CCPC Minutes 06/01/2000 RJune 1, 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 1, 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:
ALSO PRESENT:
VICE CHAIRPERSON:
Russell A. Budd
Michael Pedone
Russell A. Priddy
Kenneth C. Abernathy
Gary Wrage
Michael J. Bruet
Sam M. Saadeh
Joyceanna J. Rautio
Ron Nino, Planning Services
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 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 WRITUEN 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 THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED
IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A
PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF
APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGSPERTAINING
THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH
RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH
THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK
2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 20, 2000; May 3, 2000; and May 4, 2000
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES:
5. BCC REPORT
6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
BD-2000-08, Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, represenfmg Mattew A.
D'Ambrosio, requesting a 20-foot extension for q boat dock facility protruding a total of 40 feet
into the waterway, for property located at 282 Third Street West, further described as Lot 15,
Block F, Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
BD-2000-10, Jerry Neal of Purse Associates, Inc., representing Pete Thorpe, requesting a 5-foot
extension from the permitted 20 feet to construct a boat dock and boat-lift protruding 25 feet into
the waterway, for property located at 418 Samar Avenue, further described as Lot 652, Isles of
Capri No. 3, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
V-2000-I0, Rodney K. and Donna R. Pavlisin requesting a 5-foot variance from the required 10-
foot rear yard setback for accessory structures to 5 feet for property located at 5970 Amberwood
Drive, further described as Lot 14, Pelican Strand Replat-6, in Section 19, Township ~8 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
V-2000-12, Richard Baranski, representing Michael Browder, requesting an after-the-fact variance
of 1.5 feet from the required 10-foot rear yard setback for accessory structures to 8.5 feet for
property located at 6630 New Haven Circle, further described as Lot 122, Mill Run at The
Crossings, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
PUD-99-27, John Cardillo of Cardillo, Keith & Bonaquist, P.A., representing Richard C. Myers,
Trustee, requesting a fezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to
be known as Grand View PUD allowing retail, commercial and professional office uses, for
property located on the southwest comer of Pine Ridge Road and Whippoorwill Lane, in Section
18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 16.54- acres.
(Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
PUD-99-6(1), Anita L. Jenkins, AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc. and Donald W. Arnold, AICP, of Q.
Grady Minor and Associates, representing G.L. Homes of Naples Associates, Ltd., requesting a
rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development kriown as Rigas PUD having the effect
of increasing total acreage from 232± acres to 241± acres, increasing maximum residential units
from 725 to 755, adding new language to address mitigation measures, and amending the legal
description for property located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately 1.25 miles
east of 1-75, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting
of 2414- acres. (Coordinator: Susan Murray)
PUD-2000-04, Timothy W. Ferguson, P.A., representing Outdoor Resorts of America, requesting
a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as
Outdoor Resorts of Naples, a Motorcoach Country Club PUD for a maximum of 420 recreational
vehicle (RV) sites, a 9 hole golf course and related RV park uses for property located on the south
side of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846), 1/2 mile eat of C.R. 95 I, in Section 26, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 93.5± acres. (Coordinator: Chahram
Badamtchian)
2
PUD-2000-05, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Inc., representing John J.
Nevins, Bishop of the Diocese of Venice, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to
"PUD" Planning Unit Development to be known as Mission Church PUD for a church, school and
accessory uses for property located on the northeast comer of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension
and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 35.56+ acres. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian)
PUD-89-6(4), George L. Varnadoe, Esq., of Young, van Assenderp, Vamadoe and Anderson,
P.A., representing Halstatt Parmership and Naples Golf Course Holdings, Ltd., requesting an
amendment to the Grey Oaks PUD having the effect of rezoning the property from "PUD" Planned
Unit Development to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for the purposes of relocating authorized
commercial development between the northeast and northwest activity nodes while reducing the
acreage of total commercial area by 15.6 acres; reducing the number of dwelling units by 300;
revisions to golf course acreage and water management facilities; revision to access points and
elimination of Airport-Pulling Road overpass, for property located in the northeast, so~utheast and
northwest quadrants of Airport-Pulling Road (C.R. 31) and Golden Gate Parkway (C.R. 886), in
Sections 24, 25 and 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
1601:t:acres. (Companion to DOA-2000-03) (Coordinator: RonNino)
DOA-2000-03, George L. Vamadoe, Esq., of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson,
P.A., representing Halstart Partnership and Naples Golf Course Holdings, Ltd., requesting an
amendment to the Grey Oaks Development of Regional Impact (DRI), Development Order (DO-
90-3), as amended, for the purposes of relocating authorized commercial development between the
northeast and northwest activity nodes while reducing the acreage of total commercial area by 15.6
acres; reducing the number of dwelling units by 300; revisions to golf course acreage and water
management facilities; revision to access points and elimination of Airport-Pulling Road overpass
for property located in the northeast, southeast and northwest quadrants of Airport-Pulling Road
(C.R. 31) and Golden Gate Parkway (C.R. 886), in Sections 24, 25 and 26, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1601± acres. (Companion to PUD-89-6(4))
(Coordinator: Ron Nino)
SV-2000-01, Karen Bishop of Project Management Services, representing Vanderbilt Partners,
Ltd., requesting a variance from the requirements of 2 residefitial entrance signs, with a maximum
combined area of 64 square feet, with a maximum height of 8 feet, to allow 3 signs to be located at
the comer of the property, one 32 square feet on a planter wall at the base of an existing slxucture
and 2 signs on the same structure at a height of 22 feet with a combined area of 30 square feet,
located at the comer of Vanderbilt Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road in Section 32, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian)
8. OLD BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS
10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
12. ADJOURN
6/1/00 AGENDA/RN/im
3
June 1, 2000
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We will call this planning commission
meeting to order, and we will start with the roll call.
Commissioner Priddy?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Abernathy?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Pedone?
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Budd is here.
Commissioner Wrage?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Present.
CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Commissioner Bruet?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Present.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Saadeh is absent.
MR. NINO: Coming in the door.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Saadeh is here. Commissioner Rautio?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Present.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any addenda to the agenda? There being
none, we have three packets of minutes. We can address them
individually if there are issues or collectively if they are all in
order. Do we have a motion on any one or all of them?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Hearing no issues, I make a motion
we approve all of them as presented.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. That would be the minutes of April
20th, May 3rd and May 4th. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Commissioner Abernathy. Any
discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
Minutes are approved.
Any planned commission absences in our future? Is everyone
going to be showing up for work?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do we meet in July?
CHAIRMAN BUDD-' Ron, are we meeting in July or is there a
vacation following the county commissioners' schedule?
MR. NINO: We're not meeting the first -- you're not meeting
the first Thursday of July.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: So it would be July 6th?
MR. NINO: Otherwise your normal schedule applies.
Pa~e 2
June 1, 2000
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. With that in mind --
MR. NINO: All through the summer.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll miss the second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right, so will I. I will be out July 20th, the
second meeting.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So will I.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Commissioner Abernathy will be gone
July 20th. Any other announced absences? There are none.
Board of County Commissioners' report. Ron, do you have
anything?
MR. NINO: You might be interested to know the board
approved all of the petitions that were before them. The La
Playa petition was approved over some strenuous objection. Mr.
Sabatino's famous variance petition was approved, and that's
about it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. There is no chairman's report. We
will move into our advertised hearings.
We will start with BD-2000-08. Are there any disclosures on
this item? There are none.
Anyone wishing to testify on this item, please stand, raise
your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Witnesses sworn.)
MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services.
The petitioner's requesting a 20-foot extension to create a
docking facility protruding a total of 40 feet into the waterway.
The property is located at 282 3rd Street in Little Hickory Shores
and contains about 80 feet of water frontage.
The project consists of the replacement of an existing dock
and nonconforming davits with a new dock and two boat lifts.
This is a very broad waterway and extensions to 45 and 53
feet have been approved for the two lots immediately to the
north of the subject property.
The project meets all major criteria. No objections have been
received, and staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Any comments by the petitioner?
Is there anyone from the public to address this item?
We will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend this
Page 3
June 1, 2000
board approve petition BD-2000-08. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD.' I have a motion and second. All those in
favor -- excuse me. Any discussion?
THE COURT REPORTER: Who was the second?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: The second was Mr. Pedone.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries.
The next item is BD-2000-10. Are there any disclosures?
All those wishing to address this item, please stand, raise
your right hand and be sworn by the court reporter. (Witnesses sworn.)
MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning
services. The petitioner's requesting a five-foot extension to
create a docking facility protruding a total of 25 feet into the
waterway. The property's located at 418 Samar Drive on Isles of
Capri and contains about 75 feet of water frontage. The project
consists of construction of a dock and boat lift.
We've received four written objections to this project, which
is a little bit unusual for such a small extension, so I've passed
out a brief summary of the objections to you prior to the hearing.
The main thrust seems to be that the project is going to
obstruct navigation and set some kind of unwanted precedent.
We also have a strong objection that the hearing is being held
now as opposed to the off (sic) season, when one of the property
owners is at his summer home in Chicago.
Notwithstanding these objections, the project does meet all
of our criteria and we do recommend approval. I believe the
petitioner's agent is prepared to discuss the navigation issue and
any other questions that you might have about that subject.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Bruet.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Have there been other variances
issued in the past for this canal?
MR. GOCHENAUR: There have been no extensions for this
particular canal, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions?
If we can hear from the petitioner, please.
Page 4
June 1, 2000
MR. NEAL: Jerry Neal, representing the petitioner.
The waterway is platted at 100 feet. At this particular
location, the lot is not seawalled like it is on the adjoining lot.
This lot has more of a natural shoreline, which is riprap. And I
think that you can see the photographs that staff presented with
their report to you -- they gave you one shooting in both
directions of this particular lot.
You can see on one side you have a seawall, also with that
same shot you can see that the riprap is going out into the
waterway a little bit, and then the other shot in the other
direction shows the mangrove trees. Also at this location, the
water depths as you can see on the submitted drawings is very
shallow.
The criteria of the county's ordinance is that you can go up to
25 percent of the waterway with the platted waterway width as
100 feet, and we're asking 25 percent or the 25 feet.
Also, Isle of Capri is in the aquatic preserve, and part of the
policies and the objection -- the objectives of the aquatic
preserve is to maintain natural shorelines and to not disturb the
bottom by dredging and definitely no removal of mangrove trees
and stuff to go into a manmade situation, which it would be like
putting in a seawall.
Scaling off of the aerial, which is copied also in your package,
you can see that some of those docks do scale more than 25,
and some of that may be the fact that some of the docks may be
a little less, but some of the boats, by the time you add the beam
into them, they do go out further. Also at the entrance, there are
some boat houses, and those extend out further than the 20 feet,
and those are listed in the package.
I don't know if there's any particular reason to discuss the
timing of this. As you well know, we're continually working with
the different clients all throughout the year, and we can't
particularly wait eight months to have the guys wait, because
when they come back from their trip up north, they want to have
the facility in place so they can put their boat in it, so that part of
it I don't feel is realistic for the public at large.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I think all of us that vote live here
year-round.
MR. NEAL: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I said I think all of us that vote live
Page 5
June 1, 2000
here year-round.
MR. NEAL: Yes. And so I would be more than happy to
entertain any questions that may come up after anyone from the
public will speak to help clarify it if you-all have questions.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions now for Mr. Neal?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I do have one question. They keep
repeating here that it's going to be an undesirable precedent, but
I think I hear you saying that you're meeting all the criteria.
MR. NEAL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And it is a hundred foot platted
canal.
MR. NEAL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That is correct.
MR. NEAL: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So all the technical criteria are
met?
MR. NEAL: That's correct, and staff--
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you.
MR. NEAL: -- gave that presentation at the very beginning,
yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Ross, he mentioned that some of
the other docks and all, with boats on them, scaled more than
the 25 feet. Was that your observation?
MR. GOCHENAUR: It's hard for me to make a general
observation like that without actually measuring the docks. I
won't argue with it. I know that there are docks on Isles of Capri
that were either not permitted at all or were permitted before
they took spot surveys to determine that they'd actually gone out
only to 20 feet. I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption
that we have docks there that are going out further than 20 feet.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions?
Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address
this item?
There being none, we will close the public hearing. Do we
have a motion?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend the
board approve BD-2000-10.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Yes.
Page 6
June 1, 2000
CHAIRMAN BUDD.' We have a motion by Commission Bruet,
second by Commissioner Wrage. Any discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries.
Next item, V-2000-10. Any disclosures?
All those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise
your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Witnesses sworn.)
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl,
planning services. This request is for an encroachment of five
feet into a 10 foot rear yard accessory setback in The Strand
subdivision, which is the northwest corner of Immokalee Road
and 1-75, specifically on Amberwood Drive. The lot is in blue.
You can see that it overlooks waterway, and also please note the
curve on the rear of the lots for the cul-de-sac that will play a
part in what I'll present to you.
The petitioner states that the -- as you read in your staff report,
that the size of the lot was misrepresented to them prior to
purchase. They selected a home to fit on that lot and with the
understanding that that home would fit on the lot. After the sale
they found that the lot was smaller than was represented to
them.
They worked with the builder to reduce the size of the home to
fit it on that lot, and basically they came up with everything
except for this five-foot strip in black~ which is five feet at the
southeast corner and tapers down to zero at about the middle of
the lot, approximately a hundred square feet of encroachment.
There is no land-related hardship. This lot could support a house
that would meet the minimum requirements of The Strand PUD.
Staff believes that the adjacent lake to the rear will ameliorate
the encroachment.
At the time the petitioner came in, he had a verbal "no objection"
from the owner of lot 15 to the east. As he received this morning
and as you received this morning, that is now a letter of "no
objection" from that homeowner.
We did receive last week a letter of objection from the
homeowner to the west, lot 13. And again, yesterday I received
an affidavit from that same homeowner.
Page 7
June 1, 2000
As you just received it this morning, I'll try go through some of
the points, and I know Mr. McClure is here to state the
objections. But one of the things he does state is that it will
disrupt the view corridor.
Staff's position is that as you look at the positioning of the
house, and keeping in mind the curve of the rear shoreline, that
the owner of lot 15 would be the one most affected by a view
corridor in this southeast corner of the lot.
I did go out to the site -- and I apologize for black and white
pictures. Our color printer was in not-working condition. This, I
was standing on the property corner of Mr. Pavlisin's lot,
approximately here. Mr. Pavlisin's house under construction, and
basically this is -- as you see on the diagram, there are curves.
It's not a straight line, but that will give you an approximate view
of the rear lot line. So the encroachment will be approximately
five feet back from that.
From the other perspective -- this is from the -- this is Mr.
Darragh's lot, the neighbor who is objecting. I was standing at
the property corner on the southwest side of his property corner
and looking, again, approximately towards the -- and again, this
meanders, but you can see that the property behind Mr.
Darragh's house does extend out farther. His house will be able
to be set farther towards the water.
And again, this is Mr. Pavlisin's house here. The patio coming
out, staff believes that the only view corridor that will be blocked
will be of the houses farther east down Amberwood Drive.
Also, staff feels that the Collier County Land Development Code
in section 2.7.5.6.7 has the finding of conditions which will
ameliorate the encroachment, and we believe that the lake and
the "no objection" from the neighbor to the east ameliorates the
encroachment, so staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What about his -- the allegation
of this gentleman that the 10-foot shortage that was
misrepresented to him is on the other side, not on the side where
the variance is being requested? The west boundary -- MR. REISCHL: On the west side.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And this is the east boundary
that he's asking for the variance.
MR. REISCHL: I didn't see the plans from the beginning of the
Page 8
June 1, 2000
-- before the sale, but apparently he did shorten the house that
was represented to fit on that lot.
address that more, more in depth.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY:
relationship between the two.
Maybe Mr. Pavlisin can
I'm just trying to figure out the
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for Mr. Reischl?
There being none, can we hear from the petitioner, please?
MR. PAVLISIN: My name is Rod Pavlisin. I thank you for your
time hearing my case.
To address Kenneth's question, it is true that the west side
boundary was 10 feet shorter than what was represented to me.
If it was 10 feet longer for a total of 145 feet, that would allow
me to bring the house to the north; in other words, move the
house forward and giving the rear portion a larger piece. And if
the lot was 145 feet, there would be no need for the variance.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You've got the front yard
setback to contend with, is that --
MR. PAVLISIN: Correct. I'd like to point out one more thing, if
I may. You can see the triangle portion there on the southeast,
which is the variance I'm requesting. Right, exactly.
If you were -- to go further west, that dashed area will be the
screened-in enclosure. If you're standing on lot 13 and you're
looking east, that southwest corner of the -- exactly -- of this
screened-in enclosure protrudes more south than the southeast
portion even if the variance is granted.
Okay. So personally -- and my wife and I have been
considering views, that on lot 13, personally, I can't -- I can't
understand where there would be an impairment of his view.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The view is, if it's impaired, it's
by the part that's not affected by the variance. MR. PAVLISIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of the petitioner?. Any
other comments?
Is there anyone else from the public to address this item?
Sir, we'll hear from another member of the public, and if you
have any other responses, you'll be given an opportunity.
MR. McCLURE: Thank you, Commissioners. I'm Bob McClure
on behalf of Mr. Darragh, the owner of lot 13, and he has filed a
statement in opposition of this petition. We do believe that this
variance will encroach, to some degree, on Mr. Darragh's view
Page 9
June 1, 2000
corridor. It is not, we concede, as much of an encroachment or
impediment as Mr. Biondi would have to the east, and I
understand -- I haven't seen it -- Mr. Biondi has submitted a letter
of no opposition.
Even at that, I suggest to this commission that this variance,
which is not needed, will encroach on both neighbors' view
corridors.
Also, again, as I indicated in my memorandum of opposition,
this pool deck has not been constructed, and there's no reason,
we believe, no compelling reason that the pool deck cannot be
redesigned to comply with the setback requirements that every
other lakeside lot owner has had to comply with.
Mr. and Mrs. Pavlisin have stated in their petition two reasons
why they want a variance. One is for a larger deck area that
they have indicated will be a safety factor. We dispute that, if
you look at the drawing, they already have ample deck area, and
the other is that it will increase the value of their house. We
submit that that is not an appropriate reason, and there's case
law to support that as a basis for a variance.
One other point that I'd like to make that hasn't been brought
out today, and that is, there is a letter attached to the petition
from Neil Dorrill, the manager of The Strand. That letter was
addressed to the South Florida Water Management District and
did indicate an additional "no objection" to this variance, but the
letter goes on to indicate that there is some concern about the
effect of this variance on the easement and on the ability to
maintain the easement, and that the possibility of a stem wall
should be considered.
Mr. Dorrill's concern is the closer to the lake's edge that this
structure is located, the steeper the bank becomes and the more
problematic and hazardous it becomes to maintain the
easement. So we believe this is a factor as well. We ask that
that petition be rejected.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Mr. Bruet.
COMMISSIONER BRUET:
13 or 147
MR. McCLURE: Thirteen.
COMMISSIONER BRUET:
Sir, you represent the owner of lot
Thirteen. I'm not sure I'm going to
Pa~e 10
June 1, 2000
support the petition, but honestly, I fail to see how your view
would be affected in any way, plus I believe the owner of the
property could build a pool enclosure without a variance, from
what I see here, on your side of the property. He's not asking for
a variance on your side. He could come in and simply move
forward with his development, pull a building permit and do what
he wants to adjacent to lot 13.
MR. McCLURE: Well, you have to use your imagination to
some degree. But certainly I don't think it can be argued that at
He
I
some point on my client's lot 13, his view would be impaired.
would have less of a view had the variance not been granted.
think that's a fact.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: I'm not sure about that. He's
building within -- his building is within his setback specified by
the PUD. I just fail to see your client's case here. I absolutely
fail, unless I'm missing something that's blatantly obvious.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Rautio.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I had the same concern about the
view corridor comments, but my real concern is a little bit of
clarification on the maintenance of the lake bank. How wide is
that easement back there, and what do you say is actually
happening to make it more hazardous to maintain? What's
happening back there?
MR. McCLURE: I'm not sure, and it's somewhat difficult to
tell. This would indicate that there's approximately 10 feet, but I
believe the concern is, if this is the lake bank and this is the
setback line, the closer you move the accessory and structure to
the lake bank, the more you -- the steeper the grading must
become to accommodate that, unless you have a stem wall. And
the steeper the grading becomes, the more hazardous,
potentially, it is to get a lawn mower around the lake bank to cut
the grass and maintain the area.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. So in that 10-foot easement
back there we're going to take five feet away in this particular
area, and you're saying there's grass that has to be mowed back
there?
MR. McCLURE: I believe so. That was certainly Mr. Dorrill's
concern.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Fred, what's the staff opinion on that?
MR. REISCHL: I put the photo back up on the visualizer. As
Page 11
June 1, 2000
you can see, the slope of the bank on there -- and not just
mowing. To the district, that's a minor concern, but basically
their concern is if the homeowners' association fails to maintain
the lakes, the district has to go in and do lake maintenance,
which could include dredging, and they are concerned that their
machinery can get around through the lake maintenance
easement.
It appeared that there was adequate space. Obviously when I
went out, there's low water these past few days, but even as far
as the grass went down, it looked like there was adequate area
to get machinery through there, without being an engineer.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for Mr. McClure?
Thank you, sir.
Is there anyone else from the public to address this item?
There being none, we will close the public hearing.
Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we
recommend for approval petition V-2000-10.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Priddy,
and that would be to forward this petition to the Board of Zoning
Appeals?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And a second by Commissioner Pedone.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I'm not going to support the motion
from the standpoint that I don't see the hardship here, although I
have the greatest sympathy for the petitioners. I think the house
and the lot -- you know, I think the argument is with the
developer or whomever they bought the lot from, and not us.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: I somewhat feel the same, Mr.
Chairman. I also think there's some other pool designs that may
allow -- certainly can allow the owner to move forward without
seeking the variance. I fail to see the hardship.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have the same problem. I fail to
see the hardship. I think some additional steps could be taken to
resolve this, so I can't support the petition either, and as you all
know, I'm not a great fan of variances.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other comments or discussion? Okay.
With that, we will call the question. All those in favor of the
Pa~e 12
June 1, 2000
motion, say aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And those opposed?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Aye.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. With hands, who's for it? We have
four in favor. And those opposed? We have -- one, two, three,
four, opposed. Oh, we're missing a commissioner. That's our
odd number.
So failing a majority, the motion fails.
Do we have another motion to consider?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend petition
V -- excuse me. I recommend petition V-2000-10 not be
forwarded to the BZA with planning commission's approval.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And do we have a second to Commissioner
Bruet's --
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Could I ask a question of our
counsel?
CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can't we just forward it with
the tie?
MS. STUDENT: Well, a tie vote means it fails.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' So that's where you are.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' So I don't think this motion is
necessary.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why do we need another
motion?
CHAIRMAN BUDD.' That's a good point. In terms of legal
appropriateness, is another motion --
MS. STUDENT: We can just send it along.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: So if the motion fails --
MS. STUDENT: If it fails --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- then that's our recommendation.
MS. STUDENT: Then it fails.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Then it fails. So no further action is
Page 13
June 1, 2000
necessary.
MS. STUDENT: When we've had that happen, we have, you
know, done the flip side just to see if there's any change or
anything like that, but we could say --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, that's impeaching our
own --
MS. STUDENT: A tie vote fails.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- our own actions, if we do
that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: With that in mind, we'll not consider a
second motion. The motion fails. The petition is not approved.
We'll move on to the next agenda item, that is V-2000-12. Are
there any disclosures on this?
Anyone wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your
right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Witnesses sworn.)
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services.
This request is for an after-the-fact rear yard encroachment of
one and a half feet into a 10-foot accessory setback in Mill Run
at the Crossings, which is located south of Orange Blossom Drive
between Goodlette and Airport.
And once again, as you can see, this is located on a
lake/preserve easement. The request for the variance is for an
accessory structure. It's hard to see on this scale of the survey.
This is the 10-foot rear yard setback, and I tried to highlight
the one-foot encroachment, but it does go back a foot and a half
beyond the setback line. The CO for the pool was granted in
1998. A survey was presented that showed that it met the rear
yard setback. When the --
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY:
COMMISSIONER BRUET:
question.
Who did that survey?
Yeah. I was going to ask the same
MR. REISCHL: I looked at the electronic records. I can go
back and check the paper records.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, truly, I think this
boards needs to know. Thank you. Go ahead.
MR. REISCHL: It was resurveyed for sale in 1999, and the
encroachment was discovered. Since this was approved in good
faith by the county and accepted by the homeowner, and again,
because it's adjacent to a lake and preserve easement and no
Page 14
June t, 2000
objections were received, staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any comments, questions for staff?
Does the petitioner wish to address the board?
MR. BARANSKI: My name is Rick Baranski --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Come forward to the microphone, please,
either one.
MR. BARANSKI: My name is Rick Baranski. I'm a realtor with
John R. Wood, and I took care of the sale of this property and
was asked to represent the owners.
I don't really have anything else to add other than the fact
that everything was done in good faith unbeknownst to the
owner, when the pool was built in '98, and there's no objections
from any of the neighbors or anything, and it would be a hardship
to chop a foot and a half off the pool deck.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for Mr. Baranski?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Rautio.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It says here that there's a
conservation easement in the back, so there's really no impact
on anybody behind it? It's a conservation easement? MR. BARANSKI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And it's an actual buffer zone.
Okay.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Priddy.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Do you by chance know who did the
survey in 19987
MR. BARANSKI: I'm sorry, I don't.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for Mr. Baranski?
Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address
this item?
We will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll make a motion that we forward
petition V-2000-12 to the BZA with a recommendation of
approval.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Have a motion by Commissioner Pedone,
second by Commissioner Priddy. Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, Mr. Bruet.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Fred, if you could just, at the next
Page 15
June t, 2000
meeting, bring back the surveyor and we'll discuss that further.
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And have that available for the next
meeting. That needs to be public. MR. REISCHL: Yes, for sure.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion? All those in favor,
please say aye.
Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. The petition is approved.
Next agenda item, PUD-99-27. Any disclosures on that?
There are none.
Anyone wishing to present testimony on this item, please
stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court
reporter.
(Witnesses sworn.)
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, current planning
staff. Petitioner is proposing to rezone the subject 16.5 acre site
from agriculture to commercial PUD to be known as the Pine
View PUD.
As you can see on the visualizer, the site's located on the
Southwest corner of Pine Ridge Road and Whippoorwill Lane. It's
also located within the activity center number 10, which is the
1-75 Pine Ridge Road interchange activity center, which allows
for commercial uses.
The surrounding uses within this southwest quadrant is the
existing Sutherland PUD, which has the IHOP Restaurant, hotels,
motels, gasoline service stations, and those types of interstate
businesses.
The subject site's also adjacent to the Pine Ridge Center PUD
to the west, which is currently undeveloped, and to the north is
currently developing Naples Gateway PUD, and the Angileri PUD
to the north, an undeveloped Pine Ridge Corners PUD, Clesen.
This is the PUD master plan proposed by the applicant. It has
five development tracts around a lake in a preserve area.
Access is off of Pine Ridge Road. There is also an east/west
connector road that connects to Whippoorwill and also provides
an interconnection to the adjacent PUD to the west, which would
be Pine Ridge Corners PUD. There's also a secondary access
point to Whippoorwill to the south corner.
Page 16
June 1, 2000
The PUD has been designed to protect the adjacent land uses
to the south, which is the Hospice Center. There would be a
50-foot setback from this tract to the Hospice Center, and also a
type B landscape buffer.
Traffic circulation will be improved with this east/west
connector road that will take commercial traffic, keep it off Pine
Ridge Road, so they can go from the Sutherland Center PUD to
the east to the Pine Ridge Corner -- Pine Ridge PUD to the west
without having to go onto Pine Ridge Road.
Whippoorwill Lane was also under parris study to bring it back
down into Livingston Road, which also will help keep traffic off of
Pine Ridge. That is important because right now Pine Ridge
Road is at level of service F; however, as you can see by the
notation here, that it is scheduled to be improved to six lanes by
the end of this year and should be completed by the end of 2000
-- or somewhere in 2001.
The build-out of this project is anticipated to be about 2007 to
2010, so the level of service will be at acceptable levels at the
time this project is built out. Also, the project trips will not
exceed the level of service standard, five percent of level
supersedes the size capacity, so, therefore it is consistent with
the traffic circulation element.
It's also consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Those
uses are permitted within this interchange activity center. It is
not required to go to the Environmental Advisory Board. The
environmental advisory staff has recommended the changes that
the petitioners made to the PUD document; therefore, staff is
recommending that the CCPC forward this petition to the Board
of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval,
and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? Mr. Wrage.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Just a quick curiosity question.
Ray, on Waterview Circle, there's not a deacceleration lane
coming in there on the right in? It looks like it comes right off of
the three-lane.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's a right in/out, isn't it?
MR. NINO-' Right in, right out, off Pine Ridge.
MR. BELLOWS: Off of Pine Ridge?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Uh-huh.
MR. BELLOWS: The county's acquiring additional right-of-way
Page 17
June 1, 2000
where the petitioner will put in the right turn lanes, yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: So there are turn lanes that are not shown
in this?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. They are working on the --
Transportation Department is working on plans for that
intersection.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Rautio, you had a question. I'm sorry,
Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: And those stipulations have been
incorporated in the PUD document off the right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Ms. Rautio?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: There were no objections?
MR. BELLOWS: No.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Hospice of Naples is pleased with
the --
MR. BELLOWS: No, no objections.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- 50-foot buffer?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, and there's a limitation on height that's
similar to what's allowed in the RMF-6 district, which this
Hospice Center is in, with the landscape buffer, a 50-foot
setback, no one has called to complain.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for Mr. Bellows?
There being none, if we could hear from the petitioner, please.
MR. CARDILLO: Good morning, members of the planning
commission. My name is John Cardillo, and I represent Richard
Myers, trustee, who is the trustee for this project.
What has been set forth by staff is basically everything that
we know about this project or everything that has been planned
about this project, including the cooperation with the county
with respect to the takings on the roadways, both on Pine Ridge
Road as well as Whippoorwill, not only that which has been
taken, but that which the county does intend to take.
This is a non-intensive use of this property. It is not --
certainly not asking for all of those things that are available that
has already been developed there across the street, gas
stations, things like that. This is a low impact, low intensity type
of rezone, and we have cooperated in every way both with
county and with staff, with the EAB and the various boards.
There have been no objections and we would respectfully
Pa~e 18
June l, 2000
request that you forward this with an approval. Is there any
questions?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm just curious why you're
referring to the Hospice as Hope Hospice. I thought it was
Hospice of Naples.
MR. CARDILLO: I don't think I used that word. And if I -- oh,
you mean --
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Because on the plans you keep
saying Hope Hospice here, and I thought Hope Hospice was in
Fort Myers, and it's the Hospice of Naples.
MR. CARDILLO: Correct. I don't think I articulated that. If it's
on there, it's probably a mistake.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It shows up every place in the
documents I'm looking at.
MR. CARDILLO.' As far as I know, we are still in Collier
County.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's what I thought.
MR. CARDILLO: It is the Hospice of Naples, and it was not my
cell phone that went off before, I just want you to know that. I
don't have one.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?
Is there anyone else from the public to address this item?
There being none, we will'close the public hearing.
Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion,
recommend it for approval, PUD 99-27. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD.' We have a motion by Commissioner Wrage,
second by Commissioner Bruet. Is there any discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries, petition is approved.
MR. CARDILLO: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN BUDD.- Next agenda item is PUD 99-6(1). Any
disclosures on this item?
There being none, all those that wish to present testimony,
please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court
reporter.
Page 19
June 1, 2000
(Witnesses sworn.)
MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, planning services.
The current Rigas PUD is a 232 acre PUD which was approved
in 1999. This PUD amendment proposes to add an additional
nine plus or minus acres, bringing the total PUD acreage up to
241 acres.
The previous approved PUD was allowed a maximum of 725
single-family and multi-family dwelling units. This amendment
will bring that maximum number up to 755 dwelling units,
without significantly changing the land use strategy of the
master plan which was previously approved.
This will also be accomplished without changing the
previously approved density of 3.13 dwelling units per acre.
The nine-acre parcel is -- you're probably familiar with it. It is
currently developed with the Jersey Joe's Restaurant and Bar. It
fronts Immokalee Road. This petition proposes to incorporate
that parcel into the existing Rigas PUD.
As a result, this will reduce the traffic impacts on Immokalee
Road, since the commercial use will be eliminated and it will be
substituted with residential use, which has less traffic impact.
Additionally, as a result of this rezoning, we will eliminate two
access points onto Immokalee Road. The currently approved
Rigas PUD access point will be shifted further to line up with the
existing Jersey Joe's access point, and the -- another Jersey
Joe's access point and the old Rigas PUD access point will be
eliminated.
Rezoning the Jersey Joe's parcel to PUD is consistent with
the Growth Management Plan, and staff is recommending
approval.
I wanted to point out, a couple of things to you, first of all,
just to give you an idea of the old PUD master plan versus the
new PUD master plan. This is the existing approved PUD master
plan. The nine-acre parcel is located right about here. I don't
have a great map to show that. And this is the proposed master
plan. As you can see, the land use and development strategy is
very similar to the previously approved PUD.
I also wanted to point out in your staff report there were a
couple of typos, and I told the petitioner I'd point those out so
there was no confusion. On page two and page seven, in the
second paragraph on page two at the last sentence it says that
Pa~e 2 0
June t, 2000
the petitioner will be required to dedicate 150 feet of land for
future right-of-way. That should be 125 feet. The total required
right-of-way for the Logan Boulevard Extension is 150 feet,
however, the county already maintains control over land and
easements in that area to equate to the required 150, and that is
the same on page seven too.
Additionally, you'll note that there were staff comments
attached to your staff report with regard to native vegetation
requirements, and unfortunately at the time of writing of the staff
report there was still some disagreement between petitioner and
staff as to those figures and what the native vegetation
requirements actually were and how they were to be calculated.
We did resolve those issues. The PUD document has been
amended to reflect the necessary vegetation requirements. If
you'd like me to go into detail, I'd be happy to, otherwise I'll just
tell you that we're happy and I believe the petitioner is too, and
we are recommending approval.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question, Susan, or
maybe it's more for Ron Nino. I notice we have five-foot
setbacks proposed for single-family detached homes. Wasn't
there some movement on the part of the county commission to
increase that to at least six feet as opposed to the seven and a
half feet that's normally required?
MS. MURRAY: I do believe that's the case. This petition was
originally approved in 1999 prior to the board's direction.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That movement?
MS. MURRAY: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But it's open again now, isn't
it?
MS. MURRAY: You are correct. Typically what we try to do in
the PUD or PUD rezones is not go back and rehash too much of
the old stuff unless it's very, very outdated. That's really up to
you. If you want to forward that recommendation to the board or
bring that to their attention, you know, I'd be happy to do so in
the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'd sort of like to bring
them up to date, so -- I may not have support on the board, but --
CHAIRMAN BUDD.' We'll see how the motion goes.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO.' Question.
Page 2 1
June 1, 2000
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: On the environmental memorandum
from Barbara Burgeson, dated the 27th of May, there are, what,
six items here that the EAC has approved. Could you clarify
again why this information didn't make it into the document?
You said something about disagreement between petitioner and
staff.
MS. MURRAY: Right. That was probably more pertaining to
items A through C. Item D, Barbara just simply wanted some
clarification as to where those items were located in the
document. Most of their -- or most of their recommendations are
standard requirements that they're -- or that they're required to
submit anyway. Certain permits at a certain time during the
development review process they are required to submit.
So I -- maybe Wayne can explain it a little bit better than me,
but the things that are required are just kind of FYI, informational
things that aren't -- that we don't necessarily require be put in
the PUD document, and the board did approve it that way, so
we're kind of, you know, saying that, well, the board was
presented with the information and they chose to adopt the PUD
with the language as presented in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think this happens on a regular
basis from EAC to the documents. Is there some level of
comfort, perhaps, that we could all have that this does get
included? I mean, is there some real reason that the EAC is on a
regular basis saying I want this stipulation and this stipulation?
This information that's in our Land Development Code placed in
these documents, are they thinking that, perhaps, someone's
going to ignore them in the future?
MS. MURRAY: I'm not really sure. I know that at this time of
this rezoning, I believe that subsequent to that, we've tried to
make the board more aware of the EAC stipulations through
presenting the staff report in their executive summary and by
calling them to their attention so that they are spelled out in the
PUD document exactly as the EAC would wish. That's really
probably the only reasonable answer I could give you.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And just to follow that a little
further. Then it really is not an argument about how much should
be placed in the document by the regulations that the staff was
discussing?
Pa~e 22
June 1, 2000
MS. MURRAY: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay.
MS. MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Any other questions of staff?
If we could hear from the petitioner.
And Mr. Arnold, in your presentation, if you could just be sure
to explain that you are comfortable with the loss of that great
architectural monument and Collier County landmark that is
Jersey Joe's.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. My name is Wayne Arnold. I'm with
Grady Minor and Associates representing G.L. Homes today. One
of the first things that I'd like to note is that the amendment
really is to incorporate the Jersey Joe property, and no, we're
not naming the property Jersey Joe.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: But the significance of the amendment is really
as simple as Susan has mentioned it, and we are in agreement
currently with the way the document has been amended to
reflect the revised native vegetation requirement, but there was
some disagreement how it was calculated, and that goes back to
probably last year and how that was done, and it was based on
how much exotic vegetation was on site.
And since the time of the original environment impact
statement, which was about 18 months ago, there's been two
growing seasons' worth of exotic vegetation, so there's more
exotics out there today than there were 18 months ago.
So we have simply updated that number, and I think reference
to Ms. Rautio's comments relative to the EAC comments, those
comments came to the planning commission, and I'll give you
one example. It references that we should have a 25-foot buffer
around wetland vegetation. Well, that is a South Florida
requirement, it's an Army Corps requirement and it's a Collier
County requirement. That's in our Land Development Code, it's
in the permitting requirements.
It seemed a bit redundant to incorporate that text that's
already required under three other permitting agencies into the
document. Consequently the document physically was not
amended to include a requirement that we have this 25-foot
buffer requirement.
So I think those issues have been resolved, and I don't feel in
Pa~e 23
June 1, 2000
any way that we've compromised the integrity of what the EAC
hoped to do. They recommended approval of the project with
staff's original comments. The only one that was at issue
seemed to be the native vegetation calculation issue because of
the exotic vegetation.
And then relative to Mr. Abernathy's comment relative to the
five-foot setback, a significant amount of planning has taken
place over the last year to go ahead. And you can see the more
refinement in our scenario. We have a preliminary plat approved,
we have footprints now approved for the structures that we hope
to place on those.
Save the nine acre amendment today, we would be pursuing
this without any further action by the county commission or the
planning commission to go ahead and effect this with our
proposed five-foot setbacks, and that's how the project's been
designed and hoped to function, because we do have floor plans
laid out for the balance of this site.
So we would certainly hope that we could go ahead and
acknowledge the five-foot setbacks that are in the code today. I
know that the board has had some discussion. There's been no
formal policy, and I guess I'd just like to say -- and I know I've
heard Ron say it before, that yes, in typical single-family
developments, there is a seven and a half foot side yard setback,
but we are dealing with situations that we're laying out in
planning each and every one of those. The developer builds the
homes. It's not where you have four or five different home
builders who are trying to interpret the setbacks and do the
placement of these. The developer does all the site arrangement
and placement of homes, and they have their theme that lays out
very functional for them in their other communities.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't want to argue that
Wayne, but that's what DiVosta did.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, Ken --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's -- you know, that's
DiVosta tacky as far as I'm concerned, five-foot setbacks.
MR. ARNOLD: I can appreciate that, but I think that also, if
you look at the balance of the PUDs in Collier County, a great
majority of those offer the flexibility of having a five-foot
setback, and I think that many of those communities, including
things like Vineyards, have been designed very tastefully and
Page 24
June 1, 2000
appropriately for the community, and our developer is not
DiVosta, and that's really, I guess all I can say, that we are not
DiVosta, and our community as well doesn't have any visibility
for the residential project itself from any public right-of-way.
It's secluded, you drive in several hundred feet through an
entry feature off of either Logan or Immokalee Road. This
project is not visible, because of the grade, from any public
right-of-way in Collier County, unless you buy a house there.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think your point is well taken
that you're too far along to go back and rethink that at this point,
but --just because you want to add those nine acres.
MR. ARNOLD: Right. It is very difficult for us to do that.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's a poor case for me to try to
make my point.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Priddy.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Arnold, how are you-all to
mitigate the loss of wetland, the true wetland, the bar?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, as Kevin Ratteree, who's here from G.L.
Homes, would tell you, there was more gun shell casings and
broken glass in there than there was alcohol but the time they
took possession of the property, but they do have free and clear
title to that, and as anyone's traveled that road, FP&L is using
that as a staging area for the utility improvements along
Immokalee Road. Yes, the monument will be displaced.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner?
Is there anyone from the public to address this item?
There being none, we will close the public hearing.
Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend this
board send its approval to board of commissioners for
PUD-99-6(1).
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Bruet,
a second by Commissioner Abernathy. Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. That does
include the additional stipulations in the memo?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Those stipulations really -- I don't
think the term stipulation is correct. They're really just
comments referring to the Land Development Code. I just don't
see them being necessary.
Pa~e 2 5
June 1, 2000
CHAIRMAN BUDD.' So you're recommending approval without
those specifically being included? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Abernathy, is that consistent with
your second?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' That's right.
CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Any further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion is approved.
Next?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Mr. Chairman, just as a comment to
some of the newer members of this board, we have on a number
of occasions in the past asked that things that are in our code
not -- specifically not be readdressed, you know, and brought
forward, so I think, you know, our passing of this motion without
those in there is consistent with saving another tree.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I feel comfortable with the fact that
they're not in there. I'm just concerned that this seems to be a
repeated procedure from EAC, and maybe there's a level of
understanding that I'm not focussing on.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, maybe our handling of this
can be passed back to the EAC.
MR. NINO: I've got your message. Not suggest that the EAC
adopt redundant stipulations. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Next agenda item,
PUD-2000-04. Are there any disclosures?
COMMISSIONER PEDONE.' Yes. I spoke with Timothy
Ferguson.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I did also.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I spoke to Mr. Ferguson on the phone.
Anyone else?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: So did I.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I've spoken with Mr. Ferguson a
couple times on the phone.
CHAIRMAN BUDD-' Those are our disclosures.
Anyone wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your
Page 2 6
June 1, 2000
right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Witnesses sworn.)
MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' Good morning, commissioners, Chahram
Badamtchian from planning services staff.
Mr. Tim Ferguson representing Outdoor Resorts of America is
requesting a rezone from agriculture to PUD for an RV resort.
The property located on Immokalee Road is approximately
half a mile east of 951, containing 93.5 acres. This property is
surrounded with vacant agriculture to the east, Vanderbilt Beach
Road with the vacant properties and single families to the -- I'm
sorry. I was thinking of the next one -- the east, and to the west
there's a golf driving range and the plant nursery, to the south
vacant agriculture and Crystal Lake RV Resort, to the north
Immokalee Road and the earth mining activity. That's the Florida
Rock. They are requesting a density of 4.49 units per acre for a
total of 420 units.
The Collier County Land Development Code and the Growth
Management Plan allows up to 12 units for travel trailer park
provided that they are on a major arterial road, which Immokalee
Road is.
This -- the road impact will be 1327 trips per day. Immokalee
Road will be deficient by the time this development is built out,
however, they are under five percent threshold, therefore, it's
consistent with the traffic circulation element of the Growth
Management Plan.
This petition wasn't heard by the EAC. It will be heard this next
Wednesday, this coming Wednesday, and staff recommends
approval of this petition subject to three stipulations, that I
believe, the applicant is agreeable to one of them but disagree
with two others.
Our stipulations are that they are not providing sidewalks within
the development. It's a requirement in the Land Development
Code, and we are asking them that, at least provide six-foot wide
sidewalk on one side of internal roads.
Number two is, we are asking that no CO be issued until the
current four-laning and the intersection improvement on 951 and
Immokalee Road is completed, and then number three is, they
are not providing any interconnections to surrounding properties.
We are asking them to provide interconnection at least to the
property to the east.
Pa~e 27
June 1, 2000
We know that it may be developed with single families and not
be consistent, but at least we have interconnection if property
next door is also a travel trailer park in the future. We would like
to have an interconnection shown on the master plan.
And they can also provide interconnection with Crystal Lakes
(sic) RV Resort, which is to the south, which is a similar type
use, which will provide much better circulation. People can go
to Immokalee Road or 951, Collier Boulevard. And those are staff
stipulations. Staff recommends approval.
The staff has received two letters of objections from people
owning units in the Pebblebrooke Development, which is at the
intersection of 951 and Immokalee Road. Southwest intersect
corner.
Pebblebrooke is known as Richland also. People living here.
That concludes my presentation.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. Ms. Rautio.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You're talking about an
interconnect for Crystal Lakes. Has there been some discussion
with owners of Crystal Lakes RV Resort?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' This is Crystal Lakes. We don't know if
they are going to agree, but we ask the petitioner to please
explore the possibility -- since they did some land swap with
Crystal Lakes, maybe they agree for it. At least it's worth
exploring.
And to the west we have a golf driving range and nursery.
They may not want to have an interconnection, but to the east is
vacant properties, and we would like them to explore the
possibility of providing interconnection.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. And is there any idea how
long the earth mining activity will continue to the north?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe they are almost finished with it,
and it will be a residential development, and I believe U.S.
Homes is interested in buying that. A portion of it is in the urban
area, a portion of it is out, so the urban area, very soon they can
develop as residential.
MR. NINO.' Ron Nino for the record. The fate of Florida Rock,
of course, will depend on the outcome of the rural fringe
assessment committee's findings in terms of the proposed uses
of that property. That's all I'm going to say.
Pa~e 28
June ~, 2000
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I would --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Priddy.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- would pass along that there's
going to be earth mining operations going on there for quite
some time in that Florida Rock has, I believe, a contract to dig
the lakes for Twin Eagles, and so there's going to be some
operation going on there irregardless of how quick the urban
area portion of that property gets developed, so there's going to
be activity there for probably several years irregardless of, you
know, the development.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Bruet.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman. Ron, a year or two
ago, is this the same site in which the board turned down a
similar project?
MR. NINO: No.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Would you just --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The same applicant, different location.
They had applied for this parcel here to the west of Richland,
Laurelwood PUD, and it was turned down because the Board of
County Commissioners, they determined that's not compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood. The surrounding
neighborhood is being developed as residential, mostly single
families.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: I've got one more.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Oh, I'm sorry, please.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: I need to go back to your comment
about interconnection with the adjacent property. You said
you're going to encourage him to negotiate. In here you're
saying requiring interconnection. There's quite a difference
here. I assume this will be reworded?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It can be reworded, but all we are asking
now on the PUD document, PUD master plan, to show an arrow of
the future interconnection. If the property adjacent with it is not
agreeing, then it's a moot point, but at least they can show the
possible interconnection points on the master plan.
MR. NINO: Wouldn't your recommendation really be that we
require an interconnect opportunity to the east to the vacant
property, but that we encourage an interconnect with Crystal
Page 2 9
June 1, 2000
Lake, because whether Crystal Lake is going to allow traffic --
it's a gated community today. It's going to really be up to Crystal
Lake.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: In a sense, Crystal Lake could stop
this project, I guess, if they don't want to provide access. I don't
think that's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I agree with you, Mike. That's one
of the reasons I asked about the interconnect of Crystal Lakes
originally.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yeah. You said recommend, and I
said, gee, I didn't remember the recommend part. I think that
needs to be smoothed out, indeed, if we -- if he gains our support.
MR. NINO: Remember, we're going to be talking about
interconnect constantly.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yeah, I got that.
MR. NINO: That's the new buzzword.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: On the other comment --
MR. NINO: On the other hand, the interconnect with Outdoor
-- Crystal Lakes should not be summarily dismissed, because
there may be actions taken down the road where
interconnectivity -- where there may, in fact, be retrofitting of
neighborhoods to establish retro -- to establish interconnects. It
may not be a voluntarily -- voluntary compliance issue.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy, did you have something?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ken, I had a question about
compatibility. Ron.
MR. NINO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Several months ago we had --
Rich Yovanovich brought a project in on 95t that had a rock
mining operation just behind it, I think. You may remember that.
And I raised the question of compatibility, and Yovanovich found
that sort of amusing saying, well, the market would take care of
that.
Does compatibility run both ways? In other words, if you have
benign projects and noxious projects, if you're coming with a
benign project, the fact that it's going right next to something
noxious, that doesn't matter as opposed to coming in with a rock
quarry next to a developed residential area? Do you look at it
both ways?
MR. NINO: Well, you know, when you talk about rock quarries,
Pa~e 30
June 1, 2000
they are -- planners would look at those as temporary uses of
land, that as soon as the resource runs out or a higher and better
use comes along, it's going to be developed for a use that's
consistent with the Growth Management Plan. So the primary
issue is really not compatibility but consistency with the land.
The Master Land Use Plan for Collier County is really the
overriding consideration in that kind of a relationship.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, then how long is a
temporary noxious use inconsequential if you're living next door
to it, across the street from it?
MR. NINO: Until the market conditions override the economic
feasibility of continuing to mine it.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, that's a caveat emptor
sort of approach, isn't it? I mean, I can just see down the road
somebody saying, why in the name of God did the county permit
somebody to build houses across the street from a rock quarry
and the windows are rattling and the pictures are falling off the
walls.
MR. NINO: Because we view those uses as temporary and
because the overriding concern is consistency, and the people,
knowing full well that there's a rock quarry across from them,
decide to, you know, live in that kind of an environment, then
that decision is up to them. The primary overriding issue is
consistency with the master plan.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions --
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- of staff report?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: On our favorite subject of requiring
sidewalks, you're actually asking that it be required. There must
have been some major discussions between staff and the
petitioner about why or why not.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. Well, the development code
requires --
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes.
MR. NINO: On two sides.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- on both sides of the road, each and
every road; however, in the past, we had several similar projects
that were approved with a sidewalk on one side of the road, six
foot wide sidewalk on one side of the road, so that's what we are
Page 31
June 1, 2000
asking now, but the applicants, they basically said, no, they are
not willing to provide sidewalks.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I guess I'll wait to hear why the
applicant doesn't want to have sidewalks in this project. We'll
wait for them.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of staff?
MR. NINO: I think the most important recommendation here,
again, is the recommendation that they, in fact, delay their
development until the completion of the four-laning of Immokalee
Road, and I think we all understand why that recommendation is
made.
Immokalee Road has some intolerable conditions along there
and they're not -- certainly not assisted by the construction
activity that's going on, and we're dealing with what are going to
be awfully large vehicles rolling down the road to this outdoor
resort project, and that further exacerbates the transportation
issue.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: What kind of time frame --
MR. NINO: Perhaps Ed Kant would like to speak to that,
because it is an important recommendation here, one that we
don't normally do.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Well, before Ed gets there, I'd be
more than happy to trade one RV for two dozen dump trucks.
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director.
The Immokalee Road project for four-laning from 951 up to
43rd Street, which nobody knows where that's at, it's just past
the fairground, is -- we just recently made a recommendation to
the board to award a design contract for that eight mile project.
That will be designed in this upcoming fiscal year. The
construction will most likely take place in '03, '04, with
right-of-way between design construction, probably in '02.
Right now anyone -- it doesn't take a traffic engineer to go out
there and recognize that we've got some significant problems on
that particular roadway. Those problems are exacerbated by the
fact that it seems that the only place we can find now for earth
mining is in the vicinity of Immokalee Road, and all of the truck
traffic and all of the commuter traffic and all of the tourist traffic
must use that one major arterial roadway.
So that is going to continue to be under stress for probably
another two to three years, possibly as long as four years if you
Pa~e 32
June t, 2000
include the construction period.
So on that basis, it would make sense, depending upon what
the developer's schedule is for their own infrastructure
improvements, to try to phase or keep this project from adding to
that already stressed situation.
And I don't disagree with what Mr. Wrage said about trading in
one RV for four or five or six or however many dump trucks, but
the fact remains, they're still large vehicles, they're still very
unwieldy, even on 951 down by Country Campin', we had to make
some rather extraordinary accommodations in order to allow
those vehicles simply to turn around to get in and out of the
campground, and that's already a four-lane situation. So I think
it's important when you consider these type of facilities to keep
these issues in mind.
We're not suggesting for one minute that this is not an
appropriate use. We're not suggesting for one minute that it
shouldn't be approved, but we do have some reservations, and
we want to get those on the record. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other for Mr. Kant or Chahram?
Okay. With that we will hear from the petitioner, please.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: May I add something?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: When I talked about four-laning, I didn't
mean the four-laning all the way past the fairgrounds. I meant
existing four-laning all the way to 951, otherwise, we have to
delay this project about four or five years, which I don't believe
they are willing to do or we should ask that.
Maybe we can ask for some phasing. What I meant now, we
have construction going on between 1-75 and 951, and I did not
want to have trailers traveling there with that construction going
on, and I asked that be delayed until the four-laning and
intersection is improved.
In my staff report, I get a little carried away asking that no CO
until four-laning in front of this development is complete, which
is going to take at least five years. Probably I should have said
some phasing of the project or just the --
MR. NINO: Your recommendation is based on the current --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Current.
MR. NINO: -- four-laning contract for Immokalee Road?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Current project, correct.
Page 33
June 1, 2000
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Which should be completed?
MR. NINO: In a year.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: In a year or so.
MR. NINO: Year or so.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I don't think you need to
apologize for that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD-' Any other final discussion with staff?
MR. FERGUSON: Good morning. For purposes of the record,
Tim Ferguson.
To jump right to the chase here, as far as the traffic issue
goes, we've agreed to withhold CO on the project until the
existing four-laning of Immokalee Road is finished.
We believe that, for some reasons that Mr. Perry will address
in a second here for you, that most of our traffic impact will be to
the west. The project will be maybe a thousand feet from the
four-laning.
We don't project -- we project very little traffic to be going
east where the real problem is. Most everyone will be going from
75 or from 951 to our project and then back that way. So our
impact on the part of the road that we're talking about four or
five years from now should be very, very small, and the impact
that we will have will be mitigated by the improvements, and I'll
let Mr. Perry speak to that.
Quickly, on the interconnectivity, we're a gated, walled
community. It's supposed to be offering security. We don't
believe -- and I believe we have some representatives from
Crystal Lake here -- that Crystal Lake wants any
interconnectivity. They may be able to speak to that.
As far as the commercial, we wouldn't want any
interconnectivity with the commercial, so basically we don't feel
like there's a real need for interconnectivity. I'm going to have
the CEO of Outdoor Resorts explain to you why we believe that
sidewalks aren't needed. I believe that the requirement for
sidewalks was basically targeted toward areas that would have a
residential element to it, and our project does not have a
residential element to it at all. It's all RVs.
As far as Florida Rock goes, we have agreed to place in our
project report, which is required by the state to be given to
anybody that's going to purchase a lot in our development, that
they understand that, in fact, there's a mining activity going on
Page 34
June 1, 2000
across the street and they understand that there's going to be
blasting, so they know before they come that is going to be an
issue.
But for travel trailers, they're on shocks. They drive around.
It's not the same kind of an issue that we would have if you were
going to have a slab and a house and that kind of thing, so we
don't believe that it's going to be as much of an issue.
I talked to Mr. Ron Inge yesterday. We discussed even putting
something in to the effect of, that they would waive the right to
complain unless it was a violation of ordinance; however, after
further consideration of that, people think a lot of things are
violations of ordinances, and try to tell somebody what is and
what is not. We don't want to get into that.
We will be happy to warn them that there is blasting, that they
understand that before they buy property, to try to accommodate
Florida Rock on that, and we understand that issue.
And so for right now, I'd let Mr. Perry come up and address the
traffic issue.
MR. PERRY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and commissioners.
For the record, my name is Jeff Perry with Wilson Miller.
As Mr. Ferguson's pointed out, the vast majority, up to 90
percent or more, of the traffic that are using this particular site
will be generated to the west. This site also is, as you know, is
at a density that is comparable to residential areas. In fact, I
think the staff report points out that it's less than the
Pebblebrooke density.
I'd also point out that the traffic generated by a project of this
type is significantly less, in fact, one-third the traffic that is
generated by comparable single family houses. Add to that the
fact that there is a high seasonal occupancy rate, which means
there is a very low summer occupancy rate, and you, again,
reduce the traffic even more.
The traffic that's mentioned in the staff report is a hundred
percent traffic that is seasonal. We suspect that on the average
-- annual average basis, there would be significantly less traffic
actually moving to the west.
I believe everybody realizes that the problem associated with
Immokalee Road right now is at that intersection. Now, that
portion of the intersection will be improved as part of the new
construction that's underway, will be carried through the
Pa~e 35
June 1, 2000
intersection to the east about a thousand feet in transition back
to two lane where our turn lanes will pick up. So we don't
believe that the impact of our vehicles, once that road is
four-laning (sic) and the four-laning is completed, our impact
should be minimal on any traffic traveling that portion of the
roadway.
And as Mr. Ferguson pointed out, there is literally no traffic
going east of the site. There's no real destinations to the east
that our users would want to head towards.
If you have any specific questions about traffic, I'll be glad to
answer them, otherwise we'll wait for any other comments.
CHAIRMAN BUDD.' There appear not to be any.
MR. PERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERGUSON: Right now I'd like to introduce Randall
Henderson, CEO of Outdoor Resorts, and he's going to discuss
the sidewalk issue.
MR. HENDERSON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Randall Henderson. I'm president of Outdoor Resorts.
The sidewalk issue is not an economic issue in regard to our
situation. It's purely a situation that we're not a subdivision in
the sense of a conventional single-family subdivision with
sidewalks and streets and things of that nature. We're a gated,
24-hour security resort.
And I do want to add here, this is for motor coach only. This
is not -- I heard mentioned and I know people use travel trailer
and fifth wheel motor homes interchangeably. They're all
recreational vehicles. But this particular resort is designed
singularly for motor homes, and that is never a situation where it
becomes -- evolves, if you would, to a mini mobile home park,
and I won't go any further than that, but I think everyone knows
what I'm speaking of.
You start off with a recreational vehicle facility and it is --
park models are put in or fifth wheels are put in, and they remain
there somewhat permanently, and you truly almost do evolve to
somewhat of a residential type community with permanent living
and, perhaps, evolving towards the use of sidewalks and things
of that nature.
What we've found with the motor coach resort or motor home
resort is we use our streets for walking and strolling and riding
bikes, and we have a 24-hour security, we have a 10 mile an hour
Page 3 6
June 1, 2000
speed limit which is strictly enforced and people enjoy.
We have lights all around the street, low, three foot high at
each lot, which give you lighting for evening walking.
But in this instance, the only reason we're asking for doing
away with the sidewalks is there's no need for them. We do not
permit any on-street parking. All of the pads are double wide so
that the singular car -- that's all you can have if you have a motor
home, the car that you would have with you. Or if you have
guests coming to visit, they can park on your lot. They're double
wide in terms of the size of the width of the lot.
So that's the one issue. And I have some -- I didn't get them in
to the staff in time for a -- to go in your packets. I have some
photos which depict three other resorts that we have which
clearly demonstrate the way the lots are designed. And to be
quite candid, it's aesthetics, it's trying to preserve more green
and more lawn space and things of that nature within the
complex. We have dedicated about 50 percent of this facility to
golf and lakes, and the -- actually almost 60 percent, and some
40, 45 percent is dedicated to the actual spaces. So we're trying
to put as much green into the property as possible.
And if I might go back just once. As far as the interconnect, I
certainly understand that regarding subdivisions and
communities. It certainly makes a lot of sense. I can
understand it. This is a hundred percent gated community with a
gatehouse, with 24-hour security. I don't know whether there
will be residential next door or RV or what the case may be.
I happen to know the Crystal Lakes situation. They have been
a gated community for quite some time now. Bill is present here
to speak to that issue, if necessary, but I cannot imagine their
owners' association desiring even -- we'd be flattered if they
would let us come and go, but even as a neighbor and a good
neighbor, I can't imagine them, from a security point of view or
otherwise, wanting to give up that nice position that they have
right now. Those are the two issues that I think I was asked to
try to address.
CHAIRMAN BUDD.' We'd be glad to look at your photos if you
wanted to pass them down, but just be aware, once you give
them to us, they become part of the public record and we keep
them.
MR. HENDERSON: Thanks. I'll do that.
Page 37
June 1, 2000
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for this gentleman?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I have one.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have one.
MR. HENDERSON: There's three different ones. These are a
couple of the other ones. And all they're demonstrating -- and I
didn't know I was going to be doing that, but they're
demonstrating --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir, if you would speak from the leetern,
then the court reporter can get all of your valuable words down
in the record.
MR. HENDERSON: I apologize. Those photos were not taken,
as you can, no doubt, tell, specifically to demonstrate whether or
not we have sidewalks. We just quickly looked through a couple
of properties that we have in different places depicting the road,
the lot, and the units on them to demonstrate that at least in
other areas -- we've been developing the resorts now for 20 -- oh,
my goodness, 31 years, and we have not put sidewalks in them
ever as an RV resort, and it has never been an economic
decision. It's always been one of aesthetics and encouraging
people to use and enjoy the roadways. Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: What's the average length of stay
of the motor coach?
MR. HENDERSON: I would basically say very similar to any
second home market. I would guess somewhere, two to three
months, but I think it would really be very similar to anyone else
with a second home in the market, the length of time. They're
never inclined to stay quite the length of time that you might if
you had a travel trailer that you might leave and come and go or
sometime not even have the means to pull it, just simply put it in
a place and use it sort of as your second home and leave it there
all the time even though the person comes and goes. In the
event of a motor home, because of the investment aspect, I think
people are inclined to use them in areas where the climate is
most attractive during the particular time; in other words, come
down and use it in the winter and then, perhaps, take it to North
Carolina and use it there in the spring or summer.
But I, in response to your question, I would say on average,
two to three months. I would imagine that the -- Bill here from
Crystal Lakes would .have a better idea because they have motor
home owners there, they have some probably -- I'd say several
Page 38
June t, 2000
hundred, and that would be an actual fact, and I don't think ours
will vary much from what goes on at Crystal Lakes.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So as a follow-up. Then you don't
anticipate people leaving their motor coach homes behind? MR. HENDERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: They take them with them?
MR. HENDERSON: They take them with them.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Wrage.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: And knowing the past feelings of
this board and the county, given the choice of sidewalks of two
or one, two narrow ones or one wide one on one side, which
would be your choice or --
MR. HENDERSON: Well, obviously, if we are required to do it, I
would want to think about the aesthetics. We would certainly do
what we're required to do. I'm not sure which one gives the most
functional use. I suspect we would possibly want to put a
narrow one on either side to keep it balanced so as not to intrude
on someone's lot with an extensive sidewalk. I suppose we'd
want to keep it balanced and have it aesthetically look the same.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Is there a choice of the sidewalk
you get?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Either two sidewalks, each one five foot
wide, or one sidewalk, six foot wide. Those are the choices.
MR. HENDERSON: That makes it easier. I thought it was
three and three. If it's two fives and one six, in response to your
question, certainly we'd rather do one six.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Well, in light of a lot of
communities, their six foot sidewalk is, i.e., a six foot sidewalk
as well as a bicycle path, and I would assume these folks have
bicycles as well as our neighborhood.
MR. HENDERSON: Certainly. They'll ride them in the street no
matter what we do, but --
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I understand.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for this gentleman?
Thank you, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any-- Mr. Ferguson, any other
presentation?
MR. FERGUSON: I'm going to reserve any other comment for
rebuttal, for after the public.
Page 39
June 1, 2000
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Mr. Chairman, may I add something?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' I was just handed a petition signed by 62
people opposing this. It was faxed to us at 8:45 this morning, so
I wasn't here. They are people owning properties in
Pebblebrooke Lakes and Heritage Green. There are 62
signatures in here.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Do they state what the opposition
is?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. The applicant -- whereas the
applicant is applying to the board and market the community for
use of large recreational vehicles on a property located on the
south side of Immokalee Road just east of Collier Boulevard, and
whereas the proposed use will add additional large vehicles to
the already busy and congested area which is primarily intended
for single-family and low-density residential communities, and
whereas the area surrounding the requested is recreational
vehicle PUD currently in the location of an elementary, comma,
middle and high school with associated daily traffic of students,
parents and buses, and whereas the applicant has previously
been denied the requested zoning and PUD amendments on
September 23rd, 1997, for reasons including exactly the identical
information as outlined above, and whereas the applicant was
previously advised that the desired use would be more
compatible in other areas of Collier County, now therefore, we
undersigned residents of Pebblebrooke Lakes -- the other one is
exactly the same, just saying Heritage Greens -- Pebblebrooke
Lakes do hereby request the denial of the requested PUD in order
to avoid the unnecessary additional traffic of recreational
vehicles in this area of North Collier County, which is primarily
suited for homes and schools.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Chahram.
MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, I have two registered speakers.
Kent Kolegue and Randall Henderson.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Excuse me. Chahram, may I just
see that petition?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: If you would come forward, please, to the
lectern, state your name for the record. We'd like to hear from
you.
MR. NINO.' And Ronald Inge.
Page 4 0
June 1, 2000
MR. KOLEGUE: I am Kent Kolegue. I live on Woodcrest Drive,
I abut the property. The proposal before you on the south side of
the development shows vacant land. I can assure you, the home
has been there for 20 years, and it's typical of developers and
their engineers to white out that there is an existing home there.
I do not want RVs. I do want to have some single-family
housing in that area. I currently have Crystal Lakes in my back
southwest corner. Fairly good neighbor, some complaints during
the high season with noise from them.
The traffic is a huge issue. Sometimes it takes me up to 10
minutes to get out Woodcrest Drive turning west on Immokalee
Road. With an RV, it would be even worse.
He's talking 1300 plus trips a day. Even 90 percent of them
turning west is another 1170 trips to the west, which is only
going to further destroy that area. We don't need any more
traffic.
I'm glad to hear U.S. Homes is working with the quarry to
develop that area into housing. It certainly is the appropriate
use in that area, and my biggest concern really lies in the water
and sewer. I have not heard that addressed yet, whether they're
going to be on wells or septic, especially in the drought
conditions we have right now and seem to be facing in the last
few years as well, the issues that deal with that, if they're going
to be sucking wells out.
I now have golf courses to my east, which are also affecting
the water table. I'm very concerned about whether I'll have
water for my well available.
Those are my concerns. The traffic issue being the biggest
one. I really want to see some residential housing, single-family
in that area rather than RVs.
The other issue, I went and met with Chahram, and we went
through the whole proposal. Next to my home they have a -- I
believe a 15-foot buffer. But further to the west, they pop it out
to a hundred feet. And if there's anything, if this even comes
close to passing, I would want a hundred foot buffer on my home
as well. I don't know why they did that, and it would certainly
seem to be in spite. The issue there is strictly my privacy. I
would like to have the buffer there. It's not a compatible use
with my home.
The distance from my home to Crystal Lakes is approximately
Page 41
June t, 2000
four hundred plus feet, which makes it tolerable. And that's my
concern. The water-sewer issue or water septic, well-septic, is a
major concern here as well.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Thank you, sir. Yes, Mr. Priddy.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Can we get Chahram to show us the
15-foot buffer in his home and orient us to --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. What he's talking about is -- I
believe his house is somewhere in here, and there's a 15-foot
buffer shown in here, which is the minimum required by the Land
Development Code. And as you come further west, this jumps to
one hundred feet, and basically what he's asking is to continue
this hundred foot all the way to the east property line.
MR. FERGUSON: If I might address that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Ferguson.
MR. FERGUSON: That -- the piece of property that looks like a
buffer is actually owned by Crystal Lake. It's not a buffer at all.
It's a piece of property that we swapped with Crystal Lake. It's
not a buffer at all. We don't have any hundred-foot buffers.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: But your master plan says hundred foot
landscape buffer on it. See? One hundred foot landscape buffer.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, while you're studying that issue, if
we could hear from the next speaker, and we will come back to
you after you've had a chance to check your documents. Ron, who is the next speaker?
MR. NINO: Kent Kolegue? Randall Henderson? Ronald Ino
(sic}, Inge or whatever it is. Inge, I-N-G-E, is it? MR. INGE: That's pronounced Inge.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. With Mr. Inge coming forward, that
reminds me, I had neglected to disclose earlier on that I did
receive a letter from him regarding this issue and I had
overlooked that in the earlier disclosures.
MR. INGE: Thank you, Chairman Budd. My name is Ron Inge,
representing Florida Rock Industries.
I previously sent each one of you-all a letter concerning this
request and some concerns that we had with respect to it.
Several items have been raised today, and I'd like to address
a couple of those. First being the status of our arrangements
with U.S. Homes. It's been widely publicized that they have an
interest in our quarry for some future development, the proposal,
however, that's subject to a great deal of permitting and
Page 42
June 1, 2000
compliance about the rules and regulations, not only of Collier
County, but all the other jurisdictional agencies that have some
influence and impact on that development.
And so for our planning purposes, we operate under the
assumption that we're going to be there for several more
decades. And that's the result -- and that's why we wrote the
comments that we did in our letter. Whether the U.S. Homes
proposal is approved and whether we close or not is still -- still
remains to be seen, and we have to operate under the
assumption that it won't happen for our own protection.
We've been at that quarry for several years, and Mr. Abernathy
raises an excellent point about what might be termed a noxious
use as probably one of the various ways we've been described.
We operate in the unenviable position of being a use that no one
seems to like but everyone has to have.
Everywhere we operate around the country, we try to locate
our facilities away from the population centers because of the
blasting that we have to do and the truck traffic and things of
that nature. And then what typically happens is, residential
development starts to move into that area, and we tend to be
looked upon as someone who's causing problems for all the
neighbors, and we tend to have a lot of complaints filed against
US,
Just as an example -- and use something in Lee County to the
north. We built the regional, now International Airport up there in
the 80s, and there was a subdivision that was proposed near the
end of the west runway, and that was allowed to go through
under the representations that, hey, we know the airport's there.
There's no problem.
Well, guess who generates the most complaints against that
airport in Lee County, is that very subdivision, regardless of what
was represented by the developers when they put that project in.
The same thing will happen here. Everyone will say, hey, we
know the rock quarry is there. We'll represent in the project
information sheet that it's there, and fairly soon thereafter
everyone will forget that, and then Collier County will be faced
with fielding complaints about our operation.
Currently there is one resident that lives somewhat near our
quarry that moved in after we were well underway, and for a
number of years, nothing happened. But recently they've started
Page 43
June 1, 2000
to complain about our operations, and so far this year we've
spent $80,000 altering our blasting methods to try to comply with
the wishes of that resident, even though the whole time, and
even before we opted those methods, we were less than 30
percent of what the Collier County blasting ordinance allows us
to do.
So we try to be good neighbors. We try to do that all over the
country, but the exceptions that people have about any ground
vibration from blasting is that it's going to tear everything up and
so forth and so on. And there have been numerous studies by the
U.S. Bureau of Mines, Dade County recently completed a
$200,000 study to address the impacts of blasting in proximity to
residential structures, and though we're fairly confident and we
know that the operations that we undertake are in compliance
with all those and won't cause any structural damage, but it does
not eliminate the complaints that residents bring about our
operations.
In this case it will be Mr. Tom Cook and others to try to
address something that we feel is within the rules and
regulations, doesn't cause any problem. The same thing will
happen here.
I appreciate the fact that Mr. Ferguson said they'll disclose
that we're there. He and I talked yesterday, and I was hopeful
we could go that one step further so that everyone would know
that as long as we're in compliance with the Collier County
blasting ordinance as under the Land Development Code, that
they don't need and can't and shouldn't file any complaints,
because, again, Mr. Cook and the code enforcement service
monitor that very closely. They're out on site almost every time
we blast. They check the readings, they know whether we're in
violation or not, and we have not been.
My concern is that when you allow this to happen, we're going
to be fielding complaints, Collier County is going to be fielding
complaints. We don't think they'll be warranted, but we'll spend
a great deal of effort and energy, and so will you.
So that extra step of requiring that residents acknowledge
that as long as the county's monitoring that, as long as we're in
compliance with the rules and regulations, then they have no
basis to complain, will at least provide some level of protection.
It will not eliminate the complaints though. I can assure you
Page 44
June 1, 2000
those will happen and that will go forward.
Just to address again the noxious use issue. I did a study for
Daniels Extension -- no, not Daniels Extension, but six-laning of
Daniels Road in Lee County to try to address what would happen
to we taxpayers if you didn't have rock quarries and the ability to
generate raw materials in close proximity.
The six-laning of that roadway from U.S. 41 to 1-75 would have
cost the taxpayers 17 percent more or about $1.3 million more.
That same thing will happen in Collier County, that same thing
will happen with every home we build. It would rather cost us 15
to 20 percent because we'll have to transport those materials
from Miami, under the assumption we can even get them. We
sell everything we produce in Miami, as do all the other quarries,
so the price will even go up further, so we've got to protect the
ability to utilize these natural resources that we're given for the
future growth and economic development of our community.
Any questions?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: How frequently do you blast?
MR. INGE: We blast one to two times per week. That may
accelerate because, again, as I mentioned, we're altering our
blasting methods. We're trying to reduce the number of holes
that we drill to shoot, but we'll have to blast more times to try to
eliminate some of the vibrations and noise even further down
from what the ordinance allows us to do, so we may end up
blasting four times per week.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Was I somewhat correct in my
assumption that, irregardless of the U.S. Homes deal, you-all are
going to be there for a few more years?
MR. INGE: We don't have an arrangement with Twin Eagles.
We will be there for at least -- well, let's assume the Collier
County project is approved tomorrow. We'll be there for three or
four years under our agreement with them on what areas we're
allowed to excavate, and then as U.S. Homes develops, they'll
likely have to blast and excavate water retention lakes and what
have you that will be a continuation of per se mining activity for
several years as well.
So even if that project's approved, I can see five to six years
minimum of blasting and excavation activities ongoing. Again, if
it's not approved, we plan on being there for several more
decades. We have the reserves to do that. And we do have all
Page 45
June 1, 2000
the proper permitting as well.
MR. NINO: Is it Mr. Inge?
MR. INGE: Yes, sir.
MR. NINO: All that you've stated on the record applies equally
to standard housing; would it not? MR. INGE: Yes, sir.
MR. NINO: So are you suggesting that properties that are
neighboring you now be placed in a moratorium even though one
comes forward with a proposal that is consistent with the
county's land use plan?
MR. INGE: No, sir, I'm not proposing that at all. I'm also vice
chairman of Lee County's local planning agency, and one of the
things that I value highly are private property rights. I feel that
everyone is entitled to a reasonable use of their land; however,
when they use that, they need to be cognizant of what uses are
adjacent and nearby and recognize the fact that someone was
there before them, and they can't move in after the fact and then
decide they don't like what their neighbors are doing.
They need to be cognizant of that, and that's why I've
requested that these extra protectants be built into this
application.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: A comment. Maybe Mr. Henderson
would be willing to discuss putting a very attractive,
aesthetically pleasing sign at the entrance that there is a
blasting operation that is across the road, and that would be
noticed every time anyone came in or out.
MR. INGE: I suspect they'll see that activity anyway, because
our scale house is fairly close to the road. The sign is just going
to be something that, while I think it's an additional step that
would help us, I don't think that's going to stem the complaints.
I've been around too many of these to see what happens. It
happens every time.
MR. NINO: Excuse me. Does the current PUD document have
that notice in it?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, it does not, but that's what I was
going to suggest. We have developments by the airport, and any
time anybody wants to buy there or rent a unit, they make them
sign a letter saying that we know the airport is here and is going
to generate noise. We can have the same thing developed into
Page 46
June 1, 2000
this PUD document so anybody trying to buy a lot or rent one,
sign that letter that they know that they're going to hear
blasting.
COMMISSIONER BRUET.' Sales contracts or leases can
contain paragraphs talking to that subject.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Good idea.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further comments?
MR. FERGUSON: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Hold on. We can only speak from the
lectern one at a time so we can keep the conversations -- any
other comments?
MR. INGE: No other comments on my part.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Thank you, sir.
Ron, do we have any other speakers?
MR. NINO: I don't have any other speakers.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Now you're on, Mr. Ferguson.
MR. FERGUSON: We are happy to put whatever warnings that
Mr. Inge would like to have. If it's already being done in a
manner that -- we suggested that we would put the language in
our project report which has to be given to everyone that buys
something in our project. We'll be happy to add the extra
language that we discussed earlier. We don't think it's going to
help him any, but if that's what he wants, that's fine with us.
I mean, we'll add the language that they're not entitled to
complain unless they're in violation of-- unless Florida Rock is in
violation of the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER BRUET.' Just give Mr. Inge an opportunity to
review the paragraph. I think we can go a long ways.
MR. FERGUSON: Okay. That's fine, when it's developed.
As far as this buffer issue goes, the extra landscape buffer
that was added was added in order to meet 25 percent natural
vegetation requirement, and we will be happy to move that buffer
from where it is now to the property adjacent to the resident's
house. There was no real reason for it being right there. We just
-- it looked like a good place. We'll move -- we actually had a
maintenance building that was going in on the other. We'll move
the maintenance building and put the buffer adjacent to his
house.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any other comments or
Page 4 7
June t, 2000
questions for the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: On the traffic issue, the petition
that was read to us from Heritage Greens and Pebblebrooke, I
guess.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Brooke.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It's talking about a congested area
primarily intended for single-family and low density residential
communities. This is Immokalee Road that we're talking about,
and I think there's a clear misunderstanding of what that road is
used for, and I think they missed the point in that petition.
Whereas I am sympathetic, it's not just for low density
residential areas and schools. I want that on the record.
MR. FERGUSON: Sure. As a matter of fact, there's a
commercial activity center right there at that road. The road is
going to be widened, the intersection is going to be improved.
It's going to make a big difference for the traffic there. They
bought property right across the street from Crystal Lake. I
guess they didn't have too much of a problem with that when
they did it. If it was such a big problem, I'm sure they would
have located their residence someplace else.
So we believe that after the widening -- the current widening
of Immokalee Road, the traffic impact's going to be substantially
reduced, and we certainly feel like we're compatible with our
surrounding uses. We've got rock crushing on one side, we've
got the same or similar use on the other, we've got commercial
on the other. I couldn't think of a better place to have this
particular use.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I think we have to keep in mind,
too, that, you know, Mr. Wrage, given a choice of dump trucks
and this motor home, given a choice of a motor home and a home
with four people in it year-round as opposed to a motor home
that's here for three months seems to be a nice choice for me.
And that's our -- you know, would be our alternative, to build
single-family homes on the same property that, you know,
residents are going to be here -- perhaps here year-round, so it
seems to be somewhat of a win-win situation, and the cost of
these homes are equal to or exceed the cost of the homes in the
two subdivisions that are -- brought forth this petition.
MR. FERGUSON: This is a very upscale development, and the
prices of RVs go from anywhere from a couple thousand to a
Page 48
June 1, 2000
million dollars. We're not talking about -- we're not talking about
anything low-scale here.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think one other issue that is still
hanging is the sidewalks, you know, one sidewalk or not. Do you
want us to force you to do that and you're going to agree?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, we heard from the president of the
company that said, if we make them do it, he'd prefer one six
rather than two fives, and unless you change it, that's their
position.
MR. FERGUSON: That's our position.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any other speakers? Yes, sir.
While you're coming forward, were you sworn in? MR. CHEANEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Please come forward and state your
name and we're glad to hear what you have to say.
MR. CHEANEY: Good morning, commissioners. My name is
Mr. William Cheaney. I am the manager of Crystal Lake Resort,
and I represent the property owners.
A couple of issues were brought forth this morning. Number
one, the last one I just heard was the noise from the mining
issue. I've been manager of that facility for going on three years.
I have never had one complaint in respect to noise coming from
the mining operation of Florida Rock. It's never come across my
desk, and I have never consulted or called any of the code
enforcement officers in respect to that.
Another issue respective, as brought forth, pertaining to
connecting roads, Mr. Henderson addressed that. From our
standpoint, that has not been addressed with us at all, but we
are a 24-hour gated community also. In fact, we just installed
new iron gates in front of the community.
You know, if that was an issue to be discussed, we would be
more than happy to discuss that, but I don't know what the
outcome would be. Obviously that would have to be brought to
my attention and to the Board of Directors' attention and
possibly, more than likely, to all the residents of the community.
You know, there's one way in and one way out. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: How long do your people stay?
MR. CHEANEY: Yeah. That was another issue brought up.
Page 4 9
June l, 2000
Typically with motor coaches -- we have 489 lots in our facility.
Approximately 350 of those are used primarily for motor
coaches, and, you know, they kind of straggle in sometimes in
December, stay for a month, or there are others -- we're probably
at our peak for two or three months, January, February, March.
Right now I have 40 people in the facility total, so -- and it's been
that way for, you know, probably about six weeks now.
So again, I think to paraphrase Mr. Henderson, two or three
months is pretty standard when you have the residents
themselves, but we have a rental operation that traverses in the
community, and, you know, they'll stay two, three, four, weeks,
and, again, hook up their coach and away they go, and we don't
see them for another year. So the traffic now is -- there is no
traffic really.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And speaking of traffic, your motor
coach comes in, stays for a while, then leaves? They don't drive
these things around? They're using a small car, right?
MR. CHEANEY: No, ma'am, they -- yeah. They usually tow
very small vehicles behind them, either a Saturn or -- a couple of
them have Rolls-Royces that they happen to pull with them,
Cadillac Escalades, so it kind of varies depending on the coach.
As Mr. Ferguson addressed, these coach units go from
200,000 to well in excess of a million, and once they park them,
that's where they stay, and they'll use the vehicle that they tow
behind to do any other, you know, local trafficking in the county.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Thank you.
MR. CHEANEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We had no other speakers, so we will
close the public hearing. Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we
forward PUD-2000-04 to the Board of County Commissioners,
recommendation for approval to include at least one six foot
sidewalk. We already addressed Immokalee Road. We highly
recommend an interconnect for the properties to the east and to
the south, and that there be added a disclaimer that we
discussed with the rock quarry.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: In the sales contract.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: In the sales contract.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Can you add the one hundred foot
Page 50
June t, 2000
buffer?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Well, they already agreed to that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And that will be part of your motion,
that it's moving the buffer. Okay. Do we have a second to that
motion?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I have a second by Commissioner Bruet.
Any further discussion?
There being none, all those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER BUDD: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Break time?
CHAIRMAN BUDD: And we will take a break.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Ms. Rautio and Mr. Saadeh, if we can
reassemble, we will finish our business today.
Okay. We're all back in order, and we will resume our
planning commission meeting and move right into PUD-2000-05.
Are there any disclosures on this item?
There being none, anyone wishing to present testimony,
please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court
reporter.
(Witnesses sworn.)
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners. Chahram
Badamtchian from planning services staff. Michael Fernandez
representing the Diocese of Venice is requesting a rezone from
agriculture to PUD for a house of worship and educational
facilities.
The subject property is located at the northeast intersection
of Vanderbilt Beach Road and 951 containing 35.56 acres.
They are seeking this rezoning in order to build a church and a
school for up to 250 students. The property is surrounded by
vacant agriculture to the north, water treatment plant -- Collier
County water treatment plant zoned agricultural to the east, and
drainage canal and 951 to the west. To the south it borders
Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension with some vacant and
single-family homes zoned estates.
This area is designated as urban residential district which
Page 51
June 1, 2000
allows some non-residential usages such as churches and
schools. This rezone will generate 700 trips on weekdays and
1,195 on Sundays. They will not lower the level of service,
therefore, it is consistent with policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the traffic
circulation element.
They are providing 30 percent growth of open space and
preserve areas, which is also consistent with the requirements
of the conservation element.
Staff reviewed this and recommends approval of this PUD.
And one person came to my office objecting to this. I believe
that person is here and he's going to talk about it, and that
concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Bruet.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: On your recommendation, Chahram,
you talk about some exhibits thereto and all. I don't -- I'm not
sure what you have here.
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation service director. For
the record, while Mr. Badamtchian is looking up that information,
Mr. Bruet, I want to make a point. I was noticing in the PUD
document under transportation commitments. We are not taking
issue with them; however, we would like to add -- and I realize
this is kind of a last minute thing, but it shouldn't be thought out
of place.
The requirement for turn lanes along Vanderbilt Beach, if
found to be necessary, there's an intersection of Weber
Boulevard for an access, and then there's another access point
further to the east, and because that section of Vanderbilt Beach
is most likely not going to be any more than a two-lane road for a
long, long time, we would like to make sure that, if operational
safety considerations warrant, that we be able to specify both
left and right turn lanes of both -- for any entrance. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Mr. Kant, does your evaluation
take into account just the house of worship or a school, and if so,
what size school?
MR. KANT: I can't remember the specifics of this, but
specifically when we look at the traffic impact statement, we
look at all of the uses that are going to be proposed on the land.
As Mr. Badamtchian pointed out, they're anticipating about 700
Pa~e 52
June 1, 2000
trips per day on a weekday basis. This is not atypical for a small
religious school. Typically religious schools or parochial schools
-- I shouldn't say religious, archaic term. A parochial school
typically has a much smaller student population than most other
schools. I don't see the 700 to a thousand trips a day as being
particularly --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Significant?
MR. KANT: -- problematic on this particular roadway since the
bulk of those trips will all be traveling east entering the site and
no further and then west leaving the site.
Again, if you're familiar with that area, when you go much
further to the east, the only thing of any significance is the Olde
Florida Golf Club, and then there's another golf facility and the
water treatment plant. There are some residences back there,
but nowhere near the type of build out that we would expect off
of a similar road in other parts of the county.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Chahram, did you find our attachments?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. What I'm saying in my
recommendation, that staff recommends with all the
stipulations, but all of the stipulations have been incorporated
into the PUD documents.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: There are no --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There are no stipulations that haven't
been incorporated.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Okay.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for staff?
MR. NINO: Save the one that Ed just brought to your
attention.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Can we hear from the
petitioner, please?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, commissioners. Michael
Fernandez with planning development representing the petitioner
this morning. We would be happy to accept the provision that Ed
Kant made and add that to our PUD, and we'll incorporate that
between now and our board hearing.
The project is displacing a potential 140 residential units that
could otherwise be applied for on this property. Working with the
Page 53
June 1, 2000
Water Management District, we've allocated our preserve areas
in a 50-foot strip along the north and also the balance of it in a
200 foot piece to the east of the site, providing a desirable wild
life corridor that connects some other adjacent preserve areas to
the canal and also further to the south.
This 50-foot buffer will also provide -- northern buffer will
provide a transition to the future residential project that's
planned immediately to the north of our site, and it's a PUD name
Buck's Run.
With that, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them
or address any issues that may come up from the public.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I guess I would add, are the plans
to immediately have both the church and the school? I mean, is
this something that's going to take place --
MR. FERNANDEZ: It's going to happen relatively quickly. This
is a mission church that's associated with St. John's, 111th.
Right now a significant number of their parishioners are traveling
from this area to go to 111th. It will be capturing trips that are
otherwise going to be going all the way across the county. There
is a need for both of those facilities now. We will anticipate that
soon after this, fund raising is already in progress, that we be
able to permit the improvements and begin construction within
the year.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Thank you.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If I may. I forget to mention something.
I received a memorandum from the Utilities Department, and not
long ago, that's why it's not part of the PUD document. They are
asking for an easement to extend the water lines in that area.
So I believe the applicant has agreed to that and they will get
credit, utilities credit, something like that -- they are working on
it. It will be added to the PUD document when they reach an
agreement with the Utilities Department.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. In fact, we met with Kevin
Hendricks, Utilities Department staff, and other members of
county staff yesterday, and we have no problem with it. We're
just ironing out the details as far as compensation and how we're
accommodating them, but yes, it's being incorporated and will be
incorporated into a concurrent agreement that will go before the
board at the same time as the PUD.
Page 54
June 1, 2000
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Next speaker, please.
State your name for the record.
MR. BENDER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name
is Robert Bender. I live on 7th Avenue Northwest, which is my
property, which my family and I own about 17 acres immediately
to the south on the south side of Vanderbilt. This project will be
near our property, 60 feet across the road from our property.
I will correct staff's statement that I do not object to this project
but I would like to bring a couple things to your attention.
Using Mr. Abernathy's previous comparisons of benign versus
noxious. I would assume, and most people, I think, should
assume that a church is going to be fairly benign.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Be scared not to.
MR. BENDER: Well, I know what assume means too. I would
hope that it would be benign. I will tell you that we were told,
we meaning the residents in that area of Unit 3 Golden Gate
Estates, nine years ago were told that another project was going
to be benign. It is, in fact, not noxious. It is obnoxious. That is
the North Collier Water Treatment Plant. The problem that we
have with that plant is that none of the promises that were made
to us actually have occurred, and we are still fighting with the
county to take care of those problems. Primarily noise.
I would ask that the petitioner agree to a couple of things.
One, I see that there's a 50 foot buffer to the north that's going to
supposedly buffer another, maybe, residential area. There's been
no consideration for the existing neighborhood which is 60 feet
across the street of Vanderbilt, and people already live there,
and I think there's a big difference between existing
neighborhoods and people that move in under existing active
runways and then complain about it. I think we should deserve
some consideration here.
I would ask that you have a stipulation that any
air-conditioners -- and I'm assuming these are going to be fairly
large buildings with probably commercial size air-conditioners
involved with them, and that is one of the big problems that we
have right now with the water treatment plant. They have a
series of six or eight very large air-conditioners that cycle on and
off all night, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, that we get to
listen to even though we're four or five hundred feet away
physically from them. It's an extremely quiet neighborhood
Page 55
June 1, 2000
there, and sound travels. There is no background noise at night,
and that's my concern particularly at night.
If you're going to have possibly a two-story school, I assume
that it's going to be conditioned 24 hours a day to a certain
extent, as will the church, that we should have some kind of
up-front agreement that either those units be placed on the north
side of these buildings or we have some kind of up-front
agreement that these things are going to be buffered so that we
don't have to listen to them.
The second thing that was not mentioned. The intersection of
Vanderbilt and 951, in my opinion, because I use it frequently,
has got to be one of the most dangerous intersections in the
county. We have had a number of accidents there. I have
specifically requested the county to realign or at least put left
turn arrows at that place, because Vanderbilt on the east side of
951 and the west side do not align with each other.
It's difficult to explain, but I go out there almost every day,
and you take your life in your hand if you try to go straight west
across 951 because people are not aligned properly and they
assume that the green light means a left turn. And if you start
putting 700 parents or trips to a school every morning there,
somebody better do something about the lighting and/or left turn
lanes on the east side of 951 off of Vanderbilt.
The last thing is, is I would like some kind of assurance --
because I have a friend who recently sold his house because of
the problems associated with a church, particularly nighttime or
late morning, late -- or late evening use of the parking lot. They
have buses that come in that have taken people to and from
church organizations, the bus sits there and idles for 15, 20
minutes or half an hour at two or three o'clock in the morning
and, again, it's a very quiet neighborhood, and I think we should
have some type of assurance this type of activity is not going to
occur immediately adjacent to an existing neighborhood.
I think there's a special responsibility for somebody that
comes in. And basically, you are going to have at least a
semicommercial use of this property, and I know how things gets
out of hand later on. More and more activities are associated
with the church.
I don't object specifically to it, but I think we should have
some type of agreement or some kind of stipulation from the
Page 56
June 1, 2000
petitioner.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Bender. Is there anyone
else from the public to address this item?
There being none, we will close the public hearing.
There are some outstanding items to address as we work
toward crafting a motion.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question of counsel then.
How do you come up with an agreement that specifically places
air-conditioning units and the issue of noisy buses in a parking
lot early in the morning? Is that something that can fit into what
MS. STUDENT: I think it would have to be demonstrated that
might be a problem for this particular church before -- I mean, I
think you can put some regulations about activities and noise
and things like that. We've certainly done that before. But that's
not to say that the churches come in all sizes and have all
different activity levels for their parishioners, and so it's not
necessarily to say that this particular church might have those
same problems. Maybe staff could address it.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right now I'm looking for one of Ron's
patented quotations.
MR. NINO: It might be a while to recognize that only recently
the county adopted -- amended the noise ordinance, and the
noise ordinance is substantially more restrictive today than the
previous noise ordinance. And those de¢ibel levels that are now
established are deemed to be compatible with a residential
environment. And there are operating times when those decibel
levels need changed. For example, in the evening they drop
down even another notch so that, you know, the noise ordinance
is there. True, it becomes a code development problem at times,
but the presumption is, if everybody lives within those noise
limits, a property should not be offensive to its neighbor.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: So Ron, in your opinion, if we have specific
noise language here, would this be basically what we've just
discussed on a previous item, that we're making specific
recommendations that are redundant to an existing ordinance?
MR. NINO.' Uh-huh, uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And I think we could simply ask the
petitioner to keep in their-- keep in mind the air-conditioning
Page 57
June 1, 2000
relationship and, perhaps, try to put that in the design features to
where it's not a --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Michael Fernandez again for the petitioner.
You probably won't hear any air-conditioning. The proposal that
they're requesting from the Utilities Department will include
pumps that are going to be along our southern border probably
providing some kind of bite noise, but it will be noise from those
facilities that would be heard, and probably not facilities for the
church itself.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any other items for discussion, or is
someone comfortable making a motion on this item?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
we forward petition PUD-2000-05 with a recommendation for
approval, including the road issue that we previously talked
about, the right and left turn lane, and I believe we did some
discussion about an easement, which will also be in the
documents, for the water line.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Pedone. Any discussion?
Being none, all those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries.
Next item is PUD 89-6(4), and I believe we will hear that
presentation along with DOA-2000-03, as they are related, and
then we will take separate action on those. Are there any disclosures?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I had a
discussion with the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I also spoke with Mr. Morton regarding this
item.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I've spoken with Mr. Morton
regarding both items.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. There being no further disclosures,
all those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your
right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Witnesses sworn.)
MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. The petition that's
before you, the two petitions, request an amendment to the Grey
Pa~e 58
June t, 2000
Oaks development order, an amendment to the Grey Oaks PUD.
The amendment primarily affects the northwest corner or
quadrant of the Grey Oaks PUD, and the northeast quadrant to
the extent that allocated commercial development from the
northwest corner will be transferred to the northeast quadrant;
however, in the northeast quadrant, there will be no change on
the physical boundaries of the activity center. It will simply
mean that that northeast quadrant will be more intensively
developed with the shifted acreage; however, the amount of
commercial space in terms of land use will diminish on the
northwest quadrant.
And in addition to that, that northwest quadrant will be
developed more as an isolated, self-contained golf course
community of 18 -- a golf course of your normal 18 holes and all
of the appurtenances that are characteristic of a country club or
golf course.
And there is a different layout, and those layouts -- the master
plan layouts are included in your staff report. Staff suggested in
-- suggests that by virtue of the revised layout, you compare the
two master plans, and you can see that there's a somewhat
different relationship to the only affected exterior property, and
that is, the folks that live on the south side of Coach House Lane.
As a matter of fact, two people from the south side of Coach
House Lane have visited with me, and they are satisfied that the
revised master plan does not, in their opinion, adversely impact
or worsen or change the situation from the current master plan
to any extent that it concerns them.
The development order as you have -- you have received,
however, does need some tweaking from the point of view that
we need to deal with the relocation issue of gopher tortoise to
the power lines along Livingston Road -- Lane, and Marjorie and
Mr. Varnadoe are working out that resolution or addition to the
development order that you have before you.
MS. STUDENT: What I wanted to say was that, at least for the
board, the planning commission advertisement is generally more
general, but for the board, the advertisement for the resolution
was specific and didn't include the gopher tortoise information in
the title, so what we'd like to have you do, upon further
deliberation with the county attorney, is have the board direct,
the Board of County Commissioners, direct that that be included
Page 59
June t, 2000
in the DOA, and then we can amend it like that. But I understand
that the advertisement for the planning commission is more
general, so it probably should not present a problem for the
planning commission. And I also understand this just reflects
something that was already done.
MR. NINO: So with respect to the DOA, the development order
is being changed to recognize the changes in those acreages -- I
mean land use authorizations, not acreages, and the adoption of
a new master plan. That's all the development order does,
changes the acreage, the threshold, the distribution of land uses
and adopt a new master plan and now will contain a provision
suggesting an amendment to take care of gopher tortoise.
With respect to the PUD -- amendment to the PUD, in this
regard what we're doing primarily is a bit of housecleaning,
housekeeping on the PUD dealing with references to titles,
adoption of a new master plan, and the -- again, since the PUD
also contains the distribution of land uses, it makes those
changes accordingly to the PUD as well as it did in the
development order.
There is one in addition to the PUD document that you've
received, however, and since you received it, the petitioner has
asked for a change to the development regulations that
recognizes their wish to build a specific type of patio home in
which a certain side yard relationship is going to be required only
with respect to those locations where this housing structure
type is located.
And currently this PUD allows the zero yards, five and five,
your normal 10-foot spacing. This amendment would allow them
the option in specific tracts to establish a three-foot side yard
provided the opposite side is seven feet, and two -- and it has
verbiage in here to ensure that that theme is completed for the
entirety of that tract.
For example, let me read that addition. For patio homes with
a three-foot side yard requirement setback, the opposite side
shall be set back seven feet. Once the first building on the side
of a street utilizing this product type is permitted, all subsequent
buildings must follow the pattern established by the first unit.
And that's the only change of near substance, because all the
other changes are not of any substance to the PUD, which you
did not have in your package.
Page 60
June 1, 2000
We recommend approval. There is nothing here that is
inconsistent with any provision of the land development -- of the
growth management plan. Indeed, as I forgot to indicate, there
is a reduction in impact, because I forgot to tell you that in
addition to that redistribution of the land uses, there is, in fact, a
reduction of housing units by 300.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of staff?
If we could hear from the petitioner, please.
MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe for
petitioner, Halstatt Partnership.
I can give you my half-hour presentation, but I'll just see if you
have any questions. I think Ron has explained what we're doing
very nicely. I will mention that Marjorie and I have talked about
the gopher tortoises.
The original development order had anticipated they would be
relocated in the power line easement that exists on the property.
That became evident that was problematic because they now
have been relocated with the blessing of the Florida Game and
Fish Commission between two golf holes and a fenced enclosure.
They're surviving nicely, and what we want to do is make sure
our development order condition recognizes what has occurred
on the property, and that was not advertised. If you have any
questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?
Anyone else from the public to address this item?
We will close the public hearing. And if we could hear and
consider two separate motions for the PUD.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: I'll do that, Mr. Chairman. I
recommend this board send its recommendation for approval to
the board of commissioners, PUD 89-6(4).
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I have a motion by Commissioner Bruet,
second by Commissioner Wrage.
Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Do we have another
motion?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would further
Page 61
June 1, 2000
recommend this board send its recommendation of approval to
the Board of County Commissioners for DOA-2000-03.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUDD-- Again, a motion by Commissioner Bruet,
second by Commissioner Wrage. Any discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Motion carries.
We will move on to the last agenda item. Okay. Last item,
SV-2000-01.
Are there any disclosures? No disclosures.
Anyone wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your
right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Witnesses sworn.)
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Chahram Badamtchian
from planning services staff. Karen Bishop representing
Vanderbilt Partners requesting a variance from the requirements
of two signs with the combined area of 64 square feet at the
entrance to a residential development, to have one sign at the
entrance of the development, and have one 15 square feet sign
on a structure already built. And at the base of the structure,
they also want to write the name of the subdivision, which is
Vanderbilt Beach Subdivision.
There used to be a sign there saying Vanderbilt Beach, which
was removed by the developer, and they have agreed once they
build the development, they're going to install a subdivision
name sign, which staff has no problem with that. It just
identifies the subdivision.
And the other request is to have a sign, another sign 15
square feet only at this area. This is because, as you can see,
this is a corner parcel and they only have access from Vanderbilt
Beach Road, so people traveling on Vanderbilt Beach Drive will
not know which development that is, and they want the 15
square foot sign on the building to identify the development.
Staff has received several letters of opposition from
neighbors. The reason being, when you advertise this thing, it
really sounds much worse than it really is. For one thing, the
sign in here, 15 square feet sign in there, it's going to be 22 feet
Pa~e 62
June 1, 2000
high. The requirement is no more than eight feet. And when you
advertise saying from the requirement of eight feet to 22 feet,
people think that they are going to have a big billboard
somewhere for the name.
And I tried to talk to them on the phone, some of them, but,
however, I received one, two, three, four, five letters of--four
letters of objection and one letter in support of the variance from
Mr. Dick Lydon, president of Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners'
Association.
And in the past several years that I've been doing sign
variances, I have never recommended approval of any sign
variance, but this time I'm changing that. I'm recommending
approval of this variance.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right.
COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Chahram, I don't know whether this
is language or what. On your recommendation it says, with a
recommendation for a conditional approval. Is there a condition?
I don't think I've seen that word in that before. Is there a
specific condition that goes with that, or is that just a --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, I don't have any conditions probably.
It's just I didn't pay real attention.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of staff? Mr. Bruet.
COMMISSIONER BRUET: How were they able to convince
you? A 22 foot high sign structure sounds like a monster to me.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' I drove on Vanderbilt Drive. That's a
huge development. As one of the letters says, it is a yellow
monstrosity. It's a huge yellow building, but no signs whatsoever
to identify what this building is, what this development is. And
you have to drive maybe 100, 150, 200 feet past the intersection
before you have any sign to identify the development on
Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Let me explain. Driving on this road, driving on this road,
Vanderbilt Beach -- Vanderbilt Drive, there are no signs. The only
sign that you can see would be in here, and people driving in this
area really don't know what this development is. And -- MR. NINO: This corner monument here?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's the variance, that's the request
for variance, to have a sign on this corner monument so people
driving south on Vanderbilt Drive know the development.
MR. NINO: Is this the monument?
Page 63
June 1, 2000
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's the monument.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that monument existing?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's an existing monument.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: So that's the key issue.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I took this picture myself.
COMMISSIONER PEDONE: That's a ravine there, isn't it?
MR. NINO: That's not a residential unit.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No.
MR. NINO: That's the monument.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, maybe the petitioner can tell us.
MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop, agent for the owner. That's a
pump house. That's the fire pump house, and it had to be that
big to meet the requirements, and so we are trying to utilize that
as the monument for the sign. We would have normally put the
sign where we are now putting the Vanderbilt Beach Estate's
sign, but because they wanted that area, we need to put our sign
above theirs. Essentially that's what we're utilizing, is the
existing pump house.
CHAIRMAN BUDD'. Okay. Any questions for the petitioner?
Any questions for staff?
Anyone else from the public to address this item?
MR. NINO: Yes, Robert Burns.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Please come forward to the microphone
and state your name for the record.
MR. BURNS: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good morning.
MR. BURNS: Mr. Chairman, I'm representing the Barefoot
Pelican Condominium Association. I'm vice-president of the
association. We are the adjacent property to this property.
We're asking that you --
CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm sorry, sir. Did you state your name for
the record?
MR. BURNS: Robert Burns, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BURNS: We are asking that you deny this petition strictly
on the basis that they don't need any signage that we don't have
or that the Ritz Carlton doesn't have. To have signs 22 feet in
the air -- I'll just take you to Hilton Head where -- to keep that
low-rise type unobtrusive signage down, which I think they've
done a great job on the beach. We just don't think they should be
Page 64
June 1, 2000
able to rise those signs to 22 feet, even though they have a
monument that was approved. We think they should have the
same signage, and that's all 60 people at the Barefoot Pelican
Bay. We're rejecting this proposal. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Burns.
Anyone else from the public?
There being none, we will close the public hearing.
Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, yes. I'm not going to
support the motion. I think there's other ways to solve the
problem. I think you can find different ways to mount signs, and,
you know, this is architecturally a nice building, it does a nice
job, and to put a big sign on the top of it, I think it's terrible. This
is a time when we have -- you know, signs are very sensitive.
We're trying to scale them down. As the gentleman points out,
there's other ways to solve the problem, so I won't support it, but
that's just my own view.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other discussion? Would someone
like to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll make a motion, Mr. Chairman,
that we forward the SV-2000-01 with the recommendation of
approval.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: So we have a motion. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner
Saadeh, a second by Commissioner Priddy.
Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye.
Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO:
COMMISSIONER BRUET:
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay.
Aye.
Aye.
Now, if I'm correct, that's two
against? Okay. So the motion carries.
Any old business?
Any new business?
MR. NINO: Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: We had talked about a joint meeting with the City
of Naples. We weren't able to make that come about. There's --
the two staffs are working on that issue. We concluded that we
really need to workshop our proposed recommendations for how
Page 65
June 1, 2000
we handle the U.S. 41 corridor, and we would like to workshop
that probably in July, which means we would probably like the
joint meeting to occur in August, so you're not going to be doing
a joint meeting next -- your next meeting.
And I did want to remind you that I gave you a memorandum
dealing with the mailing list and an explanation of how,
administratively, we facilitate your agenda package. You asked
for that at the last meeting. And pray tell, if there are still
mistakes on that mailing list, give me back the corrected copy.
COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. My information is
definitely correct on the mailing list. Now, if they could just
figure out how to make it correct in all of the computers in
development service, that would solve the problem for me.
MR. NINO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any public comments? Discussion
of addenda?
We're adjourned.
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, CHAIRPERSON
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, NOTARY
PUBLIC.
Page 6 6
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
June 12, 2000
Planning Services Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Mr. Miles L. Scofield
Scofield Marine Consulting
3584-B Exchange Ave
Naples, FL 34104
REFERENCE: BD-00-08, Matthew A. D'Ambrosio
Dear Mr. Scofield:
On Thursday, June 1, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved
Petition No. BD-2000-08.
A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-16 is enclosed approving this use.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Ross GochenauZ/rr
Planner II
g/admin/BD-00-08/RG/im
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Matthew A. D'Ambrosio
282 Third Street West
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Land Dept. Property Appraiser
M. Ocheltree, Graphics
Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI)
File
Phone (941) 403-2400 Fax (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier. fi.us
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 16
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-08 FOR
AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such
business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance
91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County,
among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted
Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said
regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 20-foot extension of a boat dock
from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 40-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-4 zone for the property
hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have
been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section
2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this
Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of
Collier County, Florida, that:
The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Matthew A.
D'Ambrosio, with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat, Lot 15, Block F, as described in Plat Book 6, Page
2, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
be and the same is hereby approved for a 20-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to
allow for a 40-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located,
subject to the following conditions:
1. All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless
of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed
at the outermost end on both sides.
In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall
be posted during construction.
-21.-
o
Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building
permit.
All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall
be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-08 be
recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this 1st day of June ,2000.
VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP
Executive Secretary
Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN
Marni M. Scuderi
Assistant County Attorney
g:/ad min/BD-2000-08/RG/ts
2
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
June 12, 2000
Planning Services Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Mr. Jerry Neal
4450 Bonita Beach Rd., Unit 9
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
REFERENCE: BD-2000-10, Isles of Capri No. 3
Dear Mr. Neah
On Thursday, June 1, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved
Petition No. BD-2000-10.
A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-17 is enclosed approving this use.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Ross GochenaOr
Planner II
g/admin/BD-2000-10/RG/im
Enclosure
Mr. Pete Thorpe
418 Samar Avenue
Naples, FL 34113
Land Dept. Property Appraiser
M. Ocheltree, Graphics
Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI)
File
Phone (941) 403-2400
Fax (941) 643-6968
www. co.collier. fi.us
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 17
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-10 FOR
AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such
business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance
91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County,
among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted
Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public heating after notice as in said
regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 5-foot extension of a boat dock
from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 25-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-3 zone for the property
hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have
been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section
2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this
Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of
Collier County, Florida, that:
The petition number BD-2000-10, filed by Jerry Neal of Purse Associates, Inc., representing Pete
Thorpe, with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
Lot 652, Isles of Capri No. 3, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 66, of the Public Records
of Collier County, Florida.
be and the same is hereby approved for a 5-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to
allow for a 25-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-3 zoning district wherein said property is located,
subject to the following conditions:
All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless
of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed
at the outermost end on both sides.
In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall
be posted during construction.
o
Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building
permit.
All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall
be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-10 be
recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this lsr day of June ., 2000.
ATTEST:,,_, /j ~ /,07
Executive Secretary
Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN
Mami M. Scuderi
Assistant County Attorney
g:/admin/BD-2000-10/RG/~
2