Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/19/2000 R October 19, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 19, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in the Collier County Government Center, Administration Building, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Gary Wrage Joyceanna J. Rautio Michael Pedone Russell A. Priddy Sam M. Saadeh Ken Abernathy Russell A. Budd Laura Young Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2000 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDMDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOI-IF_,D 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN, PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRI'ITI~N OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING, IN ANY CASE, WRITri;N MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMI'I'H~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 COlVlMISSIONERS 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 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS CP-2000-02, GGAMP: To amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan end the Future Land Use Map to create a new sub-district to be known as the "Logan Blvd./Pine Ridge Road Transitional Use Sub-district, to allow office/medical and conditional uses. (Coordinator: Debrah Preston) CP-2000-03, GGAIvlP & FLUE: A text amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Future Land Use Element to clarify/add uses within the Settlement Area (Orangetree PUD document). (Coordinator: David Weeks) CPo2000-04, FLUE: To amend the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to creat~ a new commercial sub-district for 48.5 acres to be known as the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Blvd. Commercial Sub- district, to allow a maximum of 360,000 square feet of gross leasable commercial development. (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-disO'ict for 17.5 acres, to be known as Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Sub-district, to allow a maximum of 125,000 square feet of gross leasable retail and office development at the 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 renamin_~ the C.R. 951 Commercial Infill District to Golden Gate Commercial Infill Sub-district by including 6.83 acres at the NW corner of Santa Barbara Blvd./Golden Gate Parkway, to allow commercial development. (Coordinator: David Weeks) CP-2000-11, FLUE: A text amendment to the Future Land Use Element to modify the definition of "direct principal access" for travel trailer recreational vehicle parks. (Coordinator: Michele Moses) CP-2000-10, To adopt an Ordinance to approve the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the Immokalea Area Future Land Use Map to delineate an Urban InCill and Redevelopment Area. (Coordinator: Debrah Preston) BD-2000-15, Carl Oils requesting approval to construct a boathouse over an existing boat dock for property located at 396 Connor's Avenue, further described as Lot 7, Block R, Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 3, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Cheryl Soter) BD-2000-23, Miles Scofield of Turfell & Associates, Inc., representing Liberty Ventures of Naplea, Inc., requesting a 40-foot extension to allow for a multi-slip boat dock facility protruding a total of 60 feet into the waterway for property located at 9207 Vanderbilt Drive, further described as Lot 5 and 6, Block G, Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenanr) PUD-95-2(I ), Palm Foundation, Inc., requesting a fezone fi'om "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Bailey Lane PUD having the effect of amending the PUD document by revising the development standards for single-family dwelling units by reducing the front and rear yard setbacks and reducing the distance between principal stmctores, for property located at the end of Bailey Lane, in Section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 24.76/: acres. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) PUD-99-25, Mitchel A. Hutchcraft, ASLA, AICP, of Vanasse & Daylor, LLP, representing $olm B. McMullen, requesting a fezone from "A" Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Hammock Park Commerce Centre for a mixture of commercial uses, for property located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road and C.R. 951 in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 18.154. acres. (Coorelinator: Chahram Badamtehian) PUD-2000-02, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., representing Mark L. Lindner, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Hibiscus Village PUD for a maximum of 230 residential housing units for property located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (S.R. 951), approximately V4 mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 57.5~ acres. (Coordinator: Chahvam Badarutchian) 2 PUD-84-7(6), George L. Varnadoe of Young, van Assendetp and Anderson, P.A., representing 951 Laud Holdings, LTD, requesting a fezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for a mixed residential golf course community and for an amendment to the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD for the purpose of adding the land being rezoned and consolidating this area into the Fiddler's Creek master plan while not increasing the total number of dwelling units authorized for the Fiddler's Creek portion of Marco Shores. The area to be rezoned is located in Sections ll and 14, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion Item to DOA-2000-04) (Coordinator: Ron Nino) DOA-2000-04, George L. Vamadoe of Young, van Assenderp, Vamadoe and Ande~on, P.A., repres~n~ug 951 Land Holdings, Ltd., for an amendment to the M~rco Shores/Fiddler's Creek Development of Regional Impact DRI Development Order 84-3 as amended for the purpose of adding approximately 168 acres to the Fiddler's Creek portion of the Dill in which the current land use theme of a residential golf course community is extended without any increase to the number of dwelling units authorized, and to amend the master plan to illus~'ate the residential/golf course land use theme for property located in Sections 11 and 14, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion Item to PUD-84-7(6)) (Coordinator: Ron Nino) R-2000-03, Steve Morgan, representing M.B. Morgan and R.E. Shaffer, requ¢sfiug a rezone from "RT"Residential Tourist to "C-3" for property located at the south corner of U.S. 41 and Barefoot Williams Road, in Section 33, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.38-4: acres. (Coordinator: Don Murray) OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS: LDC Amendment Calendar 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM l 1. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 10/19/00 CCPC AGENDA/RN/im 3 October 19, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All right. I would like to call to order the meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, October 19th in our year of 2000. And before I call the roll call, I would like to welcome a new commissioner, Laura Young, from District I representing Marco Island. Glad to have you with us. With that I'll call the roll call. Mr. Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Young? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage is present. You've been gone so long I forgot your name. Commissioner Mike -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Pedone. Here. That's what happens when you miss -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Budd? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any addenda to the agenda? MR. NINO: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to those people who have showed up for Items H and I, That's the Fiddler's Creek PUD and Development -- DRI order amendment. There was a glitch in the time that people received their letters and that item has to be rescheduled for November the 16th. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So moved. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved and seconded that we move Items H and I. MR. NINO: However, would you please keep those books? That's a lot of paper there. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: H and I, which have to do with Fiddler's Creek's DOA and PUD. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) MR. NINO: Additionally, Mr. Chairman, would you move Page 2 October t 9, 2000 items -- under A, Comp. Plan Amendments, the second one from the top of Page 2, would you move that ahead of the top one, so we want to take -- we want to take the third item second, so it would be B and the top one as C. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Now you've confused me. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: How about the numbers, Ron? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I move we move CP-2000-04 to the first item. MR. NINO: Whatever. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That was what I understood. So moved and seconded to move CP-2000-04, future land use element, to the first item of business. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. That's the -- let the record show that Mr. Saadeh has arrived. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: On time. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And Mr. Abernathy. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Oh, I'm sorry. And Mr. -- Commissioner Abernathy is also present. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm sort of short. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. We have no minutes in my packet. Any planned commission absences? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to be absent for the next meeting. I believe that is November the 2nd. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So noted. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Collier County -- Board of Collier County Commissioners Report. Ron? MR. NINO: There wasn't anything that happened that would be of any interest to you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. For the sake of time I will delay the chairman's report, which is mainly to the commissioners, to Page 3 October t 9, 2000 the last item of business today. And with that we move to scheduled items. First one on the agenda being CP-2000-04, future land use element. MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, $tan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning Manager. This advertised public hearing this morning is your annual transmittal public hearing for the annual growth management plan amendment cycle. You'll be hearing staff and petitioner presentations on a number of proposed amendments to the growth management plan and also public comment prior to your recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on each individual petition as to your recommendations for or against transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. As a result of the transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs of the selected amendments, we will receive an objections, recommendations and comments report and come back to you in approximately sixty days for a final adoption hearing. I would note that, in considering that all of these items under this particular 7A are one public hearing, we would ask that upon hearing staff presentations, petitioner presentations and staff comments on each individual petition, that you take a straw vote and that at the end of the entire presentation you take a vote on the recommendations of transmittal -- on the transmittal resolution to the Board of County Commissioners. With that I'll open with Aaron Blair. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, once again, because some people came in late, I announce to the public that the Fiddler's Creek petitions will not be heard this morning. MR. BLAIR: Good morning. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And with that -- MR. BLAIR: Good morning. For the record, Aaron Blair, Planning Services. What we have is, the petitioner seeks to amend a future land use element and map of the Collier County Growth Management Plan to allow for the creation of the Vanderbilt Beach, Collier Boulevard commercial sub-district for 48.54 acres which is located at the corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Page 4 October 19, 2000 Boulevard, as seen in the map here. The change would allow for 360 -- 360,000 square foot of gross leasable space, of commercial space, which the staff believes this is too intense of a development for this location due to other developments in size which can be seen as a Carillon, Pine Ridge Crossing, Berkshire Lakes, The Pavilion and Naples Plaza. Also, its development will allow for three-story office buildings, which, right there at that location, that's a rather tall scale of ability and that size is usually seen in urban areas like downtown Naples and along 41, which, in such a rural area, that is very intense to have next to estate zoning and single family dwelling units. Staff's stance is not to transmit due to this intensity at this location. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll probably have some a little bit later, Mr. Chairman, but I need to disclose that I had a conversation with Mr. Mike Davis and Mr. William Arnold in regard to this petition. We don't need to disclose -- MS. STUDENT: I just -- for the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. These are legislative -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. MS. STUDENT: -- items so you need not disclose on these. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I talked to him anyway. MS. STUDENT: That's okay. (Laughter.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you, Marjorie. And I think just for the public to disclose, I think we all got a lot of telephone calls, letters, E-mails, personal visits on all of those amendments. Now we get to hear from the petitioner. MR. YOVANOVICH.' Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Rich Yovanovich with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson. I have with me Wayne Arnold with Grady, Minor, professional planner, and Mr. Bill Hoover is supposed to be here shortly, who also is a part of the team on this project. What you have before you today is a petition for a comp. plan amendment to designate the corner of -- the two corners, Page 5 October 19, 2000 the northwest and the north portion of the northeast corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard as the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard commercial sub-district. The petition requests 360,000 square feet of commercial uses on approximately 48.54 acres. That would be allocated 240,000 square feet on the northwest corner, which is approximately 33.45 acres, and 120,000 square feet on the northeast quadrant, which is 15.09 acres. As you all are aware, the intersect -- the proposed sub-district is located at a very busy intersection. 951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road are two of the more well-traveled roads in Collier County. They basically function as arterials. The future land use element, specifically at Page 27, sets forth some criteria to establish a new activity center. And there are basically three criteria. The intersection must consist of an arterial and collector road or two arterials, the activity center is no closer than two miles from an existing activity center, and there must be market justification. I wanted you to understand, we're not asking for an activity center but we want you to understand that, under the comprehensive plan, we could ask for an activity center because we meet the criteria. We are two miles from the nearest activity center, which is 951 and Immokalee Road. Basically, we believe 951 and Vanderbilt function as arterials and I believe your staff is looking at proper classification of those roads. And we believe we have more than enough market support for that criteria. However, we did meet with your staff and we did meet with some commissioners before we submitted our petition to, to basically get a pulse for what was wanted in that area, whether an activity center was a preferred mechanism or a commercial sub-district was a preferred mechanism. And at that time both your staff and the county commission preferred the commercial sub-district approach because they did not want a density band. And typically your activity centers have a potential of a three-unit per acre density band. So, keeping -- keeping with that request, we submitted our petition requesting this commercial sub-district. Candidly, we were a little surprised when we saw the staff report that raised the issue of the fact that there wasn't an Page 6 October 19, 2000 appropriate transition from the adjacent residential to our proposed commercial because be didn't have a density band. If your staff wants us to include a density band, we'll be happy to include that in our provision, but I don't think that's really what the commission wants. But if it's necessary to do a transition, we'll be happy to include that density band request. We did submit a market study that shows where the -- and we don't -- that, that shows where the property is located. And basically this property serves Golden Gate Estates. It will -- it will provide, you know, commercial shopping center type uses to people going home to the estates. This petition -- and which your staff does not point out to you -- captures 9,000 existing trips on those roads and prevents them from having to travel north on 951 to that existing activity center on Immokalee Road and 951. It also prevents them from having to go several miles to Vanderbilt Beach Road and Airport Road or going into Golden Gate City. So the benefit of this project is that it serves Golden Gate Estates. It's right on the border of Golden Gate Estates and meets what the people of Golden Gate Estates have said they want. They want retail close but they don't want it in Golden Gate Estates. They are willing to drive to it to access it. And we believe that our market study supports the additional -- the -- our request to establish this commercial district. One other thing I want to point out about your staff report is your staff categorizes the property surrounding our submittal as rural and that is not accurate. The property to our north is urban. The property to our south across Vanderbilt Beach Road is estates. So we believe that our request is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan as far as getting an activity center. However, we're not asking for an activity center. We believe the need is there for a -- for commercial uses and we also believe that what we're requesting is compatible with the surrounding development and potential development. And Wayne Arnold will go through the specifics of our -- of our development proposal. And if you have any questions of me or staff after there is public comment o- I don't know if anybody is here from the public to speak on it, we'll be happy to answer any questions. Page 7 October 19, 2000 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Good morning. Wayne Arnold with Grady, Minor Engineering representing the applicant. I would like to go through a few of the primary planning points of the proposal. Bill Hoover, who has worked on the market analysis, will be providing some additional information for you following my presentation. I think, as Rich described to you, what we're proposing to do is place commercial in advance of the advancing residential development along this corridor. It's consistent with how we've approached the comprehensive plan since the mid-1980s and that's designating activity nodes at our major activity centers. And I think in this particular case what we've tried to do is establish an intensity of use that is consistent with the market demand in our area, but it's about a third of the size of a typical activity center that you would find throughout Collier County. I think the one graphic -- and maybe staff has that that they can put on the visualizer -- that shows our location in relationship to the other activity centers. I think it's very clear when you look at that, geographically speaking, the nearest activity center we have is north of us on the corner of Immokalee Road and 951, now Collier Boulevard. The nearest -- the other nearest activity center that we had was along Vanderbilt Beach Road, part of the Vineyards DRI. That activity center commercial was moved west to the intersection of Airport Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road, which is now the Naples Walk Shopping Center. That's a Publix anchored shopping center. So we've established a location that we believe geographically makes sense. It serves a growing market of Golden Gate Estates primarily. If you try to establish that this is not the confluence of two major roads, I think that would be inaccurate because, even though they may be classified as collector roads in Collier County, they purely function as arterial roads. And we have had conversation with the transportation department regarding the reclassification of those and several other roadways in our network. I think what we've also tried to do is establish something that can be designed, like I said, in advance of some of the encroaching residential development before we have to deal with the compatibility issues of residential development. And I think, to also meet that, staff has argued that we may not have a Page 8 October 19, 2000 reduction in intensity as we move back towards residential development. But in fact what we've said is that we do want to and we will provide for the interconnectivity of this shopping district with whatever is going to be to our west and northwest. And that's a part of planned text. Staff has also compared this proposal to several other major shopping centers that we're familiar with in the community. They compared us to Carillon Shopping Center, Pine Ridge Crossing, Berkshire Commons, Pavilion and Naples Shopping Plaza. When I looked at those figures that they supplied in their staff report to you, based on the amount of square footage and acreage that are provided for those shopping centers, I find that we really don't compare very well to any of those, because, when you look at the square footage that we're asking for based on the acreage that we have included in this plan district, we come up with a figure that's about 7,400 square feet of commercial per acre, The county's standard has long been about 10,000 square feet per acre for typical retail. It's just a figure that's thrown out there, which means you typically at any given activity center can have a million and a half and to a million six hundred thousand square feet of commercial potential at a typical activity center. So again, we're about a third the size of what you would normally find at a typical activity center. But when I looked at the numbers and started comparing, and I broke them down, Naples Shopping Plaza has 16,700 square feet of retail space per acre. Carillon, 13,200 square feet per acre. Pine Ridge, 8,600 square feet per acre. Berkshire Commons, 8,800 square feet per acre. And the only shopping center that they compared us to that comes in under ours is the Pavilion Shopping Center that came in at just under 7,000 square feet per acre. So I think, from a comparison standpoint, they haven't fairly categorized us relative to the other commercial districts that we have out there. And frankly, there is a presumption here that this develops as one large retail shopping center, and I don't think that's necessarily the case. We have -- we're split by Collier Boulevard. We have thirty-three and a half acres, roughly, west of Collier Boulevard. We have about fifteen acres east of Collier Page 9 October 19, 2000 Boulevard. We're at a location that would provide for adequate separation from the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard to provide for traffic signalization there and meet the county's spacing requirements, which also gives us the opportunity to serve adjoining properties with signalized and safe access to the site. I think that staff has sort of alluded to the intensity as maybe not being compatible because we're moving out toward the fringe of the urban area, but the urban area is -- extends another mile to our east. We are abutting Golden Gate Estates designations to the south. And I think that's also a major reason why the plan amendment should be supported. We are in the urban area. We're at an area where we can have typically four unit per acre residential development. That's what we see occurring around us. We think that market that's growing from the Vineyards east along Vanderbilt Beach Road as well as the extension of Golden Gate Boulevard, Vanderbilt Beach and other roadways along the 951 corridor need provision of these services so that you don't bring more of those trips out onto Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road and take them east/west, north/south to get these other opportunities for shopping. Staff has an inventory that was prepared back in 1998, I believe updated by Fraser & Mohlke Associates that indicates that there are some eighty-odd acres in what they've determined to be our planning community that's available. But, in our analysis, I don't find any sites larger than about five acres that are within that trade area immediately, because we do have a new public shopping center that's going to the north at Immokalee and County Road 951 that's part of the old Richland, now Pebblebrook PUD. But, aside from that, you go down to Pine Ridge Road or White Boulevard and you find two five-acre tracts designated on the north and south side of that road that are available. I think you'll hear Mr. Hoover speak to those issues a little bit more. But the fact is, there is no major activity center within two miles to support the growing population of Golden Gate Estates and part of that central Naples corridor. I think that Mr. Yovanovich had indicated that we haven't asked for a density band for a variety of reasons, yet staff, in their recommendations to you, said there are three viable Page 10 October 19, 2000 alternatives under the current plan that you should consider before you approve this, one of those being a light industrial business park for this location. The second would be a typical four unit per acre, planned unit development. And, third, they have suggested that potentially an affordable housing project, that up to fourteen units per acre might be more appropriate for this intersection. I think we would argue that the most compatible and the most consistent and the most reasonable thing to do is to designate this has a lower intensity commercial activity node and allow that to develop, hopefully better than we have in some of our other activity centers. We have provisions in here for architectural continuity, signage consistency, interconnectivity with adjacent parcels, et cetera. And I think all those combination of factors make this the appropriate plan designation for this site. I'll go ahead and defer to Bill Hoover, who is going to provide you with some market analysis. And we'll be happy to answer any further questions if you have them. MR. HOOVER: For the record, Bill Hoover of Hoover Planning representing the petitioners. In the county staff report they disputed the northern trade area of the subject property, stating there is an industry standard two-mile minimum radius for trade area boundaries from the subject site. I asked both commercial realtor Craig Timmons and general real estate appraiser Chuck Quinby if they had any information regarding an industry standard two-mile minimum trade area radius boundary. Both of them told me they hadn't ever heard of it. The Appraisal Institute's book titled, Shopping Center, Appraisal and Analysis, nowhere talks about a two-mile radius in about 300 pages of this book. However, it does state, quote, According to the Urban Land Institute, the primary trade area for a shopping center has a radius of 1.5 miles and a travel time of about five to ten minutes. A community shopping center has a primary trade area of three to five miles and a travel time of ten to twenty minutes, unquote. The Appraisal Institute shopping center book also advises that one should not solely rely on radii and/or travel times when Page 11 October 19, 2000 determining trade area boundaries, as intervening opportunities in market sharing will also be major factors. The Appraisal Institute goes on to say that intervening opportunities are other shopping centers that potential customers will not drive by to get to the subject site. If you look at the graphic from the Appraisal Institute, it shows the subject site in the middle, and then there are seven circled shopping centers that are intervening opportunities or comparable sized competing shopping centers. It states the primary trade area of the subject site will extend halfway between the subject site and the seven competing shopping centers. This is shown by the dashed line. Essentially this graphic is a simple demonstration of Riley's Law of Retail Gravitation. The Institute of Traffic Engineers, whose trip generation books are the basis for nearly every traffic study throughout the United States, also has a very popular book out called Transportation and Land Development. When advising how to identify a trade area boundary in this book it states, quote, Use Riley's Law of Retail Gravitation to establish the boundary between competing centers, unquote. We gave staff a letter identifying how we did this on September 9th, 2000. However, the staff report was written since that time. Based on -- our traffic study was done based on methodology from the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the Appraisal Institute and the Urban Land Institute. The marketing study goes in to show that -- we did it with two different approaches. One called a historical ratio analysis, the second one a market support analysis. If we use an approximate average of these two approaches in the year 2000, there's an approximate shortage of fifty-five acres in the trade area. This increases to about ninety-five acres in the year 2002, which is about the soonest that this project would get developed. This increases to 120 acres in 2005 and a shortage of about 160 acres in 2010. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. Can one of you tell me what the time frame for the four-laning of both Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt at this point Page 12 October 19~ 2000 is? I mean, are we getting close to that? MR. HOOVER: Off the top of my head I think Vanderbilt, in approximately twenty-two months, the four-laning is supposed to go to from Collier Boulevard all the way to Airport Road. So that's in, like, a final design stage. Initially that was going to get cut off at Logan Boulevard and I think about four months ago they decided to take it all the way to Collier Boulevard due to the growth in the area. Collier Boulevard in the vicinity out there is not in the five-year plan. However, talking to transportation staff, they feel like that, in this next capital improvements element that that's probably going to get moved up. I believe it's in the -- they are moving up the design portion of that at this time. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. Mr. Hoover~ while you're there, you're in here, as we are, quite often. And, if my memory serves me correct, we have already approved a number of PUDs that would be to the north of this project that are -- MR. HOOVER: Correct. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- for houses. So I'm looking at this section of land, or one square mile that falls in between DiVosta's project to your west and Collier Boulevard. And I'm thinking that almost all of that is already approved for houses, and that there's going to be another maybe even 1500, 2000 units of housing in that one square mile of -- MR. HOOVER: If we figured a density of even, say, three units per acre, we would have 1800 homes in the square mile just to the northwest. And there's probably two and a half, three people -- persons per home. So I think you're probably looking at a population of 5 to 6,000, just in the square mile to the west. I think later on today you're going to see a petition coming in about a mile to the north for fifty-seven acres entitled Hibiscus Village. I'm also working on another one about 600 feet north of that one for -- I think it's seventy-seven acres of residential. And I serve on the forefront, being a planner, but I was also asked to give a proposal for another fifty acres of residential development a little bit further to the north but south of Immokalee Road. So that particular area there is -- it's happening now, if that's the right word. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And DiVosta's got 2,500 units in their section? Page 13 October 19, 2000 MR. HOOVER: And they're selling three per day. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. I don't know. I just feel like staff has totally missed the, the importance of commercial here because it seems to me, in a very short time, without some shopping here, that we're going to really have some roads clogged up, not mentioning Golden Gate Estates, but just from Vanderbilt Beach corridor in that immediate area, we're going to have a lot of roads clogged up, them trying to go get groceries, further to the west. MR. HOOVER: Yes. My -- I think the biggest thing I could say in supporting this thing, if you were living very close to this, you would be saving two to five miles each way to go get your groceries, or possibly get your work location there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. I want to make sure I understand the concept here of this trade area. The map that you gave us with the retail trade area is dramatically different than apparently Exhibit B for the trade area that staff is talking about. They extend clear out into the Golden Gate area. Is that the difference? MR. HOOVER: I think the one I gave you -- the one I handed out -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right. MR. HOOVER: Okay. That one is from the Appraisal Institute. And basically it's demonstrating that, if there's -- if you've got two neighboring shopping centers -- and this is Riley's Law of Retail Gravitation, you just drop a line right between them. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. So then staff then apparently feels that we're going to draw more from the estates. Is that what the conflict is? MR. BLAIR: This is their trade area that they submitted right here. This is the subject property and this is their trade area. All this. And then right here is the nearest activity center, right here, which is almost exactly two miles from the subject property. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. I'm having difficulty trying to figure out why staff feels that this isn't a good place for commercial. I think I'm following Mr. Priddy's comments. MR. BLAIR: First off, it was the intensity of the use. They are allowing for three story office buildings. That's a large Page 14 October t 9, 2000 building. If -- for that area. I mean, they feel it's an urban area. But really, if you drive out there, it's very rural in the way that it looks. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm not sure what road you're traveling. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'm -- MR. BLAIR: They are entitled to their opinion on it. But this is the height of a building that would be built out there. Right here. That's the three story building. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: See, I'm not clear. We've heard this intensity issue before, and I'm still not told what it is that staff is focusing on when it comes to the intensity issue. It just doesn't fit in my vocabulary. MR. BLAIR: Well, it's just the intensity of the scale of the buildings, is what -- if the scale of the buildings -- it's just, you figure if they are okay with the enormous shopping center right there at that intersection -- maybe the people do need the commercial uses out there, but I think just the intensity and the scale of the project is much too intense for this area. Even if the commercial may be needed right there, but I think the intensity of it is what the problem is. Not to mention, the trade area we just had a problem with because they are serving all these people, but yet this person here will still have to drive ten miles to get to this area. So how is it -- that is not helping these people on this far end of the trade area. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. So whose trade area are we working with? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is the trade area that we believe that we will be servicing with our commercial development, because the people from the estates obviously are coming into the more urban area to work. And they are going to go home that way, too. And we are on their way home. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What's the methodology for determining a trade area? Maybe that's the real question. MR. HOOVER: That's -- in a nutshell, we used Riley's Law of Retail Gravitation, which is very commonly accepted. And it basically -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's what you used to derive this, mid-point between the nearest -- Page 15 October 19, 2000 MR. HOOVER: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY-' -- shopping center there? MR. HOOVER: Right. So that one right there is a sample -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY-' Does that square with this? MR. HOOVER: Yes, because there's nothing to the east. Essentially it says -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. HOOVER: -- you drive to the closest one as far as considering neighboring centers. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There isn't any halfway point out east. MR. HOOVER: Since there's nothing -- and Russell Priddy would know that. There's nothing out there to the east, so they would still drive to the closest one. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: If you throw Wilson Boulevard in there, does that change any of your numbers or how it draws? MR. HOOVER: It's included in there and we added seven acres of commercial retail, and we -- since it was approved by the comprehensive plan amendment already. So that's included in here, but that's only more like convenience commercial. So you have to consider more -- like size. So it's relatively small compared to this forty-acre project. So you need to compare -- I mean, and again, this is in the sample trade area thing from the Appraisal Institute. The little convenience commercials are not considered if you're considering a neighborhood type shopping center. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Let me ask one other question of staff. If a light industrial were the use on this property, how tall could a building be in a light industrial? MR. BLAIR: Light industrial? MR. NINO: Thirty-five feet. MR. BLAIR: Thirty-five. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY,' Thirty-five feet. That's three stories, which is what a -- so why are you bringing an argument to us that, yes, they need commercial but it's the character of the buildings that's too intense when your other part of your report says that they could have a thirty-five foot building in Page 16 October t 9, 2000 there? It makes -- it doesn't wash. And I don't think there's anybody in this room that really believes that that area around this project is rural. There are approved PUDs and certainly long range planning should know that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Was that a question? (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Then I ask staff to respond, please. MR. BLAIR: If it was a question, I'm not sure that I'm -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, I just -- what's your logic now for denying this? You just told us a few minutes ago it was because it was a thirty-five foot building would be allowed. But you're telling us that that can be allowed and you would prefer that with industrial being there. MR. BLAIR: I don't know that we preferred that it would be industrial. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, that's -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO-' It says light industrial. MR. BLAIR: Where? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: That's what you're saying that we ought to look at putting there before we do this commercial. MR. BLAIR: Where does it -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I think what I would like to do is ask staff and petitioner to sit down and we'll ask for a little input from the public and then we'll re-visit this issue. Anybody from the public that wishes to give testimony on this, I would ask that you line up along this wall, step forward to the microphone, state your name and spell it for the court reporter. MR. NINO: I don't have anybody registered on this one. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Do we need -- are we registering for the comp. plan, the amendments? MR. NINO: Well, anybody that wants to speak normally fills out a slip, yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, I will entertain that. Hearing no comment or seeing no comments from the public, then we're back to, any further questions from the commissioners of staff or the petitioner? Realizing this is a straw vote, I would still take someone's motion. Page 17 October 19, 2000 COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion on the straw vote -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Marjorie wants to make a comment. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Just a minute. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Russell. MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. I've discussed this with the petitioner but there's some language in there that says that a re-zone has to be a PUD and there's case law that local government can't impose a PUD on a property owner and they've agreed to change that to "shall be encouraged", and the only other thing in there, and I've discussed this with them too, there's language "other uses permitted in the plan" and I assume that's retail uses, but I just felt that ought to be cleared up a little. That's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I can. Actually -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- what we would like to clarify, that it would be uses permitted in activity centers so it doesn't stop us from having a mixed use residential component of the project. So that, it would be the retail as well as the residential aspects. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I will entertain a motion or a straw vote. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. I make a motion for a straw vote that we transmit this with a recommendation of approval subject to the petitioner's modification of an activity center type use, not a PUD. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So moved -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Priddy. All in favor to transmit this with a recommendation for approval, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. Thank you. With that we go back to the head of the schedule, Page 18 October 19, 2000 CP-2000-02. Logan Boulevard/Pine Ridge Road transmittal. Deborah. MS. PRESTON: Good morning. For the record, Deborah Preston with your comprehensive planning section. This petition before you is for an amendment to the Golden Gate area master plan. It is to create a new sub-district entitled the Logan Boulevard residential -- Logan Boulevard/Pine Ridge Road transitional use sub-district. The property site is located on the corner of Pine Ridge Road and Logan Boulevard. It is approximately six acres. It is currently zoned estates and it is vacant. To the north of this property site is a residential development, also in the estates zoning and is zoned estates. To the south of this property is Pine Ridge Road, which is a four-lane collector which is currently being widened to six lanes and will be completed on August of '01. To the east of this property is Logan Boulevard, a two-lane collector. Across from Logan is vacant estates property. And to the west of this property is the Vineyards PUD, which is not in the Golden Gate Estates area master plan. It's not. This proposal is to allow for conditional uses, such as assisted living facilities, schools, day care centers or churches, and/or office uses. No retail uses would be permitted. And the petitioner had originally requested a maximum of 40,000 square feet. I have received one letter of support or not opposing this project from the property owners directly to the north of this property site, the single family owners. And I've received a letter from the Vineyards saying that they are not in opposition to this change. I have as of today received a petition with 320 signatures from the residents surrounding this site that are against any changes to this site. This site would currently be allowed to develop with one unit per two and a quarter acres, so it could have two residential units on this site if no change took place. Staff had recommended transmittal of this petition, provided that additional conditions were met. I had requested increased buffer requirements and also limiting the office to 30,000 square feet. Page 19 October 19, 2000 As of today the petitioner has met most of my recommendations, except we are in disagreement with the buffer requirements on Pine Ridge Road. My feeling is that we need to make sure we buffer both Pine Ridge and Logan adequately so that we are preserving sort of the integrity of those four corners. Staff recommends this change only because it does border the urban site to the west, and it is on a six-lane collector. If you have any questions of me, I would be more than happy to address them at this time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Questions of staff? If not, we can hear from the petitioner. MR. YOVANOVICH.' Good morning again, Commissioners. Rich Yovanovich representing Ross Mcintosh, the petitioners, and Bob Duane is here with me as well. Essentially Deborah did a very good job explaining our petition, and I believe we are in agreement with the 30,000 square foot limitation that she's recommending, as well as most of the buffering she's talking about. Mr. Duane will get into a little bit more details regarding the type of buffer at this time. That's more of an issue for the zoning hearing, but -- and so we would hope that that could be deferred. Mr. Mcintosh has owned this property since 1986. He acquired the property because he envisioned that Pine Ridge Road was going to expand and become a major transportation facility, as well as Logan Boulevard becoming a major transportation facility. So, frankly, Mr. Mcintosh waited until the appropriate time to make his request for the comprehensive plan amendment. And we believe it is the appropriate time. And we -- you know, your staff also believes that what we are asking is appropriate for this -- for this intersection. Mr. Mcintosh, Mr. Duane and I met with the property owners in the area between the last Planning Commission meeting and this Planning Commission meeting, when we were made aware that there was -- they wanted to meet with us to talk about our proposal. We outlined for them exactly what we planned on doing. And I wish I could report to you that we received a warm reception and that we were able to cooperate and resolve things, but you did get a petition from the property owners, who -- I would not say are the surrounding property owners, but they are Page 20 October 19, 2000 in that vicinity. The immediately adjacent property owners do not have an issue with what we are -- with what we are proposing. Our meeting -- I will -- and, frankly, the points that they raised at their meeting were legitimate concerns, concerns that I think all of us would raise. I would say they are more emotional concerns than factually supported concerns. And I will -- I'll summarize the concerns, as what I saw, as three concerns. They wanted to know what the impact of the project would be on the character of the community. And they felt it would be a negative impact. They wanted to know what the impact of the project will be on property values. And again, they felt it was a negative impact. And will the approval of this project result in all four corners becoming basically commercial corners? That's what I believe the three major themes were in our conversation. Frankly, there are no infrastructure-related issues regarding transportation or any other issues relating to what we are proposing. Mr. Diaz with Wilson, Miller got up and spoke. And he's opposed to our project, but he got up and acknowledged that, from an engineering standpoint, there are no infrastructure issues for this project. Traffic would be safe and could be adequately accommodated. (Unidentified mumbling from the audience.) COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Well, there's some dispute of that. MR. YOVANOVICH.' Well, I'm just saying that that's what Mr. Diaz said. (Unidentified mumbling from the audience.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, he can correct me. What I heard him say was that transportation was not an issue, that traffic could go in and out of that project safely. COMMISSIONER BUDD-' In any case, Mr. Yovanovich, I'm sure we'll hear from Mr. Diaz and he'll state his own position. MR. YOVANOVICH: I appreciate that. If people could stop whispering in my ear, I would also appreciate that. With respect to the impact on the neighborhood, we have proposed standards that require that this office complex look like residences. We have limited the size of the buildings to no more than 6,000 square feet. The architecture of the buildings must be of an architecture you would find in a residence. The Page 21 October 19, 2000 building height has been limited to one story. There -- the buffers for this project are extensive, and Mr. Duane will tell you that we are retaining a vast majority of the vegetation around this project. I mean, we're retaining over two acres just in buffers and we'll be retaining over fifty percent in open space for this project. So I would submit to you that the standards we've incorporated assure that this is compatible physically in look with the surrounding neighborhood. Your staff has already acknowledged that the intensity of use is compatible with the neighborhood. Regarding the reduction in property values in the area, we're talking about medical offices and professional offices. This will provide additional, you know, services to the area. And frankly, the people who will be having their offices there I'm anticipating will live in the area and will -- we don't believe there's any impact to the property values in this area by this project. And the other concern about the three corners, which I believe, you know, what I heard was a major concern, is we don't believe that this is going to lead to commercialization of this corner. In fact, we're not asking for retail uses. We're talking about office uses, which is a lower intensity use than a Walgreen's. We are immediately adjacent to the urban boundary. We're asking for office uses, which, frankly, will set the standard for what the worst case scenario will be for the other three corners. We're setting a standard of office. I don't think your staff or this planning commission or the Board of County Commissioners would approve a transition from urban that leads to office that then goes to retail. So, from a planning perspective, we are -- we are asking for a use that in fact discourages the proliferation of retail uses on the other parcels. In addition, as your staff pointed out, the property to the northeast is estates zoned property, adjacent to estates zoned property, and the same for the two corners to the south. So we are a unique corner, because we are immediately adjacent to the urban boundary. What we want to do -- I mean, this is one step in a many step process. This is just basically the transmittal hearing on whether or not it's worth sending up to DCA, to get their opinion. Page 22 October 19, 2000 We would propose that after the transmittal to the DCA that we come forward with a more specific site plan, with more specific architecture, that gets into the site planning issues they are concerned about, which is access off Logan, access off Pine Ridge, what is the project going to look like. We are more than happy, prior to the adoption hearing, to bring a more detailed plan to the residents and give them an opportunity to comment on that more detailed plan, since I think that's -- would hopefully go a long way to alleviate the concerns or the hypothetical concerns that may occur. It's gotten to where we are -- comp. plans amendments are getting to the point where they are almost zoning hearings. And we had anticipated just having the opportunity to come to you with a specific plan in the future to show you how we would implement something if we were given the office zoning. But we're happy to expedite that process and bring you a specific site plan with architecture at the adoption hearing. So we would request that you would recommend transmittal of this petition. Recommend that the board transmit this petition to DCA. And Mr. Duane can get into a little bit more of the details of the actual plan. MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane from Hole, Montes and Associates. I'll be brief because, frankly, I think Richard distilled the issues quite well this morning. The aerial photo on the wall depicts the six-acre subject property. My first point I would like to share with you is that it's obvious that conditions are changing in this particular area, particularly since my client bought the property in the middle 1980s. We have Pine Ridge Road going to a six-lane road condition today. We have four lanes of traffic on Logan Boulevard, two through lanes and two turn lanes. So we have ten lanes of traffic on either side of this property. Ultimately Logan Boulevard is going to go to four lanes, at a minimum. So we're going to have ten or twelve lanes of traffic bordering this property. Today there's almost 40,000 vehicles that travel through this intersection a day. In fact, 35,000 vehicles were reported between Pine Ridge Road and 1-75, with 17,000 vehicles passing the Pine Ridge Road portion of the property and 10,000 vehicles passing the Logan Boulevard portion of the property. Page 23 October 19, 2000 Assuming a six percent growth in traffic, we think that ultimately there's going to be as many as 40,000 vehicles within the next decade traversing this intersection. Subsequently, we do not think it's an optimal location for a single family home. Frankly, we think that there are limited opportunities for conditional uses and these kinds of transitional uses in the estates area. We think, given the vehicular access and the location of this particular property, that it's good or better than many other sites that could be brought before you. So much for existing conditions. The conceptual plan you see was prepared based on a 40,000 foot envelope. This is one of many plans that I could present before you, because there are conditional uses, as Deborah mentioned to you, that are permitted. But this particular plan has ten buildings. They average about 4,000 square feet per building. We're going to be taking two and a half buildings off now. This particular plan has between -- has almost fifty-five to sixty percent open space on it with the 40,000 square feet. So we are -- we are prepared to up the bar again this morning and submit to you that, for office uses, that there will be a minimum of fifty percent open space on the site. It will be comprised, seventy-five foot buffers along the north property line, fifty foot buffers where the existing native vegetation will be retained along Logan Boulevard and a minimum of a fifty foot buffer along Pine Ridge Road and a thirty foot buffer to the west, which is to the Vineyards. So we will have approximately 2.3 acres of our site in buffering, more than fifty percent in open space. And our gross development intensity is 5,000 square feet of office, whether it's medical or regular office, per acre. And I would submit to you, by any standard, that that is not a high density project as I have just described it to you. In addition, as Mr. Yovanovich said, we have limited our building height to one story. At one time we were contemplating two stories on the Pine Ridge Road portion of this property, but we have changed our proposal. Just to summarize the development standards, we believe the buffers, which are extensive, limitations on building height, mirroring the character of residential structures, certainly makes this proposal, in our opinion, very compatible. Page 24 October 19~ 2000 And I would also submit to you that our land development code requires us to preserve at least one acre of the native vegetation on this site. We have 2.3 acres proposed in our buffer areas. The Land Development Code requires thirty percent open space. We're committing this morning to a minimum of fifty percent open space. So I would like to think that we are raising the bar. These are higher standards than many other similar kinds of projects that are of a transitional nature and they are fully compatible in my own mind. The one issue that we have not achieved agreement with staff is on the type of buffering on Pine Ridge Road. We are willing to commit to a Type C buffer on Logan Boulevard, which is substantially an opaque buffer. Frankly, I think the existing vegetation is going to do that for us but we will meet the C standard buffer on Logan Boulevard and to our neighbor to the north. And I would also submit to you that the Golden Gate master plan for retail uses requires a twenty-five-foot Type C buffer. And we're proposing a Type C buffer with fifty feet and non-retail uses. Again, we believe that we've raised the bar. However, I don't think providing a hundred percent opaque buffer along Pine Ridge Road is necessarily desirable for this particular project. However, the existing vegetation will remain. At the time of zoning we're prepared to come forth with more detailed proposals for our Pine Ridge landscaping. But I would submit to you that, at a minimum, a Type D buffer will be provided. In fact, I think this vegetation substantially exceeds a D Type buffer along Pine Ridge Road. Just to summarize, the conditions have changed in this particular intersection. There appears to be a demand or a need for conditional uses and transitional uses in the estates district. That has never been an issue with staff. We have had the Cleveland Clinic developed near this property within the last few years, something that was never contemplated when the Golden Gate master plan was initially adopted. Again, the prohibition of retail uses, I believe, on -- at this particular location can -- we can find that these uses that are proposed are certainly compatible. We've tried to maintain a rural or an ambience to our development with the standards that Page 25 October t 9, 2000 we've set. As Miss Preston and Mr. Yovanovich indicated to you, we are adjacent to urban designated property in the Vineyards, which can be developed with either single or multi-family uses. That sets us apart from the other quadrants of the intersection, which are bounded by estates districts on both sides. So we think this particular property merits some other treatment than a single family use, and I believe good planning principles and practices would support the proposal that we're making before you today. And I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Bob, you're creating a lot of impervious surfaces there between buildings and parking. Is it premature for us to be talking about stormwater retention? I don't see any -- MR. DUANE: We are going to come forth with a very detailed plan at the time of zoning that is going to provide for the needed retention areas. Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. DUANE: Ms. Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just had one question. When it comes to the Type C buffer with that six foot wall of the opaque or the berms along Logan, that probably would serve the function of more or less hiding the development from the residential. You aren't going to really see it. But along Pine Ridge, if you have a Type C buffer would that not be creating a safety problem for the sheriff patrols, if you don't use a D, you know, where you can actually see into the site? Is there not a safety issue and a problem that the sheriff's department is going to have to deal with if we just sort of hide this whole entire project? MR. DUANE: I've heard that issue raised before. I'm not a safety expert. But I think it is desirable to have some visibility from the road of this particular development. Frankly, we have a cypress hedge along this portion of the property right here. And we're going to be retaining most of that cypress area within our fifty-foot buffer. I think, with the existing vegetation, after you remove the exotics, I'm sure we're going to rise above the standard of a D buffer, which is one tree every twenty-five feet. I mean, I think the aerial photo speaks for itself. But, to answer your question, we don't want to hide this Page 26 October 19, 2000 development from our Pine Ridge Road frontage and we'll go into more detail at the time of zoning. MR. RAUTIO: And I would think that they may be some of the concerns of the residents in the area of just how this particular project, will it stand out, the visibility. But we also have safety issues. Thank you. MR. DUANE: Your point's well taken. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any other question? Any comment? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Staff. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Pardon? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Staff. MS. PRESTON: If I might, I just want to point out, Ed Kant had just also noted that the access to this property would most likely be constrained to just Pine Ridge Road so there won't be any access available from Logan Boulevard. And also, just to go over the buffer on Pine Ridge Road, I think it was staff's intent to create something like this which is at Poinciana, where you don't quite see the buildings. All you do is see the trees and there is a small sign, so that it isn't something where you see parking lots when you're driving down that corridor. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? MR. KANT: Mr. Chairman, if I may? Edward Kant, Transportation Operations Director. While Mr. Mcintosh and Mr. Duane are picking themselves up off the floor, this site is almost identical in nature, in nature, to the site which you will have examined and have in the past examined at the corner of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate. And the access constraint on Logan Boulevard is because, when we go through to four lane, that there is most likely going to be a lengthening of that southbound right turn lane, and we have typically constrained access where we don't want to get driveways entering into turn lanes. Now, that doesn't mean that it will -- I'm not going to stand here and say it's absolute, but in order not to have any surprises down the road, we felt it would be appropriate to bring that up at this point, that we may want to enter into some access constraint, depending on what their final site plan looks like and depending on what our final design at some point in the future may look like. Page 27 October 19, 2000 It's better to bring it up now than to have to fight with it in two or three or five years. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Anyone from the public that we should enter testimony on this? MR. NINO: Yes. We have a long list of registered speakers. Jim Sponnias, David Nelson, Mary Lou Hull, Donald Boultbee, Gary -- Cheryl Sheldon, Wait Smith. I'll call out some more after that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. When you step up to the podium, if you give your name, address, spell your name for the reporter, please. I will allow certain latitudes but, please, let's not be repetitive. If you simply agree with a previous speaker, state so. You don't have to beat us over the head. As my previous chairman has said, we will get the message. MR. SPONNIAS: Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. My name is Jim Sponnias and I live on Mahogany Ridge Drive. And it's certainly not my intent to beat anyone over the head or engage in emotional displays. I don't think that we have to to convey our points. We oppose this measure, and, like these folks said, some people very strongly, for a variety of reasons. Before I begin I would like to mention that myself and others have taken effort to find out what our neighbors want, their position on this proposal. And we have collected, like Miss Preston says, approximately 320 names that were submitted this morning. They are coming in all the time. I do have more. And I would like to just have everyone who is here today raise your hand if you're here on this matter and you're opposed to it. (Show of hands.) That's a lot of folks here. If there's anyone who is here in the community who is a resident and for it, please raise your hand. (No hands raised.) I just wanted to bring that to your attention. We realize this is a process. This is a very important process. Our input, we hope, has some merit with you folks. I heard some interesting points this morning. I was rather Page 28 October 19, 2000 discouraged that the staff in a previous matter seemed to want to protect the residential character of an area and in this case didn't. We can clearly see that these folks and the staff are not giving us the worst possible thing that could be, which would be retail use. I don't think, though, that if something could be worse is a good reason to have this. Mr. Duane pointed out that it's not suitable for a residential use. How are the people that own this parcel going to take that? They are right across the street. What will they be told? I don't know if it would even be fair to deny them the use of commercial or some limited activity if this is changed. The point was made, changes are occurring in our area. That is correct. This change will certainly guarantee and invite the change for the other three corners. There's one way to keep this matter in check, and that's, we hope, that you can recommend to the county commission that this not go through, that you do not recommend this. That would be one way to ensure that those other three corners are not utilized in any commercial sense. This is a neighborhood. People that live in the estates like ourselves, we pride ourselves on independence. We pride ourselves on sort of doing our own thing. There is a mix of people in the area. There's a mix of homes. We have million dollar homes. We have modest homes. We all agree on one thing. We do like our privacy, and that's the sort of input that you see today. We want to keep our area residential. And we're not embarrassed about that. And we do respectfully disagree with the staff and Mr. Mcintosh. We recognize that Mr. Duane has eloquently pointed out that he has raised the bar and he has higher standards. That's true. He's not asking for a 7-Eleven. Maybe at one time a 7-Eleven or a retail use was considered. I don't know. That wasn't the result. We learned of this a few weeks ago after Mr. Duane and Mr. Mcintosh made a proposal to the county, made an application back in April of this year. We learned of it three weeks ago. Some of us felt that it would have been better to ask the residents' opinions at the time of application or somewhere before to measure how people felt. I think that would have gone a long way to minimize some of the emotional display that was Page 29 October 19, 2000 visited upon these gentlemen last week at a meeting that they did hold. I want to speak briefly about the need for this. The Golden Gate master plan designed certain areas for commercial activities. This clearly was not one of them. There had to be a reason for that. And I know on the roster one gentleman will address that in more detail. There are commercial properties in our immediate area which are open for rent. There is the DePena Building, which, unfortunately, is a part of our neighborhood. And I think everyone here that did not participate in the process to oppose that is greatly -- regrets that. And, as a member of this community, we are committed to not letting anything like that happen again. But there is space at the DePena Building. There is space at the Crossroads Shopping Center which is available. There is also space in buildings that were built on Pine Ridge Road that are office condominiums. There is space there. There is plenty of space everywhere else to do the sorts of things that -- to serve the needs of the community. I will close now and let the other folks speak. I do thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present our views. And we do hope that the will of the people has some impact this morning. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker. Your name and spell it, please. MR. NELSON: Okay. David Nelson. I live at 5281 Palmetto Woods Drive. I'm nervous. One of the things that in their proposal they didn't mention and they told us at that meeting at the community center, that the traffic will increase. Their engineers said that the traffic will increase approximately two percent on Logan Boulevard. That's two percent too much. As far as the need for more office space, number one~ at the Crossroads Plaza where the Publix is, there's 1,200 square feet available. Granted, 1,200 feet is small, but it has been available for a year now. The second is the Cambridge Square buildings on Pine Ridge Road. It's next to the three story Hawthorn Suites. It's just south of Livingston Road. I don't have the square footage, but there is seven units occupied, thirty-seven unoccupied. And the Page 30 October 19, 2000 significance of this is, the CO was June 28th. There is another office building on Pine Ridge Road even closer to this one. And it's -- it's called the Napa Ridge Building. It's right across from the Publix and the Mobil station right there at that traffic light. In the second building there is 2,080 square feet available. And in the third building it's totally empty, which is 15,000 square feet. That's 17,000 square feet in one area alone, or one building alone. And that was CO'd October 6, 1999, over a year ago and there's still 17,000 square feet available. There is absolutely no need for more medical, slash, office space in our area. If this corner is rezoned it will spread like cancer to the other three corners, which has been brought up. Once -- obviously, once people see that this corner has been rezoned, you can't tell me that the other three corners aren't going to try it too, in a worst case scenario. That is why we have both sides of Logan Boulevard. north of Pine Ridge Road and south of Pine Ridge Road people here because we don't want that to happen. And -- okay. And the rest is redundant. And, thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. HULL: Good morning. My name is Mary Lou Hull. That's H-U-L-L. I live at 5370 12th Avenue Southwest. I think it's scary to think in this democratic process that a bunch of people who don't live in a community can make decisions directly affecting its residents. It's scary to think in this democratic process that one man can persuade the community development environmental services division to approve his pocket-lining scheme without even notifying the rest of the community. Hole, Montes has prepared an application to amend the master plan for Ross Mcintosh in April of this year. The community development division sent their approval to the Planning Commission in September. The residents of the neighborhood didn't even hear about this until a few weeks ago after Mcintosh received support from community development staff. I personally didn't find out until last Saturday. If we, the residents of Logan Woods, had the opportunity to prepare since April, like our friend here, we would have signature upon signature protesting this change. We would have had the opportunity to influence the community development division Page 31 October 19, 2000 with our need to stay residential and most likely wouldn't even be here today, knowing you nice people. How can the staff at community development -- and I would like to stress here community development -- recommend rezoning without even consulting the members of the community? How can they say what's in the best interest of a neighborhood when they didn't even notify us or ask our opinions? The Golden Gate Estates area along Logan Boulevard is among the highest value real estate in Golden Gate. And why is this? It's because of the character of our area. The redeeming qualities include homes that are built on spacious plots, most averaging two and a half to five acres, tall pine trees and other native foliage, often secluded, and privacy, and most important of all, it is all residential. My father bought property there fifteen years ago. He built a house and spent thirteen years enjoying this area. And when it came time for him to downsize, he sold the house to me. My family and I are now enjoying this area. And when it comes time for us to downsize, my niece has already expressed interest in the house to carry on the legacy and keep it in the family. This area, this neighborhood, this Logan Woods, should be preserved for future generations, to be passed on and appreciated. I stand here today asking you, please don't change the zoning. Too much development is eroding our neighborhoods. With the glut of office space available in the Naples area, why are we even considering ruining a pristine community? I understand the Golden Gate master plan allows for variances, but granting these variances should be driven by necessity and not habit. We don't need office in our neighborhood. What we need is to preserve our neighborhood so we have something of value and beauty to pass on to the next generation. Mcintosh may argue that there is too much traffic at the intersection of Pine Ridge and Logan for a home, but this doesn't explain all the other homes along Pine Ridge. What about at Livingston and at Goodlette? What about all the homes along 1-757 No. There isn't too much traffic for a home. The real reason is Mr. Mcintosh can make more money with commercial property Page 32 October 19, 2000 as opposed to residential property. Mr. Mcintosh, we don't want your office or whatever commercial development you have up your sleeve in our neighborhood. But you're more than welcome to build a lovely home, to loin our community and experience for yourself why Logan Woods is so special. So, gentlemen and ladies, I'll end this with one final plea. There is no other community quite like Logan Woods. So don't spoil it, please. Please keep Logan Woods residential and listen to the people who actually live here. We are currently lacking the proper representation to stand before you today. We are lacking the time necessary to band together and give a proper fight. We're just regular working, tax paying, voting citizens who love our neighborhood and don't want to see it destroyed by greed. And in the spirit of all that's fair and right we, as a community, as a neighborhood, the very backbone of American society and culture, oppose the change in zoning. We deny -- please deny this petition to fezone, if not for maintaining the heritage of our neighborhood, then for the fact that we do not have representation. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. BOULTBEE: Good morning. My name is Donald Boultbee. Difficult spelling. B-O-U-L-T-B-E-E. I'll speak slowly in case you can't get my nice English accent. After thirty years I've still got it. The difficulty with being the fourth speaker is that all the good lines have been used up. But regardless, regardless, I'm going to be one of the emotional speakers who was referred to by the opposition. I live on Tamarind Ridge Drive, which is the second street north of Pine Ridge Road in the area known as Logan Woods. My wife and I strongly object to the proposal which you have before you. It's zoned residential and should not be changed to any commercial, rather, use designation, we believe. We purchased our property because of its location, a non-commercial area in which homes typically sit on nice lots of anywhere between two and a quarter to ten or even twelve Page 33 October 19, 2000 acres. It's calm, semi-rural, away from the commercial rush and the traffic of all the urban areas to the west. We do not want to see the nature or character of Logan Woods modified or changed from its current residential status. Mr. Mcintosh, a developer, and his colleagues, purchased their property, as he's told us, about fifteen years ago, knowing full well that it was zoned for residential use only. He knew that at the time. At a meeting last week Mr. Mcintosh told me, because I raised the question with him, that he had never planned nor even considered using the land for residential purposes. That's strange because there is a clear and demonstrable need for nice new homes in Logan Woods. There are new ones going up every month. So why did Mr. Mcintosh buy this particular piece of property? Your friends spoke on behalf of us. I'm going to speak on behalf of you for a moment. Forgive me. If he can persuade you to change the zoning from residential to some commercial use designation, then obviously he stands to make a considerable amount of profit from it. That's his business. Good luck. But on what basis can he persuade you to support an alteration to the Golden Gate master plan? He has already caused a market study, which I believe is a misnomer. I haven't read it. It's just referred to. I think a more appropriate title might be a study of our most profitable use options, provided we can get the zoning changed. How persuasive can that be to the public? Certainly my neighbors don't seem to buy into it. There is no established need by the general public for commercial buildings of any sort at any of the corners of Pine Ridge and Logan Boulevard. There's no compelling reason to change the zoning for the property in question on the northwest corner. Your staff may have been misinformed in their findings and conclusions, Item Number 3 on the document you have. Cleveland Clinic is not a hospital. It's a clinic. I understand that the doctors who do not work for Cleveland Clinic will not be able to admit patients to the new bedded facility. They don't have admission rights. Cleveland Clinic has its own specialists, testing and analysis capabilities, on site. They are not going to locate them Page 34 October 19, 2000 off site. So external doctors will have no reason to take offices nearby. Now, I got this from two physicians who are not officers of Cleveland Clinic, and I would suggest that you might want to have this point reviewed with the clinical -- Cleveland Clinic administrator, not local realtors, as I think it's central to the petition in establishing need. Just because this is a corner lot does not automatically qualify it for commercial use. However, developers seem to have been remarkably successful in obtaining zoning changes for corner lots. And these then become the hinge pins for further zoning changes. This has already been referred to by previous speakers. Well, the residents of Logan Woods and the surrounding area, the people who have created this nice, well taxed residential area, do not want to see the nature and character of the area changed. We don't want the very entrance to Logan Woods blighted and impacted by a commercial enclave which will bring up to 1,400 vehicles per day. Those were Mr. Mclntosh's figures. I don't know where they came from. They could easily be 2,400 or 2,800 vehicles a day. I don't know the basis for the numbers. But you can figure out the access and egress problems from this site and their impact both on Pine Ridge Road and on Logan Boulevard. Quite simply, there's no need for this development. There's no call for it. There's no justification for it. Almost 100 percent of homeowners contacted in our area have signed the petition to retain residential zoning. Had we had more time, I think you would have seen many, many more names on that petition. As you well know, the topic of ever encroaching development is probably the number one issue for Collier County homeowners. There is a master plan for Golden Gate. All we ask now is that you follow that plan and do not support the request to change the plan. Don't chip away at it corner by corner, developer by developer. Because eventually the master plan becomes a meaningless mess of changes and modifications and that, in my view, is not planning. So, to summarize, we, the residents, the taxpayers and the voters, we ask you not to support this proposal to change the Page 35 October 19, 2000 zoning of the property in question. We don't want the change and we'll fight it as well as we're able. As a final thought, we would welcome Mr. Mclntosh's new home on this site because he seems to be a nice person. Or, once you refuse this request, he might want to donate the land for a nice piece of open space and a park. Thank you for your time. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Just so you understand, I'm allowing a little more latitude here than normal. But one thing the commissioners do not like to hear is personal attacks. Okay? You may disagree, but no personal attacks, please. And, please, try not to be redundant. Okay? MS. SHELDON: Cheryl Sheldon, 655 Logan Boulevard South, S-H-E-L-D-O-N. Very short, no redundancy. I live five driveways north of where this property is supposed to go in. Sunday a neighbor came to me and told me what was going on. Again, I don't understand how any of us could have not been notified that this change was about to happen. The traffic on Logan right now, at forty-five miles an hour, causes me to have to drive past my driveway, turn around to come back and get in. I've nearly been rear-ended five times in the past week and a half. People drive off of the road into the ditch to get around. I don't know how we can accommodate 1,400 more vehicles a day. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. SMITH: Good morning. My name is Wait Smith, S-M-I-T-H. And my wife Betty and myself have lived in the Golden Gate Estates off Logan Boulevard over twelve years. We have been there and seen a lot of new homes developed. I'll try not to be redundant but there are some things I think need to be visited a second time. Basically, I have a single message and that single message is being echoed by everyone who is here. It's also being echoed by everybody who took the time or were contacted to sign our petitions. And that message is, we don't want, we don't need commercial buildings in our neighborhood. Page 36 October 19, 2000 Naples has probably more than its share of developers who are willing to build anything anywhere and then take their bags and leave because, what do they care? They don't live there. We do. We want to encourage you, we want to ask you to do the right thing. We have no commissioner to represent us. When we do get one, you can be sure we're going to remind them they are in office to serve the constituents. All of us have invested, at a great expense, in our homes, in our well-being and also in our future. And I think this impacts all of those items. There are more than enough available spaces, and you've already heard one of our speakers mention where they are and how much is available in Collier County. Let me ask you if any of you have driven along 951 starting at Pine Ridge Road, once you get past the mess on the corner, and drive west until you get to Logan. That's a beautiful area. I think that's a visual statement of what the estates are all about. You see the trees. You see the greenery. You see the scenery that basically is the character of our landscape and where we live. You don't get that same feeling when you drive by rows of condos, do you? You don't get that same feeling when you drive by shopping centers. You certainly don't get that same feeling when you drive by a lot of office buildings and homes side by side. I would like to leave you with one last item. And that last item is also my first item. I want to tell you that we would like for you to see that they put commercial buildings somewhere else. We don't need them. I thank you for your time. I thank you for the decision on our behalf of not granting a zoning change in this neighborhood. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I would just like to clear something up. I assume that when you say you don't have a representative commissioner you're talking about the Board of County Commissioners. MR. SMITH: No. A county commissioner, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Because you do have a representative on this board. MR. SMITH: Yes. And that was my -- I had county Page 37 October t 9, 2000 commissioner written down but for some reason or another, zip. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. PRYER: Good morning. My name is Gregory Pryer, P-R-Y-E-R. I reside at 5570 10th Avenue Southwest, which is one block south of Pine Ridge Road. Not to be redundant, I'm going to skip a lot of the things that I've said (sic), but at all times when I bought my property, from 1986 and built my home in 1992, I've relied upon the comprehensive plan for Golden Gate Estates and that it would remain residential. And the fact that no commercialization would occur within -- it was my belief, the five miles of the Crossroads Shopping Center. If you start to dismantle the comprehensive plan on a piecemeal basis there's no doubt that the other three corners will be affected as well. And I live right across from the southern corner of Pine Ridge and Logan. Just one point that I would like to make. In the community development memo that was given to you, under the compatibility criteria area it states that the subject property shall be directly adjacent to nonresidential use zoned or developed. The Vineyards is already advertising their new extension into the Pinetree Farms area. Obviously they must have zoning approval if they are advertising it. So therefore I don't understand how this particularly criteria can be met when the property is adjacent to the Vineyards. Now, maybe you're saying it's outside of the Golden Gate area. But still, if the criteria says it cannot be directly adjacent to residential use, I don't understand how, you know, this property can meet that. One other point. An article in the Naples Daily News yesterday stated that the county issued more home permits for Golden Gate Estates than any other part of the county. Now, how can anyone say that there is no need for additional residential? And the fact that we have any number of properties on 10th Avenue, which they enter off of 10th Avenue and they abut Pine Ridge certainly doesn't speak for the fact that Mr. Mcintosh says that, you know, he could not use his property for residential because it's on Pine Ridge Road. That doesn't make any sense to me. In conclusion, the fact that one individual can see gold in the commercialization of his property, this should not outweigh Page 38 October 19, 2000 that ninety-nine percent of the residents contacted believe otherwise. And I thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. A question, Deborah. The adjoining property to the immediate west is part of the Vineyards PUD? MS. PRESTON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And that is all residential, right? MS. PRESTON: Right. I think that the criteria this gentleman was speaking of is the criteria that is included in the Golden Gate area master plan for what you need to have for a conditional use, which is you cannot be abutting residential areas. This property does not fall under the criteria that's included in the Golden Gate area master plan for conditional uses. And that was stated in the staff report. So that's why they are doing the comp. plan amendment. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker? MS. COLOSIMO: Good morning. My name is Melissa Colosimo, C-O-L-O-S-I-M-O, and I'm also real nervous. I'm speaking today as a concerned homeowner. I have a residence located on Logan Boulevard. However, much more importantly, my concern is as a parent of school-aged children whose safety -- whose safety and welfare is directly impacted every weekday by the excessive speed and traffic on Logan Boulevard and the surrounding area. Almost every street from Golden Gate Parkway all the way to Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension has a scheduled bus stop. I personally witness every morning and afternoon the speeding cars and trucks traveling down Logan. I'm sorry. Logan is a -- Logan Boulevard is a residential street with many driveways and intersecting streets. All of the parents I have contact with and have spoken to have a grave concern regarding our children's safety. Please, let me ask you. Would you have your child exposed to a hazard and a threat of their welfare every day? Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. SNELLING: My name is William Snelling, S-N-E-L-L-I-N-G. I became a resident of Collier County in 1956 when the population was 8,000. I held a real estate license here. I worked Page 39 October 19, 2000 for Ad Miller back in the 1950s. I'd like to tell you about contamination. Well, first I want to tell you, I probably live closer to this property than anybody else in the room. My -- the back of my property is 200 feet from Pine Ridge and 300 feet from Logan, on the diagonal corner. It doesn't quite show it. But it would be right about here. That's where my property starts. Contamination is what happens where bacteria are or sometimes where people are. The more people that come into an area as contrasted to driving through in their cars, the more likely we are to have problems in the neighborhood from people that get into mischief. And one of the things that I liked about my home when I built it, which was in 1979 when there wasn't even a Pine Ridge there, I must tell you, is that it was not contaminated. The allowing of something in there other than a home definitely contaminates it and it also defeats one of the things that Collier County keeps worrying about~ which is, population density. There is no more wonderful big development in the whole country than Golden Gate Estates with its very, very low population density. And as soon as you start bringing in other things, you, you increase that and you decrease the pleasure of the people that live here. And I want to call attention to the fact of the incentives. The difference of the incentive of the person that's coming in here to make profit -- which I approve of as a principle, that's how America was founded -- but the incentives of all of us that have come in here is, if anything, worry about our property becoming worth less. But we have other motives besides profit and they are very important because this is a residential area. And I thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. NINO: I have other speakers. MR. WILSON: My name is Dan Wilson, 1080 Logan Boulevard. I have a brief statement. For the past eighteen years I have resided on Logan Boulevard, approximately a block and a half south of the property in question. This lot is surrounded by residences, has also been zoned residential and should remain residential. It is unfair to Page 40 October 19, 2000 the property owners in the neighborhood to change the zoning after all these years. We who live in this area will be watching to see if you, our representatives, will listen to the people or to monied interests who stand to profit from this proposed change. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Thank you. (Applause.) MR. NINO-' Fermin Diaz, Gary Carlson, Gall Geary, Kenneth Hatch -- Hutch, Gregory Pryer, Frankie Anne Tester, Frank Craparo. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Take a breath, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Don Wilson. Thank you. MR. CARLSON: I'm Gary Carlson, C-A-R-L-S-O-N, and I live at 5155 12th Avenue Southwest. I don't really have a whole lot to add except that I think that some of us in this room ought to think back in the early eighties when the state was smart enough to pass the growth management legislation to say that we needed to slow it down and we need to do it right. There were a lot of us that spent a lot of hours and a lot of burn -- and a lot of midnight oil. And we thought -- we thought we had a good plan. And part of that reason that we thought we had a good plan is people like me who wanted to live here the rest of our lives and tell our grandchildren that we did a good job, that we could be proud of what we did and our grandchildren would stay. To go back now and starting to chip away at that plan because of the fact that we are outside of this activity center that we set up in the late eighties, and we drew those lines in the sand. And all of a sudden now we're chipping away at what we as a group did in the eighties. And it's just not compatible to start chipping away at what we thought was a good plan, because nothing's changed out there except that we have some major roadways. And I really think it's wrong if we start doing it at this location. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Where do you live in relation to -- where do you live in relation to the intersection? MR. CARLSON: Who is talking? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY'- I am. Page 41 October 19, 2000 MR. CARLSON: Sorry. I live -- I live, from Pine Ridge Road, I live on 12th Avenue Southwest. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I heard that. Now, where is that? MR. CARLSON: Okay. It's across the intersection, right down in here. We have the impact right over here. I'm on the other side of Pine Ridge. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: South of Pine Ridge. MR. CARLSON: The thing is that we have the issue with the traffic trying to get through Pine Ridge right now and turn right or left in the morning, coming home in the evening. Logan Boulevard is loaded with traffic and the last thing we need to do is have people stumbling along trying to find their way off Logan into any of the commercial sites that could happen in that four corners of that area. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think using drawing lines in the sand to describe the comprehensive plan was an unfortunate metaphor on your part because you know what happens to things that are drawn in the sand, they disappear, so -- MR. CARLSON: Well, that's -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It was a living document then and it's a living document then (sic). It was not set in concrete then and it couldn't possibly have been. MR. CARLSON: Well, I understand what you're saying. But I think one of the things that we hoped to do was to protect those residential areas that some of us lived in. And that's why we rolled up our sleeves and all worked together. And maybe that is washing away. And if it is washing away, that's very unfortunate, because what we're doing is we're changing the character of our community. And there are some of these things that I don't believe need to be changed. There's just not a need. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I understand what you're saying. MR. CARLSON: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. DIAZ: Good morning. Mr. Chairman, I would, just like the presidential debates, I'm going to do a minute rebuttal. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Even though most of us know who you are, we still need your name for the reporter. Page 42 October 19, 2000 MR. DIAZ: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. For the record, my name is Fermin Diaz, spelled F-E-R-M-I-N, middle name A, and the last name is D-I-A-Z. I reside at -- also on 12th Avenue. I'm actually across the way from Gary. And it's kind of hard to follow such eloquence in some of those presentations that have been made but -- and I do not want to be redundant. But I want to digress for a minute and clarify the points that were raised this morning about my name. And please note that this is not a -- Wilson, Miller is not a part of this issue. This is -- I am coming to you as a resident, as a property owner. So I did not want that name actually to be -- my firm's name to be confused with why I am here. I am representing myself and my wife. I will tell you that the public hearing or the public meeting that took place last week was very debated -- was very heated. There was a lot of debate. And, Rich, what I said -- and I will tell you that there were about sixty folks that spoke, all against the project, that were -- I did not hear anyone speaking in favor of it. And, after a lot of conversation, really the whole conversation was deteriorating to a point where it was getting into situations were people were negotiating where the access points were going to be, how many driveways, how many acres of wetland mitigation. So I stood up. And what I tried to do is get the group together. And I made the point that this was not the issue. The issue was not, you know, driveway connections. You know, obviously there's adequate highway there, you know, to connect to. And the issue for that meeting was not water management. The issue was not water or wastewater. That was not the issue. The issue, in my opinion, was one of compatibility. So now that I've clarified that point, I will take just a couple minutes. You have been provided up to now the bird's eye view of this project. Allow me to present to you the eagle's point of view of the project, because it's always good to look at the whole picture. And the whole picture is that, as you can see from this aerial photograph, the nature and the character of the project, as has been well established by my predecessors, it's very low density, residential. We are in the vicinity of an activity center, and right at the corner of 1-75 and Pine Ridge. And there's another one on County Road 951 and Pine Ridge Road. Those are Page 43 October t9, 2000 existing. Those aren't under development. And I will tell you that the argument could be made that the proposed use for this project would be better suited either here or here, for the simple reason that activity centers provide a very well defined use. Mr. and Mrs. Driver, in going to an activity center and going to the bank, buy gas, buy groceries, buy prescription medicine, have lunch or dinner, depending on the time of the day, all with one trip. That is a benefit. That's why that worked great in the first place. By creating an additional -- and irregardless of what has been said, it is my opinion -- my personal opinion, that creating and -- a different land use in this intersection will stimulate future growth of similar type uses in -- will create, quite frankly, another activity center. That is not what you have heard the residents who spoke prior to me address and that is not in compliance with the master plan that we all have worked so hard for for many, many years. And I have been a practicing engineer for the last twenty-three years, same firm, proud to say. So there's some history for some of us who were here in the good old days. So, as Gary said, you know, let's see if we can preserve some of that. We realize that there's some growth and we realize that zoning issues are very site specific. I'll be the first one to admit that. But I think we need to look at this site and we need to look at particularly the conditions that really affect this area. That's all I have to say. I appreciate it. And I would urge you to and ask you to please not consider the re-zone to commercial and -- not commercial but medical or office. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Next speaker. MS. TESTER: Good morning. My name is Frankie Anne Tester, T-E-S-T-E-R. I live at 830 Logan Boulevard South. I am the first driveway north of Pine Ridge Road. Basically my property is straight across the street from the northern end of the property that is being discussed this morning. I will not reiterate everything that has already been spoken. I can only ditto everything that has been spoken this morning. I already have been impacted by the expansion of Logan Page 44 October 19, 2000 Boulevard. I no longer have direct access to Logan Boulevard South. I have to go out of my driveway, go to the right, make a U-turn to get -- to head south on Logan Boulevard. So I'm very concerned about the addition of any commercial property in the area in terms of traffic, but also because it goes against something that a member of your commission told me a number of years ago. He is no longer on this commission. But when I said to him, "Do you think this will ever be re-zoned on the corners to commercial?" He said, "No way, Frankie. The commission would not do that. This is estate zoned. This is residential zoning. You are very protected." That was seventeen years ago. I would like to say that I am now concerned because that protection is no longer in place. I would ask that you not pass positively on this petition. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Any other speakers from the public? Would the petitioner like to respond to any of the testimony we've heard this morning? MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, I want to apologize to Mr. Diaz. When I said the firm Wilson, Miller, I in no way meant to indicate that he was speaking on behalf of that. It's just that that's how I know of him~ so I associated his name with that firm. But I did not want to in any way implicate, in any way, that he was part of the firm for today's purposes. We've listened -- again we've listened to the concerns of the residents. And there were a couple of statements made about trying to make a quick buck and then leave town. I mean, you need to understand that Mr. Mcintosh has been here over twenty years. He's not here to make a quick buck and leave town. He's not, you know, he's not a developer who is trying to do that. We -- we still believe our project is compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Kant has raised the issue of whether or not we would even be permitted to get access off of Logan Boulevard. We're prepared right now to just say we won't even request access off of Logan Boulevard. We'll limit our access to Pine Ridge Road. You will see the buffer. I mean, we're talking about a significant buffer on Logan to where you are not going to Page 45 October 19, 2000 see the project. Compatibility is in a large way taken care of, and Bob will tell you this, by sufficient buffers to distinguish the areas. Now, regarding property values, we're all familiar with the Livingston Woods area. And the entranceway to Livingston Woods is an activity center. And I would submit to you that those property values have not suffered by having an activity center in front of it. We're not asking for an activity center, we're not asking for commercial uses. We're asking for office or conditional uses. That is a very different request than an activity center and you are not going to get an activity center on all four of those corners. So that's not up for discussion. We're not asking for retail uses. We're taking about office uses. I don't think it's a fair comparison of this intersection to an activity center intersection. And, in any event, Livingston Woods has done very well over the years. And we really don't believe we're even approaching anything as far as Livingston Woods. So we don't believe we are asking for anything incompatible with the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. I have one, Mr. Chairman. Rich, didn't you at one point say that you were limiting the project to one-story buildings? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aren't there two stories permitted on the Pine Ridge, on the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We have -- we told the people at the meeting and we have told staff that we are withdrawing the two-story request to just one story on Pine Ridge. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I missed that. I'm sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I have a statement, Mr. Chairman. I have a conflict on this petition, therefore I shall not vote on it. I'll abstain, according to the county attorney's suggestion. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So noted. Ma'am, if you've got something new, I will take the Page 46 October 19, 2000 testimony. Okay? Please be brief. MS. HELMER: Yeah. My name is Beverly Helmer and I'm at 5300 12th Avenue Southwest, and we moved in there in 1980 for one real good reason. We loved the woods and we loved the wildlife. And this corner you're talking about is a beautiful woods. What happens to all the wildlife? You guys keep -- you know. They keep building and building and, you know, it's disappearing little by little. I really love animals and I really love the woods and I didn't think anybody had brought that up so I just thought I would say that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I really do thank the people that took time out of their lives to come here today, both job, home, otherwise, and I'm going to set a precedent, or ask a question of all of the commissioners here. After the motion is made I would really like a brief synopsis from the commissioners as to why they vote one way or the other. And I'll be more than happy to lead that off after the motion. Straw ballot. Someone needs -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll just -- I'm not going to make a motion on this. I'll say that I think this is a very good project. I think they did go above and beyond. I am not going to have or -- support the project, and I'm going to use compatibility for that. I think there's just too much neighborhood opposition to that. I would -- would like to point out that someone mentioned green space earlier and protecting wildlife. We've struggled with open space in this county for the last few years. I think there's an opportunity here today while you-all are organized. This man is entitled to profit from what he owns. It sounds like there's enough people and money that he might get what he wants in the way of profit and you-all might get what you want in the way of open space if you put those two together without a building being built. And, with that, I'll pass it along. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'll make a comment and a motion. My comment is that, is that personally I don't find this to be an objectionable use. I think it's pretty well buffered and it -- I think it could probably fit the neighborhood. However, although I'm not an elected official, I'm appointed from this area and I Page 47 October 19~ 2000 have been on the planning commission for seven years. And I know to get this many people out on a Thursday morning when they've got other things to do, they are pretty ticked off about it. And I've got to respect that. And on the basis of incompatibility I would like to make a motion that we transmit this to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation that it not be -- that they in turn not forward it to DCA for approval. In other words, I make a motion that we deny this. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Rautio. No further the comments, I am going to support the motion to deny. I do think -- I commend the developer and the folks for raising the bar. Personally, I think that's a good location for that particular type of a development. Although I have heard -- I have been on the commission also starting my fifth year, and I've heard the people. Like I said, you don't have to beat me over the head. The other issue is the other four corners. I think this would start the development of that, of those four corners, and they may eventually come back. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The other issue being, and as Mr. Diaz eloquently stated, the two activity centers. But basically I guess that what's changed my mind has been the testimony of the neighborhood here this morning. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Call the question. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I would like to -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I want to say something. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- say a couple of things. I probably vote no as often or more often that anybody on this commission. But in this particular case I'm persuaded that, given the inexorability of growth in Collier County, that it's unrealistic to expect that where you have an intersection of two six-lane roads that the parcels on those corners -- going to be six lanes, on its way to being six lanes, that it's unrealistic to think that residential uses are what are going to end up on those corners. Given that, this use that's proposed seems relatively benign to me. And, for that reason, I'm going to support forwarding this Page 48 October 19, 2000 to the county commission recommending that they in turn forward it to Tallahassee. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, I came here today thinking that this was a good proiect. I have a lot of respect for the people that have put it together. They have raised the bar. There's a number of issues here that I would have normally supported. As you noticed, I seconded the motion to not transmit. I'm persuaded by the neighbors. I know a number of people in this room and I glanced through the petition. I'm surprised, as Mr. Budd indicated, that this many of you will come out here and talk to us today and support your neighborhood the way you're supporting it. I do have -- I do feel that it's probably a compatibility issue at this point, although I recognize what Mr. Abernathy is saying, that these corners probably would be commercial under normal circumstances. And I'm not sure what you are going to do with that property. One or two other comments that were made, I was taking notes as you-all spoke, and I do believe that the comment about donating the land, that's a nice statement, however, I honestly think that Mr. Mcintosh should be presented with a purchase of this property, if it were to stay wooded or protect wildlife. That's part of our American way, to be able to develop and to earn money and there's nothing wrong with a person taking the time to develop. Now, some of the comments were a little personal, and I feel that they are not necessary. And Mr. Mcintosh probably at some point, if he doesn't get an opportunity to develop this property, maybe he would sell it to you-all and you-all could do something. I recognize Mr. Priddy said that, hey, you're an organized group now, maybe you will want to purchase this property from Mr. Mcintosh. But he does have a right to develop and he does have a right to make some money. I do support the concept that your neighborhood would change dramatically if this were here. That's why I've been persuaded to go ahead and support the motion to deny transmittal. MS. PRESTON: Mr. Chairman, if I might? The petitioner has requested that you not vote on this project. He's wants to Page 49 October 19, 2000 withdraw his petition at this point. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Marjorie, is that possible? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Marjorie, is that -- MS. STUDENT: The -- well, let's see. You already are discussing it. I think, since the public hearing is closed, it may be -- I haven't been faced with a situation quite like this before -- it may be appropriate to withdraw it between now and the board, since you're already at the -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I would be inclined to go that route. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: What happens if Mr. Budd withdraws his motion and there's not another motion made? MS. STUDENT: Okay. If-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, as I recall, if we don't take an action it basically goes forward as recommended, right? MS. STUDENT: I think that if the motion is withdrawn and the commission doesn't take any action then that could change it and the petition could be withdrawn. I haven't been faced with a situation like this before, so -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: If Marjorie doesn't give us legal opinion otherwise, then I withdraw the motion. MS. STUDENT: I beg your pardon? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Unless you're telling me I can't do it, I'll withdraw the motion. MS. STUDENT: Okay. COMMISSIONER PEDONE.' But by withdrawing the motion that means that this will go before the Board of County Commissioners with the -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No, it won't. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: -- a recommendation for approval? MS. STUDENT: No. He's going to withdraw it. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're withdrawing our petition. We will not proceed. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Wait a minute. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That's not the issue here. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't believe you can go forward and vote on a petition we don't want to be heard. So, I mean, I would -- you know, we've heard the people and we have withdrawn our petition. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Please, call a vote. Page 50 October 19, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Please. Listen, we've been ladies and gentlemen up to this point. It's a procedure. We're following it. The discussion's up here. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I apologize. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Isn't this just a straw vote anyway, because we have to vote on everything, Marjorie, at the end when we finish listening to these? MR. STUDENT: That's how we generally do it, it's a straw vote. But the motion maker didn't nip that. And since there was this situation with one person needing to abstain, that would cause a problem too at the end because we take them all together and then those that are abstaining, I mean, they have to abstain on it all, unless we separated them out. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Now, see, that didn't make sense to me in the first place, that we have to vote on all of the comp. plan amendments, but then I've only been here for one year, so I was going to ask for a clarification at some point. But if Mr. Budd -- I'm the second, so if I withdraw my second then -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: There's nothing to vote on. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: There's nothing to vote on and it's pretty clear what this commission feels to the people in the audience that showed up here today. So you've met your objective. Because it will not be transmitted as an approval, as the staff is saying. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ron? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Won't be transmitted, period. MR. NINO.' Moreover, it will not be presented to the board because the petition is being withdrawn. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. The second's been withdrawn, withdrawn by the motion, or vice versa. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Can we take a break? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And I think, with that, before we start the next item, I thank you folks for coming. We're going to take a break while the room clears. (A brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I would like to reconvene the meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Page 51 October 19, 2000 The next item on our agenda is CP-2000-03. Due to the absence of our vice chairman, I'm going to turn this one over to our secretary to be the chairman on this one, because I have to remove myself due to some items in here, the fact that my employer has some commercial banking interests in this area, so COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Regrettably, I had made a prior commitment to give a speech before the Leadership Institute today before I knew that I had been appointed to this board, and therefore I have to leave at 11:30. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So noted. Thank you. You have been relieved, Sammy. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The vice chairman is here I will abstain from any part of this. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Sorry. Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I've already called it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Hi, Mr. Weeks. Sorry about that. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm David Weeks of the comprehensive planning staff. The subject site of this amendment is designated rural settlement area. It's commonly known as the Orangetree PUD. And on the visualizer you'll see the subject location. It's on the east side of Immokalee Road north of Randall Boulevard and it's bisected by County Road 858, also known as Oil Well Road. A brief review of the history of this project is that it was originally platted in the late sixties, early seventies as North Golden Gate, North Golden Gate City. Essentially it was a duplication of Golden Gate City, simply located to the north and to the east. It allowed for over 11,000 dwelling units. It allowed for t80 something acres of commercial, 70 plus acres of industrial, et cetera. Typical urban style zoning and development was authorized. Part of the history is that the County Commission around 1982 down-zoned the property to an agricultural district. A lawsuit was filed and eventually, through a settlement and zoning agreement, the Orangetree PUD was born. The comprehensive plan was amended to reflect that Page 52 October 19, 2000 settlement agreement and it specifically refers to that settlement agreement. And it originally identified the types of uses permitted within this settlement area. In 1997 when we adopted the evaluation and appraisal report based amendments, we deleted the specific list of uses and simply kept the language that referred back to the settlement agreement. Essentially what the petition is doing is saying we want to put that list of uses back in place and add one use that is not there, and that is a provision for RV parks. So staff has no objection to the addition of the uses. It simply returns to what was previously there. It does not provide them any additional uses other than what they are presently or were previously allowed, the one exception being the RV park use. The Department of Community Affairs in 1986, as part of the history of this project, at the request of the property owner at that time wrote what is referred to as a binding letter. And it identified that the -- that the department's position was, yes, this project is vested. It is vested for the uses identified in that Orangetree PUD document. And it also goes on to say, if you make any changes, you need to contact us, let us review it, let us consider the impact. What you have before you today is that one additional use of RV parks, and DCA has not been consulted. And that's a little bit of a concern to us. However, our recommendation to you is to transmit this petition. We will wait and see what, if any, concerns DCA, Department of Community Affairs, reports back to us and their response to this petition. So our recommendation is to support or transmit this petition. And there's been no correspondence received. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff? No questions. Do we have any registered speakers? MR. NINO: I have a Steve Morgan -- is that right COMMISSIONER SAADEH: COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: heard from the petitioner. MR. NINO: I'm sorry. -- registered Do we hear from the petitioner? You know, it would be good if we Page 53 October 19, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Sorry. MR. PIRES: That's okay. For the record, Tony Pires with the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo here representing the petitioner, as well as Wayne Arnold from Q. Grady Minor & Associates, and we would request that the Planning Commission follow the recommendation of staff and forward it to the county commission with a recommendation of transmittal to DCA and the regional planning council. And we're here available for any questions that you may have or for any responses to issues raised by Mr. Morgan. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Now I think we can have the speaker. MR. NINO: Is Steve Morgan here? If he -- if he's not here -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Is Mr. Morgan out in the hall? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Madam Chairmam, it's probably for the last petition, you just numbered it wrong. MR. NINO: You're probably right. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have a comment, sense of the board, straw -o COMMISSIONER BUDD: Ready to make a motion. I make a motion for the straw poll that Planning Commission forward Petition CP-2000-3 to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendations that they in turn transmit it to the DCA and the regional planning council for approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Motion by Mr. Budd, seconded by Mr. Abernathy. Any discussion? I'll call the question. All in favor? All opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries as a straw ballot. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. And the next one on our agenda I believe is GP-2000-5, future land use element on Livingston and Pine Ridge commercial infili district. And it's -- MS. TAYLOR: Good morning. For the record, my name is Page 54 October 19, 2000 Amy Taylor. I'm with the comprehensive planning section. Before you is Comprehensive Plan Amendment Number 5, 2000-5. The petitioner is requesting a change to the future land use element and map to allow the creation of a new commercial sub-district entitled Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Sub-District. This is a 17.5 acre piece of property. its location is on the southeast corner of Pine Ridge Road and l,ivingston Road. And I'll put the location map up here for you. The petitioner is specifically requesting commercial uses, both office and retail, not to exceed 125,000 square feet. The existing conditions on the property for allowable uses are the following. The property is currently developed as a driving range, the -- and it's zoned agricultural. The potential development of the property, based on its current land use, is single family or multi-family up to, if using several density bonus allowances, fifteen units per acre. The property is located within an interchange activity center residential or density band. And, with using the affordable housing, they could add an additional eight acres, which would allow them fifteen acres. To the north of the property are a commercial PUD, the Cambridge Square PUD. This is across the street from -- of Pine Ridge. This PUD is 12.79 acres. The property immediately to the east of the subject property is developed first as a fire station. And then there is an agricultural zoned piece of property immediately adjacent to the east. To the west is the Livingston Road corridor. Across the street is the I. acosta Apartments, multi-family dwelling units. There are 276 dwelling units on these thirty-nine acres. The property to the south is -- and this is the property that would be along Livingston Road -- is currently zoned agricultural. Its future land use designation is urban mixed use district, urban residential sub-district. Staff has evaluated this petition based on compatibility of the surrounding uses. The property to the east is partly developed as a fire station. The fire station reports that in the first three months of operation there were over 250 calls. The property -- the subject property is along two six-lane facilities. Page 55 October 19, 2000 The property east that's zoned agricultural would be eligible for commercial under criteria because of the properties further -- that they are adjacent to to the east. Therefore, staff recommends that this property -- this petition be approved for transmittal with a recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a clarification. You said potentially for two six lanes. Is that -- you said there was two six lanes -- MS. TAYLOR: Did I say potentially? No. I meant that it will be six lanes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I didn't think the last time I went through there it was six lanes. Any questions of staff? Does the petitioner wish to address the commission? MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the applicant. I have with me here today Mr. Allen Kann of Baldridge Development, Incorporated, which is the applicant. I'll be happy to make a presentation. I do understand that there is a member of the public that wishes to address this. I wanted to give you a little background on our application before you heard from them, and then I'll be happy to respond to any question that you may have. This is a site specific plan amendment. It's currently used for the Jon Ebert's Golf Driving Range and golf school at the corner of Pine Ridge and Livingston, as Ms. Taylor noted. Both of these roads are scheduled to be six lane facilities. This comprehensive plan amendment limits the amount of commercial square footage to t25,000 square feet, which is considerably less than the normal retail commercial formula of 10,000 square feet per acre. The size of this parcel is seventeen and a half acres. Under the normal commercial square footage ratio, that would equate to 175,000 square feet. So we're more than -- we're 50,000 square feet under the normal ratio. As the language in this amendment indicates, we will be exploring the possibility of a loop road along the south and eastern boundaries of this property in order to allow motorists and the North Naples Fire District, to provide them with an access road that would enable them to avoid the Pine Page 56 October 19, 2000 Ridge/Livingston Road intersection. This issue would be resolved one way or another at the time that we would file for an actual re-zoning of the property. We have submitted a market study by Julian Stokes, a local appraisal expert, that indicates that this property is not economically viable for residential development because of the activity and noise generated by the confluence of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road, and the fire and EMS station abutting the eastern property line. This market study also recognizes that within two years there will be a shortage of sufficient retail space within the two mile primary trade area surrounding this property. And lastly, I would just note that approval of this plan amendment merely makes this property eligible to apply for commercial re-zoning in the future. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have now or later. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of the petitioner? No? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sounds like the Logan Boulevard people could have used Julian Stokes, from what you said. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any members of the public that wish to give testimony? MR. NINO: Frank Craparo. MR. CRAPARO: My name is Frank Craparo. I live on the property that adjoins it to the east. It's agricultural. And the spelling is C-R-A-P-A-R-O. My address is 3480 Pine Ridge Road. And the purpose of my statement today is to give whole-hearted support of the conscientious -- comprehensive plan amendment and give you a history of my property, because it does affect what can be done there. It has not yet been purchased but there is an idea of linking my property with other commercial property that's just to the east of me, which would~ I would think~ benefit everyone. And I agree. No one wants their residence -- I am way back there, about 800 feet from Pine Ridge Road, and you hear that fire station pretty good. And they go out quite often, which -- I'm friends with Mr. Rogers and I respect the fire people. And that's, you know -- that's what they have to do, but it's not a good residential area. Page 57 October 19, 2000 I've watched the Planning Board on TV. And I applaud the rigorous defense of private property rights. And sometimes the whims of the community just don't get it, that private property does have rights. I consider this meeting friendly and, like I say, I do -- I do appreciate your efforts on this part because you're probably not paid for it either. No. That's what I thought. All right. My property is now a plant nursery and livestock operation. I have been in Naples since '77. I have been on that property for twenty-three years. Pine Ridge Road was a sand road and it ran east from Airport Road. And I developed the last quarter mile from where it ended at Pine Ridge and Livingston to my house so I could move to the property twenty-three years ago. I had support -- I had sought permits for -- to build a lake and abate all the ordinances. I went through your board and got approval. The engineering at the last minute at the county -- county commissioner meeting disapproved my lake that I needed to complete my nursery business. And I had complied with everything, other than they said I was too close to Pine Ridge Road. So I had to sue to gain my property rights. And I didn't want to sue. And this is where it comes in, this project. In the settlement in February 1982, I was given certain rights and the rights were they were going to construct a drive on my east border, they were going to let me construct a drive, which I did, on my west border. So I have two drives. And they specifically in this settlement of this lawsuit gave me a median cut across Pine Ridge Road as part of my settlement on the east drive. And they gave me certain drainage rights to construct Pine Ridge Road and all the canal systems that would drain my property two foot below ground level as it was before they built the road. And that agreement is still in effect. All of these agreements are still in effect. I've tried to get the staff to get all this property just committed to a master plan so it could be re-zoned because I think that's the obvious use for it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I take it you are for the project? MR. CRAPARO: I am for the project but -- Allen has attempted to buy my project. We're right now in condemnation proceedings with the county -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I don't mean to interrupt you, but that's Page 58 October t 9, 2000 kind of irrelevant to what we're trying to decide here today. MR. CRAPARO: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If you can offer testimony why it shouldn't be or it should be, I would be glad to accept it. MR. CRAPARO: All right. Well, the testimony is, any median cuts are going to stay where I'm at~ are going to cost the county a considerable amount in lawsuits and to settle -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And that's not -- MR. CRAPARO: So that may come back into later -- this is just as a history, that if someone else wants a median cut and they're getting it in preference to me -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But that's not before us today. MR. CRAPARO: That's not before you today. But I am in favor of it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It will come. MR. CRAPARO: And I am in favor of this commission. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Anyone else from the public wish to speak on this? If not, I would -- no further questions, I would take a motion for a straw vote. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I will make a motion that we forward Petition CP-2000-5 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval and transmittal to DCA. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So moved by Mr. Abernathy, seconded by Mr. Priddy that we forward with a recommendation of approval. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried. Next item on the agenda is CP-2000-07. She's here? Just a very brief break while we change reporters. (A recess was taken.) MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. Again, David Weeks, of the comprehensive planning staff. This petition site is located at the northwest corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. It should be familiar to most of you because you've dealt with it previously. Page 59 October 19, 2000 Last fall, this site was the location of a petition requesting the same designation but different uses. At that time, it came before you for office, bank and pharmacy. That was for the transmittal hearing, and then when it came before you in the spring of this year for the adoption hearing, some retail uses had been added. Both times the planning commission supported the petition. The Board of County Commissioners did transmit it, but on May 9th of this year, by a vote of three to two, they did not transmit the petition, hence the applicant has reftled. The difference between the last time you saw it in the spring of this year and today is that a few more retail uses had been added to the property. The site is 6.8 acres. The properties to the north, west and south are designated residential estates in the Golden Gate master plan, and to the east is Golden Gate city. The property there is designated urban residential but is, in fact, zoned C-4 and developed with commercial uses, a retail center. The building heights for this site as proposed are limited to one story with a maximum height of 35 feet and only one freestanding drug store or bank -- they could not have both uses, one or the other will be permitted in addition to the office uses and the other retail uses listed in the application, and then there's a variety of development standards listed as well in the petitioner's submittal. The short of it is, our position, staff's position is the same as the previous times that you've seen this, and that is that we have concerns about the traffic safety regarding access to the property, some concern about the need for additional commercial opportunity in the Golden Gate master plan, concern about the character of the area and how it will be impacted by this commercial proposal, and one additional point which we made in the report previously when you saw this but we would now emphasize is that this does not seem an appropriate location for the specific subdistrict that they are asking for. The existing County Road 951 commercial infill subdistrict, which they propose to change the name of and then designate for this site, was put in place for two properties located on Collier Boulevard, the largest of which was located in the estates, and it was sandwiched between the 12 acre FPL substation, this is on Page 60 October 19, 2000 the west side of 951, and to the south, C-5 zoning within Golden Gate city. So that's an additional specific issue that we raised, that this isn't the appropriate subdistrict. Regardless, our recommendation is not to transmit it. As a secondary position, if you do, we would recommend that you limit the site to conditional uses only as allowed in the estates zoning district and then about three or four access restrictions that we would also recommend. We've received one letter in opposition to this petition, and that is by the Ceriou, C-E-R-I-O-U, family. They own the property adjacent to the north, and you might recall representatives of that family have previously spoken at your hearings in opposition. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: David, as I recall, one of the major issues was egress and ingress, and I know we don't have it here, but there's still only one off of Golden Gate, right; there being none off of Santa Barbara? MR. WEEKS: I'm not sure -- I'm going to let the petitioner address that. Originally, it was -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm assuming it's still the same; nothing has changed in the transportation segment of it. MR. WEEKS: I don't think so, but I'll defer to the petitioner. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: David, long range planning keeps coming in here and using as a reason to deny that there's ample commercial space out there, and if you add all the half acre and acre and three acre parcels together, yeah, you come up with some number, I don't know, 50,000, 80,000 square feet available, but it's obvious to me that for people to spend the amount of money that it takes to get to this point today, that something is driving that. It's not, you know, some farfetched scheme that they are coming up with. There's something driving that, so why do we keep -- I mean, there's obviously, with the growth we've got, need for commercial in that area. Why do we keep hearing that there's ample space out there when there's, obviously, not? MR. WEEKS: Again, the distinction that staff makes in saying that there's not a need, again, as I've said before, we are not saying there's not a need for commercial at this location in the sense that if they develop this project, that it's going to be a Page 61 October 19, 2000 bust. We're not saying that. What we're saying is that the opportunities in the Golden Gate master plan are not needed. That is there's no need to amend the Golden Gate master plan to provide additional opportunity for commercial rezoning and then subsequently development of the property, that there's -- we're looking at it from a standpoint of inventory control as opposed to a specific market driven notion of if I develop this property, will it be successful. I agree with you, I don't think the petitioner would be here if he thought he was going to lose money here, but we're saying there's just -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'm saying to you, he wouldn't be here if there were other places to put the project, is my point -- my question. I mean, these people wouldn't keep coming in here asking for these places to put things if there were ample space already there. MR. WEEKS: I think from their perspective, even if there are other -- and that's the staff position, that there are other locations available for this use. I think their perspective is, this is where we want it to be. Certainly their position is, it will be successful if we develop it here, and we want it here, not somewhere else. They don't own or control that property elsewhere. This is where they want it to be. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I disagree, and, Start, I would ask you as the head of that department to rethink some of the logic. MR. WEEKS: One last comment if I may, and that's I think what you consistently hear from staff as well, is that is not the only reason we recommend not to support some of these petitions. I think you consistently hear us on some of these petitions, say use -- excuse me, the need is part of the recommendation, but that is not the sole foundation of our recommendation for denial in this case and in some others. It's character of the area. It's traffic impact. It's compatibility, and that's the case here. There are other reasons. That is not the only reason, and certainly we've heard it enough from this commission that we're well aware that you don't always agree with us on the assessment of need. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: David. Page 62 October 19, 2000 MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Your fall back position imposes five conditions, one of which is to limit the entire site to conditional uses allowed by the E-estates zoning district. Can you rattle off a few of what those conditional uses are and how they differ from what the petitioner wants to do? MR. WEEKS: Yes, a child care center, church, nursing home, adult congregate living facility, social and fraternal organization. There's many examples, if you're familiar with the area, further down the Parkway of those very same types of uses, as opposed to what the petitioner is asking for, they are asking for eight or ten retail uses, all of the C-1 zoning district uses, which, in addition to those same institutional or conditional uses, includes professional and medical offices. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So, the conditional uses are public interest type institutions? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, institutional type uses that -- they are certainly -- most if not all of them -- well, most of them are commercial in nature -- I mean, somebody is operating a nursing home to make money. It's not just the goodness of their heart, so in that sense, it's -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But it's not a retail business? MR. WEEKS: That's correct; nor are these office uses. They're what we sometimes call -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's the cutting edge between them, one is retail and the other isn't; is that -- MR. WEEKS: Well, also, the office use. An office use would be allowed by what the petitioner is proposing, but a church and a child care -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Would not. MR. WEEKS: -- those aren't office uses either. So, commercial uses they are asking for. Institutional uses is what staff is suggesting. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yeah, I wanted to ask the -- was it the Ceriou family, they were here before and really pretty adamant. What did you receive from the family, unless they are here to speak? I don't see -- Page 63 October t9, 2000 MR. WEEKS: I don't see them here. Actually, what I've received was a -- is a copy of what it says was faxed to Mr. Wrage. I have it here. Would you like me to read it for the record? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I assume it's still in opposition. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I guess I assumed everyone had gotten the same fax, so perhaps -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I did get it. MR. WEEKS: It's dated October 2rid. It's to Mr. Wrage from the Ceriou family, 2925 Santa Barbara Boulevard. Dear board member: Coming before you at the October 5th planning board meeting will be CP-2000-07, that's this petition. Last year it was CP-99-2, John Jassy requesting zoning change on property on the northwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. We would like to acquaint you with the history of this request. The CP-99-2 was allowed by the planning board approximately a year ago. It went through the whole process. The Golden Gate Civic Association voted it down with the reasoning they had enough commercial property at that time and didn't need any more traffic problems. The Collier County Commission voted it down, in paren, information can be found in the minutes of commission meeting of May 9, 2000, end parenthesis, with the reasoning the property was not big enough to solve their ingress and egress problems and when the Parkway is six laned, if you want to go east, you would have to make a U-turn across three lanes of traffic. We hope you would deny the request of CP-2000-07 and not cause the imposition of all the meetings and time lost for everyone concerned. As of this date, the property in question has not been added to, and according to the commission, they cannot solve the traffic problems without more land. We thank you for your attention and concern. The Ceriou family, one of the adjoining property owners. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Do you know -- and maybe you said this -- exactly where -- do you know exactly where their property is? MR. WEEKS: Adjacent to the north. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: To the north. This is -- okay. MR. WEEKS: The visualizer here, the subject property and the bold dash line. Page 64 October t9, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? If not, we hear from the petitioner. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, Rich ¥ovanovich representing the petitioner in this case. With me is Bill Hoover, the planner on the project; Chris Hagan, the transportation engineer on this project; as well as the petitioners. ! can assure you, Mr. Priddy, that my client doesn't just like giving me money to send me up here because they want to give me money. They truly believe that the market for this property is for commercial uses. It comes down to a question of the quality of the inventory and the location of the inventory and, frankly, the location of the inventory, and the quality of the inventory is not appropriate for what is being requested. If it were, I'm sure they would go to the easy sites first and work on the hard sites later. This petition is dramatically different from the previous petition. We listened to the comments from the commissioners and from the civic association and from Mr. and Mrs. -- or Mrs. Ceriou, I think she's a Mrs. -- or Ms. Ceriou, and we incorporated those changes into our proposal. First of all, the previous proposal wanted or requested both a bank and a drug store. This proposal is for one or the other. That dramatically reduces the traffic impact. Did we include some other retail uses that were not previously in the petition; yes, we did, but that -- we did not increase traffic generation. We eliminated one of the -- one of the two, it's an either or, dominant uses on the parcel. So, I would differ with any characterization that we are just bringing back the same petition to you that was previously shot down. I don't really want to get into a whole lot of debate over, you know, the market for this. I mean, we totally disagree with staff on that position. I don't think things have changed since the last time you disagreed with staff on that position, so we'll focus mainly on the location and the compatibility. We've also increased a buffer, and Bill will get into more detail, from what was previously a 50 foot buffer to a 100 foot buffer. We have reduced what was previously two story buildings potentially to one story buildings. All of these things, I think, are significant changes from what we previously proposed. Page 65 October 19, 2000 The primary concerns that were raised by the civic association -- and we -- we take part of the blame for that. We -- the petitioner probably didn't meet with the civic association enough to present the petition, and, frankly, someone else got involved and changed what they wanted, and that messed things up from what was previously approved by you-all and the Board of County Commissioners, somebody else got a little bit too greedy. We learned our lesson, and we have scaled back what we are requesting. We have met with the civic association on this project. Their concern is not retail uses. Their concern are traffic issues. We -- again, I said this earlier, we are now getting into site planning and zoning in the comprehensive plan. I don't know why we have to do that, but, again, we'll address that. The concern I heard from the commission and from the people of the civic association at the previous hearings was the concern that people would try to get back on Santa Barbara and cut across that traffic to get to the left turn lanes to head east on Santa Barbara, and there's going to be multiple stacking lanes. We, today, will agree that there will be no right-out on Santa Barbara. We would like the ability to study the possibility of a right-in on Santa Barbara. We would like to address that when it is appropriate, which is at the site planning stage and the rezoning stage, but, I mean, if you need it at an earlier time, you know, we suggest, again, at adoption, we will resolve all the traffic issues at the adoption hearing. So, we believe the site is compatible with the neighborhood. We are working with the civic association to resolve these issues. Frankly, we are meeting with the Cerious to see if we can come to some type of an agreement regarding easements across their property to resolve not only our traffic concerns, but potentially their traffic concern. I don't know if that will work out or not work out, but we are -- we are dialoguing, and we are trying to work with our neighbors to the north. In any event, we have taken what we believe are the appropriate steps to protect one of the other concerns the Cerious had, which was a privacy issue, by reducing the height of the buildings, increasing the buffer on the most western and northern portion of the property. So, I believe we've done a -- we have done what we Page 66 October 19, 2000 promised the board we would do when we asked originally to be able to come back into the process after the time line had ended, because as you remember, everything dragged on to where we got a denial after the submittal date. We promised we would make a dramatic change and not bring back the same thing and try to pitch the same thing, and we've lived up to that promise, and Bill can get into more of the details if you need him to on the project, and I can answer any other questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just wanted to recount. You said that you've scaled things back and the big differences are that you wanted both a bank and a drug store before, and now it's one or the other. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's one or the other. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay, and that you -- the buffer has been increased from 50 to 100. MR. YOVANOVICH: On a portion of the project. What was previously -- it's the, I'm sorry, setback. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay, setback, because you did say buffer. MR. YOVANOVICH: I did say buffer, you're right. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And now you've reduced from two stories to one story buildings. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And those are the major differences. MR. YOVANOVICH: And now the elimination of a right-out onto Santa Barbara. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? MR. YOVANOVICH: Unless you have specific questions of Bill regarding the project -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a comment. I have to go to Eckerd on Airport Pulling and Vanderbilt, and that's got a right-in only, and I'm a creature of habit where I go in, I think I ought to be able to get out, and I sympathize with you here, and I remember all the argument -- well, it's got to be, it's got to be, but I really wish there was a way you could get in and out of there more than just off of Golden Gate. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well~ quite candidly, we would welcome Page 67 October t9, 2000 the opportunity to resolve those issues, but we seemed to be backed into a corner early on in the process to resolve issues that are site planning issues, and I -- I don't believe that's what the comprehensive plan is for, but we'll address that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Agree, because you do a right-in, which you have to do to go back to the north. It's almost like gymnastics. You almost want to go someplace else, but I understand your problem. Any questions of the petitioner? If not, anybody from the public who wishes to address this? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let me ask the staff one question. Petitioner contends that the ingress/egress issues are not properly before us at this time. You've put them in play. Do you disagree with their conceptual position on this, philosophical position? MR. WEEKS: Yes, the comprehensive plan has kind of a mixed bag. You'll go to some subdistricts that leave some of the site planning issues until a later stage, typically the rezoning stage, and other instances, those specific details will be provided in the comprehensive plan. One example is the neighborhood centers, they have very specific criteria regarding access and buffering and so forth. We view this property as comparable to a neighborhood center in the sense that the size is similar. It's 6.8 acres. They are specifying the particular categories of commercial uses that they're proposing. We do think it's appropriate to address that at this point. Part of the issue before was not just exiting -- that certainly was a point, a safety concern of exiting onto Santa Barbara Boulevard, as Commissioner Wrage has stated, but it was also entering the property as well, because if you are in a turn lane going to head west onto Golden Gate Parkway, you may be conflicting with traffic that wants to make a right turn into the subject site. The conflict being that if I'm in a car and I'm in that turn lane but I'm going into the shopping center or whatever the use is here -- yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Wait a minute, David, you're getting into the factual particulars of right-in and right-out and all of that stuff. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Page 68 October 19, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm talking about whether we should even be talking about it at all or not. Is there a bright line in the code somewhere where Mr. Yovanovich ought to know that this is properly before us at this point? MR. WEEKS: I don't think there is a bright line. As a general rule, the smaller and more site specific the provision is, the more detail you have. An opposing example, activity centers, which are, generally speaking, 40 acres per quadrant, 160 acres, they don't have this type of specific limitation. It is always addressed at the later stage. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I can just add real briefly. The problem with putting it in the comprehensive plan, if you adopt today there shall not be a right-in or a right-out on Santa Barbara, you don't give us an opportunity to go out and find what may be a better solution to that whole intersection, which could be to find another engineering solution and including maybe a frontage road, working with our neighbors to solve a solution. These are issues we can resolve at the PUD and the site plan. Why do we have to resolve it now in a comprehensive plan? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, the public, I think, has a fear, perhaps unfounded, that if it isn't addressed now, that it comes back later and say, well, you didn't say anything about that when we were amending the comp. plan, so the horse is out of the barn, and that may be unfounded, but that's a fear that people have, I think. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand the fear, but I believe it's unfounded. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And I'm noticing the same fear. If staff has the fear, there's a lot in the public, because I've attended meetings out in Golden Gate Estates, and I'm real concerned that people can be this specific so early in the project, and we came back to that issue of the type C versus type D buffer and a safety issue for the little neighborhood centers in Golden Gate Estates, and I'm not a planner, but -- and I like detail, but this is getting out of hand, and I think we are creating monsters or creating ties for, you know, full employment for planners and engineers like putting things in the comp. plan so early in these stages. So, I'm not really impressed by the fact that the staff seems to think that they are going to handle all this detail so early in Page 69 October 19, 2000 the process. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: That came back to bite the public by having that in that plan earlier, and I think that we ought not do that with this. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that in mind, no further comments from the public or questions, would anybody like to make a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we support submitting this to the county commission with the recommendation that they forward this to DCA for comment and ultimate approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY'- I'll second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. Any further discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It carried -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We have a no. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We have one no? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, Commissioner Young is leaving us, and we're moving on to CP -- CP-2000-11, future land use element, direct principal access for travel trailer recreational vehicles. Michelle. MS, MOSCA: Good morning. For the record, my name is Michelle Mosca with the comprehensive planning section. Comprehensive plan amendment 2000-11 is a BCC directed amendment. The board directed staff at their April 2000 meeting to modify the definition of direct principal access as contained in the travel trailer recreational vehicle park provision of the future land use element. The amended definition would allow access points from intervening properties onto driveways or local roadways, provided the portion of those driveways or roadways is not located within a residential neighborhood and does not service a predominantly residential area. $taff's recommendation to the planning commission is to forward this amendment to the BCC with the recommendation to Page 70 October t9, 2000 transmit to the Department of Community Affairs. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? Anyone else wish to speak on this? If not, I'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'll make a motion that we forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners, since they want it, with a recommendation to transmit the amendments to the Department of Community Affairs for their objections, recommendations and comment report. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Abernathy, seconded by Commissioner Rautio. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response}. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Carried. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Are these still straw motion votes? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yeah. Now we're down to Item B. Is that still a legislative -- MS. STUDENT: Yes. Item B, however, is a different item because what you're acting on now would be transmittal, and if I understand correctly the way this is worded, Item B is adoption. So, that's two separate items. So the appropriate time to fold the whole comp. plan amendment into a motion on the several items that you just heard would be right now, and we're going to have a problem with the one where there was an abstention on Orangetree, so I guess we'll have to take those separately. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So, what you're telling me, we need to take all of them but Orangetree separately? MS. STUDENT: Yeah, because of the abstention. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Because I have to abstain, okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward this on to the Board of County Commissioners based on our straw polling with the exception of Orangetree. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With the exception of 2000-03? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved by Mr. Priddy. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Second by -- Page 71 October 19, 2000 COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Budd. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- Commissioner Budd. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we submit the Orangetree proposal to the Board of County Commissioners based on our straw poll. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Priddy, second by Mr. Budd to transmit. All in favor? Opposed, same sign? Motion carries. MS. STUDENT: Just let the record reflect that Mr. Wrage abstained from that vote for the same reason he abstained from the straw vote. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Now, moving on to our regularly scheduled items, CP-2000-10, ordinance to approve the Immokalee master plan. MR. LITSINGER: For the record, Start Litsinger with the comprehensive planning staff. This particular amendment is a proposed adoption ordinance for what we will call an administrative amendment to the Immokalee area master plan to designate an urban infill and a redevelopment area designation on the land use map. It's very important to note that this has no regulatory effect relative to land use. Its sole purpose is to designate an area which would qualify for grant funding from the Department of Community Affairs and is being expedited without review and an ORC report, as we're all familiar with, with direct adoption, we don't expect any problems from DCA, in order that we can have -- grant applications -- Department of Community Affairs with the appropriate area designated by November 15th. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? Anybody from the public wish to comment on this one? If not, I'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll recommend that we forward Petition CP-2000-10 to the Board of County Page 72 October 19, 2000 Commissioners with a recommendation to adopt this amendment. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved by Commissioner Abernathy, seconded by Commissioner Budd. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried. Also, henceforth, note that we will be taking testimony on the rest of them, that we will be under oath. So all those wishing to testify on BD-2000-15, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Cheryl. MS. SOTER: Good morning. MS. STUDENT: Excuse me, are there any disclosures on this item? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I also need to remind the commissioners that on any of the following items, we need to have disclosures if you had any contact with the petitioner. MS. SOTER: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Cheryl Soter of planning services, BD-2000-15. The petitioner is requesting approval to allow a boathouse to be placed upon an existing boat dock with lift. The property is located at 396 Connor's Avenue in Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates. The width of the waterway at this site is approximately 125 feet. The proposed boathouse consists of adding a 28 foot by nineteen and a half foot roof to cover only the boat slip portion of an existing boat dock and lift. The existing dock protrudes approximately 20 feet into the waterway within the requirements of the LDC. There are three existing boathouses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. We have received one letter of objection from the property owner of adjacent lot six to the east stating that the proposed boathouse would obstruct their view of the waterway. We also received two letters from neighboring property owners in support of the proposed boathouse, including one from the owners of adjacent lot seven to the west. Page 73 October 19, 2000 This project meets all criteria, and staff recommends approval of the boathouse petition. Are there any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Does our code define a boathouse as an essentially horizontal structure without vertical sides or can it be either? MS. SOTER: No, our -- our land development code prohibits them from enclosing that in. It has to be open on all sides to qualify under the criteria of a boathouse. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So, essentially, it's roof only? MS. SOTER: Roof only. You can see this a little bit better. This picture here was taken from the neighboring property owner that had the complaint about their view. I stood right here on their property. This is the existing boat dock and lift, and you can see the supports here where the roof that's proposed would go on, just this portion. This is the full boat dock facility that they have currently, and they will be only putting the roof over this portion of the boat that has a lift currently. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I would just ask, did you talk to the property owners that -- the ones that were in favor of it? Did you get a feeling we're going to be seeing another request for -- soon? MS. SOTER: I personally did not speak to them. They only notified me by way of a letter. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And does the petitioner wish to address the commission on that? Let it show that he said no. Is there anybody from the public that wishes to address this issue? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have one statement -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Well, you have to come up, sir. MS. SOTER: This is the property owner, Mr. Olla. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Please give us your name, and spell it please for the reporter. MR. OLLA: My name is Carl Olla, O-L-L-A. I'm the property owner that's requesting the roof. The people to the west have a boathouse, and the people to page 74 October 19, 2000 the east have a boathouse, and there's about eight to ten of them on our canal as it is now, and I don't know if you're familiar with that particular canal, it's the extra wide one. It's about double the width of any others, and it really doesn't obstruct much of the view. That's it. I just wanted to tell -- you asked the question about if they would be coming. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of the petitioner? Anyone else from the public wish to address this? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve BD-2000-15. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Budd. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried. Next item, boat dock 2000-23. Ross, prior, you handed me during the meeting some photos. Is this from you or from the petitioner? MR. GOCHENAUR: Those are from the people in the neighborhood who are objecting to the petition. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. So, we'll talk about these later then. MR, GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry, let's try that again. I was waiting for them to clear. All those wishing to give testimony on this, please rise and be sworn in by the reporter. (The speakers were sworn). MR. GOCHENAUR'- Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. First, I'd like to correct something in the staff report under staff comments, Item F, which addresses whether or not the moored vessel is in excess of 50 percent of the length of the water frontage. I indicated that the vessels in combination were, and according to the petitioner, they have one 40 foot, two 35 Page 75 October 19, 2000 foot, two 30 foot vessels. That's actually not in excess of the 50 percent. It's about 36 percent, so it does meet that criteria. I've had quite a few phone calls. We have eight letters of objection to this petition, and for the record, I'd just like to briefly go over the nature of a boat dock petition and also for the people here from the public who are probably going to be speaking. A boat dock extension is not a variance. The land development code recognizes that there are circumstances under which a longer boat dock than the 20 feet that's allowed by the code would be acceptable. We judge -- the staff judges the petition on certain criteria in the land development code, and from this, we make a recommendation. This goes to the planning commission which decides the petition. It does not 9o to the Board of County Commissioners. The planning commission is not bound, of course, by the staff recommendation. However, the land development code says that the planning commission shall base its decision on the code criteria. So, that's what we'll be addressing here today, code criteria. The petitioner is requesting a 40 foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 60 feet into the waterway. The actual dock is going to protrude 56 feet. The petitioner was asking for the four additional feet to account for possible vessel overhang, since the land development code states that a dock facility comprises the dock and vessel in combination. The property is located at 9207 Vanderbilt Drive, site of a five unit multifamily residence. The water frontage of the property is about 295 feet. The project consists of the construction of two floating concrete docks accommodating a total of five slips which would result in one slip per 59 feet of water frontage. The dock extension to 40 feet has been approved for a residential lot to the north, here, and I've indicated the people who are objecting to the petition in blue, the site is in yellow. So, we have a 40 foot dock to the north, here, and we have a 25 foot extension for the Chateau Vanderbilt multifamily condos to the south. The Chateau Vanderbilt facility has a dock that accommodates ten slips, and that works out to approximately Page 76 October 19, 2000 one slip per 35 feet of water frontage, whereas the petitioner is asking for one slip per 59 feet. We've received eight letters of objection from local property owners. These cite obstruction to navigation and access to neighboring docks, obstruction of the view of neighboring property owners, environmental issues, including manatees and pollution and boat traffic in the waterway. With regard to the obstruction to access to the neighboring docks, I've indicated here that the facility is going to be set back 50 feet from the actual dock at Vanderbilt Chateau and about 60 feet from the 40 foot extension, which is to the north. The hatched areas are the building envelope and do not reflect the entire facility for either of these projects. We've also got questions about obstructing the view of neighboring property owners, and one of the folks objecting has sent some very clear panoramic views taken from the residential docks to the north. The view is subjective. In any case, staff still feels that the impact on the view of property owners is going to be minimal here. The questions about mariatees and water pollution are outside the scope of this petition since they are not asking for ten slips, which is the cutoff for review under the manatee protection plan, that doesn't apply. Water pollution is addressed by the Department of Environmental Protection by the state. Staff believes that the petitioner has successfully addressed all of the criteria. We feel that the remaining issues are basically outside the scope of this petition, and we, therefore, recommend approval of this extension. Are there any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have questions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ross, Item F talks about the word vessel being in excess of 50 percent of the length of the water frontage. If it is, is there some sort of presumption that it would interfere with the views of adjoining property owners? Why do we go into that? MR. GOCHENAUR: That was included originally when this section of the code was drafted. I inherited this, and it was mainly to address a vessel moored parallel to the waterfront on a single family lot so that if you had a one hundred foot lot, Page 77 October 19, 2000 theoretically you could have a 70 foot vessel. This, we thought, would have an impact on the view of the neighboring property owners. In this case, I don't think that really applies with the vessels that are going to be moored perpendicular to the shoreline and also a multifamily facility. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But the combined lengths of those vessels by my reckoning is 170 feet, which is more than half of the 295, is it not? MR. GOCHENAUR: Okay. What I came up with here was a 40 foot vessel -- let's see. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Two 30s is 60, that makes a hundred, and two 35s is 70 makes 170. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, you're correct. That was how I originally did the math. As I explained earlier, I did flunk math. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The other question I had is, if you could put that schematic up there again that showed the neighboring properties, who is the owner of that 190 feet immediately adjacent, that little hundred feet down there in the corner? It's hard to say that -- MR. GOCHENAUR: The name of the property owner? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it's hard to say that that property wouldn't be -- that their view wouldn't be impacted by extending these docks out there, isn't it? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm the owner of the one -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No, please. You'll get your opportunity to testify, okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay, well, the owner is here, so she can speak for herself. MR. GOCHENAUR: That's basically what we're looking at here. You can see the end of the seawall here, the docks would extend out there, and basically -- again, this is subjective, and the property owner is going to have a different idea of what impacts the view, but from our standpoint, this impacts the property owner's view of a ten story condominium across the waterway. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's also a statement in here somewhere that side yard setbacks have been -- or setbacks from the property line have been observed, but it looks Page 78 October t 9, 2000 to me like, from the information we have, that the dock goes right to the property line on one side, doesn't it? MR, GOCHENAUR: No, sir. If you look at lot six, you can see that their property line actually extends to the center line of that 100 foot canal, so the riparian line -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Well, I hadn't seen that little notch down there. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yeah, it's a little bit -- a little bit hard to see unless you get up close, but the riparian lies approximately where I drew that line vertically, and the measurement from the dock to that riparian line is about 50 feet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You said that the issue of manatee safety does not apply in this case because of a particular criteria? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, the Collier County Mariatee Protection Plan kicks in when you have ten slips or more. This project is only for five slips. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So in the resolution, they are going to, at least, put in one mariatee area sign during construction, that's what it says? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. This is a standard stipulation for boat dock construction. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And that's only during construction? It doesn't stay permanently? MR. GOCHENAUR: It could stay permanently if we added a stipulation to that effect, which I can certainly do. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's why I was trying to make sure I understood what you had said and what was in the resolution. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff?. We'd be glad to hear from the petitioner. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. Rocky Scofield representing the petitioner, Liberty Ventures, with Turrell & Associates. Pretty much everything that Ross said here is -- we are in agreement with. First of all, these are concrete floating docks that we are Page 79 October 19, 2000 putting in. How do you get that to zoom out? Okay. You know, obviously, view is an issue, and I'm sure you'll hear from that, but these are concrete floating docks which are low profile. I'm sure most of you are familiar with the concrete floating docks. They have a freeboard of a couple of feet off of the water. So, the dock structures are not fixed docks sticking up with high pilings, with high lift beams up. The docks are down low. We are currently -- we are only permitted for five slips here. There are five upland units, and we are permitted for five slips, and the slips are -- you're starting over here. You have one, two, three, four, five. This area on the north side has to have a railing up. Now, these are all DEP stipulations. On the end of this dock is where the mariatee sign is going to be. We are -- you don't have to worry about that. That's stipulated in the DEP permit. That's -- that's part of their permit. We have to do that. This, we'll have railing along this side and a boat will be able to moor here, and on the inside here, it's very shallow, but also, this has to be railed according to DEP, so we can't pull any type of boat or jet skis or anything inside there. So, it's only five slips. These two are 36 foot slips. This is a 36 foot slip. These two are 30 foot slips here. The reason they are separated is because of the way that these apartments are built. You have a wall coming out right along here, right up to the seawall and also over here. These have access out through their wall onto this one. These people have to walk around down to here. Now, the reason that this dock is sticking out a little bit further than this one is because this one is made handicap accessible. The ramp has to -- the gangway to the dock -- the dock had to be a little wider here to handle the handicap. Also, the angle of the ramp had to be a little bit further out, therefore, the distance out. So -- which puts the total distance out here at 56 feet, and then the submerged land lease that we had to get from the state extends out -- they always make you extend out four feet further, so we included that into our boat dock extension of what we're asking for, a total of 60 feet. This is the Chateau Vanderbilt apartments here. This is the -- this is the canal here. It was brought -- we are 52 feet away from our property line over here, which runs down the center line Page 80 October 19, 2000 of this canal. The canal is -- excuse me, the canal is a hundred feet wide right here, so we're away from there. Originally, the plans we were -- we were going to put the docks inside along here extending out and over here. We submitted a dredge plan to the DEP. The DEP rejected our dredging plan when they saw the entire area with our depths, and they would not allow the dredging inside the canal here, and they said the least impact would be to move the docks out front and into a little bit deeper water. We have the objection. DEP gave us papers saying that we will not approve the dredge plan. So, this is -- they said to move them out here, and this is your least impact, so this is where the docks are now. We are 25 feet away from the property line of Chateau Vanderbilt. What we did for the -- this grid pattern, I don't know if you can see it very well there, but we hired surveyors to go out and do the whole lagoon. The entire lagoon, we had a bathymetric survey done. There's no impact to navigation, which we have here. The depths for the boats -- let's see. Can you go out further, out the other way? MR. NINO: Can't read it though. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, yeah. Your light is off. These are where the -- this is the applicant's property right here, the Chateau Vanderbilt and the canal over here. The docks are extending out in this area right to where these first set of numbers are. We have about four feet of water. These measurements are pretty consistent over the entire lagoon out here. The depths you see here or NGVD, to get to mean low water, you subtract four-tenths of a foot, so we have four to four and a half to five feet to almost five -- it's about four and a half to four over the entire area. So, there is no particular method of navigation through where we're putting these docks. This entire area out here is all the same depth. So, we don't believe there's any impact to navigation, and if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm chairman, I'll go first, okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: When you look at this drawing, if I'm standing over here on the platform or the deck, how tall are the pilings? Is it like four foot? Page 81 October 19, 2000 MR. SCOFIELD: No, no, the concrete pilings extend up about ten feet. Are they ten feet, Tim, six feet? MR, HALL: For the floating dock? MR. SCOFIELD: For the floating. MR. HALL: It can be anywhere from six to ten feet. MR. SCOFIELD: Six to ten feet. Normally, if -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I guess what I'm saying, if I stand here, am I looking over the top of them or right along the top of them probably? MR, SCOFIELD: If you're standing on top, the concrete pilings that anchor the floats will probably be right above your head, right at your head height. What they do on the design of floating docks, they usually design for storm surge so the docks don't float off of the pilings and go hit into someone's house, and usually they like about six to eight feet above the high water line for these docks to allow for that much surge if we get a -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: What I was getting at is I'll be looking at the boat probably and not some pilings? You'll be able to see them, but the boats are going to be taller than the pilings at high water. MR, SCOFIELD: On high water, it would probably be close. It depends on what the profile of the boat is. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: My question was, and, Rocky, you can answer it or someone else, but the property is in blue on Ross' diagram that would -- that were complaining or saying that their view would be blocked. Do they got docks in front of their house? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, most of these properties have docks. As I pointed out, one of the properties has a 40 foot dock that was approved for a 40 foot extension. The others have approximately 20 foot docks that are permitted. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, if you're standing on their seawall, you have to look across their boats before you get a view of these proposed docks; is that safe to -- is that fair to say? MR. GOCHENAUR.' In some cases, I think that would be correct. Again, this picture sort of shows a dock that's slung from davits on -- let's see, this is on lot one. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And the proposed docks would be Page 82 October 19, 2000 to the right of the boat we're looking at? MR. GOCHENAUR: The proposed dock -- actually, this is on the north. The proposed dock would be to the south here. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question for Rocky. The gangways that you have from the shore to the floating docks, do they ride in tracks of some sort on the dock? MR. SCOFIELD: No, they don't. They -- they're on coasters. They're on wheels, and then they just roll back and forth when the -- on the tide. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What sort of a tide range do you have in there? MR. SCOFIELD: Normal tide range is about two feet. That's the normal. You get extreme tides, you know, full moon, whatever, and you're going to get three feet of -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And your gangways are going to be placed far enough out onto the -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's one of the reasons we had to go out a little further out with the docks, one was the handicap ramp and the other one was to allow for the tracking back and forth. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If you're expecting a storm surge, you just pull those things in or -- MR. SCOFIELD: They should. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? Members of the public who wish to speak on this, if you would line up, please. MR. NINO: Joan Ferro, Linda Rogers, B.J. Savard-Boyer, Mary Griffith. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Good morning. My name is B.J. Savard-Boyer, S-A-V-A-R-D, hyphen, B-O-Y-E-R. I live at 479 Palm Court. I'm the one that took the pictures, and there's -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Are these the pictures that you're referring to? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Yes, sir, the ones -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. We'll pass them down to Mr. Priddy, who will start them. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Okay, but I have an additional one that Ross did not put up, and if I could -- can I talk over there? Page 83 October 19, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: I'm kind of starting backwards here. I had a lot to say before I showed you that picture. Can I say it before we get into the picture? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Sure. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can we raise that a little bit? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Raise -- oh. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: There you go. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Maybe we have to -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There we go. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Okay. Well, looking at this picture right now, you see the piling there and the dock to the left, this is the dock that is -- belongs to lot two of the owner on Palm Court, Mary Griffith and Clarence Griffith. The dock, the proposed dock goes from the seawall, which you can't see, but it goes complete coverage of their property into ten feet of lot three, which is 442 Palm Court. It's hard to explain it because you're not getting this whole picture here. See this dock over here, this is the 40 foot dock that they are talking about, all right. This is on lot three, 442 Palm Court. This is on 474 Palm Court. If we measure the seawall here across the Griffith property, you'll -- the sea -- well, let me go back here. The seawall on Liberty Ventures is into lot one. So, when you go and do 60 feet, you're going ten feet beyond the third lot. So, this lot here is looking, right now, directly across, has a wide open water view. Yes, we do have high-rises here but we couldn't help it. Over here you will see the 25 foot docks for Chateau Vanderbilt. They have a boat that extends past their 25 foot dock, so maybe it's a 30 foot boat, I don't know. I couldn't get in there to measure. Anyhow, this waterway is -- Rocky is right, it's -- it's deeper around the edge, shallower in the middle. If you were on a boat and you got out there, you would know about that. The people that used to own this land over here where we got it is -- I believe their names were Garland. Alex Garland, Sr., I spoke to personally. He told me that when his father owned this property, there was high land under the water here. He said to navigate this, you have to go around. Okay, that's one of our Page 84 October 19, 2000 concerns; the view. When this dock goes 60 feet out, these people are going to have one heck of a time getting in and out and so are the Ferros on the corner. When I read the code, Section 2.6.21.1 of the current code, docks and the like are primarily intended to adequately secure moored vessels and provide safe access by users for routine maintenance and use while minimally, and I stress that, impacting the navigability of the waterway, native marine habitat, manatees and the use and view, view of the waterway by the surrounding property owners. I dare say there will be no view from lot one or lot two, and yes, the one in lot three, they can look out to the west. They will be able to see water, but these people cannot see water. These people have lived there for 25 years and enjoyed the view, and now you're going to put 60 feet of floating dock, 45 foot boats -- it's awful. It's awful. I did call the mariatee organization, and I'm waiting for them to get back to me, because I do feel -- and I took the pictures of Mamma Manatee having her baby, and I do feel, yes -- I mean, we're getting so impacted with things back there that you're ruining our -- you're ruining our waterways. We have 56 boats proposed into the Regatta, 56. We have this guy going out -- I don't understand -- I guess my point is, why can't he go out 20 feet and have five individual docks like the rest of us? Why does it have to be a monument? I don't understand that. The other thing is, the docks are at either end of their property, leaving the middle open so that they have a nice view of the waterway. I don't know whether that's fair. I mean, they are ruining the view of the homeowners that have been there forever, but they're maintaining their view. I can't say whether this will impact their property value or not. I can't say that. Nobody knows what property is going to be worth on the water, whether you can see anything or not. I can't say that, but the thing is, these people have lived there for 25 years, and they have enjoyed this pristine water, and I just am sick to death of everything that's going on around us. I also talked to Mark Miller. He personally sent me everything that Rocky talked about, but he also told me that, yes, they could dredge. Now I find that very interesting that we have a conflict of the story here, so I guess I'll have to get back to Mr. Page 85 October 19, 2000 Miller. He sent me all the things that Rocky had up here with the depth. It does look fairly simple. It does look like three feet and four feet are just as close to the seawall as anybody else has to the seawall. In talking to -- after talking -- after this thing -- let me back up a little bit. Our petition arrived in the mail on October 5th. The date on the petition said September 29th. The sign went in on the property probably close to September 29th, and right after that was when I called Mr. Gochenaur, and following that we got the letter in the mail. Funny that it was October 5th, the day that we were here before, but anyhow, we started with asking the neighbors -- I do have here a petition from other neighbors that we went around and collected. We have property owners in Vanderbilt, Connor's Vanderbilt that do not want 60 foot docks. We don't want to start with 60 foot docks because then everybody on these open waterways are going to want 60 foot docks. So, I have a petition here, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Thank you. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: We didn't have time to get the 300 signatures that Golden Gate got, but we got enough that we could, you know, have some support here. In closing~ I found out -- and what I would like to say here, the codes dealing with the dock extension, when this code was put through either sometime in '99 or early 2000, it was put through because they needed dock extensions in the Isle of Capri, and I said, how can you compare the Isle of Capri to the Connor's Vanderbilt waterways? Well, it's a Collier County code, and we're in Collier County, but I think that it's time that codes were sensitive to the different bodies of water and different geographical locations, and I also feel that if you compare the two, it's -- it's like apples and oranges, they don't compare. So, in closing, I would like to say thank you for giving me the time to say this. I know my neighbors have something to say, so thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, and please, your predecessor eloquently put it. If you've got anything to add or simply to reaffirm what she said, please. MS. GRIFFITH: I'm Mary Griffith, and I'm the one who has Page 86 October t 9, 2000 lived 25 years at 474 Palm Court, and we will have no view, sir, no view. Would you buy a property with no view? I don't think so. I think our property value will go down. It shows clearly it will be right across -- well, you took -- it's down, but it will go right across our whole house. We won't -- we won't see anything but what; bland floating docks. It's sad. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRIDD¥: I have a question for her. Ma'am, if there were a 20 foot dock there, what would your view be? MS. GRIFFITH: Well, there's no picture, but the ones at Vanderbilt -- at Chateau Vanderbilt, they would come -- see~ we have a boat, but we've kept it to the left side of our property because of the view. It would come out slightly in our view, but we still would have that open -- open water, you know, in between. I really think that what Chateau Vanderbilt has done is appropriate for our area. Sixty foot docks anywhere are too much. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I ask that question because you-all would be allowed to put a 20 foot dock without coming here today, and I wanted to see what the comparison of your view with a 20 foot dock was -- I mean, if that 20 foot dock kept you from any view, then it's kind of a moot point whether it's 20, 30 or 40. MS. GRIFFITH: No, it would not. You see -- if you can see where that comes -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, I've got that picture in my mind. MS. GRIFFITH: Okay. All right. It would go that far all the way across so that we have no -- because it even goes adjacent to our neighbor, number three, lot three, and if we wanted -- if we wanted to bring our boat in, we've got to go between that dock and his dock, maneuver in -- I mean, that's another point. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But that would be true if it were a 20 foot dock, you would still have to -- MS. GRIFFITH: No, it would not -- no, it would not be as difficult, no. It's because -- because of those extra feet, it just Page 87 October 19~ 2000 covers our whole property and you know very well if you allow one 60 foot dock, that opens the door for many, many, and there's the group across from us who want docks, and they'll think, well, maybe we can make ours bigger, and, you know, once you okay one, it's difficult to say no, and I plead with you, consider this strongly. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker. MS. FERRO: Hi. My name is Joan Ferro. I'm sorry, I have laryngitis, but it's important for me to come. We are building a million dollar home there, and I'm lot number one, which the view would be even more impeded as Mrs. Griffith said. So, lot number one puts me way in the corner opposite the property, and I just think -- I'll definitely have no view, and here we are in the middle of building a home, and I never thought that they would allow this, first of all. Sixty feet, isn't that for commercial? I mean, I don't understand why they couldn't dredge in front. They said they weren't allowed to dredge on the side, but what about the front, why didn't they go after that dredging so that they could only have 20 feet like everybody else, and once that starts a precedent, everyone else will want 60 feet. There's only -- there's only five families there. Why do they need 60 feet? That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker. MS. ROGERS: My name is Linda Rogers, R-O-G-E-R-S, and I live at 428 Palm Court, and don't worry, all this is not for you, but I do want to make one comment before I forget about the docks on the side. Before this property was sold, the people who owned it before had two boat docks on the side in the side canal, and to my knowledge, watching those two boats come and go -- and they varied in sizes during the length of the years as different people were tenants in that building. Those boats came and went. That property wasn't dredged, and when that property was sold, those boat docks were there, and they were working, and they didn't impede anybody's view. I don't understand why two of the docks can't be there, you know, just to replace those, but I would ask the commission to look into that before making a Page 88 October 19, 2000 decision here, and I'm not here to oppose Liberty Ventures' right to have boat docks. My husband and I are boaters as well, and I believe in the right of every person who buys on gulf access waterway to have the right to build and use a boat dock that is compatible with whatever neighborhood they buy in. That's why we didn't write to oppose when we were notified of their first plan for docks along the seawall, but when the second plan came along, I didn't write. I was going to be down here, and so my letter was not counted because I'm here in person. The second -- the plan that's before the commission now is not in any way or is not in any way compatible with the docks that are already in the neighborhood and the ones that outline Vanderbilt lagoon. To my knowledge, there's not another floating dock, other than a commercial one. There is the dock that's 40 feet out, but it's not 20 feet from the seawall, and it most certainly can be handicap accessible. Being handicap assessable doesn't mean you need to move it out into the bay. It means you need to be level and have a ramp that is accessible by a wheelchair. It doesn't have to be 20 feet long. It could be five feet long. There are boats next to this, boat docks lining the seawall at Chateau Vanderbilt, these would be concurrent with those if they lined the seawall and didn't extend out into the bay. They would be compatible with both the condominium buildings that line the lagoon and the private residences that line the lagoon now. None of those go out that far. None of those float up and down, and none of them accommodate boats that large. Our waterway is shallow. It's also dead end, and I know that you are not the DEP, you're not the environmental people, but somewhere along the way, somebody has to take everything into consideration, that this waterway is a dead end, it has no through flow. That was blocked by development years ago, probably before you-all were involved, and certainly before I lived down here. So, that may in the future be corrected, but right now, it's not, and any dead-end waterway is a holding tank for contamination that flows in. It doesn't have anywhere to go. it takes longer to get out. Every boat and boat dock that you add in that space, every bit of water that you cover inhibits the ability of that water to Page 89 October 19, 2000 have a better quality, and I know personally, we have worked as residents of Vanderbilt for years, not just in the area impacted by these docks, but the area between Vanderbilt Drive and Gulfshore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road and Bluebill, to improve that water quality because we were fussed at, and we were fussed at, and we had to change lawn chemicals or use none at all, and we had to go by all these specifications and regulations, and I would like to think that our work didn't go for nothing, that we didn't try to better that environment so somebody else could come in and cover the waterway with more dock than is absolutely necessary for their pleasure and their view, and I would like to address the property values. My view is not affected by these docks. It's -- it's only affected by the sight when I go out to the side of my house and see whatever they put there, but I know, and I think you do as well, that here in South Florida, the view has a considerable value to the property. One on a waterway and with a view of the water has a definite monetary value over and above a property that is sitting across the street and has no view or access to that water. So you cannot as a whole ignore what it would do to the properties that would be adversely affected by looking at 60 feet of dock and big boats rather than 20 or 25 feet and still have the partial view outside. That's all I have to say about that issue. I would ask that you would consider putting a parking garage here to help the people who need access to the government services. I think that's more important than having a 400 space parking garage so people can get to Vanderbilt Beach. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Mr. Chairman, I have to leave at this time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let it show that Mr. Pedone is leaving. Yes, ma'am. MS. DORAZIO: Hi. My name-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Were you sworn in, ma'am? MS. DORAZIO: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. MS. DORAZIO: My name is Dorothy Dorazio, and I live on Oak Avenue, which is adjacent to Palm Court. Page 90 October 19, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Could you spell your last name, please? MS. DORAZIO: D-O-R-A-Z-I-O. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. DORAZIO: I've been spelling it for 30 years. Anyway, I'm here in support of the people who live on Palm Court, and I wanted to reiterate the fact that we all do feel that this is an important issue for our waterway. We not only have this dock under consideration, but we also have ones from Regatta and one on our own street of Oak Avenue that will be before you, and that was one thing I wanted to point out. I know that it's your -- it's your manner of operation to view each of these items individually, but on an overall basis, one by one, even this covered dock, which is a small issue to you, taken in consideration with all of the other things that are coming up in Vanderbilt Beach are going to have a very large impact on what it's going to do to our community. My second point is that we all are boaters or a lot of us are, and any one of us would be happy to take any one of you or more than one of you out to view this site, because I don't think pictures or descriptions or graphs have any real bearing on what's going to happen in Vanderbilt Beach if this is allowed to go on. This is only the first step. You know the Regatta wants to do more. You know that other people are going to submit 60 foot docks and probably larger, and I think that the commission, to be fair, really should get a firsthand look at what these people who are defending their properties are up against. That's all I really have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All right. Thank you. Anybody else from the public? If not, would the petitioner like to address, and while he's coming up, Ross, would you just reiterate the notice again, how notice goes out to the public? There seems to be some concern that it wasn't done adequately. MR. GOCHENAUR: Correctly -- correct. At least two weeks prior to the public hearing, letters are mailed to the public according to the addresses which they have recorded with the property appraiser's office. At the same time, a hearing notice is posted on the site stating what the petition is for and the date of the public hearing. Page 91 October 19, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Mr. Scofield. MR. SCOFIELD: Just a couple of things, on the navigation issue, I showed you the water depths, and I'll be glad to -- we spent quite a lot of money having this whole lagoon surveyed. What she was -- what she was referring to, right in the center of this lagoon is the shallowest area. It's about a half a -- according to our -- it's 300 feet out from where we're putting these docks. It's point five to point eight feet shallower than the rest of it. Most of it is four to four and a half feet. This gets down to three and a half feet in the center here of this lagoon, and I have the water depths here from Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, surveyors. A couple of other things, water quality is an issue. It's a big issue in these things. The DEP scrutinizes it very -- very carefully. One of the things is we're putting in a concrete floating dock, which is the environmentally preferred thing to do. We're not putting in CCA treated wood piles, and the concrete is non-toxic to the environment. It's much preferred. You get a lot of growth on these of barnacles and everything else, and there's no -- there's no impact to the water quality due to the dock issue. I forgot to say, this site has ten feet wide of riprap all the way around it. So, the first ten feet of shoreline is basically precluded -- we had a failing seawall. When they went in to develop this project, the seawall was failing and falling out. One of the things to -- there was two things, the riprap was used as mitigation, which -- which we put in to fortify the seawall, and also for mitigation for DEP, which makes it a better environment around it rather than having a vertical seawall and dredging it out deep. So, the first ten feet of wall there is precluded from putting in docks. If we were to dredge there and get a dredging permit, we would have to start out another five to six feet to eight feet further from the riprap out and then dredge out. So, we're still back out to where we are now because you cannot dredge right up to a riprap or you lose your whole wall, and those -- if you want to know more about the dredging issue, I'm going to let Tim Hall, he's with our firm, he did the permitting on this with the DEP, spoke with them, the original dredge plans and spoke with them about the denials on the inside and their intent to deny outside, because we could go out further with the docks. Page 92 October t9, 2000 Now, the last thing I just want to wrap up with, on this canal, the one lady said that the -- she -- excuse me. She's right -- these -- I don't know if you can see these blue ones. We superimposed the proposed docks over here. She's right up in here in this area. This is a hundred foot wide canal. Most of the canals in Vanderbilt Beach are a hundred feet wide. Boat docks come out 20 to 25 feet each side, leaving 50 feet or 60 feet in the middle to go. We are not going in that canal at all. We're outside. There's absolutely -- you know, if this canal were extended on out and there were boat docks to each side, it would be normal on the other ones, but we're not. We're staying in line with that canal -- with this -- with the end of the property here. So, the navigation is not impeded by our proposed docks and the position they are in, and if you have any questions on o- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Your closer dock there runs parallel to her seawall; is that right? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The property owner who says it comes completely across her view, it runs parallel to her seawall, right? MR. SCOFIELD: I'm not sure I follow what -- is that right? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, sir, it is. MR. SCOFIELD: This is -- if I understand what you're saying, this is the canal end. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. MR. SCOFIELD: The seawall runs out, and ours runs straight along with it. Is that what you're talking about? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So, you maintain the hundred foot separation? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. We don't go in -- we tried to do that from the beginning. We tried to go inside the canal first -- there was an old dock there. There was an old dock there. There's only two feet of water -- well, I have the other dredge plans. There's two and a half to three and a half feet of water there. Our rock extends out ten feet also in there, and when we tried to do the dredge plan for the docks in there, the DEP said move them out to the outside. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Rocky, the point was brought up by one of the ladies, why didn't you-all design all five docks, say, Page 93 October 19, 2000 in the center of the property as opposed to two -- MR. SCOFIELD: I -- I covered that earlier. Because the apartments are built out to the seawall. They have -- I don't know -- I'll show you the plan again. Can you zoom out? There, okay. Right here, there's a wall going along the seawall. These two people will access through their wall onto this ramp. These people will have to come around their units and onto this -- onto this ramp right here. So, that's -- this is a fixed dock. This is a fixed dock a little over the riprap to attach -- to attach this gangway to, and this is a little fixed dock right here just to attach the gangway to get out to. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: My question is, why didn't you put the dock of boat three next to four and so forth, put all of them together? MR. SCOFIELD: That's just the way they designed that. That's the way they wanted it. Is there any reason, Tim? Excuse me, let Tim -- he's the one that permitted through the DEP. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Let me ask a question. You're saying there's a wall there. How high is that wall? Is that wall -- it's just a seawall? It's not a regular wall. MR. SCOFIELD: No, no, no, no, no, no, the wall comes -- MR. HALL: The plans, they're -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Can you give your name, please? MR. SCOFIELD: I'm sorry. MR. HALL: Tim Hall with Turrell & Associates. The architectural plans called for a six foot wall just on the inside of the seawall. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: A privacy wall. MR. HALL: Yeah, a privacy wall, basically that extended up and around. If you see the way the -- each one of those apartments has a small pool in the back, and they had those pools walled off as well with a privacy wall. So, in order to put the -- if we were to put all five boat docks together as quickly as we could, then the outside apartments, either one or the other would have had to have gone through one of the other apartments to get to the docks to minimize the amount of dock space, or we would have had to construct a Page 94 October 19, 2000 boardwalk that went all the way along the seawall so that all of the apartments could access out onto it. So, the actual amount of impacts, the area that would have been impacted would have been greater. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Tim, what is that -- what are those diamond shaped structures or whatever they are just inside the privacy fences? MR. HALL: I believe those are maintenance -- I don't know if they are sheds or little maintenance boxes or buildings for the pool maintenance equipment. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So, going back to Mr. Priddy's question, it could have been doable had you had a walkway outside that wall so they all could have shared the boat docks, but it was a preference not to? MR. HALL: It could have been doable -- no, it wasn't so much a preference, but in the coordination with the Department of Environmental Protection, we had to come up with a plan that minimized the impacts to the waterway while still providing access to everybody, and this was the least impactive as far as water quality and as far as the amount of shading that would have incurred in the lagoon. The docks themselves create shade on the bottom, so you want to design a facility that minimizes the amount of area that's being covered or shaded, and this was the one that did it while still providing adequate access. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Had you developed a bigger shaded area -- being not a boater, I don't understand these issues that much. Had you designed a bigger shaded area, would DEP still have approved it? MR. HALL: The letter that we got originally that had the docks all together in one location would have required some dredging, and the letter we got back said that as it was proposed, they would recommend denial of it because it did not minimize the impacts, both dredging and the amount of coverage that was -- that was being proposed. The other thing that -- I notice everybody here keeps talking about 60 foot docks. These are only 36 foot docks. The extension is for 60 feet, and that's just to provide, as we said before, to get outside of the riprap and to get -- also allow for those ramps to get down to the boats to where the docks and the Page 95 October 19, 2000 boats themselves would be in adequate water and not to cause prop dredging and disturbance of the bottom while going in and out. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So, even if you pulled in those privacy walls far enough to put a walkway along there and build five individual docks, it would still go out the same distance to accommodate your vessels; is that right? MR. HALL: No, if -- if they were to pull that in and could have the walkway in there, then you could probably pull them in four or five feet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Four or five feet? MR. SCOFIELD: I'd like to add, the thing is, we would probably -- were we to put fixed docks in here -- I heard them say the Chateau Vanderbilt next door, they've got docks out 25 feet and some of the boats sticking out further and there's lifts on there. Were we to go in and put in perpendicular docks like that, we would still have to be out about 40 feet. We have ten feet precluded from the riprap. If we started there and put in, let's say a 30 foot dock, which a lot -- out there with boat lifts, I guarantee you, that view would be much more impeded than what is proposed here as floating docks down low. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So, our redesign of your project wouldn't make much difference? MR. SCOFIELD: Not that I see it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. SCOFIELD: And the other -- what Tim was alluding to, the environmental -- the rock was -- the rock all along the wall, all the way around here was part of the environmental mitigation. To build a boardwalk over that, you know, I guess that could be done, but the Department did not like that because, first of all, we put in the rock for environmental mitigation, and they don't want you to build a dock over the whole thing, shading it. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I guess the next question becomes then since we can't rearrange or move these things around is -- our next question is, why do we need to provide a dock for a boat that size? I mean, is there -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: A middle ground, is that the word you're looking for? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, is there -- is there a shorter dock that can still provide these property owners with the right Page 96 October 19, 2000 to have a dock, which I think most of these people have, and yet not get that big? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, I don't think -- I mean, two of these -- I don't know what size boats are coming in there. I don't know what the people have bought, if they have bought them or not, but these are -- these are basically 30 and 30 -- 36 and 30 foot slips. The people that come in there, I don't know if they are going to buy a 20 foot boat or a 40 foot boat, but, you know, they are designed for 30 and 36 foot boats, to handle up to that much. There's a lot of boats in that area that are 30 feet and 35 feet boats in this area. There's a lot of them. I received some calls from Chateau Vanderbilt about the possibility of extending their docks out to incorporate larger dock -- larger boats there, but the trouble is, they've got to get into a submerged land lease, so they pulled back on that and said, well, we don't want to get into that right now. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. Could you put the depth survey up again? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Can you point to the area, Rocky, that's -- don't pull it out too far because I can't read it. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay, I'm sorry. I just want to get it -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Just point to the area, and he'll read it for you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yeah, what's the -- now I can't read it at all. I'm looking for the area that you said was so shallow. Sort of like draw a little finger circle around it. MR. SCOFIELD: Here's -- excuse me, here's the property. Here's the building. Here's where the docks are sticking out, right in this area. The shallow area in the center of this is -- it's right here. Now, these are a hundred foot grids. This is one hundred, two hundred, three hundred, and the 300 foot area out right in here, this is where the shallowest area is in the center. Now, when -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: What numbers? MR. SCOFIELD: Now, this is back over on the seawall over here. This is -- these are very -- over here on the seawall on Palm Court, it's extremely shallow right along where these docks are, and that's one of the reasons this gentleman with a 40 foot dock Page 97 October 19, 2000 is out so far because he doesn't have hardly any water where his dock is, but that's the -- the shallow area is right here in the center where I'm pointing to right here. It's -- the shallowest part right -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Could you repeat those numbers? MR. SCOFIELD: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I need the numbers. I can't -- MR. SCOFIELD: Right here is the shallowest -- let's see. MR. NINO: Four point one. MR. SCOFIELD: Four point one, you take four-tenths of a foot off of that, you're down to 3.7 feet. That is right in the center. That's the shallowest part at low water. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The center of your property? MR. SCOFIELD: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The center of your property. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: No. MR. NINO: No, center of the lagoon. MR. SCOFIELD: No, center of the lagoon. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right, and -- MR. SCOFIELD: On the big aerial, it's the center of the lagoon, 300 feet out from our prop -- from our docks. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And this was -- that wasn't the area that we were talking about on Oak Avenue before, right? We're not talking about that same shallow area? MR. SCOFIELD: No, no, no, no, that's the next one over. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It's farther over? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And you've done -- when did you do this survey? yOU, MR. SCOFIELD: When was this survey done; Monday? MR. HALL: Last week. MR. SCOFIELD: Last week. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, it is really very new. Thank MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have one last question. Your answer to item seven on their proposal says the structures are located towards the center of the property and the neighbors both north and south will still have views of the lagoon. Page 98 October 19, 2000 Well, they aren't really located toward the center of the property. They're located toward the extremes, aren't they? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, if you take the 50 -- we own 50 -- we -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, you count that 50 over there. MR. SCOFIELD: Liberty Ventures owns 50 feet further over to the north. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That brings them towards the center. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I guess I'm still trying to find some other number. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I didn't hear any forthcoming. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Rocky, give us another number that we can live with. MR. SCOFIELD: You mean on the extension? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, the submerged land lease goes out to 60 feet. The docks go out to 56. If you want to limit it to 56 where no boats can stick out further than that, then we can live with that. (Audience members speaking.} CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Please, I offered a lot of latitude here, but no comments from the audience, please, okay, while they're giving testimony. MR. SCOFIELD: The other -- I know view is a sensitive issue. It always is in these cases whenever we do this. This project -- you know, I don't know too many people that argue or object to boats actually cruising on the water. These boats are on the water. They are not up on lifts, and, you know, it's -- we try to minimize that part of it. So, you know, if -- if you want to restrict it and take the 60 away back to the ends of the docks, I'm sure they can live with that. I don't believe there are 45 foot boats going in here like I heard. I believe they're going to be 30s and 32s, in that nature. I don't know that for a fact, but -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So, 50 -- MR. SCOFIELD: -- if that is limited, then they cannot -- they Page 99 October 19, 2000 cannot put in any larger boats. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So 56 is the number I heard? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, that would limit you to a 32 foot boat on the two slips and a 36 foot boat on the other slips. Now, that's overall length. That's bow pulpit to the engine, so you cut your boat down another five feet from that, so -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I will allow one speaker, ma'am, and you've had -- no, the lady right behind you, the lady right behind you, okay. As long as it's something new, I will tolerate -- you've got one minute, okay. You need to come to the podium. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And restate your name. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And restate your name, please. MS. ROGERS: My name is Linda Rogers, R-O-G-E-R-S. I can speak directly to the riprap factor because my husband and I had to do that as well when we built the dock, and when he's speaking of ten foot of riprap, it is not ten feet straight out. It is a diagonal line from where the riprap begins on the seawall to where it ends at the bottom of the waterway. So, although -- although he's giving the illusion or it seemed to me that he was, and I'm sorry if that's not true, they must go out ten feet to get over that, that's not true at all. You only have to go out maybe half that distance to get over it, and then you can have the dock, and I think if you look on that chart that you looked at, you'll see that the boat docks can be built in that water because that water is just as deep as the water 60 feet out, and so if you go five feet out from the seawall over the inclined riprap and you put 20 feet docks or 25 foot docks, you're up to 30 feet, not 60 as they have suggested, and that's the experience I had with the DEP, and that's the type dock we have. So, it's not true that you have to build those large things like that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Rocky, I'm going to allow you to respond to that, okay, and then we're going to closes the meeting, I'm afraid. MR. HALL: Tim Hall, again, from Turrell & Associates. As far as the riprap is concerned, what Rocky was saying is that we had to stay ten feet out if we were going to dredge at that point. The rock itself, the distance is based on -- it's all geometry. It's based on the height it has to come up the wall and the distance out from it. Page 100 October 19, 2000 In the case of Vanderbilt lagoon, it worked out to where we're eight feet from the base of the wall to where the outside-most rocks are. Now, you won't see those because they are down under the water and they're in the mud on the bottom, but that's how far out the rock does go. Then the other, I mean, issue is taking into account, if you had a boardwalk to access all of those, then you're out -- you're out ten feet. You've got your ramps down, and then you have another six feet for the boardwalk to get to all the other docks, and then you do that. (Audience member said something.) MR. HALL: No, but you can't -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No, nope, I'm sorry, no dialogue to the audience, okay. MR. HALL: I'm sorry. Anyway, that's -- that's -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let me just ask a question. How much does that extension have to do with the handicap ramp? Does that impact that at all where you hook that o- MR. HALL: It's four feet further because of the minimal angles allowed on the ramp. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: What is a minimum angle then, and that's obviously based on where it is -- MR. SCOFIELD: Twelve to one. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Twelve to one? MR. HALL: Right. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And Rocky, cannot that -- I understand the twelve to one, but can't, where that comes down, be further into the dock? I mean, can't the docks be moved closer to the building? MR. HALL: If -- if you were to do that, then it's a safety issue, having to get around the ramp to access the other docks onto the side where the boardwalk is. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Why do we have to have a handicap? MR. HALL: That was a request by the owners. They had a buyer that was looking that was in a wheelchair and still wanted access to one of the boat ramps. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I -- I think that -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Is a regular dock not handicap accessible? Again, I'm not a boater. Page t01 October 19, 2000 MR. HALL: No, sir. No, no, they're not specifically. If it was a fixed dock, then you would just come straight off the seawall and out onto the docks, so it's really not an issue. In this case, the outside dock is wider so that a wheelchair can safely turn around on it. It also has the railing on the one side to prevent -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: But if it's not a floating dock and it's still wider, can that be handicap accessible or it has to be a floating dock for it to be -- MR. HALL: No, it doesn't have to be a floating dock. It's -- it's -o a fixed dock can be handicap. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: If we eliminate the handicap portion of this dock extension, how much do we save? MR. HALL: Four feet. MR. SCOFIELD: Four feet. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: All right. I'm down to 52 feet. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions at this point? MR. SCOFIELD: One more thing, I guess on the view issue, again, they were saying -- you were asking about this gap in here also. You know, we've told you about the design. I won't get back into that, but, you know, if we were to -- if this were moved over another 15 or 20 feet, whatever, I don't believe that's going to be that big of a change on any view issue. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to make sure I understand something. Maybe staff can answer this. They have a right to build the boat docks. There's no question that they have a right to build the boat docks, and I think they can be 20 feet without coming in here; is that correct? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am, that's exactly right. They could, if they wanted to -- somewhere I have a drawing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Build how many docks? MR. GOCHENAUR: They are unlimited in terms of slips. They have a building envelope, so if they wanted to put many, many 12 feet -- 12 foot boats or several very large boats, if they put them within that 20 foot building envelope, that would be legal with a building permit, they wouldn't have to come here. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. I think you can safely say that the issue that's -- the remaining issue or only issue here is view. Page 102 October 19, 2000 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, if you're looking for a motion, I -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No, I haven't closed the public hearing yet, but -- I apologize to people that probably can talk about this all day, but other people need to come before us, so I am going to close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve BD-2000-23 with a maximum length of 52 feet, that eliminating the availability of the handicap portion of the dock. COMMISSIONER BUDD.' Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Budd. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'd like to have discussion first. I am very sympathetic to the lady whose property is going to be crossed by this dock, but you are in a lagoon, waterway, and boats are the name of the game there, and it's not as if somebody is building a wall, an impenetrable wall that will block out your view of everything. You're still going to look across the lagoon through boats at some high-rise condos. So -- if it were not a hundred feet away, I might have a different view, but I'm persuaded by the hundred foot separation between the seawall and this dock, that that's a view that many people would cherish, so I'm in favor of the petition. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further discussion? I didn't mean to cut you off. If not, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried, Commissioner Rautio in the dissension. Motion carried. Moving on. Let me just read, before you-all leave, just for your information as to any boat dock extension petition upon which Collier County Planning Commission takes action. An agreviated (sic) petitioner or adversely affected property owner may appeal such final action to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the community development and environmental services administrator within 14 days of the action by the planning commission. In the event that the petition Page 103 October 19, 2000 has been approved by the planning commission, the applicant shall be advised that he or she proceeds with construction at his or her own risk during this period. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is there a paper to fill out to appeal, a form? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Talk to Mr. -- MR. NINO: Get with Ross Gochenaur. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Do we need another break? What's the board's pleasure? Are we going to proceed right on? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, let's rock and roll. COMMISSIONER BUDD: You move faster when you get really hungry. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'd like a comfort break for five minutes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I have a request by a petitioner who says he has to catch a plane out of town, Item G, what's the pleasure of the board? No? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'd say no. It's awful late in the game. We're all waiting. Inc. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Pardon? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Other people are waiting. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Other people have been waiting. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No motion. Next item on the agenda is PUD-95-2(1), Palm Foundation, MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, commissioners, Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. MR. NINO-' They have to swear in. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is a petition to amend an existing PUD which was approved in 1995. Basically, the applicant is requesting to reduce the front setback from 25 feet to 20 feet, the rear setback from 20 feet to 10 feet, separation between structures from 15 to 10 and rear setback for accessories such as pool enclosures from t0 to 5 feet. Basically, this is the extent of the request. That's all we are changing in the PUD document, some numbers. For the rear setback, which may be an issue, there is a 10 Page 104 October 19, 2000 foot wide landscape buffer on the perimeter of this PUD. In addition to that, there is a 10 to 40 foot wide preserve buffer, it varies in width, there on the perimeter. So, adding -- adding all those up, the rear setback for pool will be at least 25 feet from the property line. Whereas in a regular zoning, we allow pool cages 10 feet from the property line. And separation between structures, I am not sure why they asked for it. These are single family platted lots, and setbacks are seven and a half on each lot. So, it doesn't matter what the distance between the structures are, they have to abide by the setbacks, which would make it 15. Maybe they were thinking about a single family next to a villa or something that would require reduced setback to be less than 15, and the rear setback also for interior lots, there is a 20 foot wide drainage easement between the lots and the lake. So, the setback for pool enclosure will be 25 over there too. And the surrounding properties like the cottages, they have a drainage easement 10 to -- 10 feet on one side and 20 on the other side, but those easements are included in the lot setbacks. So, there's a difference in here. This landscape easement buffer -- landscape buffer easement, I'm sorry, and the preserve easement are outside of those lots. On one side, there's also Poinciana Village which has a 10 foot -- actually 15 foot drainage easement included with single family lots. That's the reason staff recommends approval of this petition or recommends that you forward this to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. I received an E-mail in opposition to this yesterday, and I believe that the lady is here today to speak about that. I also had a visit from a gentleman who said he's representing a lady who lives in Poinciana Village, but he also said he may show up, and that concludes my presentation. MR. NINO: So, in summary -- I need to clarify. In summary, we're supporting which amendments, the reduction of the front yard -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' Front from 25 to 20. MR. NINO: Reduction of the rear yard. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Rear from 20 to 10, accessories from 10 to 5 and distance between structures, which is basically meaningless. Page 105 October 19, 2000 MR. NINO: We're not supporting the reduction of the distance between structures for single family houses? We're ten feet, aren't we? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We can't. The side setback is seven and a half on each side and staying seven and a half. MR. NINO: And that's not -- yeah, but they have footnote number two. Footnote number two would suggest that they are, in fact -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, that's -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: When they get done discussing it, I want to know what they finally decided. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's in case there's a single family next to a villa, that the villa has reduced setback, they don't want to have 15 foot separation between a single family house and a villa, because the single family house has a seven and half foot setback, and a villa has a five foot setback, but I don't think that's going to happen. I was over there. Basically, they are using two lots for each single family house. They are building large homes, and what's going to happen, the density is -- it was approved for 75 units, and I don't believe they will build over 45, 50 units because each house -- each house they build, they are using two lots most of the time. They are building large homes there. MR. NINO: But let's look at that. I hope staff is not recommending or supporting any diminution of space between structures to t 0 feet, whether it's a villa or a single family detached. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And did staff have that conversation with the petitioner prior to the meeting? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Staff is not recommending reduction of the setback with single families to anything less than 15 feet. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And the petitioner is aware of that? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yeah, petitioner is aware of it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: When you talk about principal structures, aren't you talking about structures on the same lot? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, but-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So, this is meaningless really. Page 106 October 19, 2000 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is meaningless. This is single family platted lots. You cannot have more than one principal structure, but the applicant insisted on that and probably has a good explanation. He's going to explain that to you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I hope so. With that, we'll hear from the petitioner. MR. LOVELESS: Good afternoon. My name is Steve Loveless with Palm Foundation. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Please understand we're confused. MR. LOVELESS: Thank you. I was a little confused myself. The purpose of this petition, this request is that I don't intend to make the setbacks for the villas any different than the original PUD. What I'm petitioning to do is to keep the setbacks for when I combine lots for the single family homes, which I intend to do at this section -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Use the microphone, please. MR. LOVELESS: -- this section over here, which is phase three of this development, I intend to combine the lots to make larger lots to put larger houses on them. I'm decreasing the density, and I wanted to keep the setbacks, the front and the rear setbacks the same as the original PUD documents for these lots here so that when you come into this neighborhood, the houses are all on the same plane down the streets, and, basically, that's what I'm requesting. I'm not -- I do not want to change the side yard requirements. I have a seven and a half foot side yard requirement as the original PUD document stated for the single family. So, when we discussed the distance between the structures, that means that I'm -- these lots here and all these lots are zoned for zero lot line as far as the villa lots. I'm keeping the villas on the zero lot line, and I have ten feet to the next structure, which would be a zero lot line. However, when it goes to a single family, I will have seven and a half feet, so I will have a combine of t7.5 feet between the villa and the first single family house, which is this over here. Has that cleared up -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Somewhat. Any questions? Any further comment? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You said you're reducing -- I'm right up here. Page 107 October 19, 2000 MR. LOVELESS: Oh~ I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You're reducing density -- MR. LOVELESS: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- you're starting with 75 homes, and you're finishing with 75 homes, aren't you? MR. LOVELESS: No, sir, I'm starting with 70 -- the ability to build 75, but I'll end up with 64 at this point. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I missed that somewhere. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I can explain that. They are not applying for any zoning change to reduce the density~ but what they are doing, they are building homes on two lots. That's -- in fact, they are reducing the density, but they are not asking to reduce the density. The density is still four units per acre, and the density still allows 75 units~ but when they are building it, they use two lots for every house, so the density is going to go down. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: If they want to tear those houses down, they still have the ability to go back and build 75 units. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If they build those -- tear those houses down, yes, they will be able to build 75 units, thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'm not sure they could if they are combining the lots. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If the PUD allows -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: We don't care about that. That's not the issue. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That is not an issue before us. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'm being technical. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. LOVELESS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm trying to figure out how technical we're being. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anyone? Not hearing anything further from the petitioner, anyone from the public wish to comment on this? Yes, ma'am. MS. GARRISON: Hi, my name is Dale Garrison, G-A-R-R-I-S-O-N. I live at 3633 Cottage Club Lane, and I'm the person that the planner referred to. I'm here because my husband, my family and I and also the neighborhood of the Page 108 October t9~ 2000 cottages, specifically the units located directly along Coco Lakes and also the houses directly along between Poinciana and the cottages are opposed to the change in zoning; primarily the change of the principal setbacks from 20 feet to 10 feet and the rear yard accessory from 10 feet to only 5 feet. We simply like our space, quite frankly. It was a very nice wooded area, and I think they're trying to maintain that wooded effect, and we'd like to see it stay that way too. I've received some conflicting information, I think, upon talking to our planning department and talking to Coco Lakes yesterday, and I think they kind of verified what I heard yesterday from Coco Lakes is what they are asking for, and if I could ask a couple of questions of them, would that be all right? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You need to ask us the questions, ma'am, and we'll allow the petitioner to respond. MS. GARRISON: Are you -- the changes that you're referring to in the setbacks, do they only apply to the north section and not to the area along the cottages and Poinciana? Okay, but the zoning change apparently changes the entire zoning? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We will ask them that -- they will be allowed to -- ask your questions, and then we'll ask them to respond. MS. GARRISON: Okay. Thank you. From what I understand from talking to Coco Lakes yesterday, they were asking only for a four foot change in the rear setback, and it sounds like that's a little different from the information that I got from the county. Also, what I did yesterday upon talking to several neighbors in the area, I found out that they feel very similar to what I do, that they really don't want houses any closer together. It's not that we don't want to be neighborly, but, you know, there is a noise factor, especially when you have pools, and I did go around these houses and the cottages, again, along the perimeter only -- I didn't go to the houses like in different areas, just along the perimeter of the development, and out of 18 homes, I received 11 signatures, all opposed to the changes in the rear setback. In conclusion, if the changes only -- I was kind of also told -- I mentioned I was told some misleading information. I was told one of the reasons that the zoning was being changed is because Page 109 October 19, 2000 these slabs were already poured incorrectly. I don't know whether -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Who gave you the misleading information, ma'am? MS. GARRISON: Well, like I said, I don't know if it was misleading or not, but it was Chahram that I spoke to originally, and originally, I was told that it was being changed only for these existing structures, and then upon talking a little further, he confirmed that no, the zoning is changed for the entire area, and I also went down and spoke to him and got some paperwork on it, and then when I talked to Coco Lakes, they kind of verified exactly what they said today. Again, if it's only affecting the existing structures or only the northern side of the development, why are we changing the zoning for the entire development? I have, you know, 100 percent of the people that I spoke to yesterday opposed to the rezoning of the rear setbacks primarily. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Ma'am, can you help me out? Where is it that you live? I heard the address, but I don't know where that is. Is that to the east on the south side of Bailey Lane? MS. GARRISON: It's to the southeast side, correct, and where our -- the rear end of our house is directly parallel to Coco Lakes, and that's really all I have to say. I just don't envy your job. It's obviously a very difficult one, and I appreciate you listening, and I hope you'll take into consideration, even though this isn't a long list of people, it is 100 percent of the people, so -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If you would like to leave that, it would have to stay. You can submit it to Mr. Priddy, and he will pass it down. MS. GARRISON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Would the petitioner please respond to those questions? MR. LOVELESS: The amendment to the PUD doesn't affect the setbacks at all of the villas. The villas to this side -- the setbacks here -- this is where she's talking about. This is the cottages here. These setbacks are -- we're not decreasing these setbacks. These setbacks are to remain the same. We're only changing the setbacks for these single family larger lots. Under the PUD documents, there is a size requirement for Page 110 October 19, 2000 the lot itself, and it says that if the lot is less than 5,000 square feet, then the setbacks are to be those, as you see on your screen there, the villa setbacks. I'm not changing those at all, and what I'm building here on these are villas. So, I'm not changing -- this amendment doesn't affect these property owners here along this side, nor does it affect these people here. The only people that it affects are -- is Royal Poinciana Golf Course, which I have ample buffers over here, and these people at Hawksridge, and what I'm asking is to have these houses the same setbacks as the original PUD document says for these setbacks. As to the neighbor saying something about the slabs being poured, I have no slabs poured at all along here, so the houses that are being built presently are on these interior lots. The only large house that's being built is over here. So, I'm not requesting decreasing the setbacks of this property here. This is already in place, and these setbacks are not being changed. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All these heres and there's, you're talking about the south side of your project; is that not right? MR. LOVELESS: Correct. We just began development of this here. We're digging a lake presently. MR. NINO: That -- that portion -- Ron Nino, for the record. That portion of their project abuts a golf course. MR. LOVELESS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So, that should answer the previous speaker's question, that they're not changing anything abutting your property. MR. LOVELESS: Right. MR. NINO: To make this technically correct -- Ron Nino, for the record. (Audience member speaks). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: One question. MR. NINO: To make this technically correct, that footnote two should come out of there, and that footnote two should go over there, and the NA should come out of there, because what they're saying is they currently enjoy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It makes a lot more sense. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes, ma'am. Page 111 October 19, 2000 MS. GARRISON: My one question was -- this is a letter that I received from Chahram -- I'll mispronounce his name, Chahram, thank you, and maybe I'm misunderstanding it. It says the PUD allows for single family dwellings as well as villas. However, the entire southeast area of the development is platted with single family lots. Now, am I misinterpreting what can be put on those lots or -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are basically platted with similar size lots. There isn't much difference, and the PUD document doesn't say which side they can build villas or which side they cannot. They can decide to combine those lots on the west side or east side or whichever side they wanted to build single family lots. MS. GARRISON: So, they could still build houses on there, not villas? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is possible to build single family homes, yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Sam. COMMISSIONER SAADEH.' Are these lots numbered? Maybe we can make this easy. If these lots are numbered and the petitioner is saying that we're not going to build anything, we're not going to affect the neighbors, maybe you can put a restriction in the PUD that number such and such to number such and such would not -- since he's agreeable. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Or replace the master plan with a new master plan showing villas area and single family area. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: That would solve the problem, I think, and then she will have peace of mind, and the neighbors would too, and the petitioner is happy with that, and he'll put that on the record. MR. BADAMTCHIAN-' Sure. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. MS. GARRISON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Ma'am, were you sworn in? MS. DAVIDSON: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: State your name and spell it for the reporter, please. MS. DAVIDSON: My name is Sue Davidson, D-A-V-I-D-S-O-N. I represent Hawksridge multifamily. We're developing the property to the north of the site, and I couldn't tell from where I Page 112 October 19~ 2000 was sitting if we're even affected, so if I could get that answered~ it will probably help me. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's the area they are building single families right now. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, villas. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Hawksridge is -- MS. DAVIDSON: Hawksridge is directly north of the site. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Up here, this is a multifamily tract. MS. DAVIDSON: That's us. Are we -- are you changing the setbacks? MR. LOVELESS: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We will have him come up and address that. MS. DAVIDSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any other questions? MS. DAVIDSON: No, that's it. And being a developer~ we are certainly empathetic to developers' needs to make these kind of changes, but I'm really here today on behalf of the property owners who have bought in our project. Over 70 of our 95 homes have been sold, but, unfortunately, those people aren't closed yet. Some of them are out of town, so they aren't really aware of the change that's being suggested. The problem I have is these people made decisions to buy in our project based on what they thought was going to happen on the adjoining property. By changing this now, we're definitely having an impact on one of the things that affected their buying decision. So, on behalf of Hawksridge, I would say we're against it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. DAVIDSON: Thank you. MR. NINO.' Excuse me. Are you not in a multifamily product? Hawksridge, is that a multifamily product? MS. DAVIDSON: Yes, we are. MR. NINO-- How many units in a building? MS. DAVIDSON: Four. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Would you address the lady's question, just for the record? MR. LOVELESS: Yes, we are building -- we are effecting a change, this property line here, and this is where Hawksridge Page 113 October 19, 2000 does abut this property. However, they are building coach homes and have a higher density and probably have less setbacks than I'm requesting. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If I may, as you can see, this is a plat of -- that Coco Lakes -- as you can see, there's a 25 foot easement, that's the closest they get to their property line. In here, we have 56 foot before these lots stop. So, the closest pool enclosure will be 5 feet from the property line, which makes it 30 feet from the property boundary line for this PUD. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But what we've heard is that this doesn't impact that at all, right? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, this is the area that it's going to impact. That's the impacted area. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's the impacted area. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Maybe I should have it this way. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. Any further -- anybody else in the public before we go on? Yes, sir. Have you been sworn in? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm not registered to speak. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Pardon? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm not registered to speak. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Come up to the podium, and the court reporter will swear you in. If you'd raise your right hand, please. (The speaker was sworn}. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: State your name and spell it, please. MR. KRAMER: My name is Peter Kramer. I live in the colony section of Hawksridge, and I am all in favor of what Sue Davidson has already spoken of. In addition, I would like to make some comments regarding the section that we're talking about, which is next to Hawksridge development, and that is the setback lines that they are talking about. If it decreases five feet in four directions, that means all they are going to do is build a bigger house on the same size lot. The other thing is, the process that they are going through, they're stripping the land clean. All the trees are down. Everything is all leveled off, and I'm a great believer in green space, but they're taking an awful lot of green space. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Page t14 October 19, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. Would the -- probably for Hawksridge, would you clarify, again, what your major objection is, for Hawksridge, the lady that's -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: For the young lady. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Sue Davidson. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- Sue Davidson, yes, because we are shrinking setbacks, and it's going to change something. MS. DAVIDSON: My concern is we developed and marketed the site based on the proximity of the structures that would be there, and laid our roads out and our buildings out based on what we thought would be the best enhancement of use for the people who are going to live on the south side of our property and look over to the north side. By shrinking this rear setback, we're going to be bringing structures much closer to our property line and affecting what the people on the other side are going to see. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And do you have some obligation then to tell the people that have purchased or have not closed yet that this is happening? MS. DAVIDSON: I haven't gone that far yet. We have, as I mentioned before, about 70 of our 95 are sold but not closed, so those people were not given notice or probably were not aware of this change going through. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY-' It seems to me if your -- your people are already going to be closer to your property line than what this development's people are going to be to their property line. MS. DAVIDSON: I'm not following you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, because you're building a villa, you're able to build closer to your south property line than what these people that are building single family homes are to their property line. MS. DAVIDSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' So, I don't see where your argument is. MS. DAVIDSON: I'm -- I'm saying that we had -- we have a buffer in an area between our property and that property, and the people who were buying along there felt that there was still beyond our buffer an area on the adjoining property that wasn't going to have a structure right back on it. Page 115 October 19, 2000 COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Which there is. Are you aware that there's a 25 foot easement from what Chahram just mentioned abutting their property and the closest structure, even with the approval of this, if it's approved, would be at least 30 feet from the boundary line, and then you add your setback on the other side, I don't know how much that is, it could be 10 feet, 15 feet, so you're talking about at least 40, 50 feet maybe, but are you aware of the easement that exists? MS. DAVIDSON: I guess I wasn't picking up that there was -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Okay. Maybe, Chahram, you've got to go over that -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think we need to hear from the petitioner again. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let -- one at a time. Are you done, ma'am? MS. DAVIDSON: Yes, I'm done. MR. LOVELESS: Let me address this issue. Hawksridge is marketing a product based upon my 75 villa lots. I'm not -- the setbacks are no different than what she is marketing. I'm asking simply to build a single -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, you can build a villa lot, and nothing has changed. MR. LOVELESS: Nothing has changed. I could build the 75 villas, and the setbacks are still the same. I'm not changing anything about their marketing at all. Their marketing is something -- they're marketing their product saying that I have a 5 foot accessory, a 10 foot setback, and I have a 20 foot front yard setback. I'm not changing that. I'm changing the fact that I want to combine the lots, make them single family with the same setbacks. COMMISSIONER BUDD: So, you're building fewer bigger houses -- MR. LOVELESS: That's the villa. COMMISSIONER BUDD: -- and increasing the value, so it would only be fair then they pick up some of your marketing costs? MR. LOVELESS: Wouldn't that be wonderful. Thank you, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you, Mr. Budd. Any further questions before I close the public -- Page 116 October t 9, 2000 COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I just have one question for Ms. Davidson. Do you have any language in your brochures that says the minimum setback or the minimum separation between us and the next development is at least 50 feet or 60 feet? Is there such a thing in your marketing? Is that -- MS. DAVIDSON: No, not at all, and really, this -- like I said, if I was here (sic) today and got a better understanding of what his plans were, then it may not negatively impact my buyers. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: That's correct. MS. DAVIDSON: But -- but I felt on their behalf, I had to be here and at least be concerned. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And that's commendable. MS. DAVIDSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can I? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes, please. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm not sworn. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Well, we can do that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We can swear. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes. Raise your right hand, please. (The speaker was sworn). MR. TRAPASSO: My name is Frank Trapasso, T-R-A-P-A-S-S-O. I live on Cottage Club Lane. I just have a question. I'm a little bit confused by all the discussion here. I was told that there is a request to change the setbacks throughout the entire development. The gentleman here, Mr. Loveless, has -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Use the microphone, please, right behind you. MR. TRAPASSO: The gentleman had stated that there's going to be no change in these lots along -- that abut Cottage Club Lane. Am I to believe now that he is -- because he's asked for a change throughout the entire development. If there's going to be no change in the setbacks, and as these are villa lots, they are going to be fairly close to the property line anyway, even though there are easements here, cannot this be excluded from his request? He stated he's not going to change the setback anyway. Page 117 October 19, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That may be part of our motion because that was suggested earlier here in the conversation. MR. TRAPASSO: That's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. No questions? If not, no further comments from the public, I'll close the public meeting. Any further discussion? If not, I will entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve Petition PUD-95-2(1} with the caveat that the planning staff would put that restriction, and I don't know the lot numbers abutting the property to the southeast, that the change and our approval would not affect the setbacks in that area. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: May I ask for a clarification? Basically, what you are saying is to amend the PUD master plan to show which lots are to be single family, because the way it is today, they can build single families wherever they want to or villas wherever they want to. Basically, you want to say north portion of it, all single family; south portion, all villas. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Right. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: No, I'm just saying the numbers -- the numbered lots, and I don't know what lot numbers they are. MR. NINO: That has the same effect. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yeah, that has the same effect. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: That has the same effect, Mr. Nino? Thank you. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm afraid that the replatted numbers changed, so -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved by Commissioner Saadeh, seconded by Commissioner Priddy. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carries. Thank you. One minute while we change reporters. (Recess was taken.) Page t t 8 October 19, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Next up is PUD-99-25. Ram, you're up again. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. I believe Karen Bishop is here today representing the owners. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' I'm sorry. It's been a long day. We need to o- all those that wish to give testimony on this, please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The petitioner is requesting a re-zone from agricultural to commercial PUD for a property located on 951, also known as Collier Boulevard, at the terminus of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The property consists of 18.15 acres. It is located within an activity center surrounded on two sides by PUDs with commercial components to the north, C-5 zoning and the rest is agricultural, and swamp buggy or Florida Sports Park is to the east of this property. Basically, they are within an activity center which would allow them to re-zone it to commercial. The traffic circulation element shows that they have -- that they will generate around 10,645 weekly trips -- weekday trips, I'm sorry, which will exceed the five percent of the level of service C design volume. However, Collier Boulevard is four-laned in this area and is projected to function at an acceptable level at the build-out of this project. Environmental Advisory Council heard this petition and by a vote of 4 to 2 failed to take official action~ 4 votes against it, 2 votes for it. And the ordinance that established the Environmental Advisory Board Council requires a minimum of 5 votes for any action. So the vote was negative, but they -- it cannot be considered as negative since they didn't have the required 5 votes. The reason was that the applicant is planning to remove all existing vegetations on site and then plant native vegetations and they wanted to save as many native vegetations as possible. However, the area's infestated (sic) with exotics and it -- the native vegetation is not of good quality and it's not really worth saving. And it is customary for commercial developments to remove all vegetation and then plant vegetation. It's hard to Page 119 October 19, 2000 build a supermarket or hardware store in the shape of a U or W because you are trying to save cabbage palms somewhere. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward this to the Board of County Commissioners for recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you, Ram. Any questions from staff? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Ram, you made the comment about cabbage palms. I really do believe that they move those, and I have moved a whole heck of them off the -- a whole lot of them off the Wal-Mart site over here, put them on the county property and moved them back. You don't just destroy cabbage palms. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I just made that comment -- I'm sorry. I meant like it's not easy for commercial development to try to, because of some bushes, redesign the entire development parking area, the building area, because they are trying to save some bushes or some trees. And that's customary, that most of the commercial developments, they basically remove all the vegetations. They build parking and everything and then they plant trees and shrubs. Except for North Naples Wal-Mart, that they have wells for trees. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, no. But I'm talking about the south over here. We moved all kinds of cabbage palms off of that property and them put them back on. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. They can be transplanted. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Let's make sure that we have that concept understood here. You don't just wipe out all the vegetation. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question for Mr. Nino. The last time this 4 to 2 vote business came up, the EAR, or whatever they are called -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: EAC. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- EAC, I established with the attorney that we could still consider the vote for whatever it's worth. MR. NINO: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can we dispense with this litany about it's not an official vote? I mean, we don't care whether it's official or not. We know it was to 4 to 2 against. Page 120 October 19, 2000 MR. NINO: You're correct. You're correct. We -- it really -- it's redundant. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I think it's -- it may be redundant, but for those, when we do have members of the public, I think they need to understand maybe why certain votes of the EAC is not -- it's relevant but it isn't taken to task here. And we specifically asked for that information, I think here, not too long ago. Thank you, And we'll hear from the petitioner. MS. BISHOP: Good afternoon. My name is Karen Bishop, agent for Mr. McMullen, who is the owner. I want to go on record to say, if there was some vegetation to be saved on this site, we would save the vegetation. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. BISHOP: But there is a reality check here about this property. That's why I handed you out this to look at. And, in all fairness to the EAC, we were the only public petition that day and it was a wetland workshop. And, of course, I was coming there to pretty much nuke my whole site, and that really doesn't go well with what they were doing that day. So, in all fairness to them, I probably shouldn't have been there that day and would have been more prepared had I known they had this thought process. I would have been more prepared to show them exactly what's out there and why this is a prime candidate for mitigation bank because of what physically exists out here. Now, this property I know, if any of you people have been to the sports park, as you head down Sports Park Road, this is the piece on the left-hand side. So this is surrounded by, on the west, 951, on the south, Sports Park Road, and on the east, the FP&L easement. So this is essentially a swimming pool of sorts. There's no flow that goes through here. So we do have wetlands by virtue of the criteria. But this site or this aerial photograph that I'm giving you shows you that this is a melaleuca heaven here. And the open area that you see in that first aerial is all little baby melaleucas growing very quickly. So the only real decent vegetation that we have is at the frontage. And, of course, my outparcels are on the frontage and the fact that I've got to bring at least three to five of fill on the site to meet flood, then that pretty much negates the ability to save vegetation. However, there are ways to re-vegetate and still Page 121 October 19, 2000 make this site look lovely and to have lovely buffers and vegetation, it's just not feasible to save what is there. Now, I don't want my client to seem like he's a rape and scrape guy because he's not. We, in fact -- the mitigation banking is set aside for these kinds of things and there are parcels that maybe that's not a good one for, but this one clearly is one of those that this would apply to. It's a pretty typical project, commercial. We have two outparcels, retail shops, you know, the ability to do some business. I mean, this isn't really rocket science. We've gone within the criteria of the commercial activity zone. We haven't done anything outside of that. One of the questions that the EAC had was, how are we going to deal with the noise of the sports park? Then I thought to myself, well, what else would you put here next to the sports park anyway? Residential probably wouldn't go well. But the commercial businesses here, my guess, will not be running at the same time that the sports park is running. Usually that wouldn't be. So we didn't feel that that was an issue for us. I have my environmentalist here as well as my drainage engineer, if you guys have any questions concerning those two items. But, all in all, I wanted you to see the degradation of the site. That one piece that is smack in the middle, from what my biologist was telling me when I sent her out there, it took her about thirty minutes to go ten feet inside that to try to get into that site. That's how thick it is. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Are there really any major cypress on here? MS. BISHOP: No. You might see one or two little scattered ones. But you couldn't save them because they are in the middle of a melaleuca forest. And you will see -- as a matter of fact, turn to the third one. I must have the wrong one open here. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: The sample station or -- MS. BISHOP: The sample station. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right after that. MS. BISHOP: I thought I had that on there. I saw a lone cypress tree on one of these pictures I was looking at. Maybe it was -- oh, I know. She has some other ones. I saw -- hand me Page 122 October 19, 2000 out that other picture. There are a couple more pictures where I saw a lone cypress among the -- but they are small. They are very spindly, small trees. They are not -- the site has not been a good site. It had a fire going through it a bunch of years ago, which is one of the reasons why it is what it is today. Let me show you. There's one in here. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a bunch of cypress in one place. MS. BISHOP: There's one. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: One tree does not make a forest, right? MS. BISHOP: Here's the pine. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Put it on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Karen, just answer the question and say no. You just did. Just do it on the loudspeaker. Let's move on. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We'll take that into account on the vote. MS. BISHOP: There's one cypress tree. No, there are probably a couple scattered ones. But, like that picture shows, they are very small. They are scattered around. That's it. I'm done. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of the petitioner? MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. Lest you be concerned that there won't be any vegetation there, I would like to ask Steve Lindberger to address what they will have to do in terms of vegetation. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That would be a good idea, for the record. MR. LINDBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lindberger, developmental services. I'm an environment specialist. I looked at the site. The site is heavily impacted with melaleuca on its eastern side. There was a fire that came through. It burned down most of the pine trees. There are some cypress over there, but they are not specimen size trees. There is in that area a lot of Brazilian pepper around the remaining cypress and it turns into melaleuca as you go in the center of the property. The petition will be saving 15 percent, or actually re-vegetating for 15 percent of the native vegetation on site. And Page 123 October 19, 2000 they plan to do that in the retention area on the north side of the property as well as in the buffer. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? Anyone from the public that wishes to address this issue? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward Petition PUD-99-25 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Priddy, second by Commissioner Rautio. All -- no further discussion. All of those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You're killing enough trees. MS. BISHOP: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: PUD-02 is the next item on the agenda. And, Rich, if someone had made the motion, I would have voted for it. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I would have too if you asked earlier this morning. MR. YOVANOVICH: I had no idea it would go this long. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think they left. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Did they miss their flight? MR. YOVANOVICH: What's that? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Did they miss their flight? MR. YOVANOVICH: It was me, me personally. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Oh. Did you miss your flight? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. If I can get there by three -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Well, make it quick. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I'll be all right. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I know some people that would buy you a ticket out of town. (Laughter.} CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All those -- all those wishing to make, Page 124 October 19, 2000 give -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: One way, right, Mr. Priddy? MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you watch the City Council last night, is that where you got that? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Now, we can -- everybody is getting punchy. All those that wish to give testimony on this, please stand and raise your right hand. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Ram, you're up again. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian, planning services staff. Yes. Mr. Hoover of Hoover Planning will be representing Mr. Mark Linder, Trustee, who is requesting to re-zone a piece of land from agricultural PUD for residential uses. The property is located on the west side of 951, approximately half a mile to three-quarters of a mile north of Vanderbilt Road, I -- no, Holt Road -- I'm sorry. Almost three-quarters of a mile from Vanderbilt Beach Road in Section 34. They are requesting 4 units per acre, which comes to 231 residential units, which is what the code allows, growth management plan allows. And this project would generate 1,322 weekday trips, which will exceed the 5 percent of -- I'm sorry -- 5 percent of the level of C design volume on Collier Boulevard. However, this road is scheduled to be four-laned beginning in year 2003. And it's anticipated to take eighteen months to four lane it, therefore this petition is consistent with the transportation element of the growth management plan. This petition was not reviewed by the EAC. It was exempt. They are not impacting the wetlands. Therefore, this is the first public hearing for it. The staff recommends that you approve -- you forward this to the Board of County Commissioners for recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Two days ago I had two calls from the Golden Gate Estates Fire District. They own the property west of the subject property. And their easement is along the eastern -- western property line. However, they are trying to get an Page 125 October 19, 2000 easement through this development -- this proposed development to County Road 951. They are asking for a 30-foot easement. And I believe the applicants, they have agreed to grant that easement to the fire district. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. We'll hear from the petitioner. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich, representing the petitioner along with Bill Hoover. To answer Mr. Abernathy's question, the two beneficiaries of the trust are Mr. Linder and Buddy Smith. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Who? MR. YOVANOVICH: Buddy Smith. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Essentially, you know, the project is a pretty straightforward residential project. We are planning to work with the fire district to address their access issues. That -- the final resolution of that has not been resolved. They may need a little, a little bit more than thirty feet which may -- it involves some creativity with sharing of some of their infrastructure with our infrastructure. So, to accommodate their needs, I would hope that -- the request we have is that we would not be required to come back to the Planning Commission if we need to make some minor changes to our master plan to accommodate their access -- their access. With that I -- hopefully this project will not have any opposition to it. If there is, I'll be happy to answer any questions. But we want to -- we will be working with the fire district to accommodate their access issues to 951. If you have any specific questions regarding the project, I would be happy to answer any of them, but I think it's a fairly straightforward petition. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I guess, in other words, what I hear is, you have agreed to give them a right of way? MR, YOVANOVICH: We -- the width of the right of way, it may need to be more than thirty feet, okay, to give them their access. We're going to give it to them but it may entail moving some of one of our drainage lakes onto their property to give us that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That was my question. You are going to give them a right of way. MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. We're going to work with Page 126 October 19, 2000 them. It's just a matter of, how do we work it out? We don't have that -- we don't have that figured out yet. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I understand. I just wanted to make sure that I heard from you that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of the petitioner? Any further -- anyone from the public wish to speak on this? MR. NINO: I have a Christopher Thornton registered and Peterson. MR. THORNTON: Good afternoon. I'm Chris Thornton, for the record, with the law firm Treiser, Kobza and Lieberfarb. I'm the attorney for the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The Golden Gate what? MR. THORNTON: The Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. It's an independent special district with an existence sort of like the -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' I understand. MR. THORNTON: Okay. As Rich mentioned and Chahram mentioned, the fire district actually purchased this piece adjacent to the subject parcels about six months ago. The current -- the only access to the property currently is from the back, down south to Wolf Road and out to 951. For emergency response time purposes, we would prefer to have a more direct access to 951. We're real pleased to hear that this developer is willing to work with us on getting a quicker route to 951 for a shorter response time. So we really don't have any objection to this petition. We just want to make sure that everybody is aware, number one, that this property behind this PUD is intended for development as a fire station and that we are going to be needing access to 951. And we're looking forward to working with this developer to get the access that we need. We're just not sure of the width yet because we're not sure how much fill is going to be required and the slopes. So, we think it will be somewhere a little over thirty feet, maybe up to fifty, we're not sure. But we're looking forward to working with the petitioner on that issue. Page 127 October t 9, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I would certainly like to meet their marketing director that is going to build this next to a fire station, but that's another issue. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: How big is your piece of property? MR. THORNTON: I think it's 20 acres less in the easements. Twenty acre piece. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Wrage~ I appreciate that comment because we are -- we are accommodating the fire district. They do have access. We are willing to work with them to give them more convenient access. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And not being a commissioner in a former life, I know what those calls are at midnight and why did the truck go when I was trying to sleep. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So any further questions from the commission? Anyone else from the public? Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Was he sworn? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes. MR. COLLINS: My name is Jim Collins, C-O-L-L-I-N-S. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You were sworn in, correct, sir? MR. COLLINS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. COLLINS: And I'm an adjacent property owner on over on Wolf Road. And I was not aware of the fire station going into this area. And I'm just wondering a little bit more about what kind of units are being planned for the development, for the PUD. They're requesting 4 units an acre and do we have any idea what kind of units they are going to be? Is this -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We will let the petitioner answer your question. Do you have any other questions while you're here? MR. COLLINS: Yes. This 20 units or 20 acres that the -- is it Golden Gate Fire Control, is that it? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes. MR. COLLINS: That they recently bought there, I would like more information about what's actually going to be there. You mentioned about sirens and whatnot. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Actually, that's not an issue with us. Page 128 October 19, 2000 MR. COLLINS: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That you will have to take up with them. COMMISSIONER BUDD: But the guy in the uniform in the back can answer your questions. MR. COLLINS: Yes. MR. HOOVER: Good morning. Bill Hoover of Hoover Planning representing the petitioner. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Is it still morning where you're at, Mr. Hoover? MR. HOOVER: I haven't eaten lunch yet so it's still morning for me. Sorry. (Laughter.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Neither have we. Remember, our vote's -- MR. HOOVER: We're all losing weight today. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Didn't eat dinner last night either. MR. HOOVER: We've worked on a site plan tentatively but they would like to develop at least most of the site for single family, but because of the wetlands taking up a big chunk of the western half of the southern half, we'll probably end up with some multi-family in there. Those are more likely 2 to 4 unit type buildings. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anyone else from the public? Any further questions? If not, I'm going to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we forward with a recommendation of approval Petition PUD-2000-02 to the Board of County Commissioners with the addition that there is an easement granted for access by Golden Gate Fire Department to Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. All of those in favor. Signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. Thank you. Moving on, the next item -- and we remind the Page 129 October 19, 2000 commissioners to hang on to these particular documents, H and I, and we'll move on to J, R-2000-3. Mr. Murray, you're up. All those who wish to give testimony on this, please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn in. (The speakers were sworn.) MR. MURRAY: I apologize. I thought we had one other item here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We just disposed of those. MR. MURRAY: I'll keep it brief. This petition is for re-zoning from residential tourist zoning to C-3 commercial for a site that's located approximately one mile west of State Road -- excuse me, County Road 951 at the corner of Barefoot Williams and U.S. 41. The site is currently vacant, undeveloped and cleared property that is bordered by commercial to the east and commercial to the west and also across U.S. 41 is the Eagle Lake Community Park. And just to the south of this site is a residential -- excuse me, a recreational parcel that serves the Hitching Post mobile home and RV development back here. The property we -- staff has looked at it. We believe that it meets the compatibility criteria and is consistent with the land use code and the comprehensive plan. And we also believe that it meets the office and infield commercial criterion that's outlined in staff's report. Therefore staff is recommending approval. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Do you know what the elevation of that piece of property is? That Hitching Post right next door is subiect to flooding. Is this higher ground? MR. MURRAY: It looks about level with the property next door to the south, the Hitching Post, so -- the petitioner is here. MR. MORGAN: Sorry. I didn't get sworn in. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. MURRAY: And he could -- because they have done surveys, they could probably give you that information. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? If not, Mr. Morgan, would you stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in? Page 130 October 19, 2000 (The speaker was sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Now we'll hear from the petitioner. MR. MORGAN: Steve Morgan for the applicants and I'm also, for the record, part owner of the property. It is about the same elevation as the mobile home to the south. We understand that any development there would have to be filled and we would out-fall to the Department of Transportation right away and meet their criteria. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of this petitioner? Anyone from the public who wishes to address this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward Petition R-2000-03 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's been moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Budd. All those in favor of this motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. Any old business? Please make note of the LDC schedule that was at the bottom of your packet for November 1st and November 15th. I assume there's no public comment. I have a couple items I was going to discuss with you but I will do it at the start of the next meeting. MR. NINO: You didn't take into account the -- note the LDC amendment schedule. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes, I did. MR. NINO: Very good. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, we are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:46 p.m. Page 131 October 19, 2000 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GARY WRAGE, CHAIRPERSON TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES BY: ELIZABETH M. BROOKS, RPR AND DAWN M. BREEHNE Page 132 L FORM'8B COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, LAST blAME-~-FIRST NAMETM~DOLE NAME MAILING AD~RESS-- / MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIl.,,, COMMISSION. AIJT'HORITY. OR COMMI'Ci'EE THE BOARD, COUNCIL COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR COMMIT'lEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF; [3 CITY ~::OUNTY [3 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POUTICAL $[JEOIVISION: MY POSITION rl ELECTIVE ~1~ AFFOhNTIVE 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 e!ected board, council, commission, authority, er committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 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 on 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 efective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures 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 redeve!opment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special t&x districts e!ected 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, Iz-ther-indaw, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carr/ing on a bus;,ness enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporale shareholder (where the shares of the corpora*.~on are not listed 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 trom 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: .Ithough you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any aftempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by 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 Io 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) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to lhe other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO A']q'EMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You must disclose orally 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 (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 whom I am retained; or inured to/he special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in !he measure is as follows: ' , whi¢ After consultation with the County Attorney, I abstained from voting on the above matter pursuant to Section 286.012, Florida Statutes, which provides that "no member of any state, county, or municipal governmental board, commission or agency who is present at any meeting of such body at which an olTzcial decision, ruling or other official act is to be taken or adopted may abstain from voting... except when, with respect to any such member, there is or appears to be, a possible conflict of interest under the provisions of 112.311, S. 112.313, or S. 112.3143. In such cases, said member shall corn'' closure requirements of S.112.3143." -- Date Filed 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. 1/98 PAGE2 FORM 8B --";OUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTi' ~.AST NAME-,.-F1RST NAME--MIDDLE NAME MAILING ADDRESS CITY COUNTY DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR ER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIL. O~IISSIO~.~'AU'rH.'ORITY, OR COMMITrEF THE BOARD. COUNCIL COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR CIDMMITT~E ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: Q CITY JII~OUNTY r3 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF: POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: MY pOSITION IS; ELECTIVE X 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 e!ected board, council, commission, authority, or commRtee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 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 on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close allenlion to Ihe instrue:ions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective ar appoinlive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or lass. Each etected 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 re!aJned (including the parent organizelion or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; cr to the special private gain or loss of a business associale. Commissioners of community rede,/e!opment agencies under Sec. 163.355 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special t.=x districts e!ec:ed on a one-acre, one-vale basis are nat 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. ta,:her-in-la-..;, realher-in-law, son.in-law. and daughter-in-law. A ;business associate' means any person or enlity 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 corporahah are not listed 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: .i3ough you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. ' IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING A~ 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 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISZON EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally 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 responsibte 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 ~_'~3 t~.%, ~ hereby disctose that on ~ C-.~.T...I.Cl ' , , (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) · . inured to my special pt/veto 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 whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or less of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b} The measure before my a~;enc'/and the nature of my conflicting inlerest in the measure is as follows: , by , whici- ARer consultation with the County Attorney, I abstained from voting on the above matter pursuant to Section 286.012, Florida Statutes, which provides that "no member of any state, county, or municipal governmental board, commission or agency who is present at any meeting of such body at which an official decision, ruling or other official act is to be taken or adopted may abstain from voting... except when, with respect to any such member, there is or appears to be, a possible conflict of interest under the provisions of 112.31 I, S. 112.313, or S. 112.3143. In such cases, said member shall comply with the disclosure requirements of S.112.3143." Date Filed Signature- 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. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION November 14, 2000 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Kyle Wilson Dock Masters 5791 16th AveNW Naples, FL 34119 REFERENCE: BD-2000-15, Carl Olla Dear Mr. Wilson On Thursday, October 19, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-15. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-32 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, Cheryl Soter Planner I G:/admin/BD-2000-15/CS/im Enclosure c: Carl Olla 396 Connors Avenue Naples, FL 34108 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- 32 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-15 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a boat house over an existing boat dock 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 Kyle Wilson, of Dock Masters, representing Carl Olla, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Lot 7, Block, R, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 89, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a boat house over an existing boat dock 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. 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-2000-15 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 [C~ ~7~ dayof (~{'~r~,(,9~sr" ,2000. ATTEST: x lNCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP ecutive Secretary COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjori~M. Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-15/CS/im -2-