on this
item, please stand, raise your right hand and repeat after the court
reporter.
(Ail speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Chahram, you look surprisingly good this morning
after being beat up last night.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I was here until 10:00 p.m.
Good morning, commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning
services staff.
Mr. James Boswell, representing several property owners, is
requesting a seven-and-a-half foot variance from the required
seven-and-a-half foot side yard variance to zero for several lots
located along Third Street West. These are small lots, unbuildable
lots. You can only build a boat dock.
Page 5
January 6, 2000
They had a conditional use to allow them to have boat docks
without principal -- structural principal residence on the lot.
What they are asking here is to reduce the side setback to zero,
because there's no view blockage issue here, since there are no
residences.
Staff has received like eight letters of opposition from people
living in the area. And staff believes that even though they don't
fully comply with the requirements of the Land Development Code,
there's no land-related hardship.
But on the other hand, this Land Development Code was drafted for
regular lots with a single-family house and a dock. And this is not
the case here. This is a special case. Therefore, staff recommends
that CCPC forward this petition to the BZA with recommendation for
conditional approval -- oh, for approval, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of staff?
Can we hear from the petitioner, please? Petitioner doesn't --
oh, you are coming.
MR. BOSWELL: I'm coming.
I did request 10 minutes, is that --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: You're speaking on behalf of the --
MR. BOSWELL: Of the petitioner, yes.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: While he's putting that up, Chahram, you
said you had eight letters of opposition? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: And what's their general opposition?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's the same letter faxed to everybody, and
this time they even faxed it to me. If I read one, it's like I read
them all.
It says, "We feel that the people who own dock lots should be
allowed to have a dock as long as they obey the same rules and code as
anyone else. If variance of zero side setback is granted, there will
be two boats on nearly every 30 feet parcel. There will be at least
one boat that will belong to a renter. There will not be any parking
along this narrow curved residential street. There will be people who
will not respect the neighborhood because they live elsewhere. There
will be more pollution in the outstanding waters. Adding 20 extra
boats to this very delicate Florida water in a beautiful residential
area would be a disaster; therefore, do not approve this variance
removing the side setback requirements." COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Chahram, I have a question. Eliminating the
setbacks would mean generally that the boat docks would be bigger.
More boats, larger boats. Is there adequate parking for a few extra
vehicles?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: But these boat docks are usually 20, 25 feet
deep and they're usually 30 -- 25 to 30 feet wide. So each lot can
afford two cars, two parking spaces.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, Mr. Boswell.
MR. BOSWELL: Good morning, commissioners.
Page 6
January 6, 2000
As Chahram had mentioned before, these lots were not --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, could you just state your name for the
court reporter?
MR. BOSWELL: Yes, my name is Jim Boswell. I'm representing 19
boat lot owners.
As he had mentioned previously, these lots were not taken into
account when the LDC was adopted back in the late Seventies. If they
had been identified at that time, I'm sure a special provision would
have been adopted at that time, as Commissioner Mac'Kie had mentioned
during a previous session.
This is the general layout and what you can expect of these lots
as they presently exist. A middle lot -- or dock going down from the
middle of the property. The average width is 30 feet. At this time
you can moor two boats, one on either side. They are allowed to
infringe in the setback area.
The problem here is in order to moor these boats safely and to
protect your investment in your boat, you would want to have a mooring
piling here and here to allow either to be tied off or to install a
lift to lift the boat out of the -- out of the water. That's really
the issue here is the safety of the boats.
Certainly, if you pass this variance, the other possibility here
is this type of configuration that someone could build. But as you
can see, that doesn't necessarily mean there'll be more boats in the
area. You can still have two boats located like this, if you put a
dock down the middle of your property, which many of the boat owners
have already done. So it will not increase the density or the
population of boats there.
The letter of objection saying 20 more boats, well, those people
can still put 20 more boats. They can actually put 40 boats, if they
would like to. They can build a center dock right down the middle and
moor boats on either side. They just can't lift it out of the water.
It's really that simple.
It won't increase the amount of area here where you can park a
car. You can still only park two cars there. So the impact -- and,
you know, planning has concurred on this point, the impact to the
environment will be no greater. All you're allowing us to do is to
protect our investment by allowing us to moor the boat properly by
lifting it out of the water or tying it off with pilings on either
side. Or, like I say, worst case scenario, build a U-dock, but you
don't see where the three boats go in there.
Very simple math up here. All you have to do is add it together
and it comes up to 30 feet. Actually, it comes up to more than 30
feet in this instant. But that just shows the fact that you cannot
put any more than two boats in that area. Do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, it seems to me that the way things
are right now without this variance, that if you own one of these lots
and you've got a very nice boat that you want to protect, you're only
-- you're going to construct your dock to allow for one boat so that
Page 7
January 6, 2000
you can tie it off and keep it.
So I think in effect by us approving this, we would be doubling
what in reality will be out there. I understand that --
MR. BOSWELL: I have to disagree, because these already exist
with people -- and I have the photographs to confirm that information.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: If that's the case, then why come in for a
variance? I mean, if it's working like it is today, if there's two
boats out there today and it's working, why come in here and ask for
the pilings and extra dock?
MR. BOSWELL: It's not. I'm not asking for an extra dock. I'm
asking for the ability to put a piling in the setback area. At this
point you have to file for a variance individually for $425 to put in
a piling on either side here in order to moor the boat or to lift it
out of the water, which should be -- you should be --
Like I say, this should have been taken into account back when
the Land Development Code was being adopted. But it was simply
overlooked. Because in essence these properties are unique or bastard
properties by the nature of their configuration and their size. You
cannot build on them. This should have been addressed at that time
and it was not.
So in essence, it's just a matter of fairness to be allowed to
protect these boats with a mooring piling on each side. It's not
going to increase the density. People can still moor their boats. All
you're telling us is if you want to protect your boat, we're going to
charge you $425 to put two pilings out there.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Priddy, in looking at our agenda packet,
there are nine center located docks currently existing, and one on lot
10 that is to the right where there's a U-shaped dock. So all the
docks are in place, according to this, are already center docks.
MR. BOSWELL: Yes, the majority of them are already located like
that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: I have one more question back for staff, if
I could --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- Mr. Chairman.
In the past, what kind of issues have you had to deal with out
there on these unique lots?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Well, we didn't have problems until recently
when some people, they start to install mooring pilings.
Boats by themselves, they are okay. They are vehicles, they are
not structures. But once you install permanent structures there,
that's when you are required to have setback.
There are lots that they only have one dock on the side, and they
moor one boat and they're okay with setbacks. The problem is with
people who want to moor two boats.
And we have, I believe, one or two violations that people
installed moorings without permits. Otherwise, we didn't have other
problems with side setback issue.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And we've heard several of these have been
Page 8
January 6, 2000
in for extensions --
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Extensions, yes.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- in the last several years that I
remember.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Just seems to me that we're getting bigger,
bigger, more --
MR. NINO: May I speak to this issue? Marjorie, I need your
attention.
MS. STUDENT: You have it.
MR. NINO: No, thank you.
The thing that's -- I wish I had gotten more involved in this
petition in retrospect. But it seems to me that I'm not sure that the
variance is the appropriate vehicle to deal with this matter that --
it should have been addressed in the conditional use end of it,
because I have to agree to some extent with the petition, the people
who are representing, could certainly hear that by this action we are
certainly solidifying the fact that now every slip can be -- every lot
can be used for two boat slips; whereas, we're really not sure that if
in the original instance when the conditional use was granted that the
thought process was that there'd be one boat for each lot.
MS. STUDENT: Well, it's been a long time, and I would -- you
know, without having the document in front of me and some of the
history of it, I can't really professionally, you know, just say yeah,
that's the case.
You know, variances are to be treated case by case with the
application of the criteria in our code to the particular situation at
hand. And I don't know if staff feels that it should have been
revisited in that way. Perhaps staff might wish to ask that this be
just continued for a short time, just two weeks to let staff look at
that and make a recommendation.
MR. BOSWELL: Do I have an opportunity to respond?
MS. STUDENT: Yes, you can. I'm giving legal advice to the board
and staff, so -- but I cannot opine on that without -- it's been a
long time, and I just can't. I'm sorry.
MR. NINO: The fact does exist that all of the lots that are
developed, the docks were put in the middle. And most of those
people, I suspect, are of the opinion that they have the right to put
one boat there and not two. And that this application attempts to
make more of a commercial venture out of that area than was perhaps
originally anticipated.
I have a number of speakers here.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The property is zoned RSF-4. It's residential.
And in order to rent slips to others, you need a commercial zoning to
be considered the marina. So if they use for their own personal
boats, that's fine. But when they start renting those slips out, then
they are creating a marina and they will have a problem with the code
enforcement. They would be violating the code.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: That would be my next question. If there's
two boats currently parked to each one of them and they're both the
Page 9
January 6, 2000
same size, does one person own both of those boats?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: One could be a boat, one could be a jet ski,
one could be a pontoon and one could be a regular boat.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Did you visit the docks?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Is that the case? Is there, say, a 21-foot
fishing boat with a pontoon next to it or is there two 21-foot fishing
boats?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Most of them don't have any boats. They had
two or three -- one had two pontoon boats.
And I believe you had one large boat from -- oh, maybe it was
your neighbors, I don't know.
MR. BOSWELL: Not mine, I don't have a boat.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I saw one large boat and I thought that was
yours.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But one dock had two pontoon boats at it.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe one dock had two boats.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, I submit that one person doesn't own
two pontoon boats, that they're leasing out that space or allowing a
friend to use that space.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any other questions for staff? Any other
questions of the petitioner? You had some comments?
MR. BOSWELL: Yes, I would like to respond.
Mr. Nino mentioned that we should do this as a conditional use.
That was -- we attempted to do that at a previous commission hearing,
and that was poo-pooed.
Bob Mulhere recommended at that time that we go for a variance.
So that's why we are here now. So, you know, now we're being bumped
back into a conditional use thing. And my position is that if this
had been addressed properly back in the late Seventies, when the LDC
was adopted, this would not be an issue.
During the course of years, conditional use has been granted
first on the north side, then years later on the south side, just
trying to play catchup with these lots. I'm just trying to bring this
back to the position of fairness, that if this had been dealt properly
with at the beginning, there would be no issue about the setback
requirements.
So -- and the fact that you say -- you're conjecturing here that
oh, if you're only using one side, then the other side is for rental.
I disagree with that. There's many people out there who have two
types of boats. A mullet boat on one side and their pleasure craft on
the other side. And I can show you pictures of that nature.
Many of these lots have been abused in the way of how they were
constructed against what the codes should have allowed for anyway.
They have a dock on them with a ramp right next to them, right out to
the property lines, and, you know, other unusual configurations.
By doing this, you'll bring all those into compliance and really
generally coming across the board as a fairness issue for all the
lots. So that's part of my position here.
Page 10
January 6, 2000
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Boswell.
We'll hear from the public. Mr. Nino, we have some registered
speakers?
MR. NINO: Yes. I have a Michael McPherson. Then Douglas Wall
and Douglas Voss. And West -- and W. Berlin.
MR. McPHERSON: Good morning, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Would you state your name for the record, please?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Michael McPherson. I'm president of the
local boating club there, Bonita Shores.
And our area is east at the beginning of the peninsula there. We
have 385 feet on the water on the south side. There's no boat ramps
there. The way it's deeded, there's a ramp. And the first three
streets in the shores, it's deeded -- first four streets in the shores
-~ that piece of property is deeded to the homeowners.
The park is maintained by contributions, and we adjoin the -- I
think we're just east of the property that's being discussed here. And
we have a lot of vacant property there which is just used for picnics
and for the local residents.
But we don't want all these extra cars that might be coming in
where all these docks could be doubled and putting in rentals. It's a
dead-end piece of property that's peninsula, and it's only one way in,
one way out. It's a very small street. And so we are against
enlarging or giving them any more access to extend their dock, the
width of the docks.
Because it seems to be a shortage. We have a lot of people
coming up and down that street looking if they can put their boats in
there, and there seems to be a shortage of water where you can dock
your boat. So I think it's just leading into a bigger commercial type
venture, and we're definitely against it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir.
MR. McPHERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next speaker, please.
MR. WALL: Good morning. My name's Douglas Wall. I own a dock
on Lot 7, on Third Street. I live on Fifth Street, about a block
away.
I'm against changing the side setbacks for any of the docks. Most
of the dock lots are 12 foot by 30 foot. If you'll look at them on
your deeds it says deeper, but most of them have washed away. There's
a lot of the mangroves in there that will be lost if they put a lot
more docks in.
This is mostly undeveloped property. If one lot has a side
setback, everybody will want one. We'll end up with a solid row of
boat lifts and docks down through there. There's one lot with two
lifts now, built without the proper permits. That's the reason we're
here. One of the boats on that lift belongs to a friend of the owner.
Code enforcement has no way -- they cannot prove that he's
renting it. The owner of that same lot tried last year to build a
double lift on the other side of the road, and code enforcement made
him pull the posts before he got the lifts installed.
Now you can believe he was just putting in more lifts for his
Page 11
January 6, 2000
friends, like he says the first one is, but I believe they were going
to be rented. The rent around there is $2,000 or more a lift.
There's nothing to stop somebody, if you pass this, from buying
four or five lots, putting in double lifts and the next thing, then,
you've got an illegal marina. And code enforcement tells you, they
cannot stop it. They cannot tell if somebody's renting it or not.
This is a residential area. If you approve that zero setback,
then you're going to have 20 more boats in that area. And we don't
need them. And there isn't that much parking. One side has quite a
bit of parking, but the other side doesn't, it's washed out.
We don't need lifts and docks from one lot line to the next.
That's all there is to it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, please?
MR. VOSS: My name is Doug Voss. For the recorder, you spell it
V-O-S-S. I live at 50 Third Street. I'm one of the directors in the
boating association, but I'm also one of the title holders to that
property that the boating association owns.
I've been in that area for about three years. I've been in the
general area for about 10 years. And you want to talk about abuse to
the property, I can remember when we used to go on that street, it
used to be lined with mangroves. A lot of those mangroves have been
washed out, but a lot have been torn out. They've just disappeared. I
don't know who tore them out, but they're gone.
We've got mangroves along the front of the boating association
property that we try to protect as much as we can. There's no
intention by the boating association there to put in any more than one
ramp. We have a ramp that's been in there for years. We've -- I
think we've applied for the permits to replace that ramp because it's
broke -- it's broken down on the end. It's a lot -- so a lot of the
boaters can't use it right now.
But other than that improvement, we don't intend to put anymore
boat docks in there. We don't intend to put any larger ramps in
there. The docks that we have there, we maintain well.
And one of our big problems is that we've got people that come
down our -- a couple of times they've broken the chain to get through
to use our ramp. We've got strangers parking on the property.
Recently we've had some damage in there, which means the sheriff has
to come in and take extra duty to watch it.
Although we've got 385 feet of frontage there, we use it a lot
for picnic areas, so we can't park a lot of cars there. We have a
limited number of people that can park in there when they bring their
boats down. And if there's not enough parking space, then generally
what the residents will do, they'll go down -- we've got the public
ramp down there by Wiggins Pass, so we go down there. There's another
public ramp on 41 right close to our property.
So as far as the boating association, we don't intend to expand
anything. That's the important thing. Now, that property is adjacent
to it. And the next thing that we're going to have is we're going to
have all kinds of people trying to put their boat trailers or their
Page 12
January 6, 2000
cars, they're going to come in. We're going to have all kinds of
problems there.
Those properties down on the end of the property, on the end of
there, some of those properties are now selling for anyplace from
500,000 to a million dollars. Those people are not going to
appreciate having more traffic coming down that way.
I can't understand. I have a pontoon boat, I have a cruiser, but
I don't keep two of them at a boat dock, you know. One of them stays
in the storage lot -- one of them stays in the storage yard, the other
one stays in my backyard, if I can keep it there.
I just think it's unreasonable to change that kind of property
into what's really going to be a commercial. There's no way that the
commissioners or there's no way the enforcement people can tell
whether they're renting those docks or not. It's just impossible. So
thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, please?
MR. NINO: Mr. W. Berlin?
MS. BERLIN: I'm not prepared to speak, but I'd like to --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Could you state your name for the record, please?
MS. BERLIN: Waltraud Berlin.
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, could you repeat that, please?
MS. BERLIN: I live on Second Street.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Could you spell your name, please?
MS. BERLIN: 139 Second Street.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Could you spell your name for the court reporter?
MS. BERLIN: Yes, W-A-L-T-R-A-U-D is my first name. The last
name is B-E-R-L-I-N.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
MS. BERLIN: I frequently go for bike rides in the area, and I
love the area the way it is. And I don't like to look at the marina.
And we have a lot of boats there that would resemble a marina. And I
wonder what all the boats would do to the environment if you put more
boats in the area. We have many of these in the water. We have the
dolphins coming in the water. So what would all the boats do, would
they chase them away or what impact would it have to the environment,
more boats?
And the traffic would increase. And these are all the things I
object to. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am.
Next speaker, please.
MR. NINO: Robert Davy.
MR. DAVY: Good morning. My name is Robert Davy and I am a
property owner on Third Street as well. And I'm here in support of
this variance request.
For one thing, Mr. Boswell's pointed out here that you can only
put two docks on each lot -- or I'm sorry, not two docks but two boats
on each lot with a dock in the center. And that's true. No matter
what you do on a 30-foot lot, you can't get more than two boats, no
matter what configuration you use.
Page 13
January 6, 2000
And right now I have a dock in the center of my lot, as do the
majority of the lots that have docks on them. Their docks are in the
center of their lot. And in order to change that around, even to put
one boat on those lots now, you have to put mooring piles in. That's
where the variance comes in, to protect your boat to keep it from
banging into the dock.
Now, Mr. Wall here, he's complaining about not wanting more than
one boat in there, but he hasn't pointed out the fact that he's got
two boats in there. His dock is in the center of his lot. He has two
boats --
MR. WALL: My dock is not in the center of my lot.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, gentlemen, please address the board
and not have separate dialogue.
MR. DAVY: I'm just pointing out that he's here making complaints
and he is currently doing the same thing we want to do.
And the other thing is, you're talking about rental of these
things and putting in two pontoon boats versus one boat, one pontoon,
you may have multiple property owners. More than one property owner,
two different boats, okay?
And as far as the boating association is concerned here, the last
I checked with the lady that is in charge of the memberships over
there, there was 60 plus members in that boating association. They
have two docks, one boat ramp, and one piece of property to park on.
There are several vehicles in there with their boat trailers. We don't
need boat trailers on those little tiny lots. We can't put them
there. The county won't let us put them there. So we have to put our
boat in the water.
And that's what I'm -- that's what I'm -- the point I'm trying to
get across to you. We can't put more boats in there than is allowed
right now. Ail we want to do is safely moor those boats, whether by
lift or by mooring pile. So that's where we're at right now.
And we're not going to start a marina there. That's not the
idea. In fact, the condominiums over there, Bonita Shores, I couldn't
begin to guess how many boat slips are in there for their boats right
now. They use that same waterway all the time.
And we're not going to damage it, we're not going to rip on
anything as far as mangroves, what have you. We want to make the area
a nicer area by improving a little bit and make sure that we haven't
got a bunch of junk boats sitting there that don't have to be moored
through the mooring pile, but a nice boat and you want to protect it.
And that's what we're trying to do.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How are you protecting your boats right
now?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Davy?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How are you protecting your boats now if
you don't have these mooring piles?
MR. DAVY: I have lifts in mine there. They were --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What does a person do who doesn't have a
lift?
MR. DAVY: Tie them up to the dock, I guess, and put bumpers on
Page 14
January 6, 2000
them. And if you get rough weather, that's not going to help you any.
I guess that's about all I have there, other than the fact that I
think it's the reasonable thing to do. Small lots, we're not allowed
to park anything on there. We've got room to park about two vehicles
there, so one vehicle per boat. And that's about it.
Hopefully you'll do the right thing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you Mr. Davy.
Next speaker, please?
Mr. Nino, do we have another registered speaker?
MR. NINO: No, we don't.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, Mr. Boswell, do you have some --
MR. BOSWELL: I would like to respond.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- response?
MR. BOSWELL: Yes. Something I forgot to mention, from everyone
who's spoken here today. I'm the only person who lives on this
street. I'd like to show you where I live, if possible. Chahram,
could you show him lot 16 on the pointer? Lot 16, please.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yeah, I have to go to the visualizer, please.
It's the dog-leg, if you could point to it.
MR. BOSWELL: Yeah, the dog-leg lot. Up, up, up. Left, left,
left. Right there.
If anyone has an issue with what may be built there on that lot,
it's me. I look right off that back balcony and I look right down
that street. I'm open -- no one can build across the street from me,
no one can build down the street from me, because they're all too
narrow. So I'm looking right down there.
Presently the street is lined with nothing but Australian pines.
Envision the fact that as these lots get improved, what's going to
happen, the Australian pines are going to come down one after another,
and people are going to put indigenous fauna in there, flora in there,
and improve the view down there.
The fact that there's going to be just a one pier or whether
there's going to be a double or a single dock down there really as far
as view has no -- I don't think has any merit at all. Again, I just
want to reiterate that I'm going to be living on that street and
seeing what happens there.
Bob makes -- Mr. Davy makes some good points there as far as how
people are presently having their boats moored there. You know,
they're keeping them moored there with a bumper. And in this day and
age, that's just not the way to treat your, you know, 20 or $30,000
boat that you would put there.
In regards to Mr. Wall, it's not my position, but I anticipated
that he was going to speak, so I wrote something up very quick. It's
not my intent to discredit Mr. Wall or any of the neighbors in regards
to our request for this variance, but I am compelled by his testimony,
if you will, to defend our position.
Mr. Wall presently has a boat dock located on Third Street where
the other boat dock lots are located. It is Mr. Wall's contention
that no one should be allowed to exceed the present RSF-4 zoning, but
Mr. Wall's in fact in violation of these codes in a number of
Page 15
January 6, 2000
different instances.
If you want me to go on, I'll number them. But he's installed a
roof-over illegally without a permit. He's illegally permitted the
installation of existing mooring pilings and boat lifts with a new
permit rather than an after-the-fact permit. He has illegally
installed a boat ramp on the west side of his lot. He has illegally
poured a concrete monolithic slab from property line to property line.
He has illegally constructed permanent concrete planters and benches
in the setback area. He has illegally installed vegetation within the
county right-of-way. And finally, he has illegally installed a
sprinkler system within the county right-of-way.
Apparently Mr. Wall's position is one of as long as I have mine,
but none else should be afforded the same privileges. So, you know,
if you're going to live in glass houses, you should not throw stones
is my position here.
He has a beautiful lot, don't get me wrong. I love what he's
done with his lot. But we should be allowed to do the same thing, and
under the present RSF-4 zoning we wouldn't be allowed to put
vegetation sprinkler systems in, roof-overs, a ramp down the side of
our property for an additional dinghy that he keeps stored there. All
of these things he feels he has the right to do without permit and
against the RSF-4 zoning.
So by doing what we're doing, we'd be bringing him into
compliance. I honestly don't understand why he's not for this rather
than against it. But that's my position.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. If I could just make a comment, Mr. Wall.
It won't be necessary to respond or rebut those comments, because
whether there is or is not a zoning or code enforcement issue, your
property is --
MR. WALL: If I --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me.
-- is not relevant to this proceeding. And we -- I gave some
leeway to the speaker to go on. Technically it's just not relevant.
We're only considering that evidence specific to this issue, to this
variance. I granted him some leeway, but don't feel compelled to in
the least rebut those issues, because they are not relevant and are
not going to bear upon our decision.
MR. BOSWELL: I understand that also.
MR. WALL: Well, it's awful misleading.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And I understand.
Mr. Priddy?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I was just going to ask Mr. Boswell, since
he lives there, do you have any knowledge of anyone renting spaces in
that area?
MR. BOSWELL: There again, I couldn't say.
No. My answer is no.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of the petitioner?
Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this
item? There being~ none, we'll close the public hearing.
Page 16
January 6, 2000
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions
of staff --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- if you don't mind.
Mr. Nino, is this the right mechanism? You mentioned earlier
that this may not be the right mechanism for this particular project.
If we approve or deny, is this --
MR. NINO: Well, it certainly isn't an incorrect mechanism. My
concern was that perhaps the intent of the -- if approved under this
vehicle, we would be establishing an intent that was not anticipated
when those lots were made. It recognizes boat dock lots and a
conditional use acknowledging that fact.
It certainly is not an incorrect instrument. I mean, that's what
variances are for. And I wouldn't argue with Chahram's basis for
recommending approval. You think about side yard requirement, you're
thinking about blockage of view and all the things that are attendant
to a conventional single-family lot. And these are unique lots. And
I think the shortfall is that in recognizing them as unique lots under
the conditional use process, that was when that process should have
included the consideration that's now before you.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. My other question is for
Chahram.
If they want to build a boat lift right now on any of these lots,
can they technically do that?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, they can.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Without the variance?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Without the variance, yes, they can. If they
built the slip not in the middle, they don't center it, they push it
back -- to the side, they can have seven and a half foot setbacks on
either side and have a boat dock with a boat lift --
MR. NINO: No, I think Commissioner Saadeh's comment is could
they put a boat lift on both sides of the dock.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, that they cannot.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you, Mr. Nino.
Thank you, Chahram.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is rental of a boat slip prohibited in
RSF-4 zoning?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It would be considered a marina, yes.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Just to rent one slip casually?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Well, the problem is when you go there, there
are two boats and they say this is mine, this is my buddies, come from
up north. And it is time consuming and it's so hard on the compliance
services to figure out if this thing is rented or somebody visiting is
using it.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So the zoning doesn't say that it can
only be used by the owner.
MR. NINO: Yes, it does. The --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It doesn't make any difference whether
Page 17
January 6, 2000
it's a buddy for hire or a buddy for --
MR. NINO: Let me address that, Chahram.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: They're not exchanging money. They can say
we're not renting it, we're letting him use it. That's basically -- MR. NINO: The dock -- you have to appreciate, the dock is
accessory to the residents.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Of which there's none.
MR. NINO: Of which there is none. However, if you think of
this, you think of it in a conventional sense, the dock is accessory
to the residents. Only the person residing on the property can use
that dock for an accessory use. Any leasing or renting --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Or lending?
MR. NINO: Or even lend -- well, even lending, yes, would be
contrary to that accessory nexus, that accessory relationship. Has to
be the owner of the property using it.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, the boats all have numbers. Seems
like that would be fairly easy to determine.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: But basically a dock is basically a garage for
a boat. Suppose you have a house with a garage. If somebody comes to
your house, you allow them to park their car in your garage for two
days. You wouldn't be breaking the law. The problem is to prove that
this person is parking there and is paying rent who is not visiting
you and parking his car in the garage.
MR. NINO: Commissioner Abernathy is not talking about two days,
he's talking about a continuous relationship.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Unless we play -- you know, we go there every
day to make sure the boat is there. You know, you go there, the boat
is gone. Three days later the people call, the boat is back. Then
you go, the boat is not there. It's hard to document these things.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You'd have to have better things to do,
too.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there other questions for staff? There being
none, do we have a motion on this item?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I'll address that, if I can. I
think there's a mechanism in place for individuals who own these lots
to come before this board and seek a variance in the proper fashion.
Giving a blanket approval of this agenda item would encourage almost
people to put together docks, and every dock would have two boats at
it. I don't think this board should be encouraging that kind of
activity in a residential community. It's a 30-foot lot, has setbacks
which I think are appropriate, and therefore, I would suggest that
this be denied. That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Bruet, second by
Commissioner Abernathy. Any discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Variance is denied.
Page 18
January 6, 2000
Mr. Nino, do we have Items A and B ready to come before us yet?
MR. NINO: Ross, did they -- I guess not. Let's proceed with the
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We will proceed to Item E, R-99-08.
Do we have any disclosures on the board regarding this item?
There being none, all those in the public that wish to address the
board on this item, please stand, raise your hand and be sworn in by
the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, planning services.
Terry Kepple is representing the community school of Naples, and
they're requesting a rezone from agriculture and agriculture with a
conditional use that allows for the school, to CF, which is community
facilities.
The subject 51-acre site, as you can see on the visualizer, is on
the west side of the Livingston Road, north side of Pine Ridge Road.
It abuts the Barron Collier High School, Naples Progressive
Gymnastics, Cypress Glen PUD, and Estates zoning to the east. There's
also an FP&L easement running down this way through the site.
As you can see in yellow, the -- that's the additional
agricultural lands being added to the community facilities school.
Right now the Community School occupies approximately 35-acre site in
gray. The 16 acres added to it are in yellow. That will give a total
of 51 acres. This will allow for the expansion of the Community
School.
On the Future Land Use Map, it's designated urban residential,
which permits community facilities such as churches and schools, so it
is consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
Petitioner has submitted a conceptual site plan with the rezoning
request. Basically it shows the additional school facilities in
yellow, baseball field and a soccer field, a pool and parking area.
The FP&L easement runs through here in white. And there's some
additional property abutting the Livingston Road.
County transportation staff and public works has requested that
petitioner not put any water management facilities within that area,
because that's part of the right-of-way for the extension and
improvement of Livingston Road.
The project will not exceed the significance test on traffic, so
therefore, it will not have an adverse effect on Livingston Road from
a traffic generation standpoint. It won't impact any other level of
service standards.
Staff has not received any correspondence in opposition to this
petition; however, some people did have concerns about the access
point to Livingston Road from the north. There's a driveway that
serves this parking lot from Livingston Road, and some of the
residents had some concerns about that location.
There was also some concerns that this rezone may impact or
obstruct the county's plans for improving Livingston Road, and I've
been an assured that it will not impact those construction plans.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff?
Page 19
January 6, 2000
Can we hear from the petitioner, please?
MR. KEPPLE: Good morning. For the record, Terrance Kepple,
representing the Community School this morning.
As you're aware, the school has an existing conditional use on
their buildings and whatnot that they have there now. The latest one,
I think, was about 1994. The one before that that I'm aware of was
1983 or '84. That zoned the property for the school for approximately
30 acres.
They have since acquired additional acreage. And we're trying to
use that for school purposes also. So the current property consists
of 51 acres.
During the rezone thinking process, it was my recommendation to
the school that we go for community facility, rather than a
conditional use request again to allow some flexibility -- more
flexibility in the site design. As they grow over the years, their
sight changes, they have different board members that have different
philosophies. And rather than come back again for a different
conditional use, I suggested that we go straight zoning for the
property for a community facility, which would allow a private school.
The master plan that you have in front of us is the current
master plan for their thinking as of today. It does have a pool on
it. The previous conditional use that was approved back in
approximately '94 also had a pool on it at that time.
Currently the pool is being planned by The Y in conjunction with
the school. It's a joint venture, if you would. The school is
providing the property, The Y is going to build the pool for swimming
meets for school type activities for most of the schools in Collier
County, as their current pool is overloaded for those types of uses.
But in general, the pool is a minor use within the site. The
main use of the property is for the school and its day-to-day school
activities.
And I heard there were some questions about access. Let me put
this plan up on the wall here. What I've done to this plan, it's the
same master plan that you have in your packet, I believe. I've added
the future Livingston Road four-laning and possibly six-laning in the
future, and show how the existing access on the Livingston Road would
tie into it, as well as the access that I've put on the north side of
the property.
The county transportation's plans at the current time would put a
traffic light probably in this general location for access to the
Livingston Wood residential area. And the school would tie to that
same location to use that traffic light in the future, when and if
it's ever put in.
At that time, this would probably be the main access to the
school property. The other two accesses at this time -- at that time,
I'm sorry, would become secondary accesses for safety reasons. The one
on Pine Ridge now is of some safety concern because of the left turn
movements into there in the morning and left turns coming out at
almost any time of day.
I don't know if there's any questions on that. That's -- again,
Page 20
January 6, 2000
this is basically the master plan. The property that is actually
being rezoned at this time is this north half. The south half is
basically all existing at this time, and/or approved through the SDP
process.
If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman -~
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- I have a question. I missed it.
Mr. Kepple, you said the main access would be which one?
MR. KEPPLE: In the --
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: In the future.
MR. KEPPLE: In the future, it would --
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: The one with the proposed red light? The
one --
MR. KEPPLE: Yes, the one where the traffic light would be.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- that would eventually have the traffic
light? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner? Are
there any others in --
MR. NINO: Yes, we have an old friend of ours and yours who wants
to address the board. His name is Edward Oates.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I don't know the guy.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Do we have to hear him?
MR. OATES: Good morning, lady and gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Good morning.
MR. OATES: I happen to be the treasurer of The YMCA of Collier
County, and we have reached an agreement with the Community School,
where we will be building our pool on their property. We have a
long-term lease-back to operate the pool. We will be operating the
pool for virtually all the high schools in Collier County, and
Community School will not be given any more advantages than any of the
other high schools, Barron Collier, Gulf Coast, Naples, St. John, all
the rest of them, whatever they are.
So I would ask you please to consider this and hopefully vote for
it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
Anyone else that wishes to address the board on this item?
No other registered speakers, Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: No.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We will close the public --
MR. BELLOWS: I'd just like to point out --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. BELLOWS: -- that we do have a letter that was handed out at
today's meeting from Mike and Ellie Madigan, and their concern is that
northern access point to Livingston Road.
As you can see on the depiction by Mr. Kepple, that the
realignment of Livingston Road is to the west. That would separate it
from the existing road serving the Estates, so that would I think
probably satisfy some of her concerns about another access point onto
her local street.
Page 21
January 6, 2000
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right. There being no other speakers, we'll
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we forward
recommendation of approval Petition R-99-8, subject to the staff's
conditions.
COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Second.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Wrage, second by
Commissioner Urbanik. Any discussion?
There being none, all those in favor, say aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Motion carries.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Moving on to Item F, DRI-99-02.
Do we have any disclosures on this item?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Could we hear these two together?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We will -- yeah, they're related.
We will hear Item F and G together. That's 99-02 and PUD 99-09.
And we'll take separate motions, take separate action. Any disclosures on either item?
There being none, anyone from the public that wishes to address
the board on either of these two items, please stand, raise your right
hand and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Ail speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: Yes, before you is a petition that would have you
rezone some near 500 acres of land located on the northern extension
of Livingston Road, approximately two miles north of Immokalee Road,
contiguous to the Lee County border and sandwiched in part between
Livingston Road and 1-75. I think the graphic pretty well iljustrates
that location there.
Immediately to the east of Ronto Livingston is the Mediterra
development, which takes up the entire east -- west side of Livingston
Road, from this point to that point, and is a residential golf course
community.
Immediately to the south of Ronto Livingston in this entire area
here is the Strand community, again a residential golf course
community. And as a matter of fact, along the north side of the
strand are a series of fairways.
This petition is for 1,380 housing units for a density of less
than 3.296, I believe, units per acre. That is less than the density
otherwise authorized under the Future Land Use Element. That density
is limited to three dwelling units per acre, so they are somewhat less
than the maximum density by some fractional amount.
Petition of course includes all the entire range of housing
structure types, from single-family to the various hybrids of
multi-family housing, and will contain a golf course, an 18-hole golf
course, and all the normal facilities that are accessory to a golf
course.
The petition, by virtue of it being a residential community
within the urban residentially designated area of the master plan,
Page 22
January 6, 2000
means than it is consistent with the land use requirements of the
Growth Management Plan.
The petition has been reviewed by a host of agencies in the
county that deal with determining whether or not the petition is
consistent with their jurisdictional concern, whether it be
transportation, water management, sewer and water. And all of those
agencies advise us that if this petition were approved -- I don't see
Mr. Kant here -- petition were approved, that no level of service
would be abridged by the adoption of this rezoning action.
All of the -- and all of the conditions or concerns that staff
have with respect to this petition are incorporated into the PUD
document that you have in your possession; albeit, there are still
some minor housecleaning that needs to be addressed from the legal
point of view. But the substance of the PUD meets everybody's
satisfaction.
Now, this is also a development of regional impact, and by virtue
of it being a development of regional impact, as you know, it's goes
to a host of state and federal agencies that are involved in the
review process. So that the advantage of the DRI is you have a
heightened level of review by all of the players, including state and
federal agencies.
And that function, of course, as you know, is coordinated by the
Regional Planning Council, and the Regional Planning Council has
deliberated on this issue and acted in that coordinative role, and
have approved -- recommended the -- approved the DRI subject to --
subject to the inclusion of their recommendations, which are really
not recommendations, as such, because if you don't include them in the
development order, you're likely to engender an appeal from the
Regional Planning Council, which has the right of appeal, and the DCA.
And so it's important that the development order, that is this
document here, contains all of the recommendations from the Regional
Planning Council meeting that approve the project. And I can assure
you that indeed it does. But again, there may be some minor editing
errors that need to be addressed on the part of Ms. Student.
MS. STUDENT: Yes, we still -- we've just gotten that development
order, and it's still under review by our office. But I don't
anticipate any problems, because as Ron said, it merely contains the
recommendations of the Department of Community Affairs in the region.
MR. NINO: This petition will benefit the county in two ways:
One, it will provide additional right-of-way for the extension of
Livingston Road, I believe 65 feet, and will provide 200 feet of
additional right-of-way for the east-west leg of Livingston Road,
which is the road that is intended to be between Pelican Strand -- I
mean, the Strand and Ronco Livingston.
Now, you say why 200 feet? That 200 feet anticipates that some
day there will be a grade separation with 1-75, an event that I
suggest will likely never occur, but nevertheless, that provision
allows for that tolerance.
The development -- the PUD regulations, the development standards
in the PUD, are mirror images of the same regulations that are in all
Page 23
January 6, 2000
of the PUD's in Collier County, by and large, and we find them
acceptable in the real world.
As you drive around, they have -- they apparently work, because
Pelican Marsh, Pelican Bay, Strand, the Vineyards, are all beautiful
communities, and they all use the same development standards. We
don't have any problem recommending your support -- your
recommendation of approval of both the DRI and rezoning that --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They all have five-foot setbacks for
single-family residential?
MR. NINO: Yes, five-foot setbacks, zero lot line is the commonly
approved development standard in Collier County. Zero and 10, or five
and five. For that type of housing structure, mind you. They do have
wider side yards for more conventional single-family development. But
that five-foot side yard or 10-foot spacing between housing is
probably common to all of the major developments in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But if it weren't for a PUD, it would be
15 feet.
MR. NINO: No, if it weren't for a PUD, a conventional -- a
single-family zoning district, the minimum would be seven and a half.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: For each?
MR. NINO: Yeah, for each -- 15 feet of space, you're correct.
However --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why doesn't the staff defend that seven
and a half feet, instead of just acquiescing every time somebody wants
five feet?
MR. NINO: Well, I don't think we're acquiescing, Commissioner
Abernathy. We're convinced that that standard is not an inappropriate
standard, and in the real world has produced desirable living
environments. Obviously the market doesn't have a problem with them,
because they're selling tons of houses under that development
scenario.
You have to appreciate -- what's the purpose of a yard
requirement? It's circulation of light and air. When you're dealing
with a one-story home that's got a wall 10 feet high, 10 feet of
spacing between those buildings will assure that the cone of
influence, the cone of light, the 45 degree angle, gets air, gets
light down between those houses, grass can grow, vegetation can grow,
air can circulate. That is the traditional standard.
You and I are sufficiently -- I and you are both of that age
vintage that will recall in more urbanized environments side yard
requirements much less than that. I mean, we -- traditionally society
grow out of side yards that were four feet in the days I was growing
up. And I'm sure --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why don't we change the code and do away
with the seven and a half feet then?
MR. NINO: Well, you have to appreciate that when you're dealing
-- when you're dealing with a PUD, you're dealing with a more
controlled environment. You usually -- and traditionally, and in all
cases, you have a unified architectural theme plan, you have unified
landscaping. All of those factors, I suggest to you, act to diminish
Page 24
January 6, 2000
the impact of the reduced side yard requirement. The fact that the
integration that's there is -- comes off better than each person
making their own individual decision to build on their lot, different
house style, different attitudes, nothing coordinated --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You need a greater separation.
MR. NINO: You need the greater separation under this
arrangement.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, in this PUD they can build
single-family detached houses of 1,000 square feet with a five-foot
setback. Those are essentially guest houses. 1,000 square feet?
MR. NINO: Well, appreciate that's the minimum house size that's
allowed in Collier County. And it's convenient to the -- most of the
developers -- even in Pelican Bay you don't have a standard much
higher than that. But the fact remains that none of them build a
house that small.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, why don't we raise the floor?
MR. NINO: I guess --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I mean, it seems like a developer can
come in and say anything he wants, and as long as it fits your
boilerplate, they get it approved. You don't extract any minimums
from them beyond the bare, bare minimum.
MR. NINO: The minimum is 1,000 square feet in the standard Land
Development Code. What right do we have to demand that they have a
minimum house size of 2,500 square feet when the minimum in the code
is 1,000 square feet?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: To get the project approved, you can
suggest that they adhere to a little higher standard than the bare
minimum.
MR. NINO: Well, we could philosophically debate that for a
couple of hours. I suggest to you that there is no correlation, and
I've -- you know, I personally in my experience over the years and the
research that I've done, there's no correlation between size of house
and quality environment. They're all socioeconomic relationships,
that rich people do decide to live in small -- can live in small
houses, and many of them do. They don't need 3,000 square feet. But
they're tremendous quality environment. Even though the house is
1,500 square feet versus 5,000 square feet.
These issues are not the kinds of issues that drive whether or
not we're producing quality environments in Collier County. You have
to live with the real world. We live in a community that people
traditionally don't build to the minimum extent. And I don't think
you need to legislate that.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't know what this process is all
about, then.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for staff?
There being none, can we hear from petitioner, please?
MS. BISHOP: Good morning. For the record, Karen Bishop, agent
for the owner. We really don't have much more to add to what Ron has
already said. We've gone through the long arduous process of
permitting through the DRI and now we're here in front of you guys
Page 25
January 6, 2000
locally.
I have my transportation engineer, as well as my planners, if
there are any questions that you guys may have concerning the
documents before you today.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Do we have any questions of the
petitioner or their team of experts? None.
Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this
item? There being none --
MR. NINO: No registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: No registered speakers, Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: No.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we close the public hearing.
Do we have a motion? Let's first consider DRI-99-02.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend we send the
project forward to the Board of Commissioners without a recommendation
for approval for DRI-99-02.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Bruet, Second by
Commissioner Pedone. Any discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries.
Now item PUD-99-09.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I further recommend that this
board send its approved of recommendation for approval to the Collier
County Board of Commissioners for companion DRI-99-02 -- excuse me,
PUD 99-09.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Bruet, second by
Commissioner Pedone.
Discussion? All those in favor, say aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And it is again approved.
Okay, we will next be hearing PUD-92-04(1).
Okay, on the next item, PUD 92-04(1), do we have any disclosures
on the board?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Yes. I visited with the agent of the
petitioner.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further disclosures?
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, I had a phone conversation
with the agent also.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Mr. Chairman, I had a phone conversation
with the agent.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I had a phone conversation.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: No other disclosures? Everyone that wishes to
address the board on this item, please stand, raise your right hand
and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
Page 26
January 6, 2000
The petitioner, Rich Yovanovich, is representing the SWF
Properties of Southwest Florida, LTD.
As you can see on the visualizer, the property's located on the
west side of County Road 951, south of the Golden Gate Canal. It's
RSF-3 zoning, Golden Gate City to the north, the golf course tract
along 951. There's the canal. There's the approved Magnolia Pond
PUD, which is approved at about 5.5 units per acre, a multi-family
development.
As you recall the -- from staff report, this is an amendment to
the Golden Gate Health Park PUD. Petitioner is now requesting to add
commercial uses within this PUD, as a result of a Growth Management
Plan amendment, adding this property into activity center No. 9.
Previously the activity center ended right about here. Now this
property's been incorporated into the activity center, which will
allow for commercial uses.
MS. STUDENT: I just -- point of clarification, Ray. Would you
please explain that there's a comp. plan amendment, that it's not
totally been through yet, so --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I was going to get to that.
MS. STUDENT: Okay, fine. Thanks.
MR. BELLOWS: As Marjorie was saying, this Growth Management Plan
amendment has not been ratified by DCA yet. It's anticipated to be
forthcoming within the next month or two.
We do have language in the PUD document stating that the
commercial uses and the additional density shall not become effective
until this has been ratified and comes in effect by DCA.
The PUD master plan indicates the commercial tract along 951. The
primary access, which aligns with the median cut on 951, which is
opposite the entrance to City Gate. It also fronts along access road
No. 2, which provides access to the Magnolia Pond PUD to the west, and
properties to the south.
Staff is requesting that these access points be kept public to
allow for traffic circulation from the commercial properties to the
south, to utilize the median cut and traffic signalization system
that's projected to be at this entrance point.
The current PUD allows for multi-family in the western half of
the tract. Petitioner is now -- it was approved at seven units per
acre, which was the maximum allowed under the old Future Land Use
Element. Now that's in an activity center, they can have a maximum
density of 16 units per acre. However, they're asking for 12 units
per acre, for a total of 588 units.
The -- this is consistent with the proposed amendment to the
Growth Management Plan.
The traffic impact review indicates that the project will
generate additional traffic as a result of the commercial uses and the
additional residences, but will not have a significant impact on 951.
Therefore, staff is recommending -- or finding this consistent with
the traffic circulation element.
I made some site visits to the site. As you can see from this
photograph, the condition of the canal. The Parks and Recreation
Page 27
January 6, 2000
department, along with public works, is requesting that along the
northern property line that we request an easement for the canal that
will also incorporate a public access sidewalk as part of a sidewalk
system going to the county park to the west. Applicant seems to agree
with that language worked out with the Parks and Recreation director.
The Environmental Advisory Council approved this petition by a
five to zero vote. Staff has not received any letters in opposition
to this amendment.
I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff? There being none, can
we hear from the petitioner.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich, representing
the petitioner.
Once again, staff has done an excellent job summarizing our
project. We do agree with the staff's stipulation and have worked out
the easement with parks and rec. Unless you have any specific
questions of me or A1 Reynolds.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?
Excellent presentation.
Anyone from the public that wishes to address this item? Yes,
sir, please come forward and state your name for the record.
MR. CICIONI: My name is Alfred Cicioni. C-I-C-I-O-N-I.
And I object to this project because it doesn't coincide with the
neighborhood. Namely, our area consists of single-family dwellings,
and there's no commercial buildings or uses in the area. We're also
concerned about the value of our property, that it doesn't become
depreciable.
I represent myself and my wife and my neighbor and his wife. I
have a letter here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir, do you live in the canal to the north --
across the canal --
MR. CICIONI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- to the north of this property?
MR. CICIONI: My address is 4460 32nd Avenue.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you, sir.
MR. NINO: I wonder if the petitioner appreciates the fact that
currently there's an approved PUD on this property. Currently the
front half of this property could be developed with a hospital and
medical offices. And the west half is currently allowed for
residential development at the same density that they're proposing
now.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: So while this is a modification, Mr. Nino, in
interpreting that, we're not looking at a substantial increase in the
intensity of use on this property? MR. NINO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I hope that alleviates some of your concern, sir,
that there is not going to be an increase in the intensity of use of
this property, based upon the current zoning.
MR. NINO: They can already do what they're -- this petition is
asking them to do in part.
Page 28
January 6, 2000
What drove this petition was the fact that there was obviously no
longer a market for a hospital, and the amendment -- proposed
amendments to the Growth Management Plan to acknowledge this is an
activity center allowed them to make that departure so that they could
go into -- on the front part a pure commercial, versus a semi
commercial, which is the hospital and the offices.
Basically, for all practical purposes in terms of impact on your
property, this amendment will do nothing different than the current
authorized development impact would have had on your property across
the canal.
MR. CICIONI: Well, my reply, my only concern is that a hospital
is a hospital, but commercial could be anything. Unless I know what
the commercial would be to make it for a comparison, how would I know
that this commercial property would match what a hospital would do?
MR. NINO: Except that I think the commercial part of this
property is opposite the golf course, isn't it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's correct. For the vast majority of it.
MR. NINO: You have the golf course? Yeah.
The Golden Gate -- you know, the golf course and the residential
lots in Golden Gate don't begin until you do hit the residential. In
other words, you do have by and large residential offices, residential
here.
MR. CICIONI: I haven't seen your complete plan.
MR. NINO: All right.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Just, you know, so the commission knows, we have
met with the residents and shown them the plan. We're having another
meeting on the 18th, and obviously we'll make sure that Mr. Cicioni is
specifically invited to that meeting so we can give him more details
of the plan.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good.
Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this
item? There being none, we'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we forward
Petition PUD-92-4(1) to the Board of Commissioners with a
recommendation for approval.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll second that, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Wrage, second by
Commissioner Saadeh.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Could we take maybe a five-minute break?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We will take a five-minute break.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll reconvene and hear Item PUD-99-04.
Do we have any disclosures by board members on this item?
There being none, all those in the public that wish to address
Page 29
January 6, 2000
this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the
court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. MURRAY: Good morning. For the record, I'm Don Murray,
principal planner with the planning services department.
This PUD-99-04, also known as North Port Bay PUD, is located in
the Port-of-the-Islands community on U.S. 41, and is located on the
north side of U.S. 41 and just on the east side of the Faka Union
Canal.
The property's about 50 acres in size. It's a rezoning from RT
and conservation, to planned unit development.
It's surrounded by -- on the east and west by agricultural --
rural agricultural and area of critical state concern properties. To
the north is RT property, which has, I believe, a mobile home park and
hotel that's no longer used. To the south is the Port-of-the-Islands
community that's mostly developed; has C-4 along the frontage of U.S.
41 and some RMF-16 properties.
If developed -- or approved, this PUD will provide approximately
15.3 acres of preservation area in three tracts. It will provide
18.62 acres of residential area. It will preserve a 16-acre bay. It
will have 248 multiple family units, including garden apartments. It
will increase the open space from 25 acres to 31.1 acres. And will
have an overall density, dropping it from 6.14 unit acres to 4.96
units per acre.
The -- under the existing zoning, the applicant could have 307
units on the property. Originally, when this application came in, he
proposed only 300 units. But with negotiations with DCA, the
Department of Community Affairs, that's been reduced to 248 units. Two
things: That 52 units compensates for the 52 that was subject of a
rezoning on the south side of 41, in this area. 6. acres of
commercial property that was down zoned to residential.
It also insures that the community improvement district has
adequate water and sewer for those units that are being proposed in
the North Port Bay community.
Under this proposal DCA has no objections. Staff has reviewed
it. We found it consistent with the Growth Management Plan. We found
it compatible with the surrounding development.
We have no -- we've had no objections to date. We've had one
letter recommending approval from a citizen that lives in
Port-of-the-Islands. And we are recommending approval. Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Don, does this property give access to the
property to the north, or is that an issue?
MR. MURRAY: It's not an issue, but it does give access to the
properties to the north.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And does this -- upon completion of this
portion of the development, does that make that 100 percent of all the
Page 30
January 6, 2000
developable Port-of-the-Islands property, or is there some land still
available for development?
MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane from Hole, Montes &
Associates. There are vacant lands to the north that are still
available for development. An RV park is located on a portion of
those, and the balance of that RT zoned property is presently vacant.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions?
If we could hear from the petitioner again.
MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane again, and have I
nothing to add. We're in agreement with the staff recommendation and
all the stipulations. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?
Is there anyone from the public who wishes to address this item?
MR. NINO: I have a registered speaker. Bernard Wolsky. This is
Item I. And Marlene --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, come forward and state --
MR. NINO: -- Marchand.
MR. WOLSKY: I would like to speak in support of this rezoning
request.
My name is Barnard Wolsky. I have been a full-time resident of
Port-of-the-Islands since April, 1994, and I've been a supervisor of
the Port-of-the-Islands community improvement district since November
of '94.
I am speaking here as a resident of Port-of-the-Islands, even
though my opinions were informed in the context of my experience as a
CID supervisor. I emphasize -- I must emphasize that these comments
represent my personal opinions. I do not speak for the CID board, nor
for any of the other supervisors on that board.
During my tenure on the CID board, our water plant has never come
close to selling the amount of water it is capable of delivering.
Indeed, our problem has been underutilization of the water available
for purchase.
The problems caused by this underutilization of available water
have been exacerbated in recent years by the closing for two years of
the Port-of-the-Islands Hotel, one of our main water usage customers.
In addition, the failure in June, 1999 of the sale of tax
certificates on two properties; one of which is the property under
discussion at this meeting, has caused the CID board to raise water
usage rates to cover ongoing fixed expenses.
What we really need in Port-of-the-Islands is more residents to
use our water. I personally applaud the efforts of Mr. Hardy and his
group to turn this troubled and debt burdened North Port Bay property
into a productive and self-supporting planned unit development. His
efforts, along with the new owner of the Port-of-the-Islands Hotel
should be encouraged and supported.
In summary, I believe the development of North Port Bay will
contribute to the overall and fiscal well-being of Port-of-the-Islands
as a community. I recommend the board approve PUD-99-04.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir.
Page 31
January 6, 2000
Do we have another speaker, Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: Yes, Ms. Marchand.
MS. MARCHAND: Good morning. My name is Marlene Marchand and I
am the owner of Port-of-the-Islands RV Resort. I have the property
abutting the North Port property.
I've made Port-of-the-Islands not only my place of business but
my home, having bought a home out there also. So I speak here today
as a business owner, as well as a homeowner.
I have reviewed the zoning, I have studied the density and the
DCA agreement. I have included in that the ramifications of it as to
development of Port-of-the-Islands. As indicated by Mr. Wolsky, there
is great financial involvement at Port-of-the-Islands, which
development will help resolve.
This particular builder has proven to provide quality products at
Port-of-the-Islands. He's proven to be a responsible and responsive
builder, developer, to not just the community but to Mother Earth, and
I believe that this should be approved unconditionally. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you.
Any other speakers?
Anyone else from the public?
We will close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I make a motion to approve, Mr. Chairman,
based on staff's stipulation.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Saadeh, second by
Commissioner Wrage.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries.
Item PUD-98-17(1). Any disclosures on the part of the board?
There being none, anyone than wishes to address this item, please
stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray with the current planning staff.
This petition is very straightforward. The petitioner is simply
seeking to repeal the current Whittenberg Estates PUD and adopt a new
PUD in order to reduce the side yard setback requirements for
single-family detached dwelling units from seven and a half feet to
five feet, to reduce the minimum distance between principal structures
-- Mr. Nino already answered all those questions for me, thankfully.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I can't be here, that's right.
MS. MURRAY: -- to reduce the minimum distance from principal
structures from 12 feet to 10 feet and to allow lots fronting on
multiple road right-of-ways one front yard setback.
With that, I'll -- we are recommending approval, and I'd be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
Page 32
January 6, 2000
past.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions from staff?
Mr. Abernathy.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Questions have gone unanswered in the
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Then we'll hear from petitioner, please.
MR. FOLEY: For the record, Blair Foley. We have nothing further
to add. We'll be happy to answer any questions, if there are any.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?
Is there anyone from the public who wishes to address this item?
Being none, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to
recommend approval of Petition PUD 98-17(1).
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Wrage, second by
Commissioner Bruet.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries.
Next item, PUD-99-22.
MR. NINO: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I failed to acknowledge that
that petition was continued to the 20th of January.
MR. MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Continued to January 20, Item K. Okay.
We will move on to Item L, CU-99-25.
Any disclosures on the board?
There being none, all those that wish to address the board on
this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the
court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, with the current planning staff.
The petitioner is requesting conditional use 13 of a C-4 zoning
district in order to establish a bus stop. This is located on Lots 11
and 12, block one, Carson subdivision in Immokalee.
One of the lots, Lot 11, is currently developed with an existing
grocery/convenience store.
Consistent with the required criteria for evaluation of a
conditional use, it was staff's objective, when crafting our
recommendation for approval in our specific criteria for that
recommendation, to ensure that the bus stop functions as a bus stop
and not a bus depot or parking area for buses.
The bus stop is an ancillary use to the primary use of the site,
which is a convenience type of grocery store. And second, to locate
the stop in a safe and convenient manner, which limits conflicts
between passengers, automobile and street traffic, store patrons and
pedestrians.
With that in mind, it is our recommendation that the bus stop be
located along the western side of the store, as you can see in the
Page 33
January 6, 2000
site plan.
I have spoken with the petitioner, and he is in agreement with
that location, as well as other staff stipulations.
I will say that the petitioner did request that he shift that
area a little bit I believe closer to the street and a little further
to the east. Staff does not have an objection to that, provided the
location along the western side does not interfere with the site
circulation for the convenience store, and that access is -- to the
bus stop is taken from Lot 12 and not through the parking lot of the
convenience store.
With that in mind, we are recommending approval.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: How do you monitor where that ends up?
MS. MURRAY: Well, there will --
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: You want to shift it farther -- I mean --
MR. MURRAY: It's -- this is a general site plan. So provided
it's located on the western side and there's no interference with the
existing parking lot, which is paved, it should be very easy to
monitor.
MR. NINO: We're going to hire you to supervise, to go out and
look at it every once in a while.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I was going to suggest that Mr. Wrage
passes by there twice a day, that he can keep track of that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for staff?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, just out of curiosity, I thought I
read in here that this -- the bus already stops here, or --
MR. MURRAY: That's correct. There's a little bit of a history
with this petition in that it was originally submitted as a rezoning
to C-5, because the C-5 zoning district was the only district which
would allow what is defined as a bus depot, and that's multiple buses
and tickets and passengers.
The board directed staff to amend the code to allow a bus stop in
the C-4 zoning district. Once that was done, the petitioner reapplied
for a conditional use for a bus stop.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay, well, that fills me in. Good,
thank you.
MR. NINO: Just an editorial. Of which there are about four now
in Immokalee; is that right?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: That I know of.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions for staff?
Does the petitioner wish to address the board?
If you would state your name for the record?
MR. FARAH: My name is Amin Farah. I'm here about --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Could you slow down a little bit, because she's
got to keep track of what you're saying. MR. FARAH: My name is Amin Farah.
THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your last name?
MR. FARAH: F-A-R-A-H.
And me and Susan, we agree on everything's perfect. Anything I
can do, we can change or -- we have no questions whatsoever. And
yeah, there is four bus stops, but each one is different. Greyhound
Page 34
January 6, 2000
is basically United States. The other bus stop, Mexico and Texas.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner? Thank you.
Is there anyone is else from the public that wishes to address
this item?
There being none, we close the public hearing. Do we have a
motion?
COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I move we approve Petition CU-99-25 and
include the staff recommendations.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion. We're looking for a second.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Urbanik, second by
Commissioner Bruet.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Be sure to pass down your
findings of fact.
Okay, moving on to the next agenda item, CU-99-32. Any
disclosures by board members?
There being none, anyone from the public who wishes to address
this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the
court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners. Chahram
Badamtchian, from planning services staff.
This is a conditional use for a day care center to be located at
853 and 857 101st Avenue North, in Naples Park.
There's an existing duplex. They want to change this into a day
care for up to 50 children. This will add -- this will generate
approximately 232 trips on a weekday.
The Collier County Land Development Codes allows some
nonresidential uses in residential districts with conditional use such
as churches and day cares. And they basically comply with the
requirements of the Land Development Code for child care center.
And child care centers are usually considered compatible uses
with residential uses. Staff recommends conditional approval of this
petition.
Staff has received one letter of opposition and one petition
signed -- last I counted, I believe there were 18 signatures on it.
And staff was handed several pictures this morning from someone who's
opposing it. I want to hand them to you. I don't know if you want me
to have them under the visualizer or you want to look at them.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Why don't you just pass them down, Chahram?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I'm sorry, Chahram, I had my head down when
you were talking. The other day care center is where the two dots
are, or directly north?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is the location that they want to have a
day care. On these two lots, there's an existing day care.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Okay, thank you.
Page 35
January 6, 2000
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And from this line on is all commercial; is
zoned C-3.
MR. NINO: Two lots removed from the commercial zoning district,
fronting U.S. 41. And the land between this and the commercial is
vacant, correct?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The property to the east -- no, there's a
single-family house.
MR. NINO: To the west.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: To the east there's a single-family house.
MR. NINO: All right, okay.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: To the west is vacant.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any questions for staff?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Abernathy.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Your staff recommendation makes
reference to stipulations listed in the resolution of approval. I
don't know if anybody else has it, but I don't. And I phoned you
yesterday afternoon asking you to fax it to me, and you didn't, and I
still don't have it. What are the stipulations? And why don't we
have them?
MR. NINO: If I might, yesterday was a very busy day for Chahram
and most of the planning staff. The EAC meeting went till 3:30, and
then at 5:05 the LDC started up, and most of the planners were
therefore tied up all day. But we apologize for that, Commissioner.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically the stipulation is that they have to
do a site improvement plan to provide for parking and landscaping for
this project.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's the only -- that's the extent of
the stipulations?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's the extent of the stipulation.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Bruet?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Chahram, can that be done? I mean, this is
a -- we know the Naples Park lots are very small, you have setbacks,
you have green space, et cetera. Can it be done?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They have two lots. And this is a preliminary
design of what they are planning to have. MR. NINO: Is this plan part of the conditional use resolution?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is part of the application that they have,
yes .
MR. NINO: So there's a master plan.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is some kind of master plan, yes.
And I don't know if we really need two handicap spaces. We only
need one. So we have to have a site improvement plan so we can take
care of the parking problems and landscaping and green space and
things like that. But yes, it looks like they can make it.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: I'm somewhat familiar with day care centers,
and I know they need quite a staff. And I'm not exactly sure how many
-- 50 children relates to staff, but I'm sure it's a good five to 10
Page 36
January 6, 2000
people, based on the age of the infants. But --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Probably they need seven or eight staff member.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: And if you're correct, I see eight spaces.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: How many parking spaces total do they have
for the employees and the customers?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They have one, two --
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: The eight that you're showing?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Eight. Plus I believe they have a garage.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And does that meet the standards called for
in the Land Development Code for such a facility? Based on the number
of kids that they have.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Based on the number, yes, it does.
This is before and after pictures of what they are planning to
have. I guess this the existing plan for the duplex. And --
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: How many does the Land Development Code --
how many parking spaces, Chahram, does the Land Development Code call
for for the 50 kids that they're applying for, plus the employees.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: For the 50 kids, what our land development
calls for is adequate pickup and drop-off area. And the one parking
space for -- how many kids? I believe it's -- I don't have my code
here, but I looked at it, and they make it -- it depends how many
staff members they are going to have. And the 50 is a maximum number.
And I don't know if they are going to be able to have 50 children in
this small building.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for staff?
There being none, if we could hear from the petitioner, please?
MS. GODARD: Yes, thank you. The --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Would you state your name for the record, please?
MS. GODARD: My name is Gloria Godard, and I'm agent for Mike
Walczuk.
When he went through the neighborhood, this was very carefully
thought out. He had gone up and down every street in the
neighborhood, trying to find something. He had to have a double lot.
A single-family home would not be conducive, because most of them
square footage-wise would not allow the capacity that he would need.
And so as he went up and down every street, he selected homes
that were not even available for sale, based on the location and what
he was looking to fulfill, being close to the highway, very -- as
close to the highway as he could get; kind of the center of the park,
because he wants to put this together for the community.
And we have -- I've called most of the day cares and found there
are waiting lists. So he wants to put something in the community that
will be utilized by the community.
We don't believe this will impact any additional traffic. I know
I lived there 17 -- well, I've been here for 22 years. I lived in the
park, and I utilized the day care directly behind us for several years
for my daughter, and I was so glad to have it close by. And he wants
to put this more or less for the general use of the residents there.
And anyone who has driven through Naples Park over the last
Page 37
January 6, 2000
couple years, the growth there is so tremendous, and the families that
are moving in, and there are not enough facilities to provide for
working parents.
By placing it here, it has accessed close enough to the school,
parents either going to work or coming home from work, and the 101st
Avenue also has one of -- it's one of the few streets that will have
the access in and out when they complete the 41 expansion. So this
will not necessitate people having to drive through various streets
trying to get there. As they're leaving the parking to go to work,
they can drop the children off. As they're coming in off of 41, they
can pick up and then go to their home.
So this was something that as he went through the neighborhood
trying to find a specific location, this is where he collected,
because it was the only thing available. There were actually four
others, and I called everyone trying to find one that would fit and
one that would sell. This party happened to be the one. So he
selected based on close proximity to the highway, had to be a double
lot, and wanted something around that was somewhat compatible.
And if we take the fence in the back, the other day care children
can play right in his backyard, that's how close it is.
So with that in mind, this is what he would like to proceed with.
And his plans on expanding or going through this unit would be this
summer, so it would be available and open for this fall. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?
Is there anyone from the public that wishes to address this item?
You have some registered speakers, Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: Yes, I do. D.E. Richardson, A1 Newman, Wallace Buman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Please come forward, state your name.
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, my name's Dwight Richardson. I live on 725
101st Avenue North, the site of this particular request.
Have any of you had an opportunity to go down 101st Avenue North?
That's not -- I realize that, so let me give you a little idea of
what's going on there.
We have road widening going on with Highway 41, and there's --
the County Commission has already approved with the FDOT closing off
the medians on a number of those streets.
As the petitioner has suggested, 101st will be one of the streets
that the median cut will be left open. However, on 100th and 102nd,
it's going to be closed off.
Now, think about that. That means that the traffic that would
have gone and is now using 100th and 102nd will now be diverted onto
the open median cuts, so we're going to have more traffic on 101st.
This suggestion is for a day care facility for 432 trips in a
residential area, on a street that right now is one of the heaviest
traveled streets in North Naples, or Naples Park area.
There are really three really bad intersections. There's one up
by the 7-Eleven on 108th, and the commission's already decided to
close that one off so it doesn't intrude into the rest of the Naples
Park. And there's the one down where Rib City and Burger King is,
with very heavy traffic.
Page 38
January 6, 2000
If you look at this property, you'll see that on the corner
there's a car wash, there's a doctor's office, there's a residence,
and then this subject duplex that they want to convert. That's on the
north side.
On the south side we have a very popular North Naples Country
Club, which has an -- has generated an extreme amount of traffic on
that corner.
When I exit Naples Park down 101st, I try to avoid that corner
whenever I possibly can. The -- I can't visualize -- or I can, and I
don't like it -- the increase in traffic and the additional safety
problems that this project will create.
If you consider having up to 50 young children, toddlers, being
dropped off and picked up, you know, twice a day for the number of
trips that staff has told you about, it's going to create an enormous
problem for them and for the residents of this area, particularly as
the other median cuts are closed off.
So I would ask you to take a look ahead and try to visualize this
area with the median cuts and the widening, the six lanes, and the
additional traffic on 101st that will just naturally happen, that with
this additional commercial use, and now you're just expanding
commercial use further and further into the park off of Highway 41, I
don't deny that there's some needs for day care facilities throughout
Collier County, and the day care facility on 102nd, which would back
up to this subject property. You should see the parking there now.
It's a mess. They park in the swale, they park out on the street.
They've created a real traffic problem as it is. That's an existing
use. We can't really do much about that.
But let's not compound the problem by adding this kind of density
abuse on an already very busy street. So I sincerely recommend that
you deny this conditional use. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What is the intersection that has the
traffic light? Is that 99th?
MR. RICHARDSON: That's 99th. Just two streets up. And that's
the only one -- that's the other one that will be open.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I suppose a lot of people will go for
that, since -- particularly the ones wanting to make a northbound?
MR. RICHARDSON: Coming northbound you're either going to have to
turn on 99th or you're going to have to turn on 101st or then on up
further north.
So, you know, it's kind of a mixed bag. But the ones that are
left open will get more traffic for sure. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker?
MR. NEWMAN: A1 Newman, Naples Park area association. I'm the
president. Good morning, commissioners.
As Dwight had mentioned, this will be one of our heavily traveled
streets after the six-laning of 41. We can't afford to have 400 more
trips per day on this street here. The encroachment of the commercial
zone into the residential is getting so that anybody wants to open up
a little thing here, a little thing there, we're all close to 41, it's
Page 39
January 6, 2000
close to the commercial zone. Well, close is -- it is close. But
let's stop the commercial zone where it's zoned at and not into the
residential zone.
This property is a duplex. It's a rental unit. You have maybe
two families living there. That doesn't count 50 kids running in and
out. True, there is a day care on 102nd, as Dwight mentioned. It's a
nightmare, morning and night, come drop off and pickup time. But
that's an existing day care, so we can't do anything about it right
now.
The need is there. We do have to have day care. But let's put
day care in a commercial zone or in a conditional use zone, not in a
residential zone. And this is strictly residential. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, please?
MR. BUMAN: Good morning, commissioners, and staff. My name is
Wallace Buman. B-U-M-A-N. And we're here, Mrs. Buman and I, are here
today on behalf of our son, Jeffrey Buman, who is disabled and can't
be here. He lives at 852 102nd Avenue. And he and we of course
visiting have seen what's happened on 102nd Avenue. It's a disaster.
You have -- a few photos have been given to you, taken just candidly
of the existing traffic problem at 102nd Avenue.
There are swales on each side of these streets. The traffic, the
parking, there isn't enough parking for staff on 102nd. They park
toward the back. They have to have a separate wooden fence for their
children to go out back to play.
The traffic problems which would be created by this petitioner's
use, I really worry about dangers. And I don't understand. I'm sure
the petitioner would realize that it's going to go be a disservice to
the community as well as to his customers, because these people can't
back out of that at pickup time and drop-off time, they can't back out
of those swales and the limited driveway. It's just the driveway that
was there from the original home. And they can't back out into
traffic that's a two-lane street. And when you compound it with this
proposed U.S. 41 expansion, that road is going to be a collector for
three streets. And it's going to be a terrible traffic problem.
Now, we submitted a petition to Dr. Badamtchian with 18 names,
and one of those names is an owner of four properties there, four
lots. I think Mr. Newman submitted a petition just now, and I don't
know how many names are on that.
Really, this -- there's never sufficient parking there. They use
other people's driveways. We should know. They park in the swale.
When -- at pickup and drop-off times, and sometimes other than that,
you cannot drive through. Two cars certainly can't drive through
102nd Avenue. It's going to be worse on 101st.
We strongly urge that you deny this proposal. Recommend denial.
It's -- as the other gentlemen have said, it's a creeping condition
that's just getting worse and worse and worse. We're for motherhood
and kids, but not in this place.
I don't know if I can answer any questions, but all we can tell
Page 40
January 6, 2000
you is what we have said. The photos of the existing day care say it.
The petitions are from concerned people. They bought and built in
good faith. And I strongly urge you to deny. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir.
Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this
item? There being none -- excuse me, ma'am. Yes, if you'd like to
make some responsive comments?
MS. GODARD: Certainly. I appreciate the fact regarding the
additional traffic they were mentioning. However, we believe most of
the traffic is already there in Naples Park, that the facility will be
utilized by the residents, they would have to go home and they have to
leave. So they will be leaving and coming through the park and
hopefully dropping off their children and picking them up. So I don't
think it's going to necessarily generate any additional traffic from
surrounding areas coming into there.
I also am aware of the day care at 102nd, because that's where my
daughter went for several years. They only have a little circle
driveway out. And you're right, it is somewhat difficult with the
traffic.
The owner of this property has already indicated, whatever it
takes to make it work. If we have to fill in the swale, put in
culverts, if we have to put in a circle. This was a drawing that we
sat down with an architect and worked out, but this can also be
changed to make it more conducive to flow the traffic easier in and
out.
And because most people -- I know when I would go pick up my
daughter, I would pull in, run in, they'd hand her to me, I put her in
the car I'm out of there. So if a circular driveway, along with
additional spots is necessary, we don't have a problem with that. We
want to make it as comfortable as possible. And hopefully residents
in the community will be the ones that will be utilizing it. So I
really don't see any additional traffic impact in the neighborhood.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ms. Godard?
MR. BUMAN: May I have one more moment?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Just a minute.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ms. Godard, what are the ages of the 50
children that are going to be there?
MS. GODARD: When they offer preschool, it's usually from two to
five. When they start kindergarten, they may have an after-school
program. As a matter of fact, the owner himself, his daughter will be
coming after school there. And that would be like from the hours of
-- I think it's 2:30, quarter to 3:00, when they get out, to closing
time. They have to be picked up by 6:00.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If you have 50 children of that age,
what is the caregiver/pupil ratio that's standard in those situations?
How many employees do you have to have to have 50 children?
MS. GODARD: I think it's one per 10. On the younger ages -- I
know my grandson had gone in there when he was an infant. They only
had one per four. And then they go from the infants, then I think it
Page 41
January 6, 2000
goes in the one year category, one per six. Then when you get two and
over, I think it's one per 10.
So there should be -- plus the husband and wife will be a team,
so there will be one vehicle there, but there'll be two parties
working the facility, along with any additional staff that need be
there. So I'm guessing they'll probably utilize three to four parking
spots.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question.
How many children are at the day care on 102nd?
MS. GODARD: I don't know. I was talking to someone the other
day, and they were expressing that she was looking to expand. And I
don't know where she would expand to. And so apparently they are
filled to capacity.
And I think most of the day cares go according to the square
footage of the building. The building that we're discussing is 2,000
square feet. And I'm told that that will allow up to 50 students. So
if hers -- if there's 50 students there, she has to have at least
2,000. And if she's planning on expanding, she would have to put an
addition on somewhere to house --
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: How many children were there when your
daughter was there?
MS. GODARD: It was full all the time. And this was 17 years
ago. And she stayed there for the full five years until she had to
leave. They just didn't have room for her. And at that point she was
in school.
But I did call various day cares, and in different groups, the
two to three, the three to four, there are waiting lists at this
particular time. And this is why we feel that if he gets rolling on
this this summer, gets the school up and running when fall comes, he
will probably have a pretty full house.
Plus his pricing structure. He wants to come in approximately 15
to $20 under what the other day cares are, and he feels he can still
make a profit at that. And there's an awful lot of facilities out
there -- my daughter's son, $125 a week. I think that's outrageous.
And he's planning on -- and the older children, they run around 80 to
90. He's planning on the 60 to 75 range.
So I really believe his will be a very functional school, and it
will not cause any more traffic, and at the night hours when
everybody's in residence, the place will be quiet, there will be no
one there.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for petitioner?
Sir, if you have some additional testimony, I'd encourage you --
yes, sir. But I would encourage you to direct your additional
testimony and new evidence to the committee and not get into a debate
or dialogue with the petitioner.
MR. BUMAN: Thank you. Wallace Buman again.
No one has mentioned the peace and tranquility of the
neighborhood. No one has brought up the noise level of 50 -- by their
nature, these children scream when they play. And they are out for
exercise in the yards.
Page 42
January 6, 2000
This community was not designed for this. They put the children
in the back yards, the children try to play, amuse themselves, scream.
It's been proven at 102nd Avenue to be a disaster for the surrounding
neighbors. But as everyone says, an existing use, you live with it.
Please don't compound it. These people don't want it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir.
Is there anyone else from the public wish to address this item?
There being none, we will close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I certainly applaud the
efforts of the petitioner here, and realize that the park has a need
for day care centers. I guess my level of comfort deals more with the
site selection here.
As I drive up and down 41 daily, I see a lot of store fronts in
the commercial areas that seem to be vacant that I would think offer
opportunities for day care centers. When you consider the 223 trips
per day, they're going to be condensed into drop-offs and pickups,
condensing them into a very short time frame, and I don't believe the
surrounding single-family residents need to be subject themselves to
that. And I'm going to -- I'm not going to support the petition and
recommend that this board not support the petition, and that would be
my motion.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Bruet, second by
Commissioner Abernathy. Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I too have a problem with the traffic
situation. I firmly believe that we need day cares in communities to
keep the kids that are in the neighborhoods in the neighborhoods and
not clog up our road system outside of the neighborhood. But in this
case, I cannot support the petition and will support the motion.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion?
All those in favor of the motion, say aye.
Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Nay.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries.
Please pass your findings of fact down to Mr. Wrage.
We are back to our postponed Item A and B. BD-99-04. And
V-99-21.
Any disclosures by any of the commissioners?
We will hear these together, I assume. Take separate motion? All
those that wish to testify on this item, please stand, raise your
right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Excuse me, are we hearing these together or
separately?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're going to hear them together and take
separate action.
MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, commissioners. This is a little
different from the typical boat dock extension, so at the beginning of
the hearing, I've passed out copies of the notes that I'll be using
Page 43
January 6, 2000
and also a copy of the final plan that was submitted by the
petitioner's agent. There were about five different plans submitted
here, which is a little bit confusing. There are also a lot of
numbers. I'll try to make this as simple as possible.
The approval of the extension would also require approval of the
variance. The property is located at 9 East Pelican Street, Isles of
Capris and Snook Bay, broad but shallow waterway.
Petitioner is requesting a 101-foot extension for a total
protrusion of 121 feet into the waterway. And also a seven and a half
foot variance from the required 15-foot side setback for docking
facilities on property having less than -- excuse me, having 60 feet
or more of water frontage. This property has just over 60 feet, 61.9.
An existing 77-foot dock would be modified, and according to the
plans, the new facility would accommodate one 38-foot and one 18-foot
vessel. I have been told that the smaller vessel and lift may be
eliminated from the plans, but they were shown on the most recent
version that I got.
This petition was represented as the minimum needed to
accommodate these two vessels.
The property has just over 60 feet of water frontage, which means
it requires a 15-foot side setback, as opposed to a seven-and-a-half
foot setback for property under 60 feet. So this was just borderline.
A very brief description here of terms that are going to come up
in the staff report, and also the application of riparian lines. As
it stands now, the land development code defines riparian lines in a
very narrow sense, the end of a canal. We're currently amending the
code to make this description a little bit broader. And I'm going to
read our proposed description verbatim, because it's kind of essential
to the issue.
"Riparian line is an imaginary line beginning at the point at
which the property lines intersect the mean high water line of a
waterway and continuing into the waterway indefinitely. The purpose,
as used by the code, is to provide a point of reference from which to
measure setbacks."
You also see references in the staff report to riparian rights.
This is a very complicated legal area and I'm not competent to discuss
this. I want to say briefly that for the purpose of this hearing, the
legal -- riparian rights will be defined as the legal rights of
waterfront property owners to use water between the riparian lines.
We've received two written complaints that the facility has
proposed would be a hazard to navigation. I could find nothing in the
application or the overhead photography that indicated that this was
clear to me that it would be a problem, but I think the petitioner's
agent can discuss this.
We also received a complaint from the property owner on adjacent
Lot 39, that the proposed facility would impede the use of his dock.
The length of the extension itself is not necessarily
unreasonable. There are a lot of very long docks in this area, as the
iljustration that I have here will show.
The nature of the variance is not unreasonable. The 61.9 feet is
Page 44
January 6, 2000
very close to getting the seven-and-a-half foot side setback. However,
these things in combination with the location of this particular
property and the configuration of the shoreline cause a problem. The
riparian lines tend to converge toward the center of the waterway, so
you get a pie-shaped area that the property owner has the use of.
The petitioner is requesting a relatively large vessel that draws
quite a bit of water 38 feet. It's a very shallow waterway. The more
the vessel draws, the further out into the waterway the facility is
supposed to extend.
We're recommending denial of both the extension and the variance,
based on the probability that this facility would in fact impede the
use of the property owner on Lot 39. There is also no hardship
connected in a variance situation, because it was the owner's option
to buy a larger vessel.
That having been said, I've been told by the petitioner's
representative that he and the attorney representing the neighbor on
Lot 39 have reached an agreement as far as reducing the length of the
facility. I'm not quite sure how this would be accomplished, given
that this was represented as the minimum necessary. I'm sure the
petitioner's agent will be able to show you this.
We have stated that we would be prepared to recommend approval of
a shorter facility that would accommodate a smaller vessel. We're
certainly willing to consider a proposal to reduce the size of the
facility. But I would not change staff recommendation for denial at
this point.
I think at this stage the petitioner's agent might want to
address this, unless you have any questions for me about the staff
report.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for staff?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: A quick one.
Seeing you're still in denial, so to speak, is it not wise for
the petitioner maybe to resubmit this application, based on where they
have negotiated themselves?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Sir, that would be my recommendation. I do not
have a plan to look at or to show you.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: I would think this board would have trouble,
you know, going outside of your recommendation of denial without
having really much to hang our hat on. We're talking riparian lines,
setbacks, and there's a lot of issues involved in this. And I want to
know ~- I want to be sure I know what I'm voting on.
MR. NINO: May I suggest we let Dave Bryant make his
presentation. Because Tim Ferguson, who was here, representing the
adjacent property owners, they did reach an amicable agreement. And
think maybe what Dave has to impart may --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yeah, I'd like to proceed and let you know, sir,
you have to make it painfully clear to us and to the staff, so we can
keep up with you, it appears complicated at face value, but if you've
come to a resolution and even we can understand it, I'm sure that we
can find a way to approve it.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. David Bryant. And I
Page 45
January 6, 2000
appreciate Mr. Nino makin9 those comments to you.
We have reached an agreement. And I've got a drawing here that
I'd like you to look at on the overhead that I think might not require
us to have to do another petition and come back to you at an
additional time.
If you look at the drawing, you'll see that the initial
extension, which is the last line on the far right-hand corner, was
what the initial request was by the petitioner. You'll note that
those are not -- that's not a dock extending out into the water, those
are piles. So we're not putting a dock there. The existing dock is
one you see drawn as the existing dock on the drawing.
What we've agreed with the adjacent property owner is to reduce
the piles and reduce the end of the dock back to a total extension of
100 feet. If you read the initial petition, it almost reads like we
were asking for 101 feet in addition to the existing dock, which has
never been the case. In fact, that's what two of the people that
complained thought were happening.
When Mr. Luchenbauer explained to them that is not the case, that
we never intended to do that, that we were only looking for a maximum
amount of dockage in addition to the existing dock, they understood
that it wasn't going out as far as they thought it was.
Now that's even reduced further. What we would be doing is
taking off the end of where the L dock is, the terminal end of the
dock, back to where you see the drawn line, that crosshatch, and that
would be where the dock would now terminate.
We would take out the piles on the far right-hand side -- or not
put them in, because they're not there, not put them in, and bring
everything back to where there's only 100 feet of total piles and
dock, which would accommodate Mr. Luchenbauer's boat, barely. He's
got a 38-foot, 39-foot boat that draws approximately four feet of
water.
And this area, as you get closer to the shoreline, becomes very
shallow, and at low water, especially when we have a low tide with a
full moon, it's -- everything is on the bottom there as you get closer
to the shoreline.
Also, there's been some conflict, if you would, between our
position and staff's position on where you actually measure the lot
line to determine whether or not we fall within the 60-foot
requirement that says you have to have the 15-foot setback, which is
why we're here asking for the 7.5 variance. Because if it had been
59.3 or 59.10, we would not have had to do that. We could have -- we
would not have had to have the variance.
But since it barely fell over -- I think Ross believes it's like
61.10, something like that, 61 feet and some inches measured at the
lot line. However, if you measure it at the rip-rap or at the
seawall, it barely falls an under the 60 feet. So we're in kind of a
gray area of where we actually have to take our measurement from.
But accepting staff's position, we believe that with the 7.5 foot
setback and with reducing the link to the total 100 feet, we have
reduced the impact on the view, we've reduced the impact on the
Page 46
January 6, 2000
neighboring property owners, and we believe that it's an appropriate
and safe way to accommodate Mr. Luchenbauer's boat.
We've got Captain Brian Spinnit (phonetic) here, who will be more
than glad to testify, who is a captain in those waters, who fishes and
guides in that area extensively to speak to any type of safety issue,
navigation issue, those kinds of things.
But we believe that by reducing this, not only is the property
owner happy, and he left, and we agreed to this, that it's something
that we would have hoped that staff could support. Understanding that
Ross only saw that agreement this morning when we were able to work it
out. He hasn't had a lot of time to look at it.
But I would submit to the board that we believe it's a reasonable
way to solve this problem; allow the property owners their relief that
they requested earlier, and give Mr. Luchenbauer the ability to have
dockage for his boat.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes. Do you bring the bow -- the bow of
the boat would be coming into the dock?
MR. BRYANT: No, sir, the rear of the boat --
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The rear of the boat.
MR. BRYANT: -- it will be backed in, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So at low water you're really going to be
pushing it.
MR. BRYANT: It's going to be right there at -- it's about 4.2,
and the boat draws about four. In fact, when we had the low tide
about what, two weeks ago, Albert? When we had a lot of confluence
with not only low tide, but I think it was a full moon, everybody's
boat was sitting on the bottom out there.
But you're absolutely right, Mr. Priddy, it's goin9 to be close.
But we're willing to do that to try to be a good neighbor to our next
door neighbor and try to make everybody else happy. And in fact, one
of the property owners was here earlier to speak in favor of it, but
had to leave.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions for the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: I guess I'm just -- are we dealing with
setback issues now or -- I have no idea where we are. I mean, the
sketch is fine, but, I mean, it doesn't mean much to me. I don't know
what I'm approving or disproving here.
MR. GOCHENAUR: As far as that diagram's concerned?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Do we need a variance?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Apparently we do still need the variance. And
there is no gray area there, according to the Land Development Code.
The difference between an inch and a mile, there is none, according to
the code. It says that 60 feet is the cut-off for the property line.
And the platted property water frontage is 61.9 feet. So we're
required to ask for this.
Under different circumstances, if a proposed dock does not
interfere with the dock opposite, we would withdraw an objection to
that. But it's clear that the variance is necessary.
I would also like to see a drawing that would show me the vessel
Page 47
January 6, 2000
in relation to the pilings here. The Land Development Code considers
a docking facility to be a dock and vessel combination, so pilings and
a vessel comprise a dock facility. I'm still interested in seeing how
the initial statement that this dock facility was the minimum
necessary to accommodate that 20-foot boat can be shortened by 20 feet
and still accommodate the boat. If it can and there is no problem
with the property next door, we would certainly be prepared to
recommend approval of this petition -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Saadeh?
MR. GOCHENAUR: -- both the variance and the extension.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: My question is for Ross, for staff.
With the agreement that the petitioner has with the neighbor next
door, they seem to be in agreement. Would there be any other
opposition from other neighbors, or that was the extent to the letters
that you had or the phone calls that you had? Just the adjacent
neighbor that they just wanted to deal with?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. The only objection we had was from
that adjacent property owner. The property owner on the other side
was apparently not affected and didn't object.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So with their agreement with the owner next
door, actually, there is no objection. As of this morning, the
agreement.
MR. BRYANT: That's correct, Mr. Saadeh.
MR. GOCHENAUR: That's correct. And it's my understanding that
there was in fact an agreement to this drawing here.
MR. BRYANT: In fact, you'll see that it's signed both by Mr.
Ferguson and Mr. Luchenbauer. It's not showing on here, because it's
at the very top of the drawing. But they both signed their names to
it to signify their agreement and date it today's date. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, if I remember correctly, this has to go to the
Board of County Commissioners for their approval also. And I -- in
the way I see it, we can approve this, and by the time it gets to the
Board of County Commissioners, they would have had a clear drawing and
everything. Right now they have an agreement. That's the only
oppositioned party that's -- that used to in opposition, now is in
agreement. I'd be prepared to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I just have a question.
The neighbor that did have a problem that you've come to the
agreement with was Lot 39?
MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Which would have been -- on this aerial
photo would have been this? MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: This is the one that looks like he's going
to get cut off. He didn't say anything?
MR. BRYANT: No. In fact, he was here to propose that the board
agree with it. In fact, he's told Mr. Luchenbauer, you know, if you
need to use my dock during the pendency -- they just have a great
relationship.
Page 48
January 6, 2000
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions?
Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this
item? There being none, we close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, I'll make --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any motions?
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- a motion to approve -- you're taking the
variance first?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Whichever one you would like.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Okay. We'll go in the sequence that they
appear on the agenda.
I'll make a motion to approve Petition BD-99-4, send it to the
Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, with
the condition that they present the final drawings to the
commissioners at the time.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second.
MR. GOCHENAUR: Sir, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. GOCHENAUR: Did you want to recommend approval of 121 feet or
the 100 feet specified by the petitioner's agent?
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Based on the last agreement that the two
parties had agreed to, and based on the statement that you said, with
that being in the final agreement, staff would actually recommend
approval.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And their agreement was a 100-foot --
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- extension?
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: That's the shorter version.
MR. NINO: Excuse me. What you would be doing is approving the
boat dock extension as amended.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you, Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: And then on the variance, you'd be recommending --
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Approval of the variance.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we'll take a moment while we have a caucus.
MR. NINO: They know that, Marge.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student.
Sam, could you just repeat the motion that you made about the
boat dock itself? Because they don't -- the last I knew, I haven't
been working on these lately, but the last I knew, boat docks get
final approval here. And I thought your motion was recommending the
board dock to the board with a recommendation of approval. But the
Planning Commission has the final order of authority on a boat dock.
Not a variance, but on a boat dock. And I need that to be cleaned up
for the record.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH:
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY:
COMMISSIONER SAADEH:
COMMISSIONER WPd%GE:
COMMISSIONER SAADEH:
You are correct.
But your motion was for a variance?
The motion --
No, for the boat dock.
I was going to make a motion on both of
them. The motion on the boat dock is for approval based on the
amended version as of today. And that doesn't go to the Board of
Page 49
January 6, 2000
County Commission.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you.
MR. GOCHENAUR: We would need a distance on that that was agreed
to. Because this petition will be approved as stated. Right now it
says 121 feet. So we --
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: No, the amended version as Mr. Nino stated,
what the two parties agreed to.
MR. BRYANT: And it's on the drawing. It says 100 feet. It's
written right on the drawing where Mr. Ferguson initialled and Mr.
Luchenbauer initialled.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Based on the initial agreement by both
parties of 101 feet, that you have the drawing of.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion to approve the boat dock at a
100-foot length. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Commissioner Pedone.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: With respect to my colleague, I'm not going
to support the petition. I'd just -- I'd like to know what I'm
approving and I'd like to see it. I guess it's my engineering
background and bringing up that says I want to know what I'm
approving. I might be able to approve it if I could see it, but at
this point in time I'm going to not support the motion.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I would like to go back to what we talked
about and hope that it would be withdrawn and continued, so I'm
probably not going to support the motion either.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion?
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Nay.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Nay.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think we have -- who are the opposed? I think
we have three, Urbanik, Wrage and Bruet. And the others are in favor,
so the motion carries. So the boat dock extension is approved.
Mr. Saadeh, you wanted to make a motion on the variance?
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve
Petition V-99-21, based on staff's conditions, and send it to the
board with approval.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Saadeh, second by
Commissioner Pedone.
Any discussion? There being none, all those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Nay.
COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Nay.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Nay.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that two or three?
COMMISSIONER URBANIK: No, it's three.
Page 50
January 6, 2000
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Three against. Same split.
Again, the motion carries.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are no other agenda items. No other old
business I'm aware of.
Any new business?
Public comment? None.
There being no further business, we will adjourn.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:15 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE,
INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC
Page 51