Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/05/2000 ROctober 5, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 5, 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 8:34 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gary Wrage Ken Abernathy Joyceanna J. Rautio Sam Saadeh Russell A. Priddy Russell Budd NOT PRESENT: Michael Pedone ALSO PRESENT: Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 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 LllVlITI~D TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELE~;rP.D TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLO'I-I~D 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN rrEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRIi i~N OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RESPE~;HVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WP~TI'~N MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMhT~D TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: SEMI'EMBER 7, 2000 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: Russell Budd 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BD-2000-19, Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Frank T. Lazzaro, Jr., requesting a 38-foot extension from the requh'ed 20 feet for a boat dock alld boat-lifi facility protrudillg a total of 58 feet into the waterway for property located at 430 Pitnay Avenue, further described as Lot 631, Isle of Capri Unit 3, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 Eii'st, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) B. BD-2000-20, Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing John D. and Olga M. Iandimarino, requesting a 41-foot extension for a boat dock and boat-lift facility prointding a total of 61 feet into the waterway for property located at 372 Oak Avenue, further described as Lot 9, Block I, Couner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) L BD-2000-22, Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marnie Consulting, representing Joseph L. Dillon, requesting a 25-foot extension to allow for a 45-foot boat dock facility for property located at 129 Wilderness Cay, further described as Lot 28, Port-of-the-Islands (The Cays) Phase H, in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) V-2000-19, Mark & Jennifer Jolmson requesting an 8.4-foot variance from both required 30-foot side yard setbacks for accessory structures to establish 21.6-£oot side yard setbacks for property located at 95 Myrtle Road, further described as Lot 19, Block P, Pine Ridge Extension, in Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Don Murray) PUD-97-18(I), Karen K. Bishop of PMS Inc. of Naples, representing Vanderbilt Parmers II, Ltd., requesting a fezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development and "RMF-12 ST (3)" and "RMF-6 ST (3)" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as The Dunes PUD for the purpose of amending Ordinance No. 98-24 and having the effect of increasing the acreage from 88.55± to 188.55±, increasing residential dwelling units from 531 to a maximum of 754, increasing gross density from 6 dwelling units per acre, showing a change in pruperty ownership, increasing building height to 150 feet, adding restaurants, lounges and similar uses as accessory uses, increasing open space from 53 acres to 166 acres, for property located on the northwest comer of Bluebill Avenue (C.R. 846) and Vanderbilt Drive (C.R. 901), in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 188.55". acres. (Coordinator: Ron Nino) PUD-2000-07, Robert Duane of Hole, Montes & Associates, Inc., representing North Naples - Bonita Land Trust, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Two Lakes Plaza for a maximum of 120,000 square feet of commercial retail and professional office uses for property located on the east side of U.S. 41 north of the Old U.S. 41 intersection, in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 20.38i acres. (Coordinator: Susan Murray) PUD-2000-11, Dwight Nadeau of McAnly Engineering & Design, Inc., representing Carmen Cali, requesting a fezone from "E" Estates to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Randall Shopping Center PUD for a maximum of 95,000 square feet of limited commercial uses for property located on the south side f Randall Boulevard approximately V, mile east of Irnrnokalee Road (C.R. 846), in Sections 26 and 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 9.54"- acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) PUD-2000-13, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., representing Warren Raymond, Development OrTlcer for Centrefund Development Corp., requesting a fezone from "E" Estates to "pLrD" Planned Unit Development for a maximum of 42, 000 square feet of commercial retail and office land uses for property located at the southeast comer of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard, in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 7.15"- acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) CU-2000-13, Pastor Verua Nash, Bethesda Pentacostal Church requesting Conditional Use "3" of the "E" Estates zoning district for a child care center for property located at 13365 Collier Boulevard in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2.73 acres. (Coordinator: Chakram B~aamtchian) ST-99-03, Coastal Engineering Inc., representing Paula Davis, Keystone Custom Homes, requesting a Special Treatment Development Permit to allow consUuction of residential single-family lots, streets and assotYtated infras~ucture on a portion of the property with a Special Treatment (ST) overlay located within the proposed LiRle Palm Island subdivision in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Barbara Burgesun) CPSS-2000-01, GGAMP: To amend the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and the Randall Blvd. Commercial Sub-district Map. (Coordinator: David Weeks). 2 L. CP-2000-02, GGAMP: To amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Future Land Use Map to create a new sub-district to be known as Logan Blvd./Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Sub-cF~strict. (Coordinator: Debrah Preston) CP-2000-03, GGAMP & FLUE: To amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Future Land Use Element to clarify uses witlfm the Settlement Area (Orangetree PUD document). (Coordinator: David Weeks) CP-2000-04, FLUE: To amend the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to create a new commercial sub-district for 48.5 acres to be known as the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Blvd. Commercial Sub- district. (N. half intersection between Vanderbilt Beach and Collier Blvd.). (Coordinator: Aaron Blair) CP-2000-05, FLUE: To amend the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to create a new commercial sub-district for 17.5 acres, to be known as Livingstor~Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Sub-district, to allow retail and office uses at SE quadrant of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road. (Coordinator: Amy Taylor) CP-2000-07, GGAMP: To amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Future Land Use Map by renaming the C.R. 951 Commercial Inf~11 District to Golden Gate Commercial Infill Sub-district by including 6.83 acres at the NW comer of Santa Barbara Blvd./Golden Gate Parkway. (Coordinator: David Weeks) CP-2000-08, Transportation: To amend and update the Transportation Element by replacing Table V. (Coordinator: Gavin Jones) CP-2000-11, FLUE: To amend the Future Land Use Element by modifying the definition of"direct principal access" for Travel Trailer Recreational Vehicle Parks, (Coordinator: Michele Mosca) 8. OLD BUSINESS: Discussion of Summary Agenda 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 10/5/00 CCPC AGENDA/RN/im 3 October 5, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We will call this meeting of the Planning Commission to order. We will start with the roll call. Ron, do we have microphones? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: We have them, Mr. Chairman, but they're not working yet. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's try again. We'll call the Planning Commission to order. We will start with the roll call. Mr. Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Pedone is absent, an announced absence. He's on vacation. Mr. Budd, present. Mr. Wrage? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Saadeh? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Bruet's term expired and we have a new planning commissioner appointed by the County Commission who is not here, to my knowledge. First order of business, this is the start of a new Planning Commission year. Terms expired at the end of September. This being the first meeting in October, we start a new Planning Commission structure and board, officers. Currently, I'm the chair, Mike Pedone is the vice-chair and Mr. Wrage is the secretary and we need a motion or nomination for bringing new officers for the coming year. Traditionally, the vice-chair moves up and the secretary moves up and a new person is selected as secretary, but that's tradition. That's not required, so the truth is, it's a free for all. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I nominate Gary Wrage to be the chairman. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll second that, but I'd also like to ask maybe if we could nominate Ms. Rautio as vice-chair and Mr. Saadeh as secretary and get it all over with at one time? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is the motion maker agreeable with that? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm agreeable with that. Page 2 October 5, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Motion carries, and we'll have 30 seconds to rearrange our seats. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Why? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Because you're driving. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'll do it right from here. COMMISSIONER BUDD: You're going to drive from there? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yeah, I'll drive. COMMISSIONER BUDD.' You're driving. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' See, I got rid of you pretty quick. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yeah, you made me move down there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just some comments before we start for those of you that haven't been here before and wish to speak on any item on the agenda, sign-up sheets are out in the hall. Give those to Ron. He will call your name for members of the public when that item comes up, and with that, we will move to any addenda to the agenda. Ron? MR. NINO: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I spoke yesterday at about 4:30 with the representatives of the Dunes PUD. That's Item E on your agenda, and they indicated that in view of some conditions that I was proposing, that they wanted some more time to think about it. I don't see them here. They -- I hate to keep the -- you know, there are folks from the Dunes probably here. They're not in the room yet. They didn't send me anything in writing or by e-mail, so I suggest we leave it on the agenda until it comes its time, and then you can decide whether to continue it or not, I don't think it's that far down the agenda, only because they haven't transmitted any indication other than verbally to me. And in addition, since Item G on your agenda is companion to Item K on your agenda, it's more appropriate that Item K be heard prior to Item G, and with that, I have no other suggestions. COMMISSIONER BUDD.' Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to move up Item K between F and G, ahead of G. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second. Page 3 October 5, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: A move and second that we move K between F and G. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Motion carries. You have before you one set of minutes for September 7th, 2000. Any additions or corrections? If not~ I'll entertain a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Move for approval. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Move for approval by Commissioner Rautio, second by Commissioner Priddy. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried. Any future Planning Commission absences? Hearing none, we'll move right on to the BCC report. Ron? MR. NINO: I have nothing to report. Nothing happened at the last meeting that would impact the decisions you make. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Being a brand new chairman~ I don't have anything to report yet and we'll move right into the advertised public hearings, the first one being BD-2000-19. All those that are to present testimony to this one, please rise, raise your hand and be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ross? MR. GOCHENAUR.' Morning, commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services. The petitioner is requesting a 38 foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 58 feet into the waterway. The property's located at 430 Panay Avenue on Isles of Capri and contains about 261 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the construction of an L-shaped dock and boat lift. The extension is needed because of shallow water at the site. The waterway is relatively broad, and two extensions to 60 feet have been approved for neighboring docks. No objections to this project have been received and the staff Page 4 October 5, 2000 recommends approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I just need to ask the commission to make any disclosures that might be necessary of any written or oral communication you might have had with anyone concerning this project and -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Before the project or now? MS. STUDENT: Actually, before the -- it should happen before staff presents, but it's okay if it's made now, just so long as if there are any, that the applicant has a chance to rebut. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Then in that case, I'll make my disclosure that I will have to excuse myself on Item 7-G when it comes before -- MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman? It's ex parte, if there are any communications, not conflict of -- not a voting conflict, but just on this item, if there are any ex parte communications. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Do we care to hear from the petitioner? MR. SCOFIELD: If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of petitioner? Anybody from the public wish to speak on this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve BD-2000-19 subject to the staff stipulations. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. Any further discussions? All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. Next item, BD-2000-20. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I would disclose that I was handed a letter this morning in reference to this petition. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think we all were. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I believe all the commissioners have a copy of that, correct? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Couple of letters. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that -- I'm sorry, all those wishing to speak on this item, please stand, be recognized and be sworn in Page 5 October 5, 2000 by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Ross? MR. GOCHENAUR: Mr. Chairman, can you hear me okay? Is this mike working? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm hard of hearing. You will have to speak up, so -- MR. GOCHENAUR: Okay, fine. The petitioner's requesting a 41 foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 61 feet into the waterway. The property's located at 372 Oak Avenue in Conner's Vanderbilt Beach and contains about 75 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the construction of a U-shaped dock and boat lift built perpendicular to the seawall. The extension's requested due to shallow water at the site and also the unusual configuration of the shoreline, and I've got a drawing here that wasn't supplied by the petitioner, but was submitted with a building permit application for the adjacent dock. This is a little bit of an unusual situation in that the seawall actually extends back into the property line for all four of those lots. The county requires that we measure boat dock protrusions from the most restrictive point, which is what we've done in this case. The request is for 61 feet, but if that were measured from the property line the way it is with a conventional lot and seawall, the protrusion would actually be 41 feet. That will figure in a little bit later. We've received eight objections to this particular petition, four written and four verbal. The written objections all seem to center on two points. First, that the extension would set an unwanted precedent that would affect the character of the neighborhood, and second, that the dock itself blocks a navigable channel. My observations on the first point to the people that I talked to were that this commission and staff are not bound by any precedent. Each dock petition is judged on its own merits against the criteria in the code. The second is something that I believe Mr. Scofield's prepared to address. He's assured me that he's taken soundings and that this dock won't interfere with any navigable channel in the waterway. Page 6 October 5, 2000 The project otherwise meets all criteria and, the objections notwithstanding, staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any questions of staff? If not, we'll hear from the petitioner. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. Rocky Scofield representing the petitioner. As you can see -- unfortunately, I took a whole bunch of photographs and I looked in my briefcase this morning and I don't have them, but anyway, in this whole area where the seawall is -- is brought back in, there are mangroves, and I've got an aerial and I'll show you on the aerial and I'll put it over on the overhead projector in just a moment, but it appears that the -- the -- well, these are the mangroves. The mangroves extend out 24 feet from the seawall. What happened in this area was, the seawalls were not put in originally in line where they were platted on a straight line on this canal. The land accreted in there, mangroves grew up and then the seawalls were installed landward of the mangroves. Vanderbilt Lagoon is state owned waters. They are -- they won't let us go in there and dredge out the mangroves and do the dredging necessary. It would be nice if we could, but we can't, so in this particular area, we're back, Ross said it's an extension of -- the extension calls for 61 feet. The dock is going out 60 feet. The extra foot is added for error when we do the spot survey. I usually add a foot or two, but the dock is actually at the end of 60 feet. That's from the seawall. From the platted seawall line, it's actually out, I believe, about 38 feet was the measurement that I took. Ross said 41, but it's close to there. My measurement came out to 38 feet from the platted line and I'll show you. Ross, can you put this on the -- the -- that's -- that's just the aerial of what Ross showed you on the drawing just a minute ago. The orange lot is the lot -- the applicant's lot. The red line is the platted seawall line where most of the walls are out to, and you can see how the seawall goes back in where the applicant's lot is. The fuzzy part in there is the mangroves that have grown out. They stick out from the seawall out about 24 feet. I'll show you on the map -- on the aerial over here. Right here. This is the area which is on there. This is Oak Avenue. This is Vanderbilt Lagoon. The lot is right here. Now, we are sticking -- Page 7 October 5, 2000 what we do -- on the platted line, like I said, we're going to be protruding out about 30 feet from the platted line. A lot of the docks in the area are out 20 feet and then some of them have boats tied up on the end of there, so there are -- there are docks along here that are out 20 feet with a boat of ten to 15 foot beams protruding beyond that. Down in here there's one I had photos of, but you can see this boat, there's a sport fisherman boat here with a 15 foot beam that's on the outside of about an 18 to 20 foot dock and that extends out about the same width as the end of our dock. Now, one of the questions I had was, are we gonna be able to moor outside that. Well, on the drawing you have, this is a U-shaped dock. The bow of the boat is being moored perpendicular to the shoreline. It comes in. There cannot be anything more outside the end of this dock. So that's the end of the -- 60 feet out from the seawall, that's the end of it. Now, I went out here -- there was a question -- there is a big -- in this area, I don't know if everybody can see here. In this area of Vanderbilt Lagoon right in the middle here is a shallow area, and that's what people were concerned about. I went out and did the soundings. I know about -- everybody knows about the shallow area right in the middle here. It's off the end of -- if you come out straight off the end of Palm, it's in the middle out here. The soundings I took, 100 feet south of the end of the proposed dock, we have -- we have five and a half feet of water at the end of the proposed dock that we're talking about. Where the bow of the boat sticks in, we've got about two feet of water on the proposed dock. For 100 more feet -- 110 more feet out, actually, there's five and a half feet of water at low tide. The shallow water does not start out until you're into here. If you lined up this -- the canal between Palm and Oak is 130 feet wide right in here. We're going to be sticking out about 38 feet past that seawall line, and you come out another 100 feet, and you actually don't get into the shallow water until you're clean over this canal width and back into here. So there's plenty of room for navigation. I checked this out with sounding rods and digital sounders, so there's plenty of room to get around this. COMMISSIONER BUDD.' Mr. Scofield, are you saying there's 110 feet from the seawall or 110 feet from the end of the dock? Page 8 October 5, 2000 MR. SCOFIELD: From the end of the dock south, you have 110 feet of five and a half foot water at low tide. Okay. Well, you've got your turn. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No comments from the audience. You'll get your opportunity. MR. SCOFIELD: So that's what we're asking. We're not asking for anything else, anything out of the ordinary. There are docks in there with boats that are tied out this far, and for us, it doesn't seem to create any hazard to navigation. So if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Rocky, if you're standing at the end of whatever the road is -- let's see, Vanderbilt Drive in between Palm and Oak, and sight down the canal, what you're saying is after this dock is built, you're not gonna see anything protruding outside of a line that's -- where boats are already docked? MR. SCOFIELD: I can -- let me show you on the overhead here. Where my pointer is, do you see this dock right here? Okay. This is a dock with a 15 foot beam boat tied up on the outside of that. When this dock comes out, if you were to sight -- if you were standing on Vanderbilt Drive like you talked about and you sight down, the end of this dock would be out at the outside edge of this boat tied up right here. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: On the outside edge of it? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. Within a foot or two. I mean, those are the measurements that we took. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. That -- that dock where the 15 foot beam boat is moored is what width or length, is that a 20 foot dock? MR. SCOFIELD: As best I can scale, it's either 18 -- it's about 18 to 20, I believe. It may not be quite 20. The boat is a 15 foot beam boat. I talked to the owner of -- who owns that boat and dock because he had concerns about the depths. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any more questions of the petitioner? Okay. Thank you, Rocky. Members of the public that wish to speak on this? MR. NINO: B.J. Boyer, Pat Collier, Dick Lydon, Roy Schaetzel. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. If you would line up over here behind the speaker, if Ron called your name. Please come forward and state your name and spell it for the court reporter. Page 9 October 5, 2000 MR. SCHAETZEL.' My name is Roy Schaetzel. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Can you spell your last name, please? MR. SCHAETZEL: S-C-H-A-E-T-Z-E-L. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. SCHAETZEL: If I can refer to this, I own the property two lots east of the petitioner's property and I'm probably the only one in the area who's in the same condition the petitioner is. I was the first property owner that had to go back behind the -- the mangroves and the mean high water line and we couldn't stay in line with other seawall lines, so we're about -- we were running from 15 to 20 feet behind what was the regular seawall line. The petitioner in this case is seeking a dock where the boat will be docked perpendicular to the seawall. That's -- that's the same as mine. My dock goes out from that original seawall line 20 feet and that's all, 20 feet, and I have a 37 -- a 27 foot boat docked in there on a lift. My water lines are exactly the same as he shows in the drawing. I don't think that any petition should be granted to -- as an exception to the code restriction unless you can show that there is some restriction on the reasonable enjoyment of that property. I have had that -- my dock in there for ten years. I have no problem with the water line or the water level and I've been using it, and I think I'm putting in a larger boat than he is. I mean, my boat is larger than the one he wants to dock there. So I don't see that any reasonable use of that dock under the limitations of the present code is made against this petitioner. This petitioner can reasonably enjoy that property and that water the same as I do. I see no reason for the extension of this in any way into the natural waterway. Now, the other thing is, Mr. Scofield may be right about what he says is 100 feet. I don't think it's 100 feet because I travel that route. If you go out about 30 or 35 feet from the end of his dock, you can run into shallow water. There's a -- there's a -- I wish I could show you that -- 100 feet out from that shoreline is Palm Court, if you can see that in the middle there. Palm Court. There was a boat that -- one in the middle of Palm Court that sold the boat. The new property owner came and bought the boat and he went straight out to try to leave and he got stuck and we had to get him out. I'm sure that's not more -- not much more than 100 feet. I Page t0 October 5, 2000 think -- I think that we're getting larger and larger houses there. We're getting mega houses. When they buy a house in our area, they -- if they buy my house, they're gonna tear it down and put a mega house there, and they put larger and larger docks, and if you permit larger and larger intrusions into the waterway, you're going to have troubles out there. We have -- when we go out from my dock, there's about 35 feet of good water from my dock to where it starts to get shallow and we have to stay in that, and the reason it stays that way, naturally, is because that's where we all travel. The -- can you put that other one back up there? If I could show you -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Schaetzel, you can come to this monitor right here and point right at it. You don't have to go up, MR. SCHAETZEL.' Point to it? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: It's down below. Now you can see your finger up there. MR. SCHAETZEL: Now, look where my finger is. These owners, these owners, all of these owners, the way they go out is they come this way like this. That's how they go out. The good water in that lagoon is all around the docks and nowhere else. That's the reason we're here. You've got to be careful about intrusions you're going to allow from now on into these waters. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. SCHAETZEL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anybody have any questions of this speaker? If not, next speaker, please. State and spell your name for the court reporter. MS. BOYER.' B.J. Boyer, B-O-Y-E-R, 479 Palm Court~ and on that map, I'm the dark spot on the lower side. I received this notice from an out of town neighbor, the Bensons that live on the corner, ten days ago, and I realized that not a lot of people knew about this proposal, so I wrote a letter, made copies of the proposal and distributed it to my neighbors and also to everyone on Oak Avenue. I have five letters here that were given to me to bring here. Do I give them to this lady? CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Just pass them down. MS. BOYER: The reason that I brought them is because they Page October 5, 2000 were supposed to be here in the mail a week before and we didn't have that much time. None of us have had a lot of time. There was no sign posted on the property. I don't know whether there's supposed to be or not, but there was no sign. We feel that that lagoon has and is going to be impacted enough with long docks. The Regatta's putting 56 docks in there. The Villas by Liberty Ventures, they're asking -- this is another proposal. They want six 61 foot docks. We feel that all of this is imposing on the view and the beauty of the lagoon. We don't feel that it's necessary for this particular dock to go out any further than the other docks that are on that seawall that is set back, so we are opposing it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Yes, ma'am? MS. COLLIER: My name is Pat Collier and I live at 447 Palm Court. That's C-O-L-L-I-E-R. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. COLLIER: I have an e-mail from the Bensons from Wisconsin and they are the ones in our neighborhood that received the letter. We are very much against the 61 foot dock being built on Oak Street. Not only will it be an eyesore, but it will set a precedent for others to follow. Our beautiful Vanderbilt Lagoon will be more like Vanderbilt Marina. We must start to look into the future and keep our waterways as natural as possible, and that's Bill and Penny Benson. Here's that letter. My husband and I also wrote a letter and said, we are writing in response to a notice received by our next door neighbors, Bill and Penny Benson, currently in Wisconsin, regarding a request for a dock permit extension. Said request is for permission to extend out into the lagoon a total of 61 feet. We are definitely against a 61 foot extension permit. However, we do feel that Mr. and Mrs. landimarino, I'm sorry if I mispronounced that, that they should be able to build their dock out, even with the existing docks on either side of their lot. They stated the reason for the extension is to enable them to get out at low tide. All boaters in the area have trouble at extreme low tide. We realize that each case is looked at individually. However, we feel that this permit, if this permit is granted, a precedent will have been set for the entire area. Therefore, my husband and I request that this request be disapproved, and that's Mr. and Mrs. Page 12 October 5, 2000 Glenn Collier. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. While the next speaker's coming up, Ross, would you just reiterate the process of notification? That seems to be the same issue in most of these letters. MR. GOCHENAUR: The property owners within 200 feet of the subject property are notified by mail and a sign's posted on the site by code enforcement. To my knowledge, all of these procedures were followed in this case. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Next speaker, if you would give us your name and spell it for the court reporter. MR. LYDON: I'm Dick Lydon. I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association. I'm here to try and clarify some of the things that are going on. First of all, in looking up the land development code, which Ross has to live with, I find that there is -- there were major changes made in '99 and there are again major changes made in the year 2000. My question, I guess, is who makes those changes, who is notified that they're going to happen, and how do we, as residents, keep up with such a development? MR. GOCHENAUR: The land development code is amended twice annually. All of these amendments are taken through various sub-committees and presented to the Planning Commission and also to the Board of County Commissioners, in each case on two occasions. All of these public hearings are posted in the newspaper. Information on the pending amendments is available on our web site and also at Development Services on Horseshoe Drive. MR. LYDON: Thank you. Secondly, is it possible to get a permit to build this extension without building a home on that property? MR. GOCHENAUR: The only way that would be possible would be, on a residential lot, if a conditional use for a boat dock as a principal structure were obtained. This is not a normal procedure. Normally, the permit for the dock has to be obtained concurrently with the building permit for the house and a certificate of completion for the dock can't be obtained until the certificate of occupancy has been issued for the house. MR. LYDON: Has there been a permit issued for a building -- Page 13 October 5, 2000 for a home building on that lot? MR. GOCHENAUR: On this lot? MR. LYDON: Yeah. MR. GOCHENAUR: That, I can't answer. That wasn't part of this petition. It's not necessary for -- MR. LYDON: Then it doesn't follow. If you can't build the dock until you have a permit and an occupancy, why are we here? MR. GOCHENAUR: The property owner does not need to pull building permits for the dock once the -- if this petition is approved. A lot of property owners go before the Planning Commission to find out whether they're going to get their dock before they go through the building permitting process. They can't pull building permits for this dock until they pull the building permits for their house. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Does that answer your question? MR. LYDON: I think so. It sounds to me like what we're intending to do here is get this thing so that we can add another $250,000 to the value of the lot, but be that as it may, you mentioned the fact that you can't dredge in that area. MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, I didn't. That was Mr. Scofield. MR. LYDON: Mr. Scofield, yet we have before us and approved the dredging of a whole bunch of that particular area for the Regatta docks, which have been approved by everybody expect the Corps of Engineers. The Corps has not yet approved because they're scared to death of a manatee lawsuit. They're going to be taking two and a half feet off of a large area to the south directly across from this property. The other thing that bothers us a little bit up there is the water quality that's being created by all of these things, and particularly in view of the latest land development code change. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The only problem, sir, is our only issue that we can even talk about here today is the dock, anything that directly relates to the dock. MR. LYDON: Directly related to the dock, sir, are boats. Boats create problems with water quality. We have been spending money for the last seven years doing water quality tests in Vanderbilt Lagoon. While they have not gotten any worse, they certainly haven't gotten any better. We would ask that you table this, take a look again, because Page 14 October 5, 2000 there seems to be some question about how far out you go before you run aground. Take another look at it. Let the man get his application for his dock at the same time he gets a building permit. Any questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So you're saying that you're not necessarily objecting to this particular dock, you're objecting to reviewing the whole area first? That you would say table it, you don't want us to deny it? MR. LYDON: I don't necessarily need -- you can't really deny it based on the existing code. All I'm saying is that we need to take a look and see whether that code may be the problem rather than this application. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: However, right now, we can't change the code. We have to live with the code we have, and if this meets the criteria, we have to approve. MR. LYDON: But then it is subject to the final approval at the time that the home is -- certificate of occupancy is issued; is that correct? So that would -- that would be coming back to the Planning Commission? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: No, that's not correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That's simply the permit to use the dock, if I'm correct, right? MR. GOCHENAUR: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So right now, we do have a vacant piece of property? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Totally vacant, nothing's been built on this particular lot before? MR. LYDON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Rocky, would you like to respond to those for us, please? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. A couple of things. You know, I do a lot of this permitting and I check things out very thoroughly and I don't try to propose things that are gonna shut off other people because usually I get the neighbors as a client too. The biggest thing, and I had a lot of phone calls from a lot of the people, and I told Ross and Ross -- everybody phoned into the county and he gave them my phone number. I got a lot of those phone calls. I faxed a lot of plans out and, you know, almost Page 15 October 5, 2000 every -- every person that phoned me and I faxed plans to and explained it to is not here today. They're fine with the situation. I did talk with Mr. Lydon. I know his concerns about this, but there was -- what happens is, people see 61 feet, and it happens every time we get in these situations, and they go, you know, they throw their hands up and they go -- well, I agree with them that sixty-one feet from the platted seawall line is -- that would be way out too far. A boat dock extension is to get into deep enough water for your boat in this area, and so once -- once I talked with these people, the neighbors on either side, the adjacent neighbors, have no problem with this. I -- SPEAKERS FROM AUDIENCE: Wrong, wrong. MR. SCOFIELD: Are the adjacent neighbors here? Well, I spoke with both of them -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Please, address it -- MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. I'm sorry. I spoke with both of them. The gentleman to the east, I went and met with him and he told me he has no objection. Now, maybe his wife does or somebody, but he doesn't. He can't even get his boat on and off his lift unless it's high water, and he spoke to me about having to do something with his dock or dredging. Now, the dredging, I did not say dredging was absolutely not obtainable. Dredging permits can be obtained. It's a long process. You may get -- you may get accepted, you may get denied on this. Now, on this particular lot, it's full of mangroves and there's a shelf that extends way out. If we could dredge, it would still be way -- a lot further out where we could dredge. We may be able to shorten that dock up a few feet if we were to get the dredging permits, but that's a long, very expensive, drawn out deal. I did take water depths in this area. From this proposed dock out 100 feet, there is the same amount of water, which is five to five and a half feet at low water. Now, if you go a little bit further east or west, there may be -- it may shallow up some, but you have plenty of room to maneuver around this dock, but I spoke -- I spoke with four to five owners on this street -- excuse me, and I talked with all of them who are boaters and the adjacent neighbors and they told me to my face they don't have problems with it, once they understood what we're doing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Priddy? Page t6 October 5, 2000 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Rocky, it appears to me that, and if my calculations are right, you said there's 24 feet from your seawall to where the seawall would have been if it were straight? MR. SCOFIELD: Approximately, yes, 23, 24 feet. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' And if we added 18 feet to that, which is what we're thinking the dock is down the canal, and then another 15 feet for a boat, I come up with 57 feet. So we're within -- if your dock -- MR. SCOFIELD: Within three feet. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- if your dock were proposed at 57 feet, it would seem to me that there would be no argument from the neighbors because there are already things there of that nature? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, there's still -- yeah, I don't have -- I did not receive -- I talked to the adjacent neighbors. I talked to the man with the boat, Mr. MacCluggage is his name. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I guess what I'm throwing out is -- and you said you had 61 feet, the one foot for error. So now we're within three feet. Can this -- can this lot owner live with a 57 foot dock? Can that -- MR. SCOFIELD: I'm sure he probably could. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Because in my mind, that takes away the argument from all the neighbors. MR. SCOFIELD: If that takes away the argument, then we will shorten it by three feet, you know, but -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. You have, I think it's 33 lots on Oak all the way around and there's eight lots on Palm. How many of those, do you know, Rocky, actually have boat docks, at least on the side we're talking about? There's 33 lots. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, almost every lot has a boat dock. You know, there may be a couple there that don't, but this is a '96 photo, so that shows almost a dock on every lot, and I assume there may be some more since then. I mean, I'm sure someone else could tell you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So really the issue is not not to have the dock here, it's iust going to be the length, as Commissioner Priddy had mentioned? If it's 57 feet, we probably are within the reasonable approach to this extension of the Page 17 October 5, 2000 dock? MR. SCOFIELD: That would be fine. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Well, it seems to me we're making a lot out of the sight -- the sight down the way with this boat that's moored out of its dock, the 15 foot beam boat. Well, it's moored in a different place than where this dock is going to go, and this dock, according to the testimony, would have an adverse effect on navigation, where that's not an issue with this boat that's further inland, for lack of a better -- MR. SCOFIELD: Well, I totally disagree. That's why I went out and did the water soundings. If someone has other soundings they can, you know, show me, then that's fine. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And it seems to me that the statement that one of the witnesses made that we have no authority to deny as long as it's within the code sort of runs contrary to the fact of why we're here, if we can't deny them, why are we having this hearing? One of the tests that the staff is supposed to measure this dock by is whether or not the proposed docking facility and moored vessel in combination may have an adverse impact to navigation within an adjacent navigable channel. Now, the staff's reply to that is, according to the petitioner, the proposed facility would have no impact on navigation. Well, that comes as a big surprise if the petitioner would say that. I can't imagine you would say that it would have an adverse effect because that would shoot it down, so I don't know where we are on that. MR. GOCHENAUR: May I make an observation, sir? I'd like to address that if I may. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Speak up, Ross, please. MR. GOCHENAUR: We're not in a position to be able to go out and take soundings, staff is not. What we accept from the petitioner is a true and accurate statement, sworn statement that what he's giving us is factual. Mr. Scofield has taken soundings. No one has presented to me any evidence whatsoever, other than hearsay, that there is inadequate water depth, that this is gonna interfere with the channel. I would have entertained anything like that and modified the staff report if necessary, but no one presented any hard evidence to staff. Page 18 October 5, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: Mr. Abernathy, if I may? I understand your concerns, but if you look at this map, now, you're talking about in this channel here, right here, let's say you have 100 foot -- this actually measures about 120 to 130 feet, but regardless, most of the canals in Vanderbilt are about 100 feet wide. They're allowed to go out 25 feet on each side. SPEAKERS FROM AUDIENCE: Twenty. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Please, just talk to us. MR. SCOFIELD: Excuse me. You're allowed to go out 20 without a boat dock extension. You're allowed to go out 25 percent of the waterway, to protrude out, 25 percent the boat can protrude out. A lot of docks in there are 20 feet and they have a ten foot boat that -- those are not legal. Anyway, they stick out, let's say 20 feet. You come out with a 20 foot dock in a 100 foot canal each side, that leaves 60 feet of the waterway open. Now, Mr. Abernathy's concerned about navigation. That's 60 feet. We're talking 100 feet out. There's no boat on the other side over here. This is -- yes, there's a sandbar over here, but there's -- no, over here, 100 feet away from the end of the proposed dock. In your waterways here, you only have 50 to 60 feet to navigate in. Now, if someone can navigate in there, they can certainly navigate within 100 feet out here. There is no navigational problem. SPEAKERS FROM AUDIENCE: Pay my towing bill. MR. SCOFIELD: Do you have any other questions? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let's listen to the last lady. Ma'am? Were you sworn in? MS. BURKHARD: Well, I'm new in the area, like two years, and I didn't -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Were you sworn in? MS. BURKHARD-' No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. The court reporter will swear you in, please. You can stay right there. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Would you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter? MS. BURKHARD: Yes, it's Susan Burkhard, B-U-R-K-H-A-R D, 288 Oak Avenue, and also my husband and I were away during Page 19 October 5, 2000 the time that this all came up and so this is very new to us too, but I did go through -- my husband and I gathered some information. I did go through your code and I -- you know, I kind of want to know, on the code it says, you know, you're not supposed to be obstructing the view of the neighbors type of thing, and I mean, I can quote it, but I don't think you want to hear it right now, and it seems that this, number one, is going to be obstructing the view of the neighbors, and that, I assume, is one of the critical parts of the code. So I would like to see that you take a really good look at that factor. Also, if -- if these people are allowed to protrude out into the canal as far as the proposal is, how about the guy on Palm Court, if he wants to do it, what does that bring us down to as far as width -- navigable width between the two areas? In other words, if the guy across the canal -- or not across, because there's some open water there, but just down from -- from, you know, where this proposed dock is to the left, if they decide, hey, they need to find deeper water and they want to go out whatever feet and that happens to be, you know, getting closer and closer to this other dock, does that mean when you take your boat out, you're going to have to be going like this around docks? I don't think that was the purpose of, you know, this whole exercise of, you know, putting out laws in the first place or rules or whatever. Are rules not, you know, made to be kept by all people as far as possible? It sounds like from everybody else that it is possible for them to have a dock, enjoy boating as well as anybody else without creating a problem for other people. I guess that's about it. I'm going to leave this letter and it has a lot of the -- it cites a lot of the code items and I addressed each one of those, so I would appreciate it if you would read this. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Sir, if you have new testimony -- I think we get the message, but if you've got a new comment, I'll be glad to take it. MR. BURKHARD: I do. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Were you sworn in? MR. BURKHARD: No, I wasn't, sir. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If you'd raise your right hand and the court reporter will swear you in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BURKHARD-' My name is Bruce Burkhard. I'm Susan's Page 20 October 5, 2000 husband and I live at 283 Oak Avenue, and my comment is that I went out yesterday in a boat and measured those depths that Rocky was talking about just south of the dock. The depth of that channel runs about -- we were out there at about average tide. It wasn't high, it wasn't low, and the depth of the channel at that time was five and a half feet. As we came over to the shoreline on the opposite side, on the Palm Court side, the water depths went to three and a half feet, and I didn't go out to the sandbar, but obviously, it gets shallower and shallower from that point, so -- also his statement that none of the other neighbors are concerned since they didn't speak up, I spoke, and my wife spoke with them and we're here to tell you that we do not agree with this dock and we don't think this exception should be made at this time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Ma'am, were you sworn in? MS. STRAUSSER: No, I wasn't. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Would you raise your right hand so the court reporter can swear you in? (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: State your name and spell it, please. MS. STRAUSSER: I am Eleanor Strausser. I own the property at 395 Oak Avenue. I am directly across from Ron and Harriette Link. Do you have a letter here from Ronald Link? I do not want to call anybody a liar, and if he talked to him, he is opposed to this. You said you talked to him. MR. SCOFIELD: Not Link. MS. STRAUSSER: Well, he's next door. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, you address it to us and we'll ask the questions of the petitioner. MS. STRAUSSER: He's next door to that property, exactly next door to it and he sent a letter right away and he is opposed to it. They are out of town right now. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MS. STRAUSSER: And I sent a letter in and I am opposed to it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You sent a letter to whom, ma'am? MS. STRAUSSER: I sent a letter to the Collier County Government. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We have it. MS. STRAUSSER: And Ronald Link sent a letter. Do you have it? Page 21 October 5, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I didn't see the Link one. It may be at that end of the -- MR. GOCHENAUR.' May I address that, please, ma'am? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ross? MR. GOCHENAUR: Is this lot eight that you're talking about? Is this Mr. Link's property? MS. STRAUSSER: Yes, the adjoining property. MR. GOCHENAUR: I spoke with Mr. Link personally. He told me that initially he had objected to the project. He came in, sat down with me, we looked at the plans, discussed the situation and he told me that he had withdrawn his objection. MS. STRAUSSER: Well, I didn't know that. They are out of town, I know that, but I object to this, if it's going to extend past the other docks. There is no call to extend it past the other docks, and it is a hazard. My husband has been stuck over there on that sandbar and the towing bills will prove it, and I can't believe that it's 110 feet out. It might be 110 feet from the dock -- or from the seawall, but it won't be 110 feet at the end of the dock over to the sandbar. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate it. Brief comments, please. MR. SCOFIELD: Real quick, real quick. You know, I think this proves, I had discussions with both neighbors, these people have misinformation. Mr. Link, I met on his dock with the owner, the applicant and another gentleman whom I can't remember his name. Mr. Link talked to me, said he has no problem, he has problems at his dock. The same with the other neighbor. There aren't any problems there, and Mr. Burkhard, I believe, he also -- it clarifies my point on the canal. That canal is 130 feet wide. Our dock's sticking out 30 feet past -- 35 or 40 -- what is it, past the platted line, excuse me. Yeah, 38 feet. When you get over to the line off of Palm Avenue, that's where it starts to shallow. That's almost 100 feet away. That's what I've been saying. But until there, you have five feet of water. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Rocky? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Rocky? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What's your bottom line? How much could you shorten that dock up to make these people feel a Page 22 October 5, 2000 little better about it? You said three feet. Can you go any further than that? MR. SCOFIELD: Well~ you know, I don't know what they're going to be happy with. I mean, whether it's two, three or 20 feet, but the trouble is, if you look at your cross-section, we're dead -- by the waters there, the owners would like to have like a 26 foot boat. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY-' Which draws how much? MR. SCOFIELD: The 26 foot boat? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. MR. SCOFIELD: Probably on the stern end~ two and a half feet to three, but it's brought bow in to get enough water. It's very shallow in there. Now, yeah, the bow doesn't draw hardly any water at all. We can slide the dock up three to four feet, but not much more than that because that areal it's very shallow, as you can see by the cross-section. That's why we're requesting what we are. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Rocky, could you just give us a number that you could live with? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'm gonna give you one in just a minute that's going to be - CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I didn't know if Rocky would give - COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: It's going to be 57~ and if he wants to comment on that before you close the public meeting - CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Saadeh, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Yeah, to Mr. Scofield. Rocky, the adjacent property owners, the closest to you with lots, how far do they protrude down into the water? The closest ones to you that are existing, how far do they step into the water? MR. SCOFIELD: Mr. Link's boat is -- excuse me, his dock -- well, it's in the -- what is it? It's in the application. Mr. Link's out 38 feet. The other dock is out 46. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And with that, you would have to add the beam of the boat to get the total protrusion? MR. SCOFIELD: Not on Link. Link has a lift on the inside. He can dock on the outside, which he has to do until the water comes up~ until he can get his boat on the lift, he docks out there, so the boat is out there sometimes, so if you add a ten foot beam to that~ that's 48 feet~ but he keeps his boat on a lift on the Page 23 October 5, 2000 inside, but he's come to me and told me that we're going to have to do something there because he doesn't have the water. The other one is out 46 feet, and that's as far out as it goes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And that's from the seawall, not like your lot? MR. SCOFIELD: That's from the seawall line. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Which is a straight seawall, as opposed to yours that goes in 24 feet? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. I'm sorry, what did you say? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Your lot, your seawall goes in 24 feet from the regular normal seawall. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Your neighbors that have these numbers, 38 feet and 46 feet, are they from the normal seawall or mm MR. SCOFIELD: That's from their seawall, actual seawall. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Existing seawall. MR. SCOFIELD: Existing seawall. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Which does not protrude in 24 feet like yours? Excuse me, I'm asking him the question. You'll get your chance. MR. SCOFIELD: It is from the existing seawall. Where you see the line going in, there's the docks right there. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. MR. GOCHENAUR: I'd like to point out that the distances on there, I measured them. They were submitted with the building -- this drawing was submitted for a building permit for a different dock, so the accuracy is approximate, and I've tried to stress this was just for iljustration purposes. MR. SCOFIELD: There's the distances right there. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can we agree that your dock goes 20 feet further than either of the other two? It would seem to me that would -- MR. SCOFIELD: Twelve. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sixty-one as opposed to 41. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, okay. My measurement was 46 on that, SO-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So 15 feet? MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, 15 to 16 feet past that, that's correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions from the Page 24 October 5, 2000 commissioners? If not, I'm going to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve BD-2000-20 with a boat dock that is a maximum of 57 feet into the waterway as opposed to the 61 that was requested. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'll make a second to that and make the additional comment that -- that the decision or the vote of this Planning Commission is based upon expert and credible testimony. In the seven years I've been on the Planning Commission, Mr. Scofield's been before us dozens of times and I know that he has excellent integrity and reliability and he's presented testimony as to the depths and distances relative to this dock. Now, there is an appeals process, that should this be approved, and the vote hasn't been taken, but should it be approved, you can appeal to the Board of County Commissioners. There will be time to get controverting expert testimony, if there's someone that can measure it differently and come up with a different story, then that would probably carry the day, but given the fact that Mr. Scofield has, in my mind, excellent credibility and it's pretty straight math, I'm inclined to support it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Budd. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carries. Thank you. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, my-- COMMISSIONER BUDD: I know you know this, Rocky, but if you proceed with this within, I think it's 14 days, it's at your own risk. MR. SCOFIELD: There's no house there, we can't build. COMMISSIONER BUDD-' Okay. So there's -- just for the audience, there is ample time to appeal this to the Board of County Commissioners if they feel strongly that all the evidence was not on the table. MR. NINO-' Mr. Chairman, you have two more petitions before you hit item number E. The item number E applicants are not here. If they're not here by now, it's obvious they're not gonna show up. Rather than keep people in the audience who may have an interest in Item E, I suggest that you take action to Page 25 October 5, 2000 continue that petition to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The next meeting or indefinitely? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move -- MR. NINO: No, the next meeting of the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I need a motion on Item E. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we continue Item E to our next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved and seconded to move PD-97-18(1) to the next Planning Commission meeting. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carries. For those of you folks that were here for the Dunes PUD, I'm sorry, the petitioners are not here. It's been rescheduled in two weeks. Having done that, let's move on to Petition BD-2000-22. Ross, you're up again. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services. The petitioner's requesting a 25 foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 45 feet into the waterway. The property is located at Port of the Islands and contains about 100 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the construction of a U-shaped dock and boat lift. The extension is needed to reach adequate water depth and the canal is relatively wide. Similar extensions up to 45 feet have been approved on nearby lots. No objections to this project have been received. The project meets all criteria and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE-' Any questions of staff? And I apologize, all those wishing to testify on this, please stand and raise your right hand be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I apologize. Any comments from the petitioner?. MR. SCOFIELD: Not unless you have questions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? If not, any comments from the public on this petition? Page 26 October 5, 2000 If not, I close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve BD-2000-22. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll second that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Saadeh. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. At this point, I would like to make an announcement that I should have made earlier. My presence has been requested in front of Judge Turner shortly after eleven o'clock, so the vice-chairman needs to be prepared to take over the meeting at that time. I don't think I'm going to miss that meeting. Item V-2000-19. All those wishing to present testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MURRAY: Good morning. For the record, I'm Don Murray, principal planner with Planning Services Department. This petition is for a variance to the side yard setbacks for property located at 95 Myrtle Lane in the Pine Ridge Road -- excuse me, Pine Ridge Extension subdivision. If approved, this variance of 8.4 feet from both of the side yard setbacks of 30 feet would allow the applicant to place a standard sized tennis court in the rear portion of their property. Staff has looked at this petition to see if there is any other way to place the tennis court -- SPEAKERS FROM AUDIENCE: We can't hear. MR. MURRAY: Can you hear me now? Okay. I'm sorry. Once again, if this petition is approved, this variance of 8.4 feet from each of the 30 foot side yards would allow a standard sized tennis court be placed in the rear portion of the petitioner's property. Staff has looked at other ways of placing this standard sized tennis court on the property and any way that you would do it, you would have to remove the swimming pool, it would still either encroach into the side yards or into the rear yard setback. Staff has also looked at it for impacts to neighboring properties and we believe that there would be minimal or no Page 27 October 5, 2000 impacts. Tennis courts are accessory structures to this district. Therefore, staff is recommending approval. There are also no objections today. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He said no objections? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Do we have a petitioner? Would the petitioners like to say anything? MR. JOHNSON: My name is Mark Johnson, the petitioner, and thank you for the opportunity. We -- we have four young kids that play tennis after school and we're just encouraging them to keep up the sport. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All right. Just a question, and I am obviously not a tennis player. Is this what you would call a normal sized tennis court? MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, regulation size. Normal size~ yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question that's a little odd here, but have you selected your contractor yet? MR. JOHNSON: No. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Because we have had difficulties and this Planning Commission saw fit to ask one person, I believe, to tear out a tennis court because it was improperly placed. So you're here before you've selected the contractor and before you've taken any action other than to try to place a standard sized tennis court on your property; is that correct? MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of the petitioners? Anyone from the public wish to speak about this? If not~ I'll close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve V-2000-19. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'll second it if we forward it to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, I guess we could recommend for approval. That would be all right. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to comment under discussion that I am not a fan of variances, as most of the people on the board know, but I felt this petition was well researched Page 28 October 5, 2000 and that they came here in advance. Therefore, I can support this particular variance. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any other discussion? If not, then a motion has been made by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Budd. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carries. Item E has been moved until two weeks, which brings up PD -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question. Do we toss these and you'll give us new ones or do we hold on to them? MR. NINO: No, toss them. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let's move on to PUD-2000-07, the Two Lakes Plaza PUD. Susan? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a disclosure. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let me swear them in because I think we've all got some disclosures. All of those wishing to give testimony on this petition, please rise and raise your right hand. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Susan? MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry, did you have disclosures? I heard somebody mention they did. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes, I have spoken with Bruce Anderson, an attorney for this particular project. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any others? I've spoken with the -- one of the petitioner's attorneys here. I've also had conversation with some members of the public. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Good morning. Susan Murray with planning staff. The subject 20.38 acre site is located on the east side of U.S. 41. It's one mile north of the intersection of Old 4t and U.S. 41 across from the Retreat PUD. The site is designated urban residential mixed use on the future land use map of the growth management plan. However, the site meets the requirements of the office and infill subdistrict of the FLUE. Therefore, it is eligible to be rezoned to PUD to allow for lower intensity commercial and office type of land uses. The office and infill subdistrict restricts development on a parcel to a maximum of t2 acres. As such, a maximum of 12 Page 29 October 5, 2000 acres of this site will be developed. The balance of the parcel, which is about 8.38 acrest will remain in preserve and open space, including water management tracts. The petitioner's proposing to develop this site for a maximum of 144,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial uses or a maximum of 288,000 gross square feet of office area. Per each square foot of commercial area developed, two square feet of the office area would be forfeited. We're looking at the PUD master plan. The parcel is generally divided into four development parcels which are adjacent to U.S. 41. Parcels A and B, which are in the northern section of the development, are restricted to uses generally allowable in the C-2 zoning district and then select uses out of the C-3 zoning district. Parcels C and D are allowed to be developed with uses that are generally found in the C-3 zoning district. This is in concert with the criteria of the office and infill subdistrict which attempts to create a step-down effect from land with higher intensity commercial uses, which would be -- to the south of the subject parcel, we have a C-3 zoning district and then C-4, so the step-down effect would take place from C-4 to the south, C-3, C-3, then C-2 uses on parcels A and B, and then to the north is an existing church. The southerly access to the site is from U.S. 41 and it lines up with the Retreat PUD, which is located on the west side of U.S. 41. The northerly access of the site will be limited to right in and right out and that will also access 41. There's a large wetland and preserve area along the western boundary of the site. This ranges in length from 250 to 300 feet and creates a natural wooded buffer of significant width between the subject site and the Sterling Oaks PUD, which is located to the east. The PUD master plan indicates that interconnection between the subiect site and the C-3 zoned property to the south will take place. That property is currently under -- undeveloped, but you'll see the arrow on the PUD master plan that indicates when tracts are developed, there will be an interconnection there. Evaluation of the petition for consistency with the growth management plan indicates that there is no inconsistency relationship between the proposed rezoning and the growth Page 30 October 5, 2000 management plan. Staff feels the project is compatible with abutting properties to the north, south, east and west, especially since there is this large preserve area to the east, which creates a rather significant buffer with the residential land uses to the east. The EAC voted five to zero to recommend approval of this project, and I do need to get one other bit of information on the record. Your staff report indicated that the property was located in an archaeological area and that is not the case. I wanted to make that clear. I have received no telephone calls or had any conversations or letters with anybody in objection to this project. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. Parcel A -- parcels A and B are more user intensive than C and D, are they not, since they're -- aren't they light retail? MS. MURRAY: Parcels A and B are limited to uses found in the C-2 zoning district and some select uses found in the C-3 zoning district, whereas parcels C and D would be all of your uses in the C-3 zoning district and C-2. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: My question is, wouldn't those uses in A and B be more intensive as far as the number of users than the ones in C and D? MS. MURRAY: Maybe I'm not understanding your question, but I don't think so. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You don't think so? MS. MURRAY: There are retail uses permitted. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Parcel A is only accessible through parcel B; is that right? MS. MURRAY: That would be correct. MR. NINO.' Mr. Chairman, if Commissioner Abernathy's question has to do with average daily traffic movements, I think A and B is primarily an office and light retail, though it probably is not a shopping center. However, a shopping center's more likely going to the south. The offices generate less daily traffic than do shopping centers or your typical -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So A would be the best place for them. MS. MURRAY: Right. More than likely, given the access configurations, the southerly access would have -- again, sharing Page 31 October 5, 2000 with the Retreat would have the full median opening, which is the more likely spot for your higher intensity uses versus the northerly parcels. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions of staff? If not, can we hear from the petitioners? MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the applicant. I have Robert Duane, a planner with Hole~ Montes and Associates is also here with me today and we'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Miss Murray has done her usual good job of explaining the petition. This is a straightforward request for a commercial infill zoning~ fronting on U.S. 41 near the Lee County line. We are in agreement with all the stipulations requested by staff and as Miss Murray noted and I wanted to trumpet again, the Environmental Advisory Council unanimously recommended approval of this project. As Miss Murray noted in her staff report, the project does provide for a transition of commercial uses from the south to the north, such that the lowest intensity commercial uses are located along the northern property line next to the church. I conferred with Mr. Duane as you all were discussing this item and he advises me that a shopping center might be able to go on the most southern pieces, but not on the northern. Also, as the staff report notes, the just over five acre natural preserve area provides a significant buffer along the eastern property line next to Sterling Oaks. This natural preserve area, together with the water management area, provide a buffer area that is a minimum of 250 feet from Sterling Oaks' boundary line to the closest commercial development parcel, and then in addition to that 250 feet, there's a 20 foot setback on our commercial parcels from their boundaries. I do not know what the rear yard setback would be within Sterling Oaks for those homes from their property line. Typically, it's a minimum of 25 feet. If that is, in fact~ the case~ then we'd have close to the length of a football field in open space. And speaking of open space, I would also point out that the project exceeds the county's minimum open space requirements, which are 30 percent for commercial development. This one provides 40 percent. As I said, Mr. Duane and I will be happy to try and answer any Page 32 October 5, 2000 questions that you may have. Otherwise, we'll wait and respond to any issues that might arise in subsequent -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of the petitioners? Susan, I just had a question. On the staff recommendation, is there a reason why those three items are specifically listed? Aren't those part of the PUD anyway? MS. MURRAY: Sometimes what happens is, the staff report gets written and then the PUD subsequently gets amended to incorporate as we have discussions with the petitioner, and I think that's basically what happened here. Yes, you should find those items in the staff report and that would be reflected in the executive summary to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Any members of the public wish to speak on this? MR. NINO: You have three registered speakers, Heyward Boyce~ Robert Mitchell, David Flynn. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Would you folks line up right over here behind the podlure, please? Come on forward and state your name and spell it for the record. MR. BOYCE.' My name is Heyward Boyce, last name, B-O-Y-C-E. I'm here in my capacity as a member of the Retreat PUD board of directors and also in my capacity as the director of physical plant for the Bentley Village portion of the Retreat PUD. I speak out of concern for safety and the traffic impact on U.S. 41. The entrance to the Retreat PUD, which is a gated community, has been the scene of a great many accidents~ automobile accidents, for people crossing at that median opening. I must tell you that the residents of Bentley Village and some members of the Retreat are not the youngest population in Collier County. ! believe our average age is in excess of 80. There are many of those people who live there independently who do drive into and out of Bentley Village on a regular basis. I note that the access -- one of the access points is at the median opening which parallels -- or adjoins directly the Retreat~ the name of the road is the Retreat, within the Retreat PUD. It is my suggestion that you, in your deliberations, consider the need for traffic control at that point. I note also that that's an FDOT concern. I would expect that your deliberations would stipulate perhaps that there be the appropriate and proper Page 33 October 5, 2000 degree of traffic control at that median opening across from the Retreat PUD and into this development that is under consideration. Second -- the second access point, the one to the north, does not have an associated median cut shown on the drawing. I'm questioning whether or not the petitioner would plan to ask for a median opening at that point, and we would express our objections to that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. DUANE: Robert Duane, for the record, representing the petitioner. We have no plans for a median opening for our northernmost access point, nor would we meet the FDOT spacing requirements for that access point. We always have assumed that the median on the -- median at the southern end of the property was where we were going to have our full turning movement, so you can add that as a stipulation or however you might want to address it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker? MR. MITCHELL: Good morning. My name is Robert Mitchell, M-I-T-C-H-E-I.-L. I live at 1543 Serenity Circle in Sterling Oaks, immediately adjacent to the east of the proposed development. Part of my concern as a resident has been alleviated by Miss Murray already, but the wetland area, I'm very pleased to see, is there, and right now, that is purely drained. There isn't much else you can do with that area in the wetland to the east. My concern is twofold. One is the question of noise from Route 41, which even with the current undevelopment is very high, of course, during the season or wintertime, and I wondered if the developers had any intent to develop a sound barrier of any kind on the east edge of the development? The current trees -- the current trees that are there at the present time provide some protection, obviously, but the development of that area is likely to bring a great deal more noise to the residents of Sterling Oaks. So that's one question. The second question is in relation to the development itself in terms of height. Are there height restrictions? We're not looking here at three or four story office buildings, I take it, or are we? I'd like to have some concern (sic) there, if possible, as to what we're looking at. So these are my two concerns. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. We will get the petitioner to Page 34 October 5, 2000 answer those questions in just a little bit. Sir? MR. FLYNN: Mr. David Flynn. I live on Serenity Circle, directly behind the proposed project. As Mr. Mitchell said, I'm happy about the wetlands, but the one thing that comes in during the dry season, if that dries up, I'm considering safety. Will there be any kind of a fence so that people cannot walk into the Sterling Oaks development? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We will ask the petitioner that when they come up. MR. FLYNN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You bet. Thank you. Anybody else from the public wish to speak on this? If not, we can get a response from the petitioner on those questions. MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane again. We have some language we're going to share with you today about buffering. We are committing, at a minimum, to a type B buffer along the eastern edge of the property line. You have to understand that there's quite a bit of existing vegetation there, so we would supplement any additional material within that buffer area to at least meet the type B buffer. The type B buffer talks about trees 25 feet on center with double rows of hedges and it's not something that's easily penetrable. It has to reach 80 percent opacity within a 12 month period. Frankly, that is the requirement between commercial and residential, and I'm just reinforcing that we are going to meet that standard at a minimum today, and the language that I'm prepared to submit today, in fact, just says that buffering along the eastern property line will have the equivalency of a type B buffer in terms of size, height and opacity as set forth in division 2.4 of the land development code, where the existing plant material and the preserve area does not achieve the standard. That's in response to the buffering and security issue. The question regarding the building height that was brought up, the lands to the south of us that are zoned C-3 are permitted a height of 50 feet, and our PUD ordinance provides for four stories or 50 feet, which is similar to what we're next to. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of the petitioner?. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The land is presently Page 35 October 5, 2000 undeveloped? MR. DUANE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So people can walk across the dry wetlands as they presently exist, can they not? MR, DUANE: Well, there's a lot of water there standing today, but I agree with the gentleman that when we're out of the dry season, it's probably much more penetrable than it is today. I'm open to any suggestions that the board or any of the residents may have on what, other than a type B buffer, but my understanding is, by the time we fill that out, that is not going to be something that's going to be easily penetrable. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it seems to me if it had been a problem, Sterling Oaks would have built a fence already, so I don't think that's your burden. MR. DUANE: There is a little wall along the portion of the lots at Sterling Oaks, but it's probably only three feet high. It's a little cinder block wall, but it doesn't do much to screen much of anything at the present time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No further questions? No further comments from the public? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Discussion, motion? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Planning Commission forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, including the staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Priddy (sic). All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: It was Commissioner Abernathy. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I am hard of hearing. You have to speak up. Seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. Item K has been moved forward and will be heard next, CPSS-2000-01, the amendment to the Golden Gate future -- Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. Do we need swearing in? Page 36 October 5, 2000 MR. NINO: No. MS. STUDENT: Not for the comp. plan amendment. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. With that, we'll go straight to Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Morning, commissioners, David Weeks of your comprehensive planning staff. This is what is referred to as a small scale comprehensive plan amendment. The difference between this amendment and most of those amendments that you see to the comprehensive plan is, number one, that this is a map change only. There's no text involved, and secondly, there's only one hearing in front of the Planning Commission, one in front of the board. You take final action today. This is not a transmittal. This is not the first of two sets of hearings. This is the one of only one hearing that comes before you. Now, there's also, as you're aware, a companion fezone petition on today's agenda. The subject property is located on the north side of -- excuse me, south side of Randall Boulevard in Golden Gate Estates opposite the Orangetree PUD. The proposal is to add the 9.54 acre parcel to the designated Randall Boulevard commercial center subdistrict which allows for office and retail, commercial uses. As the staff report reflects, staff has reviewed the state statutes and verified that the property does, in fact, comply with the requirements for a small scale amendment. To the north is the Orangetree PUD. Specifically to the north, immediately to the northeast and northwest within that PUD, are approved but undeveloped residential uses. That is, the PUD allows residential, but there's no development there today. To the east and to the west and to the south, all of the properties are zoned and designated estates. About 1,000 feet to the west is when you come to the existing Randall Boulevard commercial comprehensive plan designation and also two existing PUDs implementing that. That is, allowing commercial uses, and then to the east approximately 500 feet -- excuse me, approximately 339 feet is a five acre tract containing the Division of Forestry fire tower. Originally when the Golden Gate master plan was approved in 1991, there were neighborhood centers which allowed for a portion of those centers to be developed with commercial. Those were located throughout the estates, all of the different Page 37 October 5, 2000 study areas east of County Road 951, Collier Boulevard, but subsequently all of those neighborhood centers were removed, with the exception of the one at Pine Ridge and 951, the result being the provision for future commercial rezones out in the estates was removed east of 951. So you're probably aware there's the existing G's Grocery down at Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard, and then within the Orangetree PUD, which is approved for 22 acres of commercial property, there's the north G's. The remainder of those 22 acres are undeveloped. Also in May of this year, the Board of County Commissioners approved a neighborhood center designation at Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard opposite the existing G's Grocery Store, which provides for another opportunity of five acres of commercial development there, and that rezone petition is also on today's agenda. My point in all of this is, when we started out, the Golden Gate master plan had provisions to allow for commercial to be spread in the estates to serve the future population there. For the most part, that opportunity has been removed. The petitioner now is asking for 9.54 acres to be designated Randall Boulevard Center. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You said that was removed? The opportunity to have commercial within Golden Gate was removed? MR, WEEKS: As far as the neighborhood centers go. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Neighborhood centers? MR. WEEKS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. And that logic is what? MR. WEEKS: I think the primary concern, going back to when they were removed, which was around 1992, was a segment of the estates population, there's a dichotomy out there, but a segment of the population did not want non-residential uses. Some segment of the population said, we moved out here to be away from the commercial, to be away from urban type development. If we need to do some shopping, we'll go into town. Leave us alone out here. A segment of the population. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right. MR. WEEKS: Another segment, of course, said, we need some commercial out here, don't make me drive ten miles, 15 miles, five miles to get to a shopping center. We're starting to see at Page 38 October 5, 2000 the County Commission level some change as far as commercial goes. I mentioned on May 9th, five acres of commercial development was added at the Wilson and Golden Gate intersection. I think -- I'll stick my neck out and say I think we're going to see more. Regardless of the disposition of today's petition, I think the county's going to see more petitions coming forth asking for commercial in the estates east of 951. At build-out, I don't have the number, but that's going to be tens of thousands of people out there and the amount of commercial opportunity presently allowed is in the tens of acres, something like maybe 40 acres. It's very small. Staff has no issue, no disagreement with the petitioner in this case that there is and will be a need for more commercial opportunity in Golden Gate Estates east of 951. The question is, where is the appropriate location, what should the intensity of that use be, what should the concentration be? I mean, should we allow something comparable to the Carillon Shopping Center, you know, 30 something acres, or should it be something small like the existing G's, a couple of acres, or somewhere in between? The magnitude of the commercial, the intensity of the uses and the location -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And that -- following that up then, staff is making some sort of a change, but they're changing because you feel that the residents that actually live in the area are changing their minds? MR. WEEKS: Staff's position has always been that there is a need for commercial east of 951. You might be thinking of the amendments that you heard in May of this year when staff did not support, I believe it was three different commercial provisions in Golden Gate Estates. Our issue was location, primarily. Is this the right place for the commercial. Also the magnitude. That one at Wilson and Golden Gate, that allowed for more commercial than neighborhood centers ordinarily would allow, so there was an issue with that, but we have never said, that I know of, that there is not a need for commercial in the Estates. The Estates is broken down into study areas. We don't just say everything east of 951. It is broken down into three study areas north of 1-75, and right now all of the commercial that's Page 39 October 5, 2000 within study area three, study area two, which is east -- excuse me, is west of Wilson Boulevard over to 951, no commercial approved. Study area four, which is east of the subject property and goes all the way to the eastern edge of the Estates, zero commercial approved. It's all in the big linear pattern from Orangetree down to the Wilson/Golden Gate intersection. That's where the commercial is presently approved in both the comprehensive plan designations and then the zoning. The subject property is located in study area three near the Orangetree PUD, near the existing Randall Boulevard Center. Staff's issue with this petition is the location. A thousand feet to the west is the existing Randall Boulevard Center. If this is approved, what is going to happen to the intervening 15 acres of property? In our opinion, it's probably going to come in for commercial. The magnitude then, instead of this being a single nine and a half acre petition, we're looking at longer term and seeing it's going to be approximately 32 acres of commercial along this corridor, and if you count the eight acres of Orangetree at the intersection of Immokalee and Randall Boulevard, it's about 40 acres. We're now looking at an activity center quadrant as far as the size and the amount of commercial. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: To the layman, you create something of a conundrum when you recommend denial of this petition -- MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- and your colleague recommends approval of the PUD. Can you explain why? And -- MR. WEEKS: Certainly. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- your common superiors, the usual suspects, have all signed off on both of those. Can you explain why they're not consistent? MR. WEEKS: Yes, I can, I believe. The rezone petition is dependent upon the comprehensive plan amendment. If the comprehensive plan amendment is not approved, then staff's recommendation for the rezone is denial. It has to be because that rezone would not be consistent with the comprehensive Page 40 October 5, 2000 plan. The rezone is subservient to the comprehensive plan. There's an amendment proposed to that comprehensive plan, and if it's not approved, that rezone cannot be approved, so the recommendation of approval for that rezone approval is contingent upon the approval of the plan amendment. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Weeks, if -- if the property in between the existing development and this -- this proposed development, if that were all tied together, would your recommendation be different? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. I support denial of this petition because the land in between is -- is not connected, but if -- if someone walked in here with that parcel and this parcel, then yes, I'm in full support of that because I'm well aware of the services that are needed in that area to help keep some people off of our roads -- MR. WEEKS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- with that, and why would you not recommend or support that commercial development if it were all together? Because that seems to make more sense from a planning standpoint of, you know, an opportunity to do something with services all together as opposed to, you know, smaller -- MR. WEEKS: The concern is the concentration. Again, if you look at the whole picture, you've got about 40 acres of commercial, all in study area three. All of this property up and down Everglades Boulevard from Immokalee Road to 1-75 still has no commercial to serve them. At the maximum, it's about ten miles to get to this location. There's a need for more commercial there. There's -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But not -- there's a need for it, but not now, because if the need for it were now, we'd be -- somebody would be here before us, you know, wanting that. Now, it's coming and I know it's coming and I certainly hope it gets here, but you know, there -- there is a need for commercial development in that area and it seems to me that it should be next door to the commercial that's -- you know, that's already there. MR. WEEKS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So I guess what I'm saying is, I Page 4t October 5, 2000 would hope that, you know, we would see the land in between come back and maybe this with it, you know, for development, commercial development. MR. WEEKS: Right. One last comment, if I may, to address your comments. As you're all aware, the community character and design study is underway and I think being -- close to being wrapped up. We don't know what the outcome of that is going to be yet. We don't know, of course, ultimately what the county commissioners will do with that. That is, if there are recommendations in that study that there be additional commercial opportunities in the Estates, what might those recommendations be and ultimately what action will the board take. Staff is looking at this from a standpoint of what do our existing regulations say, what provisions do they provide, what policy direction is there as far as commercial location. What I'm saying to you is, if we move over to here at the time -- after this community character design study is completed, for all I know, they're going to come back and say all of Randall Boulevard should be commercial. I don't think they will, but they might target this area for commercial. If the policy direction changes, absolutely, we might have a petition for those infill properties and staff will be here saying, yes, we support it, but under the existing conditions, staff's recommendation is, no, this is not the appropriate location, it's not the appropriate magnitude for commercial development. Staff's recommendation, as has already been mentioned, is not to approve this petition. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? If not, can we hear from the petitioner? MR. NADEAU: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Dwight Nadeau, McAnly Engineering and Design representing both petitions this morning. Just prior to the public hearing, I was offered five letters of support for the petition, as well as six letters of intent to obtain lease space in the proposed development. I'd like to offer those into the record to Mr. Nino. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Could you pass them down so we can glance at them, please? MR. NADEAU: Yes. The analysis of the Golden Gate area Page 42 October 5, 2000 commercial land use study that our office did used the same methodology as what the county did, using -- we using current demographic information provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office. Our independent analysis used the same static per capita income as the county's study. We determined that the two thousand -- the year 2000 demand is 26 acres for study area three and seven acres for study area four. Recognizing that there's 12.84 acres of commercial land in study area three, there's currently a deficit of 13.16 acres. This here, not considering the per capita income that was used in the county study of $11~292 per person. Well, the Economic Development Council determined that the 1998 per capita income in study area three was $15,551, a difference of $4,260. That's more purchasing power. When one uses the 1998 per capita income with the 1999 demographic information, the deficit increases to 21.5 acres, only in study area three. And further, when you use a 2003 per capita income with 1999 demographic information~ the deficit substantially increases -- I'm sorry, 2003 -- 2005 demographic information, the deficit increases to 32 acres. Now, staff -- excuse me, the county's analysis included the commercial lands in Orangetree. The study specifically excluded that area from the study area. If I can move the visualizer, I may be able to help a little. This is the exhibit which shows study area three. See the hole in the middle of it? That's Orangetree. They excluded the population from their study, but they included the acreage within Orangetree. Orangetree is a DRI. The scope of the land uses in Orangetree PUD DRI are to support the residential units~ 2,100 residential units that they're approved for, within the DRI. I will identify the table within the county's commercial analysis and I'll identify a stagnant per capita income. Look, when you move out into year '95, yes, it does jump to 2000, but in 2000, it jumps to eleven two ninety two, but that figure continues off into infinity, out to 2010. You'll also find that the floor area ratios for monies spent on the square foot of commercial stays stagnant as well. They increase from '88 to '90 to '95, but from '95 on, that purchasing floor area ratio is stagnant. It's stagnant, static. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Dwight, do you have a comment on Page 43 October 5, 2000 why that might be? We're working with statistics. MR. NADEAU: I know. I -- I can't respond. You would think with the incomes increasing as time goes by, that the ability to purchase would increase as well. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Seems reasonable to me. MR. NADEAU: Seems reasonable to me. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MR. NADEAU: Clearly the analysis of the Golden Gate area master plan is flawed and a new study must be pursued because the commercial needs of the rural estates are not being served. By relying on the study, the county is doing a disservice for the residents of the rural estates. Now, this is not an attack on staff. This is a deficiency within the Golden Gate area master plan, which is a -- a rule to follow for getting additional commercial land uses, to serve the residents of the rural estates. Staff did agree there is a deficit. Staff probably wasn't aware of how significant this deficit is. I have some compatibility issues that I can discuss, but they relate primarily to the PUD, but I think it's important for you to know, as a part of this small scale plan amendment as well, presently we have 135 feet separating the south boundary to the nearest commercial component on the PUD master plan located in this area here. The petitioner is agreeing to, should we move on to the PUD, he'll agree to a 100 foot rear yard setback and separation and buffer from the estates lots to the south. We will agree to putting that condition in the PUD. Currently the setback is 75 feet in the PUD, but with water management requirements, it will have to be pursued to develop the site. There may be some reduction in this south boundary area to increase the water management storage along the east and west boundaries. The maximum height of any use that is proposed in the Randall Shopping Center PUD is 25 feet. That's less than the 30 feet allowed in the estates zone. There may be some concern on drainage. Our average site grade is 14.5. The control elevation is set at 13. We are going to have a one foot perimeter berm set at 15.55 that will hold all the water in and it will discharge at an elevation of 13 into the roadside ditch on Randall Boulevard. These petitions were thoroughly reviewed by county staff for Page 44 October 5, 2000 compliance with all applicable criteria that must be met for a favorable review, and as you recognize, there's a disparity between current planning staff's recommendation and the comprehensive staff's recommendation. Both sections of Planning Services provided an objective review, but the comprehensive planning staff's recommendation is subjective and based on personal opinion or belief of what the development pattern is up there. I pose a question to you, commissioners, what is your belief? Would you build your home on Randall Boulevard west of Eighth Street Northeast? I don't believe I would. Is it appropriate for non-residential land uses along Randall Boulevard west of Eighth Street Northeast? In my opinion, it is. There is a demonstrable need and apparent demand for additional commercial based on the number of ovations made to the petitioner supporting his efforts to respond to the need. It's the county's charge to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents. If this plan amendment is adopted and the PUD is approved, the completed project could capture as many as 1,300 trips per day, thereby potentially eliminating many vehicles having to travel to the urban area to satisfy their commercial needs. Now, in regard to location, I'll provide the same study area map. Does not the subject site sit right in the middle of study area three? I think it's conveniently located for people to travel that -- to the site. You can see by the Golden Gate area master plan that the proposed site is well serviced by both Everglades Boulevard, DeSoto, Randall, Oil Well Road, all conveniently serviced. The petitioner has been a resident of Collier County living in the estates since 1981. He's a friend of the community, the family's a friend of the community. They've done a lot of good for our community. I wholeheartedly request your support for this plan amendment to serve the needs of the rural population. I'd be happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question. Dwight, as you heard me say earlier, I'm -- unless I get my mind changed, I'm probably not gonna support the -- your view on this, and here's my concern. I know as well as anybody that we need all these Page 45 October 5, 2000 services out there, but one of the things we need there is a grocery store, and if we -- we fill in with tire shops and with Badcock and these things and use up what can be used for commercial, there's not going to be room for the grocery store, and that would take the most trips off of Immokalee Road, people coming in out of the estates, and that's why I would like to, you know, personally like to see that space in between tied in so that we have a large enough piece that we know what the development is going to be and get those services in place and -- has there been any discussion or can you shed some light on that -- that piece in between? MR. NADEAU: The piece in between, people have been approached to see if those properties were available. Currently, some of the properties are held by an estate. Other properties are held by individuals that are not able to be contacted. So those properties, in my opinion, you're not gonna see them come in any time soon. That's iust my opinion. If they approach me next year, maybe -- maybe I would take that on, but don't consider that it's all going to be commercial. Those areas are also allowed to go for conditional uses, for non-residential uses, such as fraternity -- not fraternity, but private clubs, churches. A church is needed out there as well, and the number of requests for reservation of lease space in those letters that I provided to you, that's only 35,000. There's still the balance of the property or the commercial allocation of 95,000 square feet. It can easily handle a supermarket. I recognize that need and that's what's been brought up, and I don't know from the petitioner whether you've had any contact from grocery stores? Yes, the petitioner acknowledges yes. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I guess if, you know, if that were one of the names on the list, I would have a much better comfort level, you know, because right now, the only place to put a grocery store is -- is in the Orangetree commercial, which means people have to get out on Naples -- Immokalee Road to get to it. MR. NADEAU: That's correct, and that's only eight acres, that corner piece. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, and it's -- you know, I guess I'd just have a much better comfort level that the services that's going to be needed most, we would be assured are going to be there, you know, if we had -- had something in writing then I Page 46 October 5, 2000 could maybe change my mind and not be as worried about the -- you know, the piece in between. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO.' Mr. Priddy, I have a question. You're saying that you're concerned that the piece in between might not become a grocery store and that we have some way of almost dictating that? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Well, I'm saying that it might not become commercial. Therefore, you know, it would end up being an infill of residential in between two commercial parcels, which is not ideal, yet as Dwight pointed out, who wants to build their home facing Randall in between two commercial pieces. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' So therefore, if it were all tied together, we wouldn't have that situation and, you know, I know that one of the biggest services that we need as the estates develop even further is going to be a grocery store, a large grocery store. Where is that going to go, if not -- and where is it appropriate to go, if not in this quadrant? MR. NADEAU: On this site, commissioner. In speaking with the petitioner, he is committing to have a grocery store within his shopping center land use. I can't divulge the -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And that's -- MR. NADEAU: -- the potential tenants, but he will assure us and commit to a grocery store, food mart in -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Well, now let's -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO.' We've been down that road before. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY-' Yeah, let's talk about -- are we talking about a superette or are we talking about a full fledged, full service Winn Dixie, Publix, Albertson's? MR. NADEAU.' Yes, it is a full service -- will be a full service grocery store. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, then along -- I guess I'll have to ask staff. Don't we have other sites that are already being looked at as grocery stores, but they're not here before us today, correct? MR. NINO.' Well, may I offer a comment in view of what the applicant has offered? For that to be meaningful, of course, you would have to stipulate that that would -- no other development could come on board until the supermarket was in place. Page 47 October 5, 2000 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And I don't think we can do that from a government standpoint. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. STUDENT: This is only a map change. If you start getting into text, it's no longer a small scale comp. plan amendment. The way to possibly deal with that is to put it in the PUD document that supports this. MR. NINO: That would be an action in the PUD. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So this is really only a map change and -- and clarify for someone like myself who's not as up on all the details, what does only a map change really mean? MS. STUDENT: It's just a change to the future land use map or map series. That's all, and there's a statutory criteria for that, which David indicated that it met, and if you start to put text in here, it becomes a regular comp. plan amendment. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Very briefly, to explain further. There's an existing provision in the comprehensive plan for Randall Boulevard Center and it has language in there in the plan that says, these are the types of uses, these are the development standards, et cetera. The petitioner's saying, give me that, I don't need a new provision, I don't need to add a new map provision, I don't need to add new text to get what I want, give me that designation that already exists, and if it's approved, then they'll be allowed to develop under that existing provision. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And then from a planning standpoint, are we looking -- what do we -- what name do we add to this? We don't call it a neighborhood center, we don't call it a regional center? From a planning standpoint, what does this really look like? MR. WEEKS: This is called the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right, but what does that mean? MR. WEEKS: It allows for C-1, C-2, C-3 commercial uses on the property. Office, retail, personal services. Comparable -- the uses allowed would be comparable to that in a neighborhood center, but you don't have all of that criteria that neighborhood centers have about access restrictions, development standards as far as buffering requirements, setbacks, et cetera. It's much more open. Page 48 October 5, 2000 MR, NINO: Excuse me again. I have a question. David, while you're there, if the comp. plan amendment were approved and were -- subsequently the land was rezoned~ would you not have a condition then where you have property lying between two existing commercially zoned properties, and therefore~ that property would qualify for the office infill? MR. WEEKS: No, the office infill provision is only applicable to urban designated areas. This is the estates. CHAIRMAN WRAGE-' And that's the problem I'm having here is compatibility. You're telling me that that's still residential estates? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. MR. NINO.' And would require another plan change. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Another plan change to even infill, should they wish to do that? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. One limitation on these small scale amendments that we're dealing with today is the maximum acreage is ten. So even if those intervening parcels wanted to come forward, they would have to come in piecemeal, or if they came in all together, once they crossed that ten acre threshold, they'd come in through the regular amendment cycle where you would hear it now, send it to Tallahassee and then hear it again. One more point, to affirm what Dwight was saying~ if this is approved, what's requested today, then the parcels abutting to the east and to the west would be eligible for the transitional conditional use, a church, child care, nursing home, et cetera. That would accommodate up to five acres on each side. If those were to be applied and approved~ then that leaves a ten acre parcel between the existing Randall and this Randall. Five acres over there is eligible, so you could potentially end up with a conditional use at each end in between these two -- commercial, commercial~ conditional use, conditional use~ and then five acres sitting there, or 15 acres sitting there for residential. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Saadeh? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Weeks? When is the study going to be finalized and we would get the results of that study? Because that might help. Back in 1991, the commissioners made a motion to have neighborhood centers, and then a lot of neighbors had opposition~ so back in '92, the commissioners Page 49 October 5, 2000 removed the neighborhood centers. Maybe -- maybe it would be helpful if we know what the study is and are they recommending or not recommending and are the commissioners gonna take a position to have designated neighborhood centers and where would they be? I don't know. MR. WEEKS: The answer's January, January 2001 is when the study is supposed to be completed. After that, of course, the end result of that, if there's going to be a change, would have to be a comprehensive plan amendment, COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And I guess I would certainly feel more comfortable with a comprehensive plan amendment that drew a larger circle around that -- around that intersection. And I'm, you know, not saying that you're still going to say that it's an appropriate place for it, but at least we'd have, you know, that larger availability there. MR. WEEKS: Uh-huh. Again, I would repeat that -- what I said earlier, it's the question of the magnitude. All of the commercial provisions in the comprehensive -- Golden Gate master plan for the estates limits development to a maximum of five acres with one exception, and that is the Pine Ridge Road/951 neighborhood center, which the Board of County Commissioners bumped up to be eligible for 20 acres of commercial development, but all of the other is small scale, the neighborhood centers. They have this stringent criteria to ensure compatibility, to ensure maintaining the semi-rural character of the estates. If we enlarge this, and that's part of the staff's concern, again, is the magnitude and the character of the type of development. Certainly the Planning Commission and the board can disagree, and if we eventually get some type of amendment in place or the -- of this study, if the board endorses the study and the study says, yes, we should have bigger commercial in the estates, well, that's a change in the rules and -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, I think that's appropriate if you're talking about Randall and Everglades or Randall and DeSoto, I think that's very appropriate, but what we're talking about here at Randall and Immokalee is a much different situation. I mean, I don't think you can drive by there and say that that's rural under any circumstances. So I think that's, you know, much different. I don't disagree with the smaller five acre possibilities that -- Page 50 October 5, 2000 deeper into the estates, but certainly I think it's very appropriate for larger commercial development to be at a major intersection that's, you know, that's already impacted, and I guess that's what I'm hoping to assure that we get is, you know, is that larger, not smaller, larger commercial development in that area. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We've -- MR. WEEKS: If I may, one last thing I should get on the record, and that is simply that we did not receive any correspondence regarding this. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Could I ask both the petitioner and the staff, maybe we could hear from the public and then you can address those issues along with further comments; can we do that? MR. NINO: I have two registered speakers, Karen Acquard and Pat Humphries. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Come on up and state your name for the record and spell it, please. MS. ACQUARD: Neither one of us have been sworn in. Do you want -- MS. STUDENT: This is legislative. MS. ACQUARD: All right. Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Karen Acquard, A-C-Q-U-A-R-D. I'm a resident, property owner, homeowner that -- on 24th Avenue Northeast, which I have a feeling is going to back on to some of this area. I'm also the acting president of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. These people want to give us services, but they're not asking the residents what they -- what services they want. They're not asking the residents what they want it to look like. You're using the centerfund project at the corner of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard as an example. I would like to point out to everyone here that centerfund approached the estates civic a good year before they ever made their very first petition to this group to have any rezoning done. We've been working with them for close to two years now, coming up with what the residents want in that area as far as stores and how it's to look and so on. I think we've finally come up with a conclusion that everyone's going to be happy with, but this is not being done here. They just want to come in and decide what they want to Page 51 October 5, 2000 give us and I am totally opposed to that. They need to work with the citizens. They need to talk to the residents and find out what is wanted and needed in that area, not what they think we want or need. They -- I can tell you that many of us would prefer to work with these developers and come up with something that is harmonious with the estates area. We definitely do need services. I'm not saying we don't. Many of us do want some services out there, but we have our own ideas of what the services should be. As far as a grocery store, after the two year battle, I will let Mrs. Humphries go into that because she chaired that, I can tell you that the rule of thumb that is used by the grocery stores such as Publix, Winn Dixie and Albertson's is 15,000 people in a three mile radius and we don't have them, and Publix has made it perfectly clear that it will be two years before they will even consider anything out in the estates, and at that time, the only thing they will consider is the Orangetree PUD. As far as Winn Dixie or Albertson's, they may consider something, but there again, their rule of thumb is 15,000 people in a three mile area, and like I say, we don't have that. I would actually ask you to oppose this at this time until there is some input from the citizens as to what is planned for this area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. HUMPHRIES: Hi, my name is Pat Humphries. I'm a resident of Golden Gate Estates. I'm also a member of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. As a member of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, I know this isn't what we want. Orangetree already has two ten acre already zoned commercial sites. This new site would add up to 30 acres. That's too much in one area. As far as a grocery store is concerned, in my capacity as shopping center chairman for the shopping center on Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson, I found out for sure that a grocery store is not coming to Golden Gate Estates, and I have checked with every single one in Southwest Florida. Please do not let this go through at this time. It is just too premature. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any other members from the public wish to speak on this? Have you been sworn in, ma'am? MS. WHITBECK: I have not. Page 52 October 5, 2000 MR. NINO: It's not necessary for this. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: They don't need to be. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. It's been a long day. MS. WHITBECK: My name is Peggy Whitbeck, last name's spelled W-H-I-T-B-E-C-K. I am a resident of the agricultural area of Golden Gate Estates. I am also a board member of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. I am totally opposed to doing anything commercial in the estates at this time. I think the Collier County community character plan should be either approved or disapproved before we make any decisions. They are taking a huge expense in looking at the estates and where it would best serve the residents of the estates. I'm sorry, I'm very nervous. This really upsets me because I have sat in many meetings at our association. Our residents and our members of our association agreed to allow centerfund to put a grocery store, only a grocery store at the corner of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. That is not going to happen. I am totally against anything. A Walgreen's is very nice. We'd like a Walgreen's, that would be great, but it's not a grocery store. I highly wish you would please put this on hold until further. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. No other further -- anybody from the public? MR. NADEAU: If I may respond to a couple of the issues. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes. MR. NADEAU: There we go. This is the applicable section from the Golden Gate area master plan pertaining to the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict and there's only t3 uses that are permitted and I'll read them off, automobile service, barber and beauty, child care, convenience stores, drug stores, food markets, hardware stores, laundry, self service only, post office, professional offices, repair shops, radio and TV, small appliances and shoes, restaurants, including fast food restaurants, but not drive-in, shopping center, veterinary clinics, no outside kenneling. Those land uses are specific and are within the Randall Boulevard Shopping Center PUD -- Randall Shopping Center PUD. Again, as far as compatibility, on this piece of property, 330 feet to the east, you've got the forestry tower there with all the operations of a forestry tower, and yes, approximately less than Page 53 October 5, 2000 1,000 feet to the west is the closest commercial land use, which is Mobil. I believe the petitioner would like to make a couple comments to the commission, if possible. This is Carmen Cali. MR. CALl: Good morning, commissioners, and the people of-- the residents of Golden Gate and Naples. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Would you state your name again, please? MR. CALl: My name is Carmen Cali. I've been a resident in Golden Gate Estates since 198t. When I first moved to Golden Gate in 1981, there were no shopping facilities in my area. I had to drive back into town to 41 to shop, and my wife did also, and it was a -- it was a big inconvenience, and being here since 198t and living and working with the people of the community, I've found that there is a big need for this. I've invested my life savings to do this for the community, for the people and for the board. I cannot see -- I really can't even fathom a denial. This is needed by the people. There's certain things that -- that I've been trying -- this is my first time of doing this. I was not aware that I had to have letters of support. I started yesterday. I was not aware that I had to appear in front of the Civic Association or that I should even be talking to them, and that's my -- that's my own deficiency, but I have spoken with the Civic Association and I have a plan of speaking in front of the association on the 18th of October to get their support also. I'm not here to put a square peg in a round hole. I'm here to conform and to work in harmony with the residents so that we can -- we can get some conveniences that we really need. Now, I've spoken with the people and I know that this is needed. The location is perfect. I can't see anyone building a house next to a fire tower or next to a Mobil gas station. I think it's a perfect buffer between Orangetree and the residential community and I thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Cali? MR. CALl: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The information we have indicates that some people named Bray and Canen are the owners of this property and that you're a contract to purchase, so how does that jeopardize your life savings? Page 54 October 5, 2000 MR. CALl: Well, in order to appear here today, it cost money to have an engineer. It cost money to have -- to put this all together and that's what I've spent my life savings on and I -- and it doesn't matter, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about that I -- I'm bringing it to the people because they need it. I'm also doing a project in the Turks and Caicos Islands for the people, and it's strictly a feel good project to help the community, okay? That's what I'm about, and I'm not a big developer coming in trying to step on toes. We've tried to -- in the design, we are going to be listening to the community. If they want it to look like old Florida style, that's what we want. If they want a buffer between the residential and the commercial, that's what we want. We want what the people want. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? Thank you. Dwight? No further comments? Anyone else? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to ask a quick question that may be staff. Once again, the planning principal that we're working with here is more of a regional concept rather than a neighborhood concept because we have certain requirements of the neighborhood commercial in the estates. We're obviously not doing strip, but I guess the issue is that you're suggesting that we wait until the community character study be completed, as is the Golden Gate Civic Association, because we're right in the throes of all of that information, so if we're trying to plan, since I'm a planner -- excuse me, I'm a publisher and a contractor, not a planner, either short range or long range, I don't quite get all these terms together, are you saying that it's better simply to wait and that you may not oppose the commercial in the future? MR. WEEKS: In a word, yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: In a word, yes. Okay. So it's an inappropriate location, not a planning principle? MR. WEEKS: Based on the existing regulations, the study is not complete, we don't know what they're going to recommend, we don't know what impact it will have at this location, so we're looking at what are the existing provisions for commercial. This is one of them. It's the magnitude of the commercial because we -- our opinion is you cannot look at this petition in isolation. We cannot ignore the intervening 15 acres. So the magnitude of the project -- and from our perspective, it really isn't nine and a half acres. It's about 25 acres added to seven, added to eight in Page 55 October 5, 2000 Orangetree across the street. If I got the numbers right, we'd total approximately 40 acres if all of this goes to commercial. That is equivalent to an activity center quadrant. That is equivalent to a Carillon shopping center type development, and actually more than that, because Carillon has a residential component that you don't see in that shopping center. That is, the shopping center's less than 40 acres. The magnitude, is that appropriate in the estates, and based on the existing provisions for commercial, Randall Boulevard Center was created to accommodate an existing five acre PUD. It was expanded once because it was -- in between that and the fire station was about a two and a half acre parcel. Everybody agreed, what else is going to go there, it's appropriate for commercial, that's fine. This is not sandwiched. This is a free-standing nine and a half acre parcel with 15 more acres intervening. The question is, what happens to all of those? The question is, do we need this ten -- nine and a half acres at this location? Again, our issue is not lack of need. It's magnitude, it's appropriateness of location, but again, if you go all the way to the extreme, of Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard intersection, it's -- I think it's ten miles. All of those persons along Everglades Boulevard still are going to have to drive some distance to get here. We think it would be appropriate to have one out there as well, but again if that community character study ultimately says this is an appropriate location for commercial, well, the rules have changed, staff's approach would be different. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. What I would like to do is, I'm going to close the public hearing. I would entertain a motion, obviously followed by discussion. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we support the staff position on this, at least until the community character study is done and presented, and I'm not saying if this were brought back to us in January that I wouldn't vote the other way on it, but I think we owe it to the community and to ourselves to have that opportunity for that input. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Budd. MS. STUDENT: I just need to put something on the record Page 56 October 5, 2000 because we have a provision in the special act that deals with zoning and planning that's still with us that requires a majority of the full membership of the Planning Commission vote on a comp. plan amendment, so I just wanted to let you know that it doesn't mean that because we have six, a four to two will do it, it's going to have to be a five -- at least five votes to support it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And if we get a four, two? MS. STUDENT: It's denied. It's right here in the special act, and I don't have any problem reading it into the record. The approval of the plan or a portion thereof shall be a resolution carried by the affirmative vote of a majority of the full membership of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But the motion on the floor is for denial. MS. STUDENT: I understand that. I just wanted to put that on the record so everybody would know because I had the feeling it might be -- it might be close. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I would lead off the discussion by saying, I agree with staff. I certainly agree with the petitioner. I agree with -- the problem is, I agree with everybody from what I've heard here today. I still have a problem with those intervening lots, and would I build a house there? No. Would I build one next to the tower? No. I would suspect some day I may live to see that tower not there. The Mobil station -- I realize there's a whole issue of traffic, that corner's going to be reconfigured and hopefully sometime in the future, there will be four lanes. At that point, that probably would be an ideal place for a commercial, and it's needed. I am probably going to need to support the motion as presented. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY-' Well, I'm persuaded by two groups that have appeared before us that I think are entitled to great deference. One of them is the staff and the other is the neighborhood association. I'm a product of neighborhood associations myself. I'm a little troubled by the neighborhood association thinking that they can dictate exactly what stores go in there. As far as this small scale amendment is concerned, it's whether it be a commercial subdistrict or not, not whether it has a particular store, but to that portion of the neighborhood association's objection, which says not now, I'm in support of that. Page 57 October 5, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'd like to say that I have to agree with Mr. Abernathy. I know staff's done a reasonable job here and I happen to be a member of the Golden Gate Civic Association. I've only had an opportunity to attend one meeting at this point, but I too share Mr. Abernathy's concern that the association feels that they can dictate, and I want to make sure that we don't get too carried away with that type of a thing because we do have special rules and regulations and limitations. We do not want to get ourselves in a position where we're dictating stores, and that's not -- as I explained at one of the meetings, you can't really do that. You must follow the regulations and give an opportunity for someone to build in the area within the framework. So -- and I feel that the community character study's important, so I'm going to have to support the denial also. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I -- I have a comment. It seems like we all are supporting the denial. Maybe the petitioner would like to postpone or withdraw the petition or put it on hold. I don't know how that timing works with the advertising issues. They might -- that might be an option for the petitioner rather than getting denied, waiting for the study, and it might well serve them if the study comes out to their advantage. I think the petitioner is trying to be a good neighbor. He did mention on the record that he would work with the association and see what kind of architectural style. I think had the association approached him, they would have gotten an understanding prior to the meeting, but unfortunately, that did not happen, and I°m sure he'd have to comply with all the standards of the county, which would satisfy the association, but having said that, I'm wondering if the petitioner would like to postpone -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just to point out that we closed the public hearing and we have a motion before us -- MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, on -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- however, if staff would hear -- or recommend that it's been withdrawn, maybe -- MR. NINO: I would not suggest that you continue this petition because I think David is talking about a year, and quite frankly, we don't think petitions ought to be continued for that lengthy period. So many things can happen in between, but that would Page 58 October 5, 2000 be an appropriate position or posture to take with respect to the subsequent PUD petition that they have coming before you. I think you need to rule one way or the other on this. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Call for the vote so you can go see the judge. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No further discussion? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: No further discussion. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: A motion's been made and seconded, I believe I already said that. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's as to the small scale amendment, right? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: One disclosure -- we're going to take just a brief recess. Before we do that, having already filled out my paperwork, I would have to excuse myself on the next one anyway due to a previous incident. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, don't we need to vote on the PUD as well? MR. NINO: Yes, you do, and that may be -- the position Dwight may take is that it be continued or withdrawn, but whatever your CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let me finish what I said. I'm still gonna have to withdraw at the same time or awfully close to my appointed hour, so a brief minute to shuffle chairs while the new acting chairman takes over and deal with that issue. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. So we've voted on one and now we are going to deal with the PUD amendment? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: After a strategy session. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Would we like a five minute break here? Take a five minute break. (A recess was held, after which Chairman Wrage did not return.) VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: We are back in session again, and what is before us at the moment would be PUD-2000-11. MR. NADEAU: The petitioner is requesting a continuation of Page 59 October 5, 2000 PUD-2000-11 until the draft for the community character study comes out on or about January 1, 2001. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: With that, Madam Chairman, I move that we continue PUD-2000-11. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Second. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, can I ask Mr. Nino, is that within your time parameters? Is that acceptable? MR. NINO: Quite frankly, we think one year is too long. I would just assume -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He says next January. MR. NADEAU: January 1. MR. NINO: January, all right, fine. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's okay. MR. NINO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Yeah, I don't know where that one year came from, Mr. Nino, but it's January, this coming January, in three months. MR. NINO: That's within the tolerable thresholds for our continuances. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Okay. No further discussion, I'll call for the question. All in favor? Opposed, like sign? (No response). VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Motion carries. Okay. Moving along, we are at PUD-2000-13. Mr. Hoover and company, the Centrefund Development. MR. BELLOWS: Would you like to swear us in? VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: I'm new at this, folks. All those who wish to speak must stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn}. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, current planning staff. The petitioner, William Hoover, is requesting to rezone the subject 7.15 acre site from -- VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Before you go any further, I do believe we need some disclosures. Page 60 October 5, 2000 MR. SAADEH: Yes, we do. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: All those who have something to disclose, I'll be first. I have received -- I've had conversations with Mr. Pires, one of the attorneys. I have been to Golden Gate Civic Association meetings and spoken to a number of people as well as was vocal during the meetings, and I have received a letter from the Golden Gate Association. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I want to disclose, I spoke with Mr. Hoover and received correspondence on this topic. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Is this what we talked about, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: One of the topics. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: One of the topics, okay. I must disclose that I spoke to Mr. Pires in reference to this. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Okay. We're ready to go, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The petitioner is requesting a rezone from estates to a commercial planned unit development. As you can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located on the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard in Golden Gate Estates. The petitioner proposes a commercial retail facility with 42,000 square feet. It's consistent with the use allowed in the neighborhood center subdistrict of the Golden Gate area master plan. The site plan or master plan indicates that the site is south of the existing G's commercial C-2 zoned property. It's vacant estates land to the east and west and a single family home to the south. The Golden Gate area master plan has a neighborhood center subdistrict that was recently approved and ratified and is in effect as of last August. Basically, this subdistrict requires increased setbacks and buffering. There's a 75 foot setback on the east, west sides and also requires type "C" buffer along the frontage of both Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. The traffic impact statement indicates that the -- with the improvements to Golden Gate Boulevard, that the project will meet all traffic transportation elements of the comprehensive plan. The project is also consistent with the open space element of the comprehensive plan. Page 6t October 5, 2000 To approve the relationship on compatibility, the type "C" buffer, at the time the comp. plan amendment created this neighborhood center, it required a type "C" landscape buffer. A type "C" landscape buffer is much more stringent in its screening requirement than the typical type "B" buffer that's usually required along road frontages. Example, the type "C" buffer requires a 20 foot wide buffer opaque within one year, landscape buffer with a six foot wall, fence, hedge or berm or combination thereof and two staggered rows of trees spaced no more than 30 feet. Where the type "B" buffer is a 15 foot buffer with trees spaced no more than 30 feet on center. The -- some of the residents have contacted me concerning this type "C" buffer. They have a concern that with the six foot high wall and the landscaped berm or fence, a combination thereof, it's going to screen the project from sheriff patrols and may create havens for undesirable activities, and they would like to see that changed back to type "B" buffer. That was the only concern I had from most of the residents. There were some that had a concern about the uses. The uses permitted in this PUD are those that are acceptable through the comp. plan amendment and is consistent with the neighborhood center subdistrict. Staff has recommended that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question, Ray. At one point in your report you say that lastly no automobile parking, homeless shelters or soup kitchens shall be permitted. MR. BELLOWS: That would -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What does automobile parking mean to planners? You can't have a commercial center without people parking their cars. Is this long-term storage of some sort? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. This statement came as a result of some calls. They wanted to make sure it would not be just a pier parking lot solely. MR. NINO: Commercial parking. MR. BELLOWS: A commercial parking facility without any other use but parking. Page 62 October 5, 2000 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' And that not everyone would use it on Saturday and Sunday to put their car and boat for sale? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's good. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Any other questions? Okay. I guess we'll hear from the petitioner. MR. HOOVER: For the record -- good morning, commissioners -- Bill Hoover of Hoover Planning representing the petitioners. I think this has been hashed out quite a bit. We have given the civic association a list of uses, and it's been updated a couple of times. For instance, some of the things they wanted, we never did put in the PUD document. We've agreed not to ask for that; liquor stores, for instance, pool halls, fast food gas stations -- gas stations and fast food restaurants. So, we've tried to make it a little more pedestrian oriented out there. We've agreed architecturally. We're going to take that a couple steps further before it goes to the county commissioners and -- but right now, we've agreed to design the center in a rural or old Florida style, and I think we've had quite a bit of input from the civic association, and I think we're pretty much on common ground on that, and -- but I'll let them speak for themselves if they want to come up and talk, but basically if there's -- the type "C" buffer, we have a big problem with that, as well as the civic association. I don't really quite understand why someone would want a six foot wall in the front yard. That sounds sort of like Miami or Tampa, but anyway, that's what the staff is recommending, a type "C" buffer instead of a type "D". I thought it was a typo., but Ray Bellows told me no, it is not. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Okay. MR. NINO: You have six speakers; Kim Ellis, Nina Downs, Peggy Whitbeck -- VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Please come forward -- MR. NINO: -- Patricia Humphries -- VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO.' -- and line up along the side. MR. NINO: -- Douglas Rankin, Linda Wallen. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: First speaker?. Please state your name for the record. MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries, and I'm on the Page 63 October 5, 2000 board of directors for the Golden Gate Civic Association and chairman of the shopping center for the Centrefund project. One of the main objections to the shopping center by the association and the committee was the absence of a quality anchor store. If Walgreen's is, in fact, going to open a branch, I believe the Golden Gate Civic Association members would approve. Another item that came up at the committee meeting is the size of the shopping center. I have been told by Warren Raymond of Centrefund that it has been reduced from 45,000 square feet to just under 28,000 square feet of retail space, which I consider a plus and is more in keeping with the concept of a neighborhood center. We also discussed a declaration of covenants whereby certain stores would not be acceptable. This too I have been told will be included in the PUD. Last but not least, the wall. Apparently, a six foot wall is required by the County. Hopefully~ this is negotiable. The committee members all agreed that a wall would not only not fit with the old Florida architecture that is being considered, but it presents certain problems that should be brought to the County's attention. A wall will block the view of cruising deputies or alert neighbors. It will provide a writing board for graffiti. It will hide unlawful after hour activities, and in their worst case scenario, it will provide a site for target practice. The shopping center committee and members of the Golden Gate Estate Civic Association are looking forward to meeting with Centrefund and their representatives at our October 18th meeting. Hopefully, we can get this resolved in a way that is satisfactory to all parties involved. Please be assured, we are not trying to dictate what stores go into these projects. We're just trying to get appropriate quality retailers for our neighborhood. We've waited. We've worked for it. We deserve it. Thank you. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO-' Thank you. Next speaker?. MS. WHITBECK: My name is Peggy Whitbeck, W-H-I-T-B-E-C-K. Everybody spells it wrong. I am a member, board member of the Golden Gate Civic Association and treasure Page 64 October 5, 2000 -- well, treasurer. Here, again, I believe -- I am a resident of this area. I believe that we should, again, put this on hold until the Collier County community character plan has been approved or disapproved so we can get a whole view as to what is going to happen in the estates. The Centrefund has promised many things for us. It has changed several different times. They have worked very hard to try and meet our demands, and we have been a bit of a pain in the neck to them, and I apologize for that, but this is our area. Golden Gate Boulevard is very congested. It takes me at least an hour to get to work. That doesn't matter, but the residents and the members of the association is very concerned as to what is going to happen to the four corners at Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. Here, again, I would like to say please put this on hold until you have made a decision with the County. Thank you. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Next speaker. MS. ELLIS: Hi, I'm Kim Ellis, resident of Golden Gate Estates area. I have been a member -- I think I'm still a member of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association, and I have sat on the board in the past there. I've never met Peggy, however. I've been out there about 15 years. I am in favor of the project. I am very excited about finally getting some services out there. I don't know if I mentioned, I've been out there 15 years. I was happy to get the library and the park and the Presbyterian church right down the road. There's also another wor -- place of worship, so we're really starting to grow. It's getting really exciting. I'm happy about the four laning of the boulevard, excited to know that we are not going to be sitting in traffic an hour to go to work every day, but I feel that if we have this community center developed at this four corners, even with the four laning, it's going to help reduce traffic. We're not going to have to drive all the way in town to get a bottle of baby aspirins for less than $6 a bottle. So, I'm in favor of it. Vote for it. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please, and her partner. Page 65 October 5, 2000 MS. DOWNS: I'm Nina Downs. I'm a resident out there, and I'm in favor of the construction for a Walgreen's or something. I feel like -- there's already some commercial stuff at that corner already, and I don't think it would really hurt the, you know, the nature of the community to have a supermarket or a drugstore. I think it would be wonderful, and it's a long drive for me anywhere to get anything, so -- and the traffic has been just abominable. Thank you. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MS. WALLEN.' Yes, hi, I'm Linda Wallen, and I'm a resident out in Golden Gate Estates. I'm a stay-at-home morn, and I live right by G's, and I am in favor of having a store out there, something~ because I have to spend all day planning and going to Publix, and then coming home and my food is not that cold anymore and going to G's and spending more money just for ice cream. You spend like $6 just for that, and it would be nice to have competition, and thank God that Walgreen's is coming in, because Walgreen's will give them a little bit of competition, but it is nice that they are going to have the building nicely decorated, but what I don't understand is you have to have more then just a civic association decide who's going to be in there. The civic association is very small, and there are a lot more people out there, and we need to somehow get something out there. Even if at the library, just paper, have everybody -- you know, at G's or whatever, put these papers out and let them sign and say what they want, and we can find out what everybody wants, because like this lady with the graffiti on the wall, you know -- I mean, I understand what she's saying, but then there are young families like us that are teaching our kids the right way, and it's just -- the wall is not a big problem. I mean, come on, the problem is spending my gas to go out to the grocery store, spending my time. I would never even leave the estates if there was a grocery store, and that's how I feel. I feel that the estates really -- we are our own little community, and we should have it. Thank you. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you for coming in. Mr. Bellows, as far as the buffer, it is an issue, and the wall. Why do we have the "C" and not the "D". Page 66 October 5, 2000 MR. BELLOWS: That was a requirement when that neighborhood center was created. That was discussed at the time of the comp. plan amendment, what type of buffer would be suitable, and that was the result of the comp. plan amendment. However, I think we can still, as a board, recommend something less like a type "B" buffer, have the Board of County Commissioners make that decision as an interpretation, but Mr. Weeks can probably add a little more. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, for the record, of the comprehensive planning staff. I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with Ray. I'd like to read into the record and then make a comment. The neighborhood center criteria specifically states, one of them, the project shall provide a 25 foot wide type "C" buffer as described in the land development code between the abutting right-of-way and the off street parking area. What does that mean? Type "C" says a six foot high fence, wall, berm, hedge or any combination. There is not a requirement that there be a fence or a wall. They could put up a hedge, a berm or a combination of those two. It can be vegetation only, but it is required in the master plan that there be this type of buffer, but there are some choices as to what exactly that buffer is. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Weeks, would that be opaque or what kind of visual density would that -- MR. WEEKS: I believe it says 100 percent opaque within a year of planting. COMMISSIONER BUDD: So, that would be between the parking and the frontage road? MR. WEEKS: That's correct, both roads. COMMISSIONER BUDD: So, how are they going to find the store? MR. WEEKS: Signs. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But on the thirteenth month, these can be trimmed, correctly -- correct? MR. WEEKS: The code requires six foot height. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Within a year, but on a year plus a day, those can be trimmed? MR. WEEKS: If you trim them to less than six feet, and I Page 67 October 5, 2000 believe the planning section, current planning will tell you that's no longer in conformance with the code requirement. Additionally, that -- that's six foot high, but you're allowed to have signage, and, of course, the stores themselves always have signs on them. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Okay. Let's say-- the concept here originally possibly was to hide the parking lot so that you had some aesthetic approach going up and down the road, but-- MR. WEEKS: Absolutely. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Okay. So, that's the issue. MR. WEEKS: Absolutely. The estates -- this -- we were discussing earlier with the comprehensive plan amendment at another location, this is the neighborhood centers. These are the ones that have the stringent criteria and have, since the inception in 1991, stringent criteria to make sure that these centers were small, that they were well buffered to fit in with the character of the estates, which is totally different than the urban area. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Okay. However, now we have a security issue. Could we make the recommendation and the Board of County Commissioners could change it or do we have to change the comp. plan? MR. WEEKS: The attorney is going to have to tell you if you can modify it with your -- MS. STUDENT: I'm sorry, could you please repeat -- I was studying a provision of the code on - VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: We are having a discussion over whether or not we must have the type "D" buffer - MR. WEEKS: "G". VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: - "G", and that has this opaque wall or hedge or fence that you can't really see through after a year, and the issue is whether or not we can have something that you can see the cars driving by and the deputies can look? Gan we change the type of buffer here or does the Board of County Commissioners, can they do that? MS. STUDENT: If it's a land development code regulation - MR. WEEKS: Marjorie, it's actually required by the Golden Gate master plan. MS. STUDENT: I don't see how it can be altered without a Page 68 October 5, 2000 change to the plan. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: So, you have to change the Golden Gate master plan -- MS. STUDENT: If that's the language in the plan, that would have to be changed to vary from it. Otherwise, the development order approval would be inconsistent with the plan, and under state law, it must be consistent with the plan. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: So, it's a consistency issue, okay. MR. WEEKS: Madam Chairperson, may I make a suggestion? I'm just going to assume that because this is an issue, that we may eventually see a request to change that buffer requirement in the Golden Gate master plan. If this petition is approved, may I suggest that you, for the buffer requirement, require the type "C", but go on to say, or other buffer as allowed by the Golden Gate master plan. What that does is if and when the Golden Gate master plan buffer requirement changes, they will not have to come in for a PUD amendment because they'll specifically have language that says, or whatever else is allowed. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: It seems reasonable to me. Okay. Petitioner? MR. PIRES: If I may briefly, Anthony Pires, for the record, Woodward, Pires & Lombardo law firm. Interesting aspect with regards to the master plan. I believe there's another provision in the master plan that says driveways have to align with the neighboring commercial centers, and if I recall, I don't have the site plan in front of me, G's has two driveway points, full access points right now which we modified when you had the Golden Gate Boulevard expansion. This site plan only shows a right-in and a right-out on Golden Gate Boulevard, but under Mr. Weeks' analysis, we need to have our driveways line up with G's driveways to the north, and I'm not sure that staff has allowed that or were even recommending that. MR. HOOVER: I would like to comment on that further too. Bill Hoover. We showed the PUD master plan originally that way, and staff turned it down and said that we had to push it clear to the right. Page 69 October 5, 2000 So, in one case, they're telling us we have to go with the Golden Gate area master plan because that's what they want us to do, and then in another case, they say, well, no, our development staff can override that. So, they're telling us -- MR. PIRES: Inconsistency I guess is what we're saying. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Now we're having an inconsistency issue. Marjorie. MR. PIRES: We have no difficulty agreeing to a different access point of Golden Gate Boulevard. We have agreed to that as shown by the site plan, and we wish to have some consideration for a buffer that will provide a greater aspect for security. That's the primary concern, security and visibility for the site, and I think the community would like to have a less than six foot high buffer, also. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Marjorie, how do you address the issue of the non-alignment of the driveways? MS. STUDENT: Well, I believe that the development order has to -- I don't believe it, the development order has to be consistent with the comp. plan, and I have to ask staff to put evidence in the record that Mr. Pires has said that he thought it was his recollection. I don't have the Golden Gate area master plan right before me. I would ask staff if that is the case in fact, and if it is, then I think there may be a consistency problem there as well. This is one of the problems with putting very specific language in a comp. plan, because when you do that, you're bound by it, and you have to go through an incredibly rigorous process to change it. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Where are we? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Pires is correct. If I may, I'll read into the -- David Weeks, for the record, again. This is from the Golden Gate area master plan neighborhood center provision. Driveways accessing parcels on the opposite sides of the roadway shall be in direct alignment. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Mr. Pires, do you have further comment? MR. PIRES: No, ma'am, other than we would request the consideration for having a reduced buffer. I understand what Page 70 October 5, 2000 Marjorie -- Ms. Student is saying with regards to the issue. Perhaps -- I'm not sure whether the board can initiate that process to modify that. MS. STUDENT: As I stated, again, that's one of the dangers of putting very specific criteria in the comp. plan. MR. BELLOWS: The transportation review indicates that being consistent with the Golden Gate master plan would be inconsistent with the access management plan. Staff made an interpretation that -- VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Do you want to say that again? MR. BELLOWS: It would make sense to have the requirement to line up with adjacent driveways if there was no median. There is a median here, no opening, so the alignment really is irrelevant in this case, and the access management plan requires, to meet the distance requirement from this intersection, to have it over here. So, that's the interpretation the current planning staff made. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: So, the transportation access plan overrules the Golden Gate master plan? MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure if it overrules, but I think we have an interpretation that it doesn't necessarily make sense to align with -- since there's no way to get across anyways because of the median. MS. STUDENT: A couple of principles here. First of all, there are not supposed to be internal inconsistencies in the comp. plan, but where there are inconsistencies of the law, this being an imperfect world, you take -- as a matter of statutory construction, the specific controls over the general, and I would say that because the access management plan is very specific to, you know, different areas in the county as opposed to more general language, that that would control, and, furthermore, the law requires that where there are inconsistent provisions, they try to be harmonized as much as possible, and I think that's what staff has done through its interpretation. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Okay. So then on the issue of the buffer, we can just throw the or other in as applicable in the future. Do we have anyone else that wishes to speak? If not, we can close the public -- oops. Page 71 October 5, 2000 MS. ACQUARD: I'm not registered, but can I say something? VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Stand up and identify yourself, please. MS. STUDENT: Have you been sworn in? MS. ACQUARD: No, I haven't. MS. STUDENT: She needs to be sworn in. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Would you swear her in? (The speaker was sworn}. MS. ACQUARD: Once again, Karen Acquard, resident and acting president of the estate civic. As far as this buffer goes, the association actually knows nothing about it, or the membership. This is just something new that we learned about the other day. Mr. Bellows has very graciously agreed to be present at our next meeting so that he can explain it to the members, and if they are interested and want the -- to do something about changing this, I would expect that the association would probably support a petition or a letter to the county commission asking that something be changed with this. The formality, there is just the formality of it having to go to our membership in regards to final approval of the organization, but I expect there to be almost a celebration and that this will be going to the county commission with the full support and approval of the association. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public that wish to comment? If not, I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that the planning commission recommend approval of Petition PUD-00-13 with the note that the buffer be as required by the Golden Gate area master plan, allowing some future modification in the master plan to modify their buffer, and also that the driveways will be consistent with the transportation management plan, acknowledging that that is inconsistent but superior to the Golden Gate area master plan on that issue. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Second -- a motion by Mr. Budd, second by Mr. Priddy. Page 72 October 5, 2000 Any discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.- There was some discussion or some testimony to the effect that the developer had agreed to reduce the maximum amount of square feet of commercial space. Are we into that morass again where we have oral commitments that are inconsistent with the PUD document? One of the witnesses said that that would be reduced to 28,000 square feet from forty-two. I think -- MR. HOOVER: Where that's -- for the record, Bill Hoover again. If I could clarify that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Please. MR. HOOVER: We have a specific site plan for a Walgreen's with a -- at the northwest corner. The Walgreen's store, I think, is 14,850 square feet, and we have a bank situated, a generic bank situated, and I think we are estimating about 4,000 to 4,500 square feet for that, and behind these two essentially out parcels, we have a detailed site plan showing about an 8,000 square foot retail and office building. So, based on that scenario, it looks like we're going to develop out about 28,000 square feet, but I don't think the petitioner would like to limit that down in case, let's say, the bank doesn't happen or -- then we may need -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' So, you want to maintain the 42,000. MR. HOOVER: Yeah~ we're happy to commit to 42,000 square foot maximum, but I think the development standards are actually -- all the setbacks, the buffers and the septic tank and all that kind of stuff is going to limit us now, so we prefer to be limited by the development standards of the PUD document. COMMISSIONER BUDD: In order to clarify the inconsistent testimony, I would like to amend my motion that the size of the development will be 42,000 feet or less as limited by the development standards. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Is that okay with Mr. Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Petitioner? MR. HOOVER: That's fine with us, yes. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO.' So, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Any other further comment? Page 73 October 5, 2000 Call for the question. All in favor, say aye. All opposed, same sign? (No response). VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Motion passes. Please remember to fill out your findings of fact and pass them down to our new secretary, Mr. Saadeh. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Madam Chairman, as a matter of courtesy to a lot of the people in the public, I'd like to -- maybe us entertain hearing the rest of our petitions through ST-99-03, taking a lunch break and then hearing all the comp. plan amendments after lunch. That would free some of these people probably for the next 30 minutes to go on and not sit here and listen to us. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you. That's a good reminder. I meant to mention that. So, that's what we can do. So, if you're here for the comp. plan amendments, come back after lunch, and that will be predicated upon the time that we finish the next two items. The next one above -- excuse me~ Mr. Litsinger. MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning manager. Relative to the comprehensive plan amendments, I was going to point this out to you at the beginning of our presentation. Due to the fact that you will open this public hearing and receive testimony and presentation on the various petitions, we, in fact~ will suspend the public hearing until October the 19th. I think it's noteworthy that we should point out to you that we feel that the petitioners, in consideration of the fact that they need all five votes for recommendation to transmit their petition, should be given the opportunity to continue their particular item until the 19th. That would affect any of your proceedings this afternoon. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I think we're still going to hear them today. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: But we still hear them after lunch. MR. LITSINGER: I'm just saying that since one of the petitions will not be heard today and the entire public hearing will be continued until the 19th, we feel that we should give all Page 74 October 5, 2000 the petitioners or any of the petitioners the option of having their item continued until the 19th. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Is that reasonable? MS. STUDENT: Yes, that could be done. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: But we still want to hear what we have today and -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And we're going to do all of that after lunch. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Right, we'll do that after lunch. So, our next item -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: If we are going to continue it, why are we going to hear it after lunch? Why can't we just make the decision so the folks can go home? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But we can spend from now, we can spend 30 minutes going through all of them to find out whether they want to be continued or not, and I'm saying, let's move on with this, go to lunch and -- VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: We want to finish the agenda as it's presented to us. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, the opponents of the petitioner will have to come back to see whether their petitioner wants it heard or not, wouldn't they? MR. NINO: As I gather, Stan is actually basically asking that they be continued, all the comp. plan. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Just continue them, period. MR. NINO: And if you don't have a problem -- I don't know why you would have a problem. MR. LITSINGER: The point I was trying to make was, the fact that -- regardless of whether you hear all of the petitions except that one noted, which is noted, will be continued to the 19th, the public hearing will have to be continued. However, if you do hear any of the petitions and the public comment and do vote, that vote will be binding. So -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: We won't vote. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: So, we won't vote. So, that means that we can actually continue all of the comprehensive plan amendments, which is Item L on our agenda; is that not correct? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, yeah, we're going to Page 75 October 5, 2000 continue all of them, but we're going to hear them. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Mr. Litsinger is suggesting we not hear them today, and I believe Mr. -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I make a motion to not hear them today and continue them if we're not going to make any decisions on them. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I second that. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I think that's -- is that not unfair to the public that showed up to -- VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: I believe the public is here for Little Palm Island, which we still have -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: Which is not what we're talking about. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Which is not what we're talking about right now. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And if you hear them and vote on them, it's going to be very unfair to the public because you don't have enough -- yeah, you have a short vote. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO-' So, we have a motion and a second to continue the comp. plan hearings, Item L, to the t8th or 19th, I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SAADEH-' Nineteenth. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Nineteenth of October. Is there any further comment before we take the vote? All in favor, say aye. All opposed, like sign? (No response). VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Motion carries, the comp. plan amendments have been continued until October 19th. We'll hear them all at that time. So, clear the room in a quiet manner, and we will focus on Item I, CU-2000-13, the Bethesda Pentecostal Church. MR. BADAMTCHIAN-' Good morning, commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Swearing. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: All those who wish to speak, please stand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). COMMISSIONER BUDD: The petitioner is not here? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, the petitioner couldn't be here, Page 76 October 5, 2000 unfortunately, but this is not a controversial request. For the record, my name is Chahram Badamtchian, from planning services staff. Pastor Verna Nash representing Bethesda Pentecostal Church is requesting approval for a day-care for an existing church. The church is already there, the church building, and they are going to want to use one of the rooms in the church for a day-care, and their request is to have up to 15 kids in that day-care. The staff recommends approval. We haven't received any objection to this request. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: No objections. Anyone from the public wish to comment? No one commenting, I close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'd like to make a motion that the planning commission forward Petition CU-2000-13 to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: A motion by Mr. Budd, seconded by Mr. Abernathy. Call the question, all in favor? All opposed, like sign? (No response}. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: The motion carries. Okay. We are now at Item J, ST-99-03 with Keystone Custom Homes. MS. STUDENT: They need to be sworn. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Yes. All those who wish to present testimony today, please stand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Maybe we ought to break for lunch. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: If you have not signed a slip, please do so and give it to Mr. Nino. Thank you. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for approval of a special treatment Page 77 October 5, 2000 development permit. The petitioner submitted an application for a preliminary subdivision plat which may be approved administratively. However, the parcel that included that PSP contains land with an ST, special treatment, overlay. Yes, the ST petition was heard by the Environmental Advisory Council. Today it is before you, and final approval rests with the Board of County Commissioners. The PSP approval by the planning services director is on hold pending approval of this petition by the BCC. The subject property was before you earlier this year with two petitions, the current ST and a conditional use for cjuster housing, which proposed to reduce to RSF-3 lot size. The Environmental Advisory Council and the planning commission recommended denial of that petition to the board, and the petitioner requested a continuance prior to the board hearing it. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Before you go any further, I forgot to ask for disclosures. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you, Madam Chairman. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Yes, I've spoke with Mr. Pires in reference to this petition, and I think I misspoke earlier. I don't think he and I talked about the Golden Gate one at all, but we did talk about this petition. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' I've spoken to representatives of both sides of the issue. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: I've spoken to the petitioner, both sides, Commissioner Carter. I received communications from -- that include the Palm River Homeowners' Association, and I've also reviewed the EAC minutes of the 9/6 meeting. Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Communication with both sides on the issue and received correspondence. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I spoke to Mr. Peeples regarding this petition. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Okay. Now we can proceed. Everyone has talked to everyone. MR. REISCHL.- As you can see on the visualizer, the parcel is located northwest of Palm River Estates and east of Collier's Reserve and south of Imperial Golf Estates. The parcel is zoned Page 78 October 5, 2000 RSF-3, residential single family with a maximum of three dwelling units per acre. The previously submitted conditional use heard earlier this year had a density of 1.8 dwelling units per acre for 157 lots. The proposed PSP, which is on hold with the planning services director, consists of t41 lots on 86.67 acres for a density of 1.63 dwelling units per acre. Again, the maximum is three dwelling units per acre in this zoning district. The previous petition had a gopher tortoise preserve of approximately five acres. The current petition before you today includes over seven acres of gopher tortoise preserve, including some better habitat. Although this is an ST petition before you, I've received numerous comments, and through meeting with Commissioner Carter -- regarding traffic. Therefore, I'd just like to state on the record that my recommendation to the planning services director for the preliminary plat is to have the roads within Little Palm Island open to the public. The EAC on this petition voted four to one to approve ST-99-03. However, the county attorney was of the -- or stated that the EAC needs five votes one way or the other to have an official action. Therefore, since the vote was four to one, it was not an official action, and it will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with no official action by the EAC, but, again, the vote was four in favor of the petition and one opposed. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Any questions of staff? MR. REISCHL: Oh, I'm sorry, and since this is an ST petition, Barbara Burgeson will present the environmental aspects of the petition. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: We don't want to leave out Barbara Burgeson. MS. BURGESON-' For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. This petition was presented in front of this board, as Fred mentioned, earlier this year. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Speak up. MS. BURGESON: Sorry. This petition was presented earlier this year in front of this board. I'm not sure if you want a full explanation on the environmental issues. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: You'll have to get closer to Page 79 October 5, 2000 the mike. MS. BURGESON: Okay. This -- the presentation that you heard earlier this year identified a gopher tortoise preserve which would have relocated tortoises into an area that had no quality habitat at the time. The change that we've recommended this year or this proposal is to allow impacts to five of the lots, which last time we recommended they not be impactedg and in exchange for that, the developer has agreed to provide high quality gopher tortoise habitat along the west property line, which is adjacent to and abuts the gopher tortoise preserves on Collier's tract 21 or Collier's Reserve PUD. Staff is recommending approval with the stipulations as is. AUDIENCE MEMBER: We can't hear you. MS. BURGESON: Staff is recommending approval with the stipulations as are identified in the resolution in the package in front of you. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Any questions of staff? If not, Mr. Peeples. MR. PEEPLES: Good morning. I'm glad I can say that. I was worried that we wouldn't. For the record, my name is Terry Peeples. I'm an attorney with the Annis Mitchell law firm. I'm here representing the petitioner, Keystone Custom Homes. Also here today is the engineer on the project, Dave Farmer; the environmental consultant, Mike Myers; and the president of Keystone Custom Homes, Paula Davis. Well, we are back. You've seen us before. I've spoken with you about this before. We have a better plan this time. What I'd like to do is go through the plan and talk about the changes we made and what we'd like to do now. I've worked extensively with staff, and this is not our second plan. We worked with staff for almost ten months, going from the first plan to the second, and we have been through several variations rather than just one or two variations, primarily because of concerns raised by this commission in the January meeting, also because of concerns raised by the homeowners. We understand that this impacts their community. We have done everything we think we can to make it a better plan. However, we understand that there are still concerns, and the fact that there are so many homeowners here today shows their concern about their neighborhood. Page 80 October 5, 2000 In connection with the changes to the plan, the gopher tortoise ordinance was adopted this year by Collier County, changing our ability to obtain a take permit, which we had originally done to handle the gopher tortoise problem. Now, we did appear before the EAC. We did obtain a four to one vote in favor of it. I think the comments made by the EAC were very favorable, and keep in mind, the EAC is here to look at the environmental aspects of this, which are really what the ST permit is all about. The reason we are here today is because we're asking for an ST permit to impact degraded wetlands or wetlands that no longer exist. The reason I think that all the homeowners are here is because we are the final phase of Palm River. If we were in the front of the project, I don't think there would be much of a problem. Palm River has been developed over a period of 30 or 40 years. In the back ¢orner~ we are using the roads, public roads in Palm River to gain access to our property. We have looked for any other way to gain access to this property, either through going south to Immokalee Road or going west to 41. It doesn't exist. We wish it did. We would love to gain access some other way. That is an impossibility. This is RSF-3 zoned property that is landlocked. It has -- to the north of the property it has a canal and the Imperial Golf Course project~ including the golf course. To the west of the property is Collier's Reserve, primarily golf course and preserve area of Collier's Reserve, and to the east of the property and south is the Palm River neighborhood. Now, this property is, as I said, zoned RSF-3. It has been for years and years and years. This is a residential infield. We're totally surrounded by residential communities. Notwithstanding the fact that this is urban-mixed use under the growth management plan which anticipates uses other than residential, we, obviously, recognize residential single family use is the compatible or appropriate use of this property. We have a little bit of a smaller shaped parcel here. It's listed as eighty-six point something or other acres. Unfortunately, part of that is lake area to the east, not shown on here, that is unusable. Part of that is a wetland area. Part of it is lake area on the Palm River Golf Course, which really reduces Page 8t October 5, 2000 the usable space, and we are dealing with an oddly shaped, smaller parcel here. So, it's been a little difficult to work with, but we still have managed to make very significant changes. On the right is the original Little Palm Island project. On the left is what we're bringing to you today and what's in your package, the current Little Palm Island project. I'm going to say the single most significant change we've made in response to comments by this board and comments by the public is that we've eliminated the cjustering. We were seeking a conditional use -- we were seeking a conditional use. We wanted to cjuster with 50 foot lots through this section. That has been eliminated. All of the lots now are zoned RSF-3. All of the lots now are 80 foot lots and in complete compliance with the zoning. We have also reduced the density in here. If you want to do a quick calculation, the RSF-3 zoning allows 251 total units on this property. When we appeared before you in January, we were seeking 157 lots on this property, and because of the changes we've made, we currently reduced the density to 14t lots, and that is 1.62, I believe is what Mr. Reischl said, 1.62, t.63 units per acre; significantly below what the zoning allows. Also, there were concerns raised by homeowners, and, again, understandably so, regarding our recreational center, which was right here. This is Palm River. There were lots that were near or abutting the recreational center. First we moved it. Then we moved -- we moved it to the far side. Then we moved it again, but because of the gopher tortoise ordinance and other constraints and changes that we've made, what we ended up doing was eliminating it. There is no recreational center in this project, because quite honestly, we have lost so many lots complying with concerns of the community and with this board. We have also added retained native vegetation, primarily this area right here which is what we worked out with staff. We worked at great lengths with staff. I know I met with Ms. Burgeson. I know we met with staff. I know that Mr. Myers met with Ms. Burgeson on numerous occasions. Under the gopher tortoise ordinance, there is an attempt to retain gopher tortoises on-site and to retain prime habitat for them. What we have here is prime xeric habitat for the gopher Page 82 October 5, 2000 tortoises. There were other areas we would have preferred to put that gopher tortoise preserve. Unfortunately -- well, unfortunately for us, but Ms. Burgeson insisted that it be within prime gopher tortoise habitat, and, also, that it abut the Collier's Reserve gopher tortoise preserve system, and we meet both of those criteria. Initially, I'm not sure if everybody remembers, we were going to have gopher tortoise habitat up here only; no other place, and we had a take permit that we'd obtained from the state, and all the gopher tortoises located on site were going to be moved to this point. We now have gopher tortoise preserve up here again. We have a smaller preserve in a suitable area here. We have the approximately four acres of prime xeric gopher tortoise habitat here, and we have additional open space in excess of what's required and in excess of what we had last time. A couple of other changes we've made that you can't see because they are not shown on this plan or they were done, but these were changes made in response to staff and also the comments from the homeowners in the area. The first is, in addition to this property the petitioner is buying, the petitioner is also taking title to a piece of property on Immokalee Road. If you're familiar with where the Fairways Motel is, there's a strip of property between Piper Boulevard right there along Immokalee Road and the Fairways Motel on both sides of the entrance to Palm River. The petitioner is going to take title to that, and we approached staff about the possibility of putting in a sales center there to keep traffic out of the Palm River neighborhood. The homeowners don't like that. We've eliminated it. We have withdrawn that, and we're not going to do that. Another thing that you don't see that we have changed is in the original plan, there was going to be one access point, and that was going to be Viking Way coming into the project, and it would be a dead end here. Staff and the homeowners did not want to see that. They wanted to see two entrances. We have put two entrances in and have maintained that throughout. So, that's our plan. I'm going to let Mr. Farmer answer questions about drainage and any questions you may have concerning the road system. I'm also going to have Mr. Myers Page 83 October 5, 2000 give a presentation concerning the ST, since that's the reason we're here. I want to remind you, we're coming in for a plat this time; no variances, no conditional use. We are coming in for a plat that has a piece of ST overlay on the RSF-3 zoning overlay, and, obvJously~ that's the purpose today is to consider that ST permit. The ST area was originally 20 acres because we boxed -- Mr. Myers will show you where it was up in the northeast corner, but there was a big square box placed over the property years and years ago, at least in '72 when the zoning ordinance was adopted and has never been modified or changed in any way since then. The area within that ST is only -- we have gone out and done a survey, an environmental survey and surveyed the jurisdictional lines. The original ST area was approximately 20 acres, this box. The survey line shows approximately 10 acres of wetlands. Those wetlands -- some of those wetlands are considered good viable wetlands. Some of those wetlands are very poor wetlands because of exotic invasion, but primarily because of hydrology. There is, again, a canal to the north. I remember at EAC, a committee member, Ed Carlson, was talking about the cone of influence that a hole or that a canal would have, and that has dried out the northern portion of that property, and the hydrology has changed in those wetlands. In seeking the ST permit, I need to point out that we are going to impact ten acres that's not within the wetlands, and we are asking for an impact of one acre of wetlands. Again, approximately 90 percent of the wetlands will be saved. Approximately t0 percent of the wetlands will be impacted by this project. At the EAC meeting, Ed Carlson, who I'm sure all of you know is a staunch environmentalist, made a point of saying that he supports this, that he would support any plan that saved 90 percent of the wetlands on the site. Again, I want to mention that in asking for an impact to that one acre of wetlands, what we have done is a tradeoff. We have created four acres of gopher tortoise preserve in the prime habitat that Ms. Burgeson really needs to see saved and wants to see saved. I'm sure she can tell you there's very little of that xerJc habitat left in Collier County. We have also agreed to enhance the existing wetlands and Page 84 October 5, 2000 enhance the gopher tortoise preserve areas. Those enhancements are not necessarily required; exotic removal is, enhancement is not. So, we are going to mitigate by basically trading one acre of poor wetlands for four acres of top quality uplands, and I want to point out we do have, for this ST permit, we do have our state and federal permits for impacting the approximate one acre and would like to focus our comments to the greatest extent and your considerations to the greatest extent on the ST permit. At this point, I really would like for Mr. Myers to explain what we're doing with the ST and gopher tortoise. MR. MYERS: Good morning. For the record, my name is Mike Myers. I'm a senior ecologist with Passarella & Associates, and as Mr. Terry Peeples pointed out, I would like to review the ST overlay area as well as the gopher tortoise plan for Little Palm Island. To do that, I have a handout here that summarizes my presentation, so if I may pass it out at this time. The ST overlay development request, to get you familiar, is located at the very northern end of the existing wetland on-site. This area that we are proposing to impact is 0.98 acres in size, a little under an acre, and this represents less than 10 percent of the overall wetland area of the site. As Mr. Peeples pointed out, this proposed impact area has been reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as well as the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and it has been approved to be impacted. The reason for that is because this area is highly degraded. It's degraded because it has been heavily invaded by exotics, many types, primarily Melaleuca, but there are others like Old World Climbing Fern, Brazilian Pepper and many others. Secondly and more importantly, it's been degraded due to a lack of hydrology. If you take a look at Page 2 in your handout, what you'll see, parked in the center of these photographs is my Jeep, and where this picture has been taken is towards the middle of the proposed impact area. There are dates associated with the photographs, September 2nd of this year on photograph one and October 2nd, which is Monday, on photograph three. The thing that I -- well, September and October were well within the rainy season here in Southwest Florida, and the thing that I find striking about these photographs is where's the water. On Page 85 October 5~ 2000 both occasions when I was out here, the ground was bone dry. So, to get an idea of where the water levels were in the area on both dates, I dug a soil pit, and on September 2rid, if you'll notice in the upper right-hand corner, you'll see the spade of a shovel, and the top of the shovel is resting with approximately the ground elevation and the wetland. The shovel itself, the blade is t 3 inches long, and you'll see water sitting at the bottom of the soil pit, and that represents approximately the water table in this area. So, in early September, the ground water in this area was over a foot below the ground elevation in the wetland. This past Monday while I was out there, I, again, dug a soil pit to get an idea where the water level is, and I apologize, the photograph isn't real clear, it was cloudy that day, but the same shovel was in the pit, and what I found this past Monday is the water table was down now approximately t 8 inches rather than 12. So, we are another 30 days further into the rainy season, and yet the approximate water table in this area was down another approximately six inches. So, I think these photographs are pretty good evidence that this area is suffering from a serious hydrology problem. Nonetheless, what we are proposing for compensation for impact to the ST overlay area is, as Mr. Peeples pointed out, the creation of a 3.8 acre gopher tortoise preserve that's located over next to Collier's Reserve, as well as the creation of two other gopher tortoise preserves on the site, and in addition to that, all of the exotics would be removed from the upland as well as the wetland preserve area. The other issue I'll touch on briefly is the gopher tortoise plan for Little Palm Island. As was pointed out initially, we had applied for an incidental take for the property, and our plan was to excavate all the tortoises and move them to a preserve area up here. That didn't go over very big. So, we have since withdrawn our application for the take, and we have gone back and made an application for a relocation permit to the wildlife commission, and that permit, that application, what it calls for is a combination of on-site preservation and relocation as well as off-site relocation for the gopher tortoises. The on-site preservation and relocation, what that would involve is creating the 3.8 acre preserve over in this area, which is adjacent to Collier's Reserve. One of the -- this preserve here, Page 86 October 5, 2000 the reason for its selection is it is directly adjacent to two existing gopher tortoise preserves on the Collier Reserve's property, and as Mr. Peeples pointed out, this is some high quality, scrubby flat woods type habitat. If you take a look in your pamphlet on Page 3, photograph five, that is a photograph taken within the proposed preservation area. It gives you a sense of the type of vegetation that will be found or is found in this preserve area. In the center of the photograph here, you'll see a sandy mound which is an active gopher tortoise burrow. There are o- there are a number of already existing active and inactive gopher tortoise burrows in this area, and those would be protected. In addition, we would create and enhance two additional gopher tortoise preserves, one north across the canal and another one here in the southwest corner, adjacent to the preserve wetland. If you remember back, based on game commission guidelines, we've estimated that there's about 61 tortoises on the site. We're proposing to maintain t7 at Little Palm Island, and that would include nine in this area, six in this area and two in this area, and the balance, about 44 tortoises, would be moved off-site. Through a lot of time and effort by the applicant, we have searched around and found two pretty good sites. The primary recipient site would be an area called Willow Run Quarry. It's located down off 951 near Rattlesnake Hammock Road, and that would be the primary recipient site. Secondary recipient site, if it's needed, would be an area called Persimmon Ridge, and this is located in Lee County, and it's owned and managed by the Lee County park service. So, with that, if you have any questions, we'll be happy to address them. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I want to talk to you about wetlands for a minute. My recollection is that some years ago, there were 20 acres of wetlands in there, and that by negotiation and agreement, there are now 10. If the area for those lots that are now colored pink there on the left drawing, if it's as dry as you say it is, then why weren't -- why wasn't that area included in the negotiation down from 20 to Page 87 October 5, 2000 107 MR. MYERS: That's a good question. I wish I could say the wetland jurisdictional determination process is a perfect one, but it's not. The way the 20 acres was reduced down to 10, and correct me if I'm wrong, Barbara, it's because the County agreed to reduce it down to whatever the agreed upon wetland line was with the agencies -- is that fair, okay -- and I was on-site and met with the district and the Corps after flagging a wetland line out here. When the line is flagged, it can be any time of year. In this particular case, it was during the dry season. When I'm on-site with the reviewing agencies, it's a bit of a negotiation, and what we did is we took a look at the canopy vegetation and we limited the wetland jurisdictional determination to the areas that had a canopy primarily of cypress. Now, the only way to get around or if you're going to dispute a wetland determination in the field, it usually requires long-term monitoring, which can go on for two, three, four years, and quite often, we just don't have that kind of time. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What is the elevation of the area where the pink lots are, NGDV? How much over, do you know?. MR. MYRES: That's a good question. MR. FARMER: For the record, my name is David Farmer. I'm the engineer for the project. The general elevation of that area is probably in the nine and a half to ten range. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: For those -- those specific lots? MR. FARMER: Well, there's -- in that -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't mean for the whole project, which is meaningless. MR. FARMER: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Nine and a half to ten? MR. FARMER: I say nine in that pink area. As you get towards the green, the elevations start falling down to as low as, I believe eight. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are you going to fill and raise the elevation over NGDV for those lots? MR. FARMER: Yes. The lot areas would be -- that we are Page 88 October 5, 2000 proposing to develop would be filled just like any other lot, but the extent of fill would not extend beyond the limit of the lot. In other words, the rear lot line, you'd be back down to natural grade. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What is your average grade going -- average elevation then going to be; plus eleven or -- MR. FARMER: Of the lot? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. MR. FARMER: The -- well, the minimum finished floor, as required by FEMA, is eleven. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Eleven, that's what I thought. MR. FARMER: It's going -- we're going to be probably a little higher than that because Collier County also has a standard of 18 inches above the center line of road. So, my guess right now would be, the average elevation would be probably around between 11 and 12 of those lots. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. I have another question for your associate about wetlands. Do the people who guard our wetlands from disappearing, is it standard to mitigate the loss of wetlands with something other than wetlands somewhere else? ! mean, can you have these oranges for apples type trades? MR. MYERS: Yes, you can, but, again, it depends on -- there's various thresholds for wetland impacts depending on whether you're dealing with the federal agencies or the state agencies, but it's more common to mitigate on-site and particularly through exotic removal in the existing wetlands, that would be preserved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You have to remove exotics anyway, don't you? MR. MYERS: It's not a requirement by the South Florida Water Management District or the Corps of Engineers. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But it is by Collier County? MR. MYERS: Yes. The federal and state agencies give you mitigation credit for those activities. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. PEEPLES: I would also like to point out with regard to that mitigation, that neither the Army Corps nor South Florida Water Management District are requiring any mitigation. I think that they have looked at those low quality wetlands. That's what Page 89 October 5, 2000 happened. MR. MYERS: The Corps hasn't required any mitigation because we're below their permit threshold of an acre. The South Florida Water Management District did require mitigation~ and they were satisfied with cleaning up the remaining nine acres of the wetland, because it is also pretty heavily invaded with exotics. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. I was trying to be educated. MR. PEEPLES: And the balance of mitigation that we're providing is required by the County, and we have worked with staff on that. Other questions? VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Any other questions? I do believe -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Let the fun begin. I just said, let the fun begin. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: I do believe we have a number of registered speakers. Mr. Nino, would you call off four or five, and please come to the side over here and line up. MR. NINO: Janet Stone. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Janet. MR. NINO: Robert Duncan, Nancy Payton, Carol Hemming. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Please do come down and line up so that we can move along as quickly as possible. Remember, we are focusing on the ST issues here. This is a regular replat or a plat, excuse me. MR. DUNCAN: My name is Robert Duncan. I live at 465 Cypress Way East, and I've lived at that -- it's in Palm River. I've been a resident of Palm River for 11 years, and I guess you just answered my first question, it is your intent to limit the comments just to the ST. MS. STUDENT: If I may, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. This item already has RSF-3 zoning, and but for the ST designation, would be able to go forward under our straight zoning district, and it's my legal opinion that you're limited only to the environmental issues based upon the criteria in the code that call for a balance of the impacts of the development against Page 90 October 5, 2000 the environmental, if you will, areas, sensitive areas and -- that are found on-site and as set forth in the EIS~ and any further consideration would be beyond the scope of the permit. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Is that understood? MR. DUNCAN: Marjorie, I think I got all that, but maybe -- let me tell you what concerns me, and then if it's beyond the scope of the conversation, then I have just a couple of questions, and I'll be finished. My concern is the access aspect of the project and its access being both Cypress Way East and Viking Way. Since I live on Cypress Way east, I'm very concerned about the traffic traveling that road and those impacts. Now, will you entertain any more conversation or do I need to carry that to a different venue? VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: I'll just comment. I think we need to look at this as to how it would be dealt with under -- the traffic issue doesn't change because of the ST. It does have RSF-3 zoning, and if it were -- if it didn't have the environmental issue, they would be able to plat and put the development in, and so, I don't see how the traffic impacts on a related development relate to the ST permit. MR. DUNCAN: So, you're suggesting we not address access -- or impacts of traffic? MS. STUDENT: If you want to entertain it, Madam Chairman, that's perfectly fine, but I just think that there could be an issue with this relationship to the ST permit. MR. NINO: Let me put it in another perspective. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: If this petitioner had decided to exempt all the SDP -- all the ST property, they would not be in this forum today. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: That is correct. MR. NINO.' All other issues would be moot. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: However, if you want to make a couple of comments about traffic, we'll accept those to hear, but we don't want to belabor the issue. Thank you. MR. DUNCAN: I appreciate the opportunity to be able to talk about -- as most everybody knows, certainly who's a resident of Palm River, our roads are narrow. We have no sidewalks, and, in Page 91 October 5, 2000 fact, Cypress Way East where I live is a stretch -- this would be the -- I believe the northwest terminus, and if we had the full plat here of Palm River -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Duncan -- VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: You need the mike. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- the mike is right behind you, please. MR. DUNCAN: The extent -- Cypress Way East would be shown to go east and then south to Immokalee Road. I imagine that's a stretch of about two miles, more or less, that at the moment has absolutely no stop sign either of a light nature or a three or four way stop, and, in fact, it becomes a bit of a raceway, particularly when college is out and our youthful drivers are back in town. We're concerned -- I'm concerned about -- in 1995, my daughter was struck by a driver as she rode her bike on the edge of the road, and extrapolating what the traffic conditions were at that time and, in fact, today aren't much greater until I superimpose on, and in my mind, the impacts of construction traffic, and then once fully built out, residential traffic that's going to travel Cypress Way East. My concern is, as long as Cypress Way East continues to remain unimpeded in terms of stop signs, even though there's a 25 mile an hour posted speed limit, I'm simply concerned for future children riding bicycles, getting off of buses and even the adults who walk -- who use the roadways to walk on a regular basis because there's no sidewalk. That's my concern, and my recommendation would be, if this is to be approved, that it have as a condition of approval, based on the assessment of the traffic division of the county and hopefully with our input, additional stop signs along those roads so that traffic cannot generate unacceptable speeds and present a risk to the community. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: But at this moment, those roads are outside of the actual area that we're talking about, but you're suggesting -- MR. DUNCAN: But as the petitioner pointed out, he needs to -- he needs to use those roads, of course, to access the project area, and that's what I'm concerned about. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you. Page 92 October 5, 2000 Next speaker. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'd just like to ask a question, Mr. Nino. What would the venue be to get stop signs in an off-site related situation, because your request is reasonable, I understand where you're coming from, but to carry it to the extreme, we might as well request a traffic light on East 41 or somewhere else that's also off-site, and it's outside -- we can't -- whatever controls we have on this developer and his request, it's outside of it, so we need another opportunity to -- MR. DUNCAN: Right, if you're talking about another venue in which to take this up -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yeah. MR. DUNCAN: -- I certainly would appreciate that. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Where would that be? How would they go about doing that? MR. MULLER: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, my name is Russ Muller, and I'm with the planning services engineering review. The venue that I would point you to is neighborhood traffic management program, and they are in the transportation department, 774-8494, and stop signs go in as warranted by the manual on uniform traffic control devices. That's something that we as a county cannot put in in anticipation of construction traffic or the like. However, the neighborhood traffic management program can put in things to slow down traffic. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Such as speed bumps? MR. MULLER: That's one item, yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you MR. DUNCAN: I have just a couple of questions if you don't mind. How long has the neighborhood program been in effect? MR. MULLER: Since October of 1995. MR. DUNCAN: Unfortunately, it wasn't around to -- we tried to go through the process, in fact, back in 1995 after my daughter was hit, and did not have much success with the process. Is this project still subject to a site development plan review or have you passed that point? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman, it seems to me we cannot listen to this dialogue between neighbors and a Page 93 October 5, 2000 division of the county. We've pointed the man in the right direction, and he ought to privately ask these questions. MR. DUNCAN: Well, if there's somebody here I can talk to, I'll be happy to do that. COMMISSIONER BUDD: And if you could meet out in the hall, that would be great, because we've got to hear issues relevant to the ST. MR. DUNCAN: That's fine. Could somebody from government just raise their hand? COMMISSIONER BUDD: There's your guy. MR. DUNCAN: Thank you. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Okay. Next speaker, please. MS. PAYTON.' Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation, and I have a whole list of questions, but my first question is to Marjorie, and that is are gopher tortoises appropriate to be discussed? MS. STUDENT: Absolutely. That's an environmental -- this is -- these are environmental issues. MS. PAYTON: Very good. Then I have a series of questions. My first question is to the commissioners, and that is disclosure, that the disclosure law allows us as the public to know specifically who you had conversations with and the subject details of those communications, and, therefore, I would appreciate knowing who specifically and the nature of those discussions you had with people that are proponents of this proposal, and that gives the public the opportunity to respond or refute what took place in that ex parte communication. MS. STUDENT: That's absolutely correct. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I -- I spoke to Mr. Pires, which said he was representing the homeowners' association, and that they had some concerns about keeping the roadway open, both ends. We did not talk about, I don't believe, any environmental specific issues that -- when this was before us before, they had some concerns, and that, you know, some of those had been minimized but they still had some concerns with, you know, being able to come and go through both roads. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I spoke with Mr. Peeples and the representative of Coastal Engineering, and I suppose we covered the whole panoply of issues, environmental and ones that have been ruled outside the scope of our discussion this Page 94 October 5, 2000 afternoon. Now, do you want me to talk about who I spoke to among opponents? I mean, is that -- MS. PAYTON: No, I was interested -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You're talking about proponents. MS. PAYTON: I know what the opponents think. Did you specifically talk about gopher tortoises? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. MS. PAYTON: And what was the nature of that discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The nature of it was to point out to me the differences between plan A and plan B, where the tortoises -- where room had been made for them on the western boundary there, and I had a question of this habitat to the north of the canal, which we had heartburn about at the last hearing, and I had understood that the soil up there was unsuitable for gopher tortoises, but it was their position that there's nothing wrong with the soil but the vegetation is not the stuff that the critters want. So, they are going to go in and revegetate as it were. So, that was - that was the essence of the discussion about tortoises. MS. PAYTON: Thank you. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: In my case, I spoke with Mr. Pires, and we talked a little bit about the trade-offs with the turtles and where the locations were and the better habitat, and now that I remember, we ran into each other at the mall, so I spoke with Nancy Payton, talking about Leadership Collier and the gopher tortoises, and one of the issues I had mentioned is, has anybody talked to Collier's Reserve about doing o- some way to get the little fellows underneath the fence, and we sort of joked up here a moment ago about maybe instead of panther underpasses, we would have gopher tortoise underpasses so you could get from one preserve to the other, and I believe that Mr. Peeples had mentioned that at some point they did intend to talk to the people at Collier's Reserve so that there would be a free flow of the gophers back and forth. MR. PEEPLES: I'll be happy to address that if you'd like me to. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Please do, and I'm sorry that I Page 95 October 5, 2000 forgot to put that down, but you reminded me. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I spoke with Mr. Pires representing the homeowners' association in opposition or with concerns to the project. As you're concerned with those speaking for the project, I spoke with Mr. Peeples, Mr. Farmer and Paula Davis and had a range of conversations completely consistent with those previously discussed. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I spoke with Mr. Peeples on the phone, and he basically gave me a rundown of the old and the new, which is his presentation here today. MS. PAYTON: Fine, thank you. I appreciate that. Now I have some questions about the relocation plan, and as I understand the relocation - these are the same questions that I asked at the EAC meeting and didn't get comfortable answers at that time, and so I bring them up once again because they're still issues with Florida Wildlife, and that is the details of the relocation plan. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Excuse me~ Nancy, are you -- your questions are directed not at us but to the developer; is that right? MS. PAYTON: Well, to the developer through you, and I think they're questions that if you had thought of them, you would have asked them. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Well~ perhaps we had, but I'm not sure that you're entitled to question us. I mean~ if you want to question the developer-- MS. PAYTON: Well, this is a forum where people come forward with their questions and concerns. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I thought it was a forum where we're taking public input and expert testimony. MS. PAYTON: Okay. Then I'll rephrase what I have to say. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: That would probably be helpful. Go for it. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Tell us the way you think it is. MS. PAYTON: Okay. The relocation is not -- the relocation plan is not clear. I understand that the relocation permit is for up to 6t tortoises, which would be the entire population. So, conceivably, this entire population could be relocated to Persimmon Ridge or the Willow Run Quarry. I raise the issue of Page 96 October 5, 2000 relocation because of problems with respiratory diseases being transmitted elsewhere. So -- it is not clear yet that the tortoises that are on-site that may be relocated are or are not going to be tested for this upper respiratory disease? Are the tortoises that are in the receiving areas that are going to interact with these relocated tortoises, do they or don't they have the upper respiratory disease, because we don't want to continue to spread this disease? Am I making that point clear? VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: I think so. MS. PAYTON.' All right. I have questions, comments about the linear preserve, which is north of the canal, which I wonder how they're going to get there to maintain it because it's on the other side of the canal. The other comment I have is that the linear preserve abuts Imperial Golf Course, and to my understanding, there have not yet been, and this was a question and a concern last time, discussions with the operators, managers, owners of Imperial, do they want gopher tortoises coming on to their property? Are they aware that gopher tortoises likely are going to wander from the proposed preserve onto, I understand it's a golf course, and there conceivably could be problems that aren't in the best interest of the gopher tortoises, and they may like to dig on that golf course or they may interfere with the golf game. And so there hasn't been coordination that I'm aware of, maybe we'll hear about it, with Imperial. The preserve that abuts Collier's Reserve, there is a fence there. It's like East and West Germany, and for those turtles to get back and forth, they have to tunnel. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Turtle underpasses like panther underpasses, come on. MS. PAYTON.' WelI~ this -- this is one that's turtle or tortoise driven, and it seems as though since this is -- the idea of this was to combine a preserve to piggyback on another preserve, that the preserve truly ought to be a preserve and not a divided preserve, and, therefore, I'd like to be assured that there are agreements with Collier's Reserve to make this a more complete, a better preserve that will benefit tortoises on both sides and not have to resort to tunneling underneath a fence or a wall. You're going to hear additional comments today probably on Page 97 October 5, 2000 the issue of relocation with more specific details. I'm still wondering about dumping the tortoises on that linear preserve that now is not good gopher tortoise habitat, may be good gopher tortoise habitat, may require -- probably does require some interaction with Imperial that we don't have, and I raise the issue that, are we abandoning, or not we -- is the developer abandoning these tortoises, merely getting rid of the problem, as Mr. Peeples called it in his testimony, by dumping them on the other side of the canal and they become Imperial's problem, and the gopher tortoises are sort of left to their own devices? I don't think it's a satisfactory resolution of the problem of what to do with the gopher tortoises by putting them in this piece of land that's undevelopable, that's left over. It's not good gopher habitat at this point. I could not be pointed by Mr. Myers of another situation like this where that type of habitat had been transformed into good thriving tortoise habitat. I just have many unresolved questions, and this is a process that's supposed to be in the interest of the gopher tortoise, and I don't see the gopher tortoises' interest being looked out for here. It's better than the take permit, but it doesn't mean it's the best situation we can have for them. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Would you clarify, are gopher tortoises endangered or a special concern? What are they? MS. PAYTON: They are species of special concern in the State of Florida. They are not federally listed. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Not federally. MS. PAYTON: Also, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission doesn't have regulatory powers, so you are the best that the gopher tortoises have in terms of looking out for their best interest. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. PAYTON.' You're welcome. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Now, do we hear some more testimony? I know they're taking notes over there, so if you don't catch the notes, I did. Next speaker, please. MS. HEMMING: My name is Carol Hemming. I live on Viking Way in Palm River. I have many of the same concerns that Nancy just brought Page 98 October 5~ 2000 up. I feel the situation is unacceptable. The little island that they are planning to put the turtles on between the canal and Imperial is unacceptable. It was brought up at the last meeting that the canal was dredged and silt, all that stuff from the canal is dumped on that little island, which will be dumped on top of the tortoises. I also would like to say that we have all in Palm River on many occasions brought up the traffic issue. It has fallen on deaf ears in all areas with everybody. Now, is it not part of your job to look after the health, safety and welfare of the public? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Within the project that we are considering. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Right. MS. HEMMING: So, anybody outside the project, if the traffic has to go through there, then it doesn't matter if they are safe; is that what I'm hearing here? VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: That's not what you're hearing. MS. HEMMING: Well, that's what I'm hearing. That's what I'm getting. How many would raise their hand to say that's what they're getting? Raise your hands, folks. Good, thank you. That's what they're getting. Now~ it cannot be ignored. It's there. Regardless of whether it's inside the project or not, it's there, and do we have to have somebody killed or hurt to prove it, it will be on your heads. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Ms. Hemming, in the same token, we cannot landlock a piece of property and not provide access to it. MS. HEMMING: You can -- you can -- I understand that, but you can address these safety issues. You can address the issues of ingress and egress to the property and take care of the people that live in the neighborhood, that live on those roads. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And we will do that regarding the property itself. MS. HEMMING: Regarding the property. What about the roads that you're using to get there, that means nothing to anybody, apparently? Page 99 October 5, 2000 MR. NINO: Janet Stone. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Next speaker, and could you name a few more so they can line up, please. MR. NINO: Tony Pires. MS. STONE: I'm Janet Stone, the last name is spelled S-T-O-N-E. I have been a resident of Palm River for the last eight and a half years, and I live on Cypress Way East, which is very close to the entrance that they are going to be using for the construction of this property. I am also concerned about the traffic. I realize you don't want to hear it, but I do have a child that stands out on that street every day and waits for the school bus, and the amount of traffic that's going to be going through for the construction for a good amount of two years plus the additional traffic that's going to be generated from those homes very much concerns me. Environmentally I have a question for the developer. I have lived on that road long enough to see many storms come by, and not necessarily of hurricane strength, just general summer, torrential rains. The last quarter to a half a mile of Cypress Way East, which is going to be the entrance into Palm River -- Little Palm Island, after a torrential rain, floods very heavily. I have seen where the rain has subsided and for days, we have standing water. It concerns me that we are going to have 141 new homes and the elevation is going to be raised from eight and a half to nine feet to eleven, and where's all the run-off from all those homes going to go but onto the drainage that is very poor currently on Cypress Way East. I have actually seen it rain hard enough that it has been totally impassable for the last half mile. Rowboats and kids playing in boats have gone up and down that street. It concerns me that we now have the run-off from another 141 homes dumping onto a street that has a poor drainage. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: No, that's not the way this will be designed, and there are certain requirements, and I do believe they have been addressed, because that's part of this process, and I think you'll probably see an improvement. I mean, I'm an underground utility contractor by license, and having worked at that, I understand how this does and doesn't flow, and this project may improve some of that. It's not going to Page 1 O0 October 5, 2000 solve it all for you, but it's going to be a different approach, and that has been considered. So, someone may respond to this, the engineer, but you have a valid point, but it's being considered within that project, and you may see an improvement. MS. STONE: Back to the traffic, and I realize you don't want to hear, but I just -- everyone here is so concerned because we've lived there for so long. Palm River has two bridges. Currently, one bridge is closed. It is going to be closed for a minimum of six months. Every bit of the traffic that is coming through must come on Cypress Way East for at least the next six months. That is a very heavily pedestrian traveled street. There are people who are walking constantly. When I moved into that neighborhood almost nine years ago, it was very much of a senior type of neighborhood. There were a lot of older people. There were very few children who were at the school bus. My children were two of very few that were at many stops. The neighborhood has totally changed in demographics. There are much younger families. The school bus stops are packed with children. They are constantly out there. With the second Palm River bridge closed, I see the only bridge that's open is open to Cypress Way East where many of the bus stops are. You're going to have traffic from the construction alone up and down that street every morning and every afternoon with large vehicles with those children standing on those corners, and ! do think that is a safety issue that doesn't need to be brushed under the rug. It needs to be addressed. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Two places that you can address that, and one is with the county commissioner in the area, and all your county commissioners, that you want some additional assistance in the area to make sure you have safety for the children. We can't make a developer change all the things that were there before, and the second place would be to talk to transportation and see if there are any types of measures that can be taken, but we can't solve that here today, but I certainly sympathize with you. I know exactly what you're talking about. Page 101 October 5, 2000 MS. STONE: I see not approving this project as a solution to that safety problem. Until that safety problem is addressed, then a project, if and when, you know, would be approved, but to approve a project and just disregard the safety of the children and the families who live there is unconscionable to me. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Madam Chairman, the owners of that project can go in today and build up to X amount of units without having to do anything. It's not that we are approving a project. They can go build today. It's not that we don't want to hear the traffic issues, we want to hear them, but there's nothing we can do about them. The petitioner here today can go and build X amount of homes, a hundred plus homes without having to do anything. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: They didn't have to come here at all. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And they would have to have the construction traffic along with it. That's the only way they can build, and that's the only access to the property. You cannot landlock a piece of property, and the county attorney can tell you that. We want to listen to your problems, but there's nothing we can do about it as far as the traffic. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: This is not the venue that can actually solve them, and I don't believe that with the private property rights of Florida, that the traffic issue is one that would allow us to say we can't let 14t lots be built when they have the right to do that. MS. STUDENT: Just so I can clarify so everybody understands. This is for environmental issues only. I believe at the platting stage when the plat comes in to the Board of County Commissioners, that may provide a venue to address the traffic issues, or there are other ways that the residents can address those issues, by public petition to the Board of County Commissioners, for one. So, there's at least a couple venues in the forum, because this is limited only to the environmental. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Right. Mr. Pires, I do believe you understand. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Madam Chairman, I want to go over the numbers which I've scribbled down. The petitioner can Page t 02 October 5, 2000 go today and build under the RSF-3 zoning standards, they're allowed to build 251 homes on that piece of property. They're asking for 141 homes to be built. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: That is correct, the way I understand the zoning. Mr. Pires. MR. NINO: To go one step further -- I mean, you can't simply multiply the acreage by three, because there are physical design conditions they have to live with. So, they are not -- they're entitled to 264 if they can work out a plan that complies with all of our minimum lot standards. Now, if you X -- a more legitimate question would be how many lots would they lose if they didn't bother coming to you asking to use the ST area, and I understand it's about five lots. So, if you want to put this in perspective, they could have applied for a t36 lot plat six months ago, and they could have had half of this development constructed by now. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So, instead of 251 lots, they can build 245, 245 lots without impacting the ST areas? MR. NINO: No, no, no, no, no, no. Obviously, they are showing you that their designing parameters, their design constraints here suggest that they have the ability to do 141 -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: That's fine. MR. NINO: -- lots. If they take the five lots out because they are impinging on the ST area, their design would give them 136 lots. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. MR. NINO: And they wouldn't be here. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: And we would not be here. Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: For the record, Anthony Pires, law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo. I'll try to be brief. You'll hear probably some other comments from the concerned neighbors and property owners within Palm River. I understand -- I appreciate the recognition by the developer of the concerns as to the -- one aspect about the road being public. One thing though that I think would be very helpful in all settings, there were no communications between the community and the developer. So, if there is any impression on behalf of this board that Mr. Peeples, Mr. Farmer or Mr. Myers talked to Page 103 October 5, 2000 anybody in the Palm River homeowners' association and said, here's our new plan, what do you-all think of it, there was none. That's the reason why you'll probably hear a lot of what you hear today. There were no communications. They've worked with staff, I understand that, from the presentation by Mr. Perry (sic) -- Mr. Peeples, excuse me, but there was nothing as far as any communications with myself or the board of directors of the Palm River Homeowners' Association. I would think at the least, as good neighbors, they would have done that and probably assuage a lot of what we're hearing today. As to the environmental issues, I know that's the focus of this board, and I'll briefly touch upon the traffic issue only from the standpoint of, if there's a sense for this planning commission maybe when they make recommendation to the county commission on the ST, that they recommend to the board that the board -- when the platting comes through, the board direct the staff during the SDP process or the planning process to address an issue of staging of the construction traffic. What we are going to have here for the community is not a situation where you have t40 existing platted lots and one, two, three, four, five are being built incrementally. You're going to have massive mobilization of all this necessary heavy equipment and operators, the whole nine yards necessary to build the fundamental infrastructure for the drainage, roads, sewer, water lines and the digging that is associated with that. As I understand in reviewing the site development plan standards in the land development code, Section 3.3.6, the site development review director shall review and consider all SDPs, both preliminary and final SDPs, including the ingress and egress to the proposed development and its proposed improvements. So, I think that's broad enough to cover construction staging and operational aspect, vehicular and pedestrian safety. It doesn't say internal only. It just says they can consider, shall consider all site improvement plans and preliminary and final site development plans, and it talks about ingress and egress to the proposed development. I don't think it means just after the finished product. It doesn't limit itself just to that. It also talks about traffic flow and control, traffic calming devices, and so I think that's an issue -- once again, I think -- direct the Page 104 October 5, 2000 board to direct the staff, when they do their SDP, when they come for the final plat, to make sure that the staging of all of this massive equipment that will occur, the dump trucks that will be wandering down these roads, because I think you heard some of the roads are t8 foot wide paved surfaces on Cypress Way East, which is below the normal 20, so there will be safety issues for the community. As to the ST, I'm not a biologist, I'm not an environmentalist, and so -- but one thing that caught my eye was that -- I do love critters though, but one thing that did catch my eye was that in a prior staff report back in January of this year, Barbara mentioned that the proposed then number lots 53 to 58, which are the ST lots, staff recommendation in January of 2000 was to, quote, remove all impacts except those which are absolutely unavoidable from the redefined ST boundary. It is staff's recommendation that the developer remove lots 53 through 58 from the site plan. So 53 through 58 are now 94 through 98. The only thing that I understand has changed is that they're swapping off the ability to impact that wetland, part of the ST area, by enhanced or increased gopher area, but nothing else has changed. What's also interesting, I notice this is a new, improved plan, but the last plan, as far as the retained native vegetation, which had more units on it -- the last plan had 18.82 acres of retained -- or excuse me, t8.99 acres of retained native vegetation. This plan has less, t8.2 acres of retained vegetation, and of that, three acres at the north end is still one of which staff has concerns about whether it will work as far as the gopher preserve because you've got to plant the little bushes, you've got to plant the little growies, the stuff that the gophers like to eat, and if that doesn't take, there ain't going to be any gophers up there, and so I'm not sure what that's going to be. We appreciate you-ali's patience, I do, the board sitting up there, volunteering your time and effort. We would request if this is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for recommendation, this particular petition, we recommend that this planning commission recommend that the roads be required to be open to the public, or direct the director, as Fred has indicated, to have the SDP require that with enforcement running not only in favor of the county, but also Page t05 October 5, 2000 Palm River's Homeowners' Association so that there isn't an effort in the future to try to change that; not allow lots 94 to 98 to be improved or developed, and also giving a sense to the board of requiring the director, in reviewing the SDP, to require staggered scheduling, staging of construction activity, severe coordination with that in order to ensure the safety of the residents, the children and the existing community of Palm River. Thank you. MR, NINO: Wesley Hillier, Alan Boggs, Amy Pate. MR, BOGGS: Good morning, commissioners. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: I think it's afternoon. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's afternoon. MR. BOGGS: Good afternoon. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Afternoon. MR. BOGGS: Good afternoon. I apologize. I hope to do a little better. My name is Alan Boggs, and I'm here representing the Collier County Audubon Society. I am also a resident of Imperial Golf Estates to the north of this project, and I can answer Nancy's -- I'm sorry about clearing my throat. Nancy Payton wondered if the Imperial Homeowners' Association had expressed any concern about the gopher tortoises, and I can assure you I brought it to their attention and received no response. Your time is valuable and I don't propose to rehash a lot of the points that were made before, but Audubon's decision in regard to the gopher tortoises is that there's got to be -- there's got to be some better plan about preserving them. Now, the gopher tortoise is not a very lovely animal like the Florida panther, so it doesn't get all the attention it deserves, but it does fulfill a very important part in the ecocycles. As I thought somebody was going to mention previously, the inactive burrows as well as the active burrows, which there are quite a number on that property, are pronged to any number of different species, just not the gopher tortoises. So, when you start destroying this 115 or whatever burrows and so forth, you're affecting things. The gopher tortoise is a species of special concern, and that's one of the reasons it's special. I've seen various estimates as to how many gopher tortoises are there, and the last I heard was plus or minus 70, but I heard Page 106 October 5, 2000 50 or 60 today. Now, only 17 out of that population will remain in this area if this is approved. Now, that's subjecting whatever -- oh, incidentally, that site to the north that everybody has talked about, there are reports that I've read, county reports saying that presently that habitat is not, absolutely not suitable for gopher tortoises, and I think you'll probably all agree with that, and it does require, quote, enhancement, unquote, enhancement. I also remember reading in a county staff report that it would take probably a year, perhaps Mrs. Burgeson can correct me on this, I know I read it somewhere, it would take a year to replant that and bring it up to suitable habitat. Now, what the hell do the gopher tortoises do during this year?. I don't know. I don't have a clue. I'm not really an expert on gopher tortoises, but I'm up here speaking on their behalf. The relocation business -- we are talking about relocating 50 some tortoises. Now, my search for the literature and my reading has been pretty skimpy, but what I do read says that the mortality rate is pretty high. You relocate the tortoises. They get disoriented. They get killed. They pick up respiratory diseases and so forth, and it seems to me it's pretty unconscionable to subject 50 some tortoises to this sort of odds of survival. In some places, the literature says the mortality rate is as high as 70 percent. That's pretty high. That's probably an extreme. Now, I'm wondering, are we perpetuating or begetting a gopher tortoise holocaust? That's a rather dramatic statement to make, but can't the County, and this is not within your purview, I know, but can't the County come up in some way with money to buy that property and turn it into a park preserve? There's no o- there is nothing to say that green space can't be preserved within the urban boundary. So, I would -- again, if this were -- have any influence this way, we would appreciate it. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: I do believe you -- MR. BOGGS: That would seem to be sort of an ideal solution for us. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Has the Audubon -- VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: And I do believe it has tried that before, and it has not happened in Collier County, therefore, there is no money -- I'm talking, okay. There is no money Page 107 October 5, 2000 available. MR. BOGGS: I took my hearing aids out today. I'm at a handicap -- VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: That's okay. There's no money available, and the homeowners' association has not raised the money, therefore, that is not an option, although I do believe the developer would sell it for the price that it's appraised at, but that's not part of this issue right now, because the money is not available. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Madam Chairman -- MR. BOGGS: But there are ways of getting money in government. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- it would almost seem to me that the Audubon and Wildlife could funnel some of their attorney's fees to land purchases and do more to protect the habitat too, so MR. BOGGS: We have discussed that. I don't disagree with you at all. It's a shame it has to come to attorneys. It really is a shame. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: you, Yes, Mr. Pires, we're talking about MR. PIRES: I understand. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Did you have any more specific items so that we can catch the next speaker? MR. BOGGS: Okay, I'll get on with this. The only thing is, you mentioned something about this mitigation credit, which I'm not terribly familiar. It was handed to me today to discuss, and, apparently, you have that in front of you about this mitigation on the wetlands, about the clearing of exotics, the County is supposed to do that anyway, but, apparently, there's some question about that. Okay. Finally, the only thing I have -- I keep hearing at the various meeting that these -- several development projects meet all the requirements of the county growth plan, and the implication of this has been that they should get rubber stamp approval, and this may well be the letter of the growth plan, the law, but I'm not all sure it's within the spirit of the law, and if that's true, it's indeed a mean-spirited law that has potential to destroy many of these gopher tortoises, and a bunch of them are going to be destroyed. Page 108 October 5, 2000 I thank you for all your time. I hope you'll vote your conscience, and I hope you will vote against this. Thank you. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you, Mr. Boggs. Next speaker, please. We have a few more that were called to be lined up. MR. HILLIER: For the record, my name is Wes Hillier, and we have a house on Cypress Way East that has been in the family for the better part of a decade, and I've got a couple of concerns to touch on, and I appreciate everybody else in Palm River that's felt so passionately about getting up here to also speak. It is a serious issue in a lot of different ways, although it has -- the second plan that has come in does seem to, you know, as the last speaker was saying, get the rubber stamp approval on a few things. We have lived there long enough to see some commonsense things happen, and it has been touched on earlier, one of them being that during any type of rain that is substantial, and it does not have to be of hurricane caliber either, we have seen a lot of the adjacent houses that will be adjacent to this development actually being inaccessible to get to, and it was mentioned that the drainage, by Madam Chairman, may be better drainage. To me, that's not acceptable only in the sense that there's enough existing properties there that will be possibly really affected and they might lose their life. You know, they might lose their homes. They might lose all their personal belongings. My concern with that also is that the existing canal to the north, which is this one right here~ right there you've got approximately -- VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: You need the microphone? MR. HILLIER: You've got approximately what -- this is 23 homes that run along here. That canal also will probably be -- I don't know where this water is going to drain that's going to be here, but with this increased elevation, it's just obviously going to be pumping the water somewhere, and this canal is not your typically wide, deep canal that can carry all of this extra water that we're getting. There have been, and I know it's only predictions, that the storms are only going to get worse, you know, in the future, and what I have seen is the water storms that we do get are pretty intense. Page t09 October 5, 2000 So, with that -- with that in mind, I find that the whole idea of just building these houses in an area that has proven to be dry without all these lots to be, you know, very much of a threat to the golf course and the houses that are already there. I don't see how any plan can guarantee that the water is going to run off and make everybody's home that's existing there safe. The other thing that really concerns me in this development is the robbing Peter to pay Paul, if you will, the wetland conservation ST area. I don't know where it stops in this county, but I've lived here enough years to see enough of that going on, and I personally would like to see it just left exactly as it is, not robbing Peter to pay Paul, not taking a section out of it. I might not have a Corps of Engineers degree or be able to say what area is exactly wetland and what is not and keep reducing it to justify the means of a future development, but I just think that somewhere along the line we need to put a stop to destroying these lands, and if that means reducing the size or cutting this development down to half, so be it. That's just my opinion, and I think that living in that community, we've had a good quality, and I really feel that this will eventually affect the quality, if not immediately, of the safety of the children, which has been brought up, and environmentally, it's definitely going to affect us, and I'd just like to see some consideration of that in the future. Thank you. MR. NINO: Richard Henderlong, John Belt, Jean Belt. MR. HENDERLONG: Good morning, commissioners, and it's great to be here and see so many friendly faces, and I'd like to compliment the staff and petitioner for trying to come up with a better plan since the last time. This is a significant improvement, and I'd like to go over a couple points. I'm going to show you this diagram -- THE COURT REPORTER: I need a name. MR. HENDERLONG: Richard Henderlong. I live at 542 Cypress Way East. I'm a resident of Palm River Estates. I live about six houses down from where the project is going to be developed. I also have a planning background, too. You have -- what you're being asked to do today are two things. Number one -- that would be great, Fred, thanks -- number one, you're being asked to reduce the ST designation. You've Page 110 October 5, 2000 heard excellent testimony about the biological components, about how the state and federal government can modify that from 20 acres down to 10. That's fine and dandy, but there's a third cast which is more important, local government, and local government now steps in and has the mandate under the ST ordinance to determine where is the best public interest being served by this proposed modification, and what trade-offs should be considered in making that determination, and I'm going to speak to that as it pertains to your second action, you're approving today a preliminary subdivision plat, and that's the action that the petitioner has sought. Now, the diagram that is appearing on your overhead, the yellow area is 3t lots. With all due respect, Ron is a fine person, the pink area is five lots. That's the ST as defined by the state and federal government. The yellow is the ST area defined by Collier County. That's the area of impact. That's the area I want to speak about, and that's what I want to get into under the preliminary subdivision plat, and does this proposal meet the criteria as it relates to the public's best interest. When we look at a subdivision plat, you take a look at the site development characteristics. You've got to first consider the general form of that land before development and then after. We have a plan here of what they propose for it to be after, and specifically, what's important is the special relationships of structures and open spaces to existing and proposed land use and the visual and environmental impact of that development in the before and in the after with the community, and in this case, with the neighborhood of Palm River Estates. It isn't the petitioner's fault that this subdivision is an old subdivision and there's substandard roads that are out there. That's an inherited problem. We're trying to seek resolution to that. So, my primary concern is with the special relationships, open spaces, the visual and environmental impact, and to that extent, when they seek this reduction -- I'm going to give you a handout that I think will help better amplify what is here before you in their preliminary plat. Okay. What you have before you is the right-of-way. That's substandard. They are proposing 50 feet, folks, not 60 feet right-of-way. There's a big difference there. When you take a Page 111 October 5, 2000 look at Turtle Trace, their lane, they are showing a 25 foot pavement with a 50 foot right-of-way, a 30 foot building setback from house to house, creating 110 visual impact as you go in. Palm River, Unit 3, isn't built that way. Granted, the roadway payment is only 18 feet, substandard, but its right-of-way is platted at 60 feet. The second sheet shows you the plat and gives you a copy of that for documentation and record keeping. Let's don't reduce that from 50 down to 60 feet. I don't understand where the public is being served there. We're losing space, and this, too, plays into the environmental impact; natural habitat, open space as it relates to the areas of impact, and specifically it goes back to the areas that are color coded yellow under the ST, because they are reducing the ST even though the environmental habitat has been degraded. I maintain that we should have a better standard. Some of the conditions that I think can go to the preliminary subdivision plat so that the staff has direction from you, the commissioners, as well as the Board of County Commissioners, can occur, but the staff will need this direction. It has to happen in a public forum, and I'd like to make some suggestions. MR. NINO.' May I interrupt you, Rich? I don't understand your conclusion that we're dealing with a PSP. We're not dealing with a preliminary subdivision plat today. MR. HENDERLONG.' You're not? MR. NINO: No, we're not. We're dealing with an ST petition. We are dealing with a petition to utilize land designated ST. We are not dealing with a preliminary subdivision plat. As you know, that's an administrative function. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct, but then the staff report that I read said that administratively you could not resolve this, and that's why it came in here, unless I got the wrong staff report. MS. STUDENT: Rich~ I think it's confusing because -- and staff -- I'm going to let staff explain it further, because it was a little confusing to me too, so I'm going to let staff explain it. MR. REISCHL: Maybe I can -- Fred Reischl. MR. HENDERLONG: That would help a lot. MR. REISCHL: If I can clear this up a little bit, preliminary subdivision plats are administratively approved or disapproved by the planning services director. However, this preliminary subdivision plat required an Page 112 October 5, 2000 environmental impact statement. Because of that, the preliminary subdivision plat had to go to the environmental advisory council. Therefore, the environmental advisory council heard the PSP petition and the ST petition. Right now, that PSP is on hold, for lack of a better term, pending approval of the ST petition by you and by the Board of County Commissioners. So, the PSP is waiting for the results of this, but the petition that's before you is the ST. Let's see if I can simplify it a little more. They can't -- the current PSP submitted to the planning services director cannot be approved in its present form unless this ST is approved. MS. STUDENT: I think to amplify that a little more, that the PSP has got to show where the preserve areas or the environmentally sensitive areas are and where the habitat is going to be, and that's going to be decided in this process, and that's why that's on hold, because that's more than likely going to show that area; is that correct? MR. REISCHL: That's correct. MR. HENDERLONG: So, can I ask a question then, Fred? Will the PSP come back before the planning commission in an open forum like this? MR. NINO: No. MR. REISCHL: No. The PSP is administratively approved or disapproved by the planning services director. However, the plat will come back to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. HENDERLONG: So, the narrow of the focus today is getting back to on the previous rendering, the pink area as Ron pointed out, just the five lots, shall the petitioner be entitled to fill those five lots; is that really the narrow focus? VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: That's it. That's the focus. MR. HENDERLONG: That's the decision you're going to make today? VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Right, and we've been, in deference to the neighborhood here and the people that are very interested, we've been listening to the traffic and the other issues of safety for children, but that's what we're supposed to focus on. MR. HENDERLONG: Then an observation I'd like to submit on that point, on the five lots. You had previously -- normally in the land development code, Page t 13 October 5, 2000 the rear 25 feet, when an ST line gets redefined, ends up going under the deed restrictions to be preserved in perpetuity as a buffer between that, and, in fact, the environmental advisory council, and I quote from the previous action on the last petition said, buffers around wetlands extending 15 landward from the edge of the wetland preserve in all places and averaging 25 feet from the landward edge of the wetlands must be accomplished. That is a condition you can put on those five lots. The rear or that 25 feet should be preserved and protected as part of a buffer. The other lots from the design and the layout appear to extend beyond the 25 feet where the modified new ST line is, and so it would not apply there. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Rich, can you clarify for me -- MR. HENDERLONG: So, at a minimum, that should be something to be considered. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Was that requirement in the previous submission? MR. HENDERLONG: It was in the previous recommendation by the environmental advisory council. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Right. What did EAC say this time? Did they address that? MR. HENDERLONG: Russell, I can't address it because I wasn't there or present, but I just picked it up off the staff report. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Oh, previously? MR. HENDERLONG: Right. So, it may -- perhaps it's an oversight, but it's something that -- I know Collier's Reserve, they too had to do that, and the lots do have a 25 foot preservation easement on the rear that abut the wetland edges. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Barbara, would you care to address that, please? MS. BURGESON: I'd be happy to. Barbara Burgeson, planning services. There is an average 25 -- it has to average 25 feet. It has to be a minimum of 15 feet unless through the state and federal permitting process there's a structural buffer, and these five lots would probably accomplish the structural buffer adjacent to the wetland through that ERP permitting process. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. Thank you. MR. NINO: Kathy Avalone, I understand you have an Page 114 October 5, 2000 appointment, so if we can take Kathy Avalone. MR. HENDERLONG: Thank you very much. Thank you for your consideration and time. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. AVALONE: My name is Kathleen Avalone, AoV-A-L-O-N-E, and I'm co-founder of the Citizens for the Protection of Animals. Little Palm Island has 165 gopher tortoise burrows, of which 70 to 80 are active. After doing extensive research and speaking with many gopher tortoise experts and the state attorney's office, Citizens for the Protection of Animals has determined that both the destruction of gopher tortoise habitat and the relocation of gopher tortoises by law is cruel and inhumane. Since gopher tortoises are a keystone species, plowing over and bulldozing burrows not only threatens the tortoises directly, but also destroys a large number of species, 360 to be exact, who use tortoise burrows for homes; among them, the gopher frog, which is found nowhere else except in the burrows, and the eastern indigo snake, both of which are, like the gopher tortoise, listed species. Abandoned burrows house fox, squirrel, opossum, raccoon, bobcats armadillo and bob white whale, all of which have been seen on this property. Some live all their lives in these burrows and cannot exist without them. As Joan Barrish (phonetic} of the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission writes, from a humane standpoint, there would appear to be equal justification for moving all the other animals likely to be crushed, entombed, stunned or displaced into a hostile habitat to await starvation or predation. The gopher relocation symposium reported, while a few tortoises may be saved by relocation, the habitat and other burrow dwelling species are destroyed. Harold Waikwitz (phonetic) from the symposium on gopher tortoise conservation says, gopher tortoise relocation is being advocated by developers, their environmental consultants and by regional planning councils with little thought to such biological impacts as carrying capacity of relocation habitats, population disruptions, gene pool mixing and parasite and disease transmission. Henry Mashinsky (phonetic), graduate, director and professor for the University of South Florida, Department of Page t15 October 5, 2000 Biology, did two studies on relocation. In one study, t16 tortoises had been relocated. Three years later, only 16 percent were within the study plots where they were released. In another study, 83 were relocated. After only two years, only about 30 percent remained within the released area. Both studies suggest that 60 to 70 percent of relocated tortoises tend to move from the point of release shortly after release and often become disoriented and wander off-site. Many tortoises are killed each year by automobiles. Dr. Mary Brown, a University of Florida associate professor of pathobiology, writes that the decreasing habitat and increase in contact amongst the tortoises is leading to a greater chance of spreading upper respiratory tract disease or URTD, which destroys the respiratory tract and olfactory senses. She states~ this is an ideal situation for the spread of most infectious diseases, and while relocation makes people feel good, it is not very effective and risks spreading the disease. According to Dr. Paul Kline, a University of Florida professor of pathology, immunology and laboratory medicine, URTD is not treatable in the wild. The subsequent loss of smell makes it difficult for the tortoises to find food, which leads to malnutrition and starvation. A damaged respiratory tract can lead to secondary infections. Researchers state, URTD decimated the tortoise in the southwest and on Sanibel Island. Joan Barrish, citing reports and colleagues who had healthy tortoises die from URTD when relocated, states, we are undoubtedly spreading the disease by relocating tortoises, and in Mortday's Naples Daily News in an article about gopher tortoises, George Himrick (phonetic), a gopher tortoise expert, states that halting relocation of sick tortoises is too little to help the tortoises, which, he says, are near enough to extinction to warrant inclusion on the federal endangered species list. Over 30,000 have been killed in the last decade. Himrick says the question isn't if we should be testing for disease~ but if we should be moving the tortoises at all. According to Himrick, and I quote, biologists have showed over and over again that relocation just does not work. It's ludicrous. The growth management plan calls for the protection and preservation of wildlife. Cruelty to animals according to Florida Page 116 October 5, 2000 State Statutes is defined as a person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering or causes the same to be done. In addition, a violation of the contagious disease statute occurs when whoever having charge of any animal, knowing the same to have any contagious or infectious disease or to have been recently exposed thereto, disposes of such an animal or knowingly permits such an animal to run at large. According to the state's attorney's office, it is considered a violation of these statutes if animals known to be in the burrows are killed or if tortoises are relocated with the contagious disease or where contagious diseases are present. Because the destruction of gopher tortoise burrows causes the indiscriminate killing and loss of life-sustaining habitat to many animals, and because relocation of gopher tortoises intentionally inflicts unnecessary pain and suffering through the spread of diseases and often results in a cruel death from starvation, entombment or traffic death, the Citizens for the Protection of Animals is prepared to take criminal and civil legal action if the building permit on Little Palm Island is approved. Thank you. MS. BELT: Good afternoon. I remembered. My name is Jean Belt, and I'm president of the homeowners' association, Palm River Homeowners' Association. Most everything has been said, and I have been receiving, and we did receive today again more letters concerning this whole situation. It's not what we're really talking about today. I don't believe that's the thing to bring up right now. My biggest concern -- VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: There's a microphone right there that you can just pick right up. Thank you. MS. BELT: My -- is it on? VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Yes. MS. BELT: -- biggest concern is where it comes out right here, and I don't know the County -- our roads are county roads. We only have a short area in our community that they're up to code, and -- so now, with that 18 foot, you have -- two trucks are not going to pass each other there at all without going into Page 117 October 5, 2000 somebody's yard, and that's another thing that we're having trouble with, is the fact that when a school bus is on Viking Way and a big truck comes through, I don't think you can put your hand between the two of them, and there are wheel marks on the grass, and on our side, on Viking Way are 20 feet wide, so -- and that's over here. These are wider, but that one up there is bad news, and like somebody said, that needs to be corrected, and those are county roads. Either the developer or the County should take care of that to widen those roads. We have approximately 70 kids in Palm River. We have four buses going through Palm River for high school, middle school and -- what's the other one -- elementary -- VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Elementary. MS. BELT: -- elementary school, and we have a handicap bus, which is a smaller bus, and they all go through there, and the kids are all standing in the street, so -- this is what we're concerned about, and Cypress Way East is even worse off than Viking Way because of the traffic. So, I think that something needs to be done to widen that street on Viking Way -- not Viking Way, Cypress Way East. I think it's very, very important to do that, and I don't know who's going to do it, but somebody should, should be very much aware of that. The trucks for -- are going to start coming in -- they either have to come down Piper Way, Piper Boulevard or they have to come down Palm View Boulevard or Cypress Way East. The trucks are going to lose themselves. They're going to go just straight down Cypress Way East unless they're given direct instructions, which means that that is going to be even worse. So, that's my real concern. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. BELT: Good afternoon. My name is John Belt. I'm treasurer of Palm River Homeowners', and that lovely woman just before me is my wife, and I'm very proud to have her. We are concerned about a number of things, and you've heard them already today. I second the motion that Tony brought up of the various problems that we're concerned with. One thing I don't understand, Mr. Nino mentioned earlier during the hearing that the only reason these people are before Page October 5, 2000 you today is because of five lots. I was under the impression that the current wetlands overlay is over 20.2 acres, and it's a cut-down of 20.2 acres to only t0 acres that the staff has agreed to and the developer has gotten through his survey and all, and they had cut it down to the 9.8 or nine point other acres, and the fact that -- that is also part of your concern, and they couldn't be doing that unless they have the approval of the county environmentalist and the planning board and the county board; am I mistaken in that? VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Barbara, please. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson. The ST overlay is for 20 acres. However, that does not necessarily indicate that that's 20 acres of wetlands. That's 20 acres that back in 1974 had an ST overlay on it and had probably not been field verified. Through the land development code at the time of ST permitting, staff goes out and readdresses what's within that entire boundary, redefines what we determine to be the actual ST boundary, and for this property, it really came from 20 acres down to about 10 acres in the field. And so, even though we are saying that -- they do need a permit, an ST permit for the entire 20 acres. However, we are only considering the impacts that staff is concerned with to be those -- that last one acre which is impacted by those five lots. If this project came through as a PUD as a rezone, that ST would have been rezoned completely off of the property, and the only thing that staff would have been concerned about would have been that last one acre of wetlands. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: And we're talking about preserving 90 percent of the wetlands and only impacting less than 1 percent; is that correct, I mean t0 percent? One acre so it's t0 percent. MS. BURGESON: With this proposal, correct. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: And I believe Mr. Carlson was the person who indicated that he felt that was a great odd, that was a good savings and something to be pleased with in the environmental advisory council. MS. BURGESON: I vaguely -- I think he did discuss it in those terms, but I couldn't tell you exactly. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: That's my recollection from Page 119 October 5, 2000 having read the minutes, and he's a strong proponent of saving as much wetlands as you possibly can. MR. BELT: Right. Thank you very much for the information. In my mind, they are really cutting it down 50 percent, but I guess I don't understand it that way because they say they've agreed to, and that's what it currently is by design, but I think Mr. Abernathy raised a good point. When you talk about, as they said in here, the mitigation that they're making for the five lots, that they originally decided that they were recommending against and it should be withdrawn from their plan, now they're saying because they added 3.8 acres for tortoise turtle over on this side next to Collier's Reserve -- which I think is a fine benefit, no question about it, and they've got a half an acre of tortoise preserve down near the wetlands. The five acres up above or the three point acres up above was staff's recommendation before, it was not real adequate. There are no gopher tortoises there or anything, but I think you are taking apples and oranges together when you say the mitigation to the wetland for five lots should be offset by tortoise preserve. The tortoise preserve should have been made on their own benefit because of the tortoise ordinance that is now in your land development area, and the fact that the wetlands are being impacted, I think those five lots ought to be eliminated. They are taking another t 0 percent of the wetlands that were cut down from 20.2 down to -- granted, 20 years ago, but now, and to me, I think that's wrong, that they should just eliminate those five lots, and if they had those five lots, then they wouldn't have been taking your time and our time and other things along the way. They'd have gone ahead and done it, and we would have benefitted by whatever the problems were. That's one of the factors that Tony mentioned also, was that they have not talked with us at all about a second plan. We objected the first time rather strenuously, and, fortunately, you folks agreed that their cjuster home was not a proper setup. This, we think, is much better. It is RSF-3. There are some benefits; no question about it, but instead of having all the wet space over there to help the drainage, they've only got one lake in here now. A lot of our people are concerned about drainage. That's a big factor. I don't know that much about it, so I can't address it, but I think that the tortoise problem is that those Page 120 October 5, 2000 three acres up there that they say is a tortoise turtle reserve, tortoises don't swim. They can't come over this way. They've never been over on that side. How are they going to go about and spend the money and object to it -- I mean, develop it to qualify for the tortoises and then maintain it is another story, and I understand that they say they're going to do it, but a lot of things they say they're going to do, we don't have any way of following it up along the way. I do thank you for your time. Would you also consider what Mr. Tony said, that we think you folks ought to put some sort of a restriction on construction traffic when the school kids are down there. Let's put something in there that can be recommended to the county board, because that's an important factor, and it's a part of the development. I think that any impact that this development has, what you're looking at is also a factor in its ingress and egress, and that is important to all of us that have lived there for some time. We thank you for your time. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you. Do we have any other speakers? Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Angela Duvall, Bruce Hemming, Ben Ogilvie, Jim Spounius, Misty Sammons, Stacey and Kevin Barnhill. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Okay. Let's try not to repeat the types of things that have been said. If you have something new, please bring that or if you agree with what's been said, go ahead and state that, please. MS. PATE: My name is Amy Pate. I'd just like to say, I live right here, and I have nothing against developers or development. If it wasn't for developers, Palm River never would have been built and all the other adjacent developments. However, those developments forced all of the animals to refuge into this area that has been there for years and years and years. There are far more than just gopher tortoises. There are owls. I've seen owls mating. I watch the area every night, and I would just like to urge you that whatever was designated wetland should be left that way. Let the developer build on what can be built on. Don't grant any special treatment because somebody went out there on October 2nd with a shovel during the driest wet season we've ever had, when water restrictions Page 121 October 5, 2000 had been in place for months, and couldn't dig up some water. I'm not an expert on any of that, and I'm sure they are more expert than I am, but I think that we should preserve it the way that it was set. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. OGILVIE: My name is Ben Ogilvie, O-G-I-L-V-I-E. I'm a longtime resident in the Palm River area and a member of the homeowners' association. I live in the corner of Viking Way and Forestwood Drive, which is one of the entranceways to the subject development. I'm not going to take too much time to say much. I'm in favor of progress. I'm in favor of enhancing my property value, which I think this surrounding area will do for me. I'm most concerned -- I have grandchildren living with me. The issue of safety is my concern. Maybe this is the wrong venue. I hope -- I'm not very vocal at home. I don't get a chance, but ! am outside. But I hope there is a venue that I can express my thoughts on the safety for our children. I know the County has spent considerable money, our tax money to improve Viking Way. It's a 20 foot road. They have improved the drainage on both sides just recently. We still have lakes in weather like we're enduring right now. There is no possible way that that road can be widened. The present traffic burden we have with the support vehicles, lawn service, et cetera, plus the fact that that is a double solid yellow line the full length of Viking Way, which I intend -- I understand will be kept -- will further put our children into deep water off the roads or these vehicles will park across the double solid yellow line, which will further inhibit the traffic, heavy traffic. I'm very much concerned. I'm an engineer. I am very much concerned about heavy traffic on that underrated roadway. I'm not -- I like the idea of the development, but I do feel that part of this project should involve egress and ingress to the area through an already developed area. There are -- there are ways of doing these. It may cost money. I know they say there's no way to get in and out of that area. Anything can be negotiated for a price, I feel, and the price, I feel they should talk to Collier's Reserve, they have a maintenance road which is perfectly -- Page 122 October 5, 2000 down by the hospital which could be negotiated for an entranceway. These are out of my realm right now, but I'm just concerned that if the project gets approval or the go ahead, that something be done to preserve the safety for our children. Thank you. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you. Next speaker?. MR. HEMMING: Good afternoon. My name is Bruce Hemming. I'm a resident of Palm River. Thank you, Mr. Ogilvie, for the levity. It broke things up a little bit. I have a couple of concerns, and I'll try not to be terribly redundant. I'm, again, opposed to the gopher tortoise reserve above the canal. While it is an on-site retention, it is not contiguous. These gopher tortoises essentially are within the perimeter of the property, but they're not really on the property. The canal separates them. It's no different than moving them 90 miles away. That's the first thing. The second thing, I walk my dog along the old trail quite a number of mornings in here, and over the last couple of weeks, there's been six to eight inches of standing water there. It seems to have been created when the road was created. There's not much good drainage in there, and I'm just -- it looks like the natural sheathing as I watched where the water goes. The natural sheathing runs into this project. The surface sheathing runs back into the project this way as I watch the water run. That's a concern of mine. I live just not far away from there. This section right here, the southern half of the road is not navigable. You have to drive into the ditch on the right-hand side to get up there. Currently, we only have one house. Mr. Buddy Shift lives at the end here, and he's the only one that has to deal with it, but that's a concern of mine. The third item, again, and I beg your indulgence~ but, of course, traffic is a concern. I have a letter in front of me that was issued by Arthur Ruttenberg Homes signed by a sales representative by the name of John Hubert (phonetic). Briefly, I'm just going to read them, take it out of context. I am now in the process of finalizing that list so that when reservations start sometime in November, I have a regis -- I have registered to me so that they can make their choice of lots, blah-blah-blah. We feel the location, amenities and being well past 1-75, that the Page t23 October 5, 2000 sales will be fast and furious. I hope for the developer's sake that is the case, but I hope that's not the case with the amount of construction traffic coming through our community, and I don't know if this means that this has already been approved by both the Board of County Commissioners and the planning commission, but I find that to be an interesting correspondence. That was received in my neighborhood on the 6th of September. Thank you. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you. Next speaker, please? MR. BARNHILL: My name is Kevin Barnhill, 593 Cypress Way East. I was sworn in. I've been a -- I'm a native of Florida. I grew up in Orlando before -- Orlando was smaller than Naples is now when I grew up, and I saw what can happen to a town. As a matter of fact, that's why I chose Collier County to come and make my residence. I'm a computer programmer for a dot com company. I'm exactly the kind of employees Collier County is seeking to bring in to boost our high tech. industry here that's fledgling. I'm concerned about the same thing that everybody else is. My first objection is this spoil area on the north end of the canal. If you look at it visually, which we don't have pictures of now, unfortunately, it's abnormally high, and at certain times of the year, there's fresh sand all along the top and in the vegetation, which, you know, every once in a while, Southwest Florida comes in and dredges that out. That would entomb those turtles and the other habitat that live here. So, I would ask for the turtle sake that we not use or not call that high quality turtle preserve up there. That also might be a reason why there aren't turtles there now. I'm also concerned about the excess water. From my understanding, water used to flow from north to south -- the water used to flow from north to south through here. Now, it's flowing south north, and you've also heard a lot of the testimony from the other residents, just a few weeks ago, we tried to walk in through here, and it's completely flooded through here. So, there is quite a bit of water all through here, and since we are talking about water, I'm interested on exactly where Mr. Myers took his water samples from. I didn't hear that; did you? So, I want to make sure -- because there is some good high Page t24 October 5, 2000 quality ground in different areas, but, you know, where were the -- I've been through here, and it is pretty swampy. I couldn't bury a shovel in there. I buried a couple of shoes. Anyway, so let's get some -- find out what's up with that. Also, you know, there's ospreys, bald eagles, golden eagles, Shook, bass, gopher turtles. I caught a -- in the lake that's not shown here on Palm River -- the little lake that's adjacent to this canal, I caught just about a 30 inch snook, so it is part of the whole Cocohatchee estuary area. Also, recently I've noticed that along this bank right here, there's quite a bit of run-outs where water from this area has flowed into the canal. If this area is so wet, I'm surprised that -- these run-outs are huge. I mean, they're -- I could probably stand or hide in one, and it's just where -- this is a sandy bank, and the water has found its way through here. This area in this canal also has Shook and I'm sure a lot of other wildlife that -- the area further -- or the Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River area is an estuary, essentially, and we already have a problem with the Palm River golf course feeding fertilizer into this area, and now we're going to have an additional 100 plus homes. I'm a little unclear as to how many homes we're talking about in this ST area. Is it five or -- in this ST overlay, I counted over 24, but I thought the ST overlay area is the small -- the larger rectangular area around the wetlands. We have another type of Florida Wildlife that has been talked about here, and that is human children. I'm not going to belabor the point, but they are around here, and the number of homes that we decide to put in this area will not only impact the wetlands, but will impact the probability that a human child will get hurt. Now, two children have already been hurt on Cypress Way East. I told you about that last time. One girl is probably -- I haven't followed up, she's probably going to lose her eye, okay. What we're talking about here is 141 times two and a half cars. It's 352 extra cars, and that can be changed by how many houses you allow in this ST area. So, if we don't grow this out to the maximum like they want to do -- first it was cjuster, then we want to -- actually, if you look at these two, they don't look a whole lot different. You know, Page 125 October 5, 2000 this is still more dense than Palm River~ and I think they've done a lot of good things, but it's -- when they showed them up, I was like right or left, left or right, you know. They looked very similar. You know, why do we have to build this thing out to the maximum? Why are they always pushing the rules to try to get the most? So, finally, I hope this doesn't become like a Dolphin Island issue, and one of the things is, remember last time, these are the people that said, well, if we don't get this, we've got this other plan, and I don't think you guys liked it very much, and we didn't like it either. So, we're talking to the same people here. Thank you. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you. Is this the last speaker? MR. NINO.' Yes. MS. BARNHILL: I'm Stacey. I live on Cypress Way East. I'll try to make this short. I know you're ready to go eat lunch. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Yes, please. MS. BARNHILL: The area that I am concerned about is the tortoise preserve. You know, on one side there's houses, and when they dredge it, they're definitely not going to put it in the backyards of the homes. So, all the sand is going to go on top of the gophers. The only creature that would like a bunch of sand is ants. We have plenty of those. As far as the special treatment area, I feel that we -- it probably -- we don't have time to do probably a sufficient analysis of this area. The people who originally made the boundaries, they did it for a reason~ and I think we should leave it the way it is. The less homes we have in here, the less congestion will be on the roads, the less likely a child will be hit by a car, and I think it was designed the way it is now for a reason, and back then, they had a lot more time probably to announce doing an analysis on land, and keep in mind~ the environmentalist was hired by Keystone. He wasn't hired by Palm River, the people who are going to be impacted by this. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Thank you. Any other further public comment? Do we have some responses from our petitioner? MR. PEEPLES.' I'm not sure we can respond to all those Page 126 October 5, 2000 questions. I want to make a couple of points. Obviously, people here are very concerned. Most of their concerns, quite honestly, would be better dealt with through changes to the Collier County growth management act or the land development code. What they want to do calls for a change to the law, not a change to this particular platted -- the plat. Another thing I've noticed, I have -- I think, as many of you know, I live in Palm River. I live on Viking Way. I've lived there for ten years. Before I lived on Viking Way, I lived in one of the condos on Cypress Way East. These are my neighbors. I have never, ever seen Palm River so organized and so focused on getting something done, and I really want to ask this group to go to Collier County and get Collier County to improve the roads, the drainage, the sidewalk issues that are currently existing in Palm River that are not being created by this developer. I mean, I could ask Ms. Student to give us her opinion on what the developer's responsibility is. The developer is trying to make a workable project, but they're in the business of building homes and making money. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Terry. MR. PEEPLES: Sorry. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Just a reminder. MR. PEEPLES: That's it, and the final thing, I just want to -- as a personal note, I really want to disagree with Mr. Pires. We did meet with the homeowners' association. We met with the homeowners' association over a year ago. We showed them what we wanted to do. We also contacted Mr. Pires after we were shot down at the planning commission, and we asked him what he wanted. Quite honestly, we said, are you trying to kill a project or are you looking for specific things? What can we do? What do you want? Since then, we haven't heard anything from him, and we both have telephones. Thank you. MR. PIRES-' May I respond to that? COMMISSIONER BUDD: No, no. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: No, no, no. MR. PIRES: It's terribly offensive. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: It's okay. Page 127 October 5, 2000 MR. PIRES: They indicated they were not making any changes at that time. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: All right. If there's no further public comment, I close the public hearing, and we'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion that the planning commission recommend approval of ST-99-03 to the Board of County Commissioners subject to the staff stipulations. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Do we have any discussion? I'll call for the question. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All those opposed, same sign? (No response). VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Motion carries. Now if I can find my -- do we have any old business? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Terry, do you want these things? MR. PEEPLES: No, sir. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Okay. We have a discussion of the summary agenda, would that be you, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: I think that can wait for another day. VICE CHAIRPERSON RAUTIO: Okay. We'll wait for another day, Is there any new business? Is there any public comment? Do we have any discussion of addenda? If not, move to adjourn. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:41 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GARY WRAGE CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT Page 128 October 5, 2000 REPORTING BY.' Heather Casassa and Dawn Breehne Page 129 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCUR,~RED COUN / NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITFEE (cpC_- THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COt',~ M R-I'EE ON WHICH I SERVE JS A UNiT OF: MY POSITION [~ ELECTIVE ~. APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and noR-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under SectiDn 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending Dn whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143 FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding etective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which res to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F~S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate' means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not Ilsted on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otheR,vise may participate in these matterB. However, you .-,~ust disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B- REV. 1/98 PAGE1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the egeecy. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATI'EMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose oraIly the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes, A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, ~"'~'~' ~ /,,1//,~/~ ~ , hereby disclose that on /~' ~ / (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; /)~ inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, __ inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of , by whom I am retained; or inured to the speciaI gain or loss of , which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as folIows: //, , NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE~- CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT; REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - REV. 1198 PAGE 2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DMSION PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 October 20, 2000 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Re: BD-2000-22, Joseph L. Dillon Dear Mr. Scofield: You were inadvertantly sent a copy of the wrong resolution with your copy of the above petition. Enclosed is a copy of the correct resolmion. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Should you have any questions, please call me at (941) 403-2400. Sincerely, Ross Gochenaur Planner II c: Joseph L. Dillon 302 Stella Maris Drive S. Naples, FL 34114 Land Dept.. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) Ronald F. Nino, AICP, Current Planning Manager Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, Director, Planning Services File PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier. fl.us COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION October 19, 2000 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-22, Joseph L. Dillon Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, October 5, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-22. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-27 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Ross Gochenaur Planner II G:/admin/BD-2000-22/RG/cw Enclosure Joseph L. Dillon 302 Stella Maris Drive S. Naples, FL 34114 Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier. fl.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 27 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-22 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 25-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 45-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 Joseph L. Dillon, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 28, Port-of-the-Islands (The Cays) Phase II, as described in Plat Book 21, Pages 1-4, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 25-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 45-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-4 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. 3. 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-2000-22 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 5th day of ,October ,2000. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VINCENT A.-CAUTERO, AICP Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: MarjoraM. Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admirdBD-2000-22/RG/im 2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION October 20, 2000 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-00-19, Frank T. Lazzaro, Jr. Dear Mr. Scofield On Thursday, October 5, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-19. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-28 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Ross Gochenaur Planner II G:/admin/BD-2000-19/RG/cw Enclosure cc: Frank T. Lazzaro, Jr. 430 Panay 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- 28 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-00-19 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 38-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 58-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 filed by Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Frank T. Lazzaro, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 631, Isle of Capri Unit 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 38-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 58-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. -3.- 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-00-19 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 5th day of October ,2000. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER C~~,~'F~ORIDA VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Mai-jrori~) M. Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-00-19/RG/im 2