Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/16/2000 RNovember 16, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRPERSON: Gary Wrage Joyceanna J. Rautio Russell A. Priddy Lora Jean Young Kenneth L. Abernathy Russell A. Budd Michael Pedone Dwight Richardson Ron Nino, Planning Services Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page I AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2000 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. BOB MULHERE: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS/HEARING EXAMINER 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS BD-2000-25, Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing James R. and Susan L. Anglin requesting a 30 foot boat dock extension from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 50 feet into the waterway for property located at 61 Southport Cove, further described as Lot 57, Southport on the Bay Unit 2A, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) BD-2000-26, Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Paul M. Kneeland, requesting a 25 foot extension from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 45 feet into the waterway for property located at 266 Third Street West, further described as Lot 4, Block H, Little Hickory Shores Replat of Unit 3, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) Do Fo G° Jo V-2000-22, Kay D. Sorensen or Manuel L. Mayo, requesting a 7.5 foot variance from the required side yard of 7.5 feet to 0 feet for property located at 6595 Glen Arbor Way being further described as a certain lot or parcel of land being a portion of Lot 1, Vineyards Arbor Glen. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) V-2000-29, Sammy Hamilton, Jr., representing Everglades Corner, Inc., requesting a 30 foot variance from the required 50 foot front yard setback for gasoline stations to 20 feet for property located at 27515 S. R. 29, in Section 25, Township 52 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) PUD-84-7(6), George L. Varnadoe of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson, P.A., representing 951 Land 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" Creek master plan while not increasing the total number of dwelling units authorized for the Fiddler" Creek portion of Marco Shores. The area to be rezoned is located in Sections 11 and 14, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to DOA-2000-04) (Continued from 10/l 9/00) (Coordinator: Ron Nino) DOA-2000-04, George L. Varnadoe of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson, P.A., representing 95 i Land Holdings, Ltd., for an amendment to the Marco 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 DRI 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 iljustrate 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 to PUD-84-7(6) (Continued from 10/19/00) (Coordinator: Ron Nino) PUD-2000-15, Bruce Anderson, Esq., of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson, P.A., and Greg Stuart, AICP, of Stuart & Associates, representing Greg Eagle, Trustee, requesting a fezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Edison Village PUD for a maximum of 54,000 sq. ft. of office and commercial uses for property located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 95 !) and Lely Cultural Boulevard, in Section 22, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 7.44+ acres. (Coordinator: Susan Murray) PUD-2000-16, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole, Montes and Associates, Inc., representing Auto Vehicle Parts Co., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center PUD for a maximum of 433 residential dwelling units and a maximum of 270,000 sq. ft. of retail and office uses, for property located in the northwest quadrant of 1-75 and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951 ), in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, Consisting of 70_+ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) PUD-2000-17, Donald A. Pickworth, P.A., representing Linda Marszalkowski, Trustee, requesting a rezone from 'T' Industrial to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Collier Boulevard Commercial Center PUD for a maximum of 148,975 sq. ft. of retail commercial uses for property located on the southwest corner of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and Davis Boulevard (S.R. 84), in Section 3, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 19.54+ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) PUD-99-28, Karen Bishop of PMS, Inc. of Naples, representing Vanderbilt Partners II, Ltd., requesting a rezone from RSF-3 (3), A (ST), RMF-6 ST (3), RMF-6 (3), RMF-12 ST (3), RMF-12 (3), RSF-3 ST (3), RSF-3 ST, RSF-4 (3), and RSF-4, to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Cocohatchee Bay PUD for a maximum of 790 residential dwelling units and recreational facilities including a golf course and clubhouse and a maximum of 120,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood commercial development, for property located on the northwest corner of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive, in Sections 8, 16, 17 and 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 592+ acres. (Coordinator: Ron Nino) 2 go PUD-99-13, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Inc., representing Relleum, Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Balmoral PUD for a maximum of 296 residential dwelling units for property located on the east side of the future Livingston Road, north of Golden Gate Parkway (C.R. 886) and south of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896), in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 59.16+ acres. (Continued from 11/2) (Coordinator: Don Murray) CU-2000-! i, Jeff Davidson, P.E., of Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing Big Island Excavating, Inc., requesting Conditional Use "1" of the "A" zoning district for earthmining for property located 1/~ mile south of Immokalee Road and south of the existing Longon Lake excavation in the Corkscrew Community in Section 25, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 102 acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) Mo CU-2000-14, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, representing Joseph E. Townsend, Trustee, requesting Conditional Use "1" of the "A" zoning district for earthmining for property located on U.S. 41, approximately 3 I/2 miles east of Collier Boulevard (S.R. 951), in Section 18, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 42.5+ acres. (Coordinator: Susan Murray) CU-2000-15, Judith A. Innes, requesting Conditional Use "24" of the "A" Rural Agricultural zoning district for a horse stable on less than 20 acres of land per Section 2.2.2.3 for property located at 262 and 266 Roase Apple Lane, in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4+ acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischi) 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 10. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA l 1. ADJOURN i 1/16/00 CCPC AGENDA/RN/im 3 November 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Now we're ready? Let's call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. I will start the meeting by first of all recognizing -- MR. NINO: Hold up a minute. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We're not there yet? I'm not sure I can repeat that again. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: You were sounding good. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We will try again. Let me call to order the Collier County Planning Commission of November 16th, and prior to roll call, I would like to welcome a new commissioner to our board, Dwight Richardson, representing District 2. Dwight, glad to have you with us. With that, I'll call the roll call. Commissioner Priddy seems to be absent. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: He's here. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He stepped out. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: He's absent as far as I'm concerned. Commissioner Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Present. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage is present. Commissioner Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And Commissioner Saadeh seems to be absent. Commissioner Pedone. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And Commissioner Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let the record show that Commissioner Priddy has arrived. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And I hollered all the way from the men's room. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Addenda -- addendum to the agenda, I have a request to move the last item to the front, submitting a financial hardship. Page 2 November 16, 2000 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: CHAIRMAN WRAGE: request. MR. YOVANOVICH: behalf of the petitioner. Who made that request? I will allow the petitioner to make that For the record, Rich Yovanovich on The petitioner is in a little dispute with a neighbor. She came to me last minute out of concern for her petition. She's not a well off person financially, and I would just -- instead of having to wait until the end, if we could move it forward for a quick hearing, I would appreciate that. If not, we'll -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Is the neighbor present also? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, the neighbor is not here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I would be hesitant to request (sic) it if there's someone who also wishes to -- you know, based on the agenda. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, but -- MR. REISCHL.' Mr. Chairman, Fred Reischl, planning services. As I understand it, the neighbor was unable to be here. That was the letter that I distributed to you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Before we act on it, any other addenda to the agenda? If not, is there a motion on the request? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I move that we move Item N, is it, ahead of Item A. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved and seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). THE COURT REPORTER: I didn't get the second. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Commissioner Budd, sorry. No minutes were in my packet. Any planning commission absences? Hearing none, Mr. Mulhere, I see you are next on the agenda with some -- MR. MULHERE.' Do you mind or -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- with some pertinent information. MR. MULHERE: I believe in your packet or distributed to you was some information on the implementation of a hearing Page 3 November 16, 2000 examiner program, and I want to take some time to discuss that a little bit with you. On October 24th -- I'm sorry, for the record, Bob Mulhere, planning services director. On October 24th, I presented this information to the Board of County Commissioners, and they endorsed or approved the staff recommendations to implement a hearing examiner program for quasi judicial land use petitions. There are -- I'd like to read the -- or go over the staff recommendations to tell you a little bit about it, and then, of course, answer any questions that you may have. There are a couple of things that will be necessary to implement the program. We'll have to amend the special act for Collier County which was adopted by the state legislature in 1967, because that special act specifically spells out the duties of the planning commission. We'll also need to amend the land development code and possibly the comprehensive plan, but for sure, the land development code to effectuate a program to utilize the hearing officer. I'll go over a little bit about the rationale for bringing in a hearing officer. The quasi judicial land use petition, as you are aware, requires a finding of fact and the -- with the advent of Florida Supreme Court case recent -- I guess I'm not sure what. MS. STUDENT: Seven years ago. MR. MULHERE: Seven years ago. MS. STUDENT: October 7th, 1993. MR. MULHERE: The -- with the advent of growth management plans in the State of Florida, the Florida Supreme Court held that land -- site specific rezones and other land use petitions are quasi judicial rather than legislative, and as such, the findings need to be based on competent substantial evidence. We believe that the invitation of a hearing examiner similar to the process that's used in Lee County will create a level playing field for all interested parties, the applicant and any affected property owners or neighbors or adjacent property owners. That would change your role a little bit. You would no longer hear -- in the proposal that we made to the board, you would no longer hear land use petitions, nor would the EAC. Your role would shift to really policy related matters, and I know Page 4 November 16, 2000 over time there's been some discussion by the planning commission to be more involved in policy related matters. We would develop a -- with your help, a schedule of policy issues that you may wish to look at. For example, we are looking at right now wetlands protection countywide, and we are also looking at the application of wetland protection standards in the rural fringe and the far eastern rural lands. Those would be the types of policy related matters that you would be more directly involved with. Under the hearing examiner program, the hearing examiner will hear land use petitions and make a recommendation -- either make a recommendation to the board, or he may be the final -- he or she may be the final decision maker for the minor land use petitions, boat dock petitions, variances, those types of things. An appeal to that would go directly to the circuit court. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Bob. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You keep speaking of would as if it's conditional. It's not conditional as far as this county is concerned, is it? It's just conditional on the legislature? MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You -- you -- you say we would do this, and so -- instead of we will do this. MR. MULHERE: You will when it's implemented. The target date is probably June or July for this to happen. I really can't give you specific dates, so -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's no input desired from either this commission or the EAC, I take it, in this quasi -- MR. MULHERE: Well, the board has already made the approval, so we will be moving forward. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Without getting any input? MR. MULHERE: Right. I don't know if you have any specific questions. I think the executive summary was very detailed. There was also an attachment with quite a bit of research done by staff and by the county attorney's office. As I said, we need to get a legislation to the legislative delegation in December. Assuming that the special act is amended, we would move forward with an implementation schedule for sometime around June or July of 2001. Page 5 November 16, 2000 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Bob, as a matter of practice, that's going to take the lobbying, the attorneys out of the loop of calling all nine of us and visiting with us. It's going to take them out of the loop of visiting with all five county commissioners. MR. MUI. HERE: Well, that's a great question. Ex parte communication will still be permitted, though not with the hearing officer. It will be prohibited with the hearing officer, but will be permitted with the Board of County Commissioners where those types of petitions where the board will have final approval. Those types of petitions are rezones, including PUD rezones, and conditional uses, and this is very similar to the process that's used in Lee County. The board does have final approval authority on those types of petitions. For those types of petitions, and we've indicated in the executive summary that we would have to create a -- I think a much more specific and detailed process to track and record that ex parte communication and to disclose it during the board's public hearings on those matters. In fact, we would have to track telephone calls and meetings and the topic and then have a more specific disclosure process. Whether, in fact, it is -- there is -- there has been a perception that one way or the other, the -- there's not a level playing field. This will certainly eliminate that perception. Of course, there's good news and bad news. The good news is that will eliminate the perception. The bad news is that everyone who wishes to participate and submit information will need to be prepared to do it in a format where, you know, it is truly competent substantial evidence. So, again, the decisions for quasi judicial hearings will be -- the board's decision will be based on the record that's established at the hearing examiner's hearing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mulhere, if the board -- did I understand you to say that the Board of County Commissioners have already approved this first? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, why are you here? MR. MULHERE: To give you that information. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, you require no action Page 6 November 16, 2000 from this board? MR. MULHERE: No, no, just an informational item, and I will keep you up-to-date as we move forward. I think we will need some input from the planning commission as we move forward in terms of the types of policy issues that you may wish to continue to be involved with and review, discuss and expect information coming forward from the staff. Of course, you would continue in your role in reviewing and making recommendations on growth management issues and growth management policies. MS. STUDENT: And also land development code -- MR. MULHERE: And land development code. MS. STUDENT: -- as a land development regulation commission under the statute. MR. MULHERE: A lot of times I think we hear that people are sometimes dissatisfied with the results of a particular zoning action. Unfortunately, as you-all know, if someone submits a petition that meets the warrants for approval, you really have, unless there's competent substantial evidence to the converse, you really have no choice but to approve the recommended approval of those petitions. If there is some legitimacy to the concerns as they relate to a particular petition, really that's more related to the policies that are in place that allow that petition to move forward under those conditions, and we feel there are many opportunities to look at the policies that we have in place and to improve them, and we think there's a very significant role there for you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Bob, what -- where does the public ever get its shot at this process -- MR. MULHERE: The public has -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- people who might oppose a petition? MR. MULHERE: A petition, they would also have the same -- the same opportunity that the applicant would have. Again, the hearing examiner hearings are advertised. They will be posted, and the public has an opportunity to come to the hearing examiner hearing -- Page 7 November 16, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And again to the commission? MR. MULHERE: And to the commission as well. And, again, we're not proposing the board did not approve a prohibition on ex parte communication, that is the public can still meet with the board to express their concerns. There is just going to be a more well developed process for disclosure of ex parte communication. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman. However, if the board is constrained to only act upon the results of the hearing examiner, it would seem that that would be wasted, would it? MR. MULHERE: It may not have any bearing on the outcome. I think the concern is, we've seen evidence, for example, in Lee County where ex parte communication is totally prohibited, that the citizens are dissatisfied with that because they don't have the opportunity to meet with their elected officials and talk to them about these issues, and that is not necessarily illegal as long as you have, and I'll defer to Marjorie, but as I understand it, as long as you have a program in place for tracking, recording and disclosure of ex parte communication, then it does not have to be prohibited, and so I think that the -- and, of course, I can only tell you what I believe the rationale of the board was, I think as elected officials they did not want to prohibit the public's opportunity to go and talk with them and meet with them on issues, including these issues, but you're absolutely correct, and even the way it is today, an appeal to the board or the board's decision solely rests on the record that is established leading up to their hearing and at their hearing, and the same would be true under the hearing examiner program. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All right. Any further questions? And you need no action from us? MR. MULHERE: No. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you, Bob. Mr. Nino, I see on my agenda it doesn't say anything about a BCC report, but I would ask anyway. MR. NINO: I have nothing to report. Via the petitions that were heard at the last meeting were all consistent with your recommendation. Page 8 November 16, 2000 Little Palm Island, I'm sorry. Little Palm Island was, again, continued. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Continued or rejected? MR. NINO: Continued. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Chairman's report, I have none. With that, we'll go into the advertised public hearings. I'll just make an announcement, as I notice we have a lot of people here today. As all of you read the agenda, we tend to allow latitude for staff and petitioner, we would like to hold those folks to five minutes. Please don't be repetitive. I do allow a lot of latitude. However, we do have a big agenda today, and with that, we will go to Item N, CU-2000-15, and all those wishing to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners. of planning services. Fred Reischl This is a request for a horse stable on less than 20 acres of land in the agricultural zoning district. It's off Sabal Palm Road, and as you can see on the visualizer, to give you a perspective, U.S. 41, Collier Boulevard or 951 and then Sabal Palm Road going east from there. More specifically, as you see, Sabal Palm running east and west, Rose Apple Lane running north from there. This is the subject parcel in blue. The stable has been in operation according to the petitioner for approximately ten years in this same location. It's an agricultural area surrounded by other agricultural and residential sites, and on this aerial, again, you can see Sabal Palm Road running east and west, Rose Apple running north, and this -- excuse me -- this will figure into my presentation a little bit later. As Rose Apple runs north, it then turns west and then north again to the property to the north of Ms. -- sorry, the property to the north of Mrs. Innes. This is Mrs. Innes' property here, and the objection that was received, part of it was in your packet and part was faxed to me and I gave it to you this morning, the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Read, live to the north of Mrs. Innes. Mrs. Innes' access to her parking area continues north on Page 9 November 16, 2000 this easement, which is basically a north extension of Rose Apple Lane, and her parking area is in here. The Reads, to access their property, go north on Rose Apple, then west and then up this road, and I have photos from both of those views. This is the view from the easterly driveway, and you can see the densely landscaped area. Our landscape architect went out to see if she needed any supplemental landscaping and said, no, that this was more than met code. And this is the view of one of the riding areas in the foreground and the stable in the background, and this is a view looking south towards some of the stalls. If you were looking towards -- if you were looking from the Reads' property south, and, again, you may or may not be able to see this, I didn't go on their property, but this would be the closest structure that you could possibly see, and I'll get more into that later. Now, this is -- from that previous photo, I turned around, and this is the view across the riding area, and this is the Reads' property. As you can see, that's densely vegetated. I walked a little closer, and you can see a portion of their house, I hope. Right around here you see a little bit of brown, that's the Reads' house. Now, this is the view -- this is -- the pink is the stable. This is looking towards the west. Right along through here you can see the westerly driveway that the Reads would use to get to their house, and I have another photo taken from that road. This was the pink stable that we were just looking at. This is the westerly -- sorry, this is the westerly road that leads to the Reads' house, and this would be the view as they pull into their property, and I just like that photo. I didn't want to not put it on the public record. I don't know if you've had a chance, since you just got it this morning, but the letter from the Reads, staff was looking at a -- from a planning perspective, and it seems like it's a dispute between neighbors. We don't want to make a judgment on who's right and who's wrong, and one neighbor in an agricultural area let an area get too dusty, or some of the other things in here, that they wouldn't give you the time of day or -- I'm not sure if I'm getting the right quote, but -- after many years of being obnoxious, things like that, it seems to us that it's a dispute between neighbors, and we were looking at it that this operation Page 10 November 16, 2000 has been there for ten years. There are other agricultural operations, including another riding establishment to the west. Again, this is the subject property, and this is the property to the west, and, again, that's another area that is used for riding purposes, and for these reasons, staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm assuming why we're looking at this is there's been a code enforcement complaint? MR. REISCHL: That was the source of this, yes, and thank you for reminding me. Another thing, the health department came out and took a look at Mrs. Innes' place, and I'm sure she can state on the record that she was not cited for anything with the health department. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Because one of the things it says we have to consider, besides noise, air, economic, is odor effects, and I am definitely not an expert on how to gauge when enough is enough, being an ex-cowboy myself, okay. MR. REISCHL: Well, that's correct. And their -- again, taking into consideration that this is the agricultural zoning district. It is in the urban area, but it's still agricultural. The closest non-agricultural zoned property is to the south of Sabal Palm Road, here's Winding Cypress PUD. That would be the closest non-agricultural district. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. You said that the health department didn't cite them -- cite her for anything. Did code enforcement cite her for anything? MR. REISCHL: For this action, for having an operation -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Just for not having the conditional use? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you know how long the Reads have lived there? MR. REISCHL: Mrs. Innes did tell me, and I don't recall. I'm sure she can refresh my memory. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have a question. Mr. Resichl, the stable to the west, is it an operating stable now? It says in that letter that they are out of business. MR. REISCHL: I saw some horses there when I did my site visit, but I didn't see any customers, but neither were there any Page 11 November 16, 2000 customers at Mrs. Innes'. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: So, if there are horses on the stable to the west, if the wind is blowing the right way, they're going to get an odor anyway. MR. REISCHL: That's possible, yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Reischl, it is indicated on the Read letter that they have an unlicensed stable? Is that -- is that the code violation that we are talking about? MR. REISCHL: That's why we are here today, right. They can't get an occupational license until they have the conditional use. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, they've been operating illegally for some period of time? MR. REISCHL: They've been operating without an occupational license. In February, I believe, of '99, the code changed to require 20 acres for stabling, kenneling and other such uses, so technically, she was operating without a license but could have gotten one, and after February of '99, she needed a conditional use. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a couple more questions then. What prompted the change of the code a couple of years ago? MR. REISCHL: I believe that was a pig farm. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are there any standards anywhere as to how many horses per acre one should have? MR. REISCHL: Not in the agricultural zoning district. That's the health department and the department of agriculture, and there are no outstanding violations against Mrs. Innes that I'm --COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is there a standard in a residential neighborhood of how many horses you can have? MR. REISCHL: In a residential, there are none, but in the estates zoning district, it's two per acre. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Two per acre. MR. REISCHL: In estates. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: In estates, okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Mr. Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Fred, that being agriculturally Page 12 November 16, 2000 zoned land, she could have some horses without being here. It's the fact that she's doing some commercial business that's -- MR. REISCHL: She's boarding -- correct, she's boarding the horses. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But if those were her horses, she could have them without asking anybody? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So, the neighbors -- the fact that the horses are there may or may not change with the outcome of the meeting? I mean, she could put her own horses there. They're still going to have the same dust, the same smell, the same -- MR. REISCHL: The difference would be traffic. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The difference would be traffic, okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: More questions? We'll hear from the petitioner. MR. MULHERE: Could I just -- I'm sorry, could I just add one thing in response to Mr. Abernathy's question? The rationale, it may have started with a pig farm that was on a small tract of agricultural land, I think it was in the urban area, and -- but the rationale is broader than that. It was to require a larger tract of land than perhaps 5 or even 2.5 acres for a nonconforming lot for these types of activities, especially when they fall within urban ag. zoned lands that may be -- where the neighborhood may actually be, although zoned agricultural, functioning as really a rural residential subdivision, and so if you're going to have livestock and you're going to have some sort of a commercial operation, the feeling was that a larger tract of land would be necessary unless you went through some sort of an approval process, and then we could look at the specifics, including traffic and other things like that. So, that really was the rationale. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So, that's what we are doing right now? MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. REISCHL: Not that I don't want Mr. Yovanovich to speak, but the county attorney asked me to get one thing on the record. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He always takes care of himself in that regard. Page 13 November 16, 2000 MR. REISCHL: This was advertised as four acres, and on Mrs. Innes' deeds for the parcel, it states that it's four acres. Through our research, we found out that it's a little bit over two acres. The county attorney said we're advertising for a larger amount, therefore, the advertising stands. There's no problem with the advertising, but it is closer to a two acre parcel rather than a four acre parcel. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not to belabor the point, but this is a dispute between the neighbors. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I know she knows who you are, but give her your name anyway. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich representing the petitioner, Mrs. Innes. This is, candidly, a dispute between the neighbors. The neighbor, to answer the question of when did he move in, they both moved in at about the same time. So, he's been there for ten years. He knows what's been going on. This is -- she has installed a sprinkler system so the dust is controlled. The odor from the horses' deposit, frankly, he -- when her person comes to remove those deposits, he brings them to Mr. Read to use for his, you know, botanical operations on his property. So, it's kind of hard to understand how he could be complaining about that, the recycling effort that is going on in the effort (sic) -- in the area. So, we would hope that -- as you've seen from the photographs, this is compatible. You cannot see what is going on from the Reads' home. You can't even see the Reads' home from her property. It previously was a nursery, so everything was cleared at the time. She hasn't cleared anything. She basically -- that's how she makes her living. She operates this boarding stable, and I think it's consistent with what's in the area. It shouldn't be here, frankly. It's a dispute between neighbors, and I'm sorry that we had to waste your time to hear this, and we would request that you would recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Questions. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I do have one question. In Mr. Read's letter, he talks about maintaining the road for the large Page 14 November 16, 2000 delivery and dump trucks. Why would she have large delivery and dump trucks coming? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Hay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Hay and other things, but, in fact -- I didn't really want to get into it. That's what the dispute is, who owns the road. She -- you know, we've never gone back to look, does she own the road or does he own the road. She has been maintaining the road at her expense, and he said, as long as you maintain the road, you can use the road. So, to avoid a dispute of who actually owns the road, she's maintaining the road, and that's what the fight is about. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How many horses are there? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right now-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Normally. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- 15 right now. She's full. It's a very nice stable area. I went out there yesterday. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of petitioner? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I was just curious about the number of horses. That seems -- the density for two acres seems to be quite high if you compare it to what they were talking about in the estates area of a limitation of two per acre. I realize she's got a commercial operation going on. Is there some outside limit that she would be willing to place on the number of horses? MR. YOVANOVICH: Most of the -- there's never going to be more than one or two in the turn-out areas at any time. They are in their stable, and this is the rural, rural area, the rural fringe area, at best. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I understand, but you're on an undersized lot, and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not in the estates, that's what I'm trying to point out. We're in a different area of the county, so the density for horses found in the estates area really is not applicable here. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But you're saying that it shouldn't have come here, but she's in violation of the zoning ordinance, and so you're here because of the conditional use. So, she's here properly. MR. YOVANOVICH: She was -- when she started operations, that size limitation did not exist. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: She was then Page 15 November 16, 2000 non-conforming. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. No, no, there was no size limitation until 1999. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But she is now non-conforming. MR. YOVANOVICH.' Now she's non.conforming, and she's here to show you that she, in fact, is compatible. It's been operating for ten years without a complaint, same size. So, I think the density of horses is appropriate in the area. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: It's -- excuse me, but it's -- she wouldn't be here if she owned those horses. It's only that someone else owns them that she's here. She can own 15 horses without being here. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can she own 30 and not be here? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: She can own 30 and not be here. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: How about 50? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: She can own 50 and not be here. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, in fact, she owns seven of those herself, so -- there's eight boarders. MR. REISCHL: If I can interject to Commissioner Richardson's question, I believe that the department of agriculture does have some limits, but, you know, when you get up into the 30 or 50 range, then you're at 25 horses per acre, and Mrs. Innes gets inspections by the health department, and I'm sure that their legal authority would cap that amount. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, the fact she's unlicensed is not an issue then? MR. REISCHL: That -- well, that is part of the reason that you're here because code enforcement cited her for not having an occupational license. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That's not -- that's not our issue. issue is a conditional use. MR. YOVANOVICH: A planning issue. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have one other question. Our I think somebody said that it was February of 1999 that we changed the regulations that it had to be 20 acres, so she's only been really in violation since somewhere in February of 1999 -- MR. REISCHL: A little less than two years. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- is that correct? Page 16 November 16, 2000 MR. REISCHL: Well, she was in violation for not having a license, but she could have gotten one by going into the tax collector's office. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And when we talk about license, that's an occupational license? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of petitioner? Anyone from the public that wishes to speak on this? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, after having filled out my findings of fact form, I move that we recommend for approval CU-2000-15 with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's been moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Budd. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. In the absence of our secretary, please pass your findings of fact down to Commissioner Rautio, who will take care of them. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Double duty. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: She'll be justly compensated, I'm sure. MR. YOVANOVICH.' Thank you for allowing her to move on. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, we move to BD-2000-25. All those who wish to give testimony on this petition, please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Ross. MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 30 foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 50 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 61 Southport Cove in Lely Barefoot Beach and contains about 90 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the addition of a walkway and two boat lifts to an existing permitted dock. The subject property is Page 17 November 16, 2000 located on a dead end cove with little boat traffic and shallow water. Similar extensions have been approved for two other docks on this cove. No objections to this project have been received, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is there a house on the property? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, there is. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why don't you just cover that in the future as part of your presentation? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anyway, does the petitioner wish to speak? MR. SCOFIELD: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anyone from the public who wishes to address this issue? MR. NINO: Yes, I have three registered speakers; Mike Ball, June Grogoth and Milly Ball. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Would the speakers come up to the podium? MR. NINO: That's 7-A, oh, that was yours? I'm sorry. I'm sorry, we're out of-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No one rose, that's why -- MR. NINO: No speakers registered for this one. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you, and there's been some folks that come in late, if you wish to speak on any issue, there's sign-up sheets out in the hall, and please give them to our distinguished gentleman over here, Mr. Nino, so he can call your name when your petition comes up. Again, no one from the public wishes to address this boat dock? If not, I'll close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that the planning commission approve Petition BD-2000-26 (sic). COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Abernathy. Page 18 November 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- Abernathy. Any further discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried. BD-2000-26, all these wishing to give testimony on this, please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Ross. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 25 foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 45 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 266 Third Street West in Little Hickory Shores and is a small so-called boat dock lot. There is no residence on the lot. Conditional use allowing boat docks as principal structures has been approved for all lots in that block. The project consists of the removal of an existing dock and its replacement by a three foot wide walkway accessing a single boat lift. No objections to this project have been received, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? It seems like we have one in this area about every time. One of these days, that's going to be full; isn't it? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: This is the first time that we haven't had an argument over-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Does the petition -- any questions of staff? Does the petitioner wish to address the board? MR. SCOFIELD: Not unless you have questions. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have one. Rocky, on this photo looking southeast off the end of the existing dock, there's a boat moored to the adjacent dock. MR. SCOFIELD: Ross, you'll have to get -- I didn't get a staff report on this. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. Page 19 November 16, 2000 My question is, is the water that much different right next to where you want to put an extension? MR. SCOFIELD: Most -- most of the -- these are boat dock lots to begin with, so no houses can be on here. We've -- I've done three or four of these recently up here, and most of them are out -- the docks are out between 40 to 48 feet, in that area. It is very shallow. This gentleman has mangroves near the shoreline, and in order to get -- most of the people that are redoing all these docks here are putting in boat lifts to get them out of the water. In order to get enough water, we have to move them out further. We need about three feet. This boat -- you know, at high tide, it's easy to float a boat in here, and even at low tide, there may be a foot of water underneath the bow of this boat here, but it is a shallow area, and they need to go out. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. SCOFIELD: Rocky Scofield, for the record, representing the applicant. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? Anyone from the public wish to address this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out in the previous item, I just moved for approval of BD-2000-26. In fact, this item is BD-2000-26. The previous item was 2000-25, but the staff report, which I was reading off of, had a typo, it was inaccurate. So, I would still like the previous approval, but this time, I'm really serious about making a motion for BD-2000-26, the item currently before us. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's been moved again by Commissioner Budd and seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. Next, we have V-2000-23 (sic} -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: Twenty-two. Page 20 November 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: .- a variance for a setback for Kay Sorensen. All of those who wish to give testimony on this, please stand and raise your right hand. MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, it's V-00-22. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I did what? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Twenty-two, not -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: V.2000.22, sorry. All those wishing to be sworn in, please rise, raise your right hand for the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a variance from the required seven and a half feet to zero feet. It's in the Vineyards subdivision, which I'm sure you are all familiar with, or the general location. Specifically, it's in the single family area off Arbor Boulevard at the end of one of the cul-de-sacs, and I'll show you specifically what the lot looks like. As you can see, this is the original lot line. The house to the north, through a lot line adjustment, took additional acreage from the subject lot, and the builder built the two houses on each with the configuration that the subject parcel has. There's a wall along the property line, as you can see. I have in pink over here where they are asking for the screen enclosure. The wall -- the six foot wall does exist at that location. You can see a little bit better in a photo, and it doesn't show up as good on the monitor, but this is the wall, six foot wall continuing along here. You can see it continuing along the rear setback, which is approximately 15 feet from the rear property line, and what the petitioner is asking for is a variance to allow the wall over here -- you can't see my pen. That's better -- the wall over here to have a screen enclosure to connect to the roof up here. And this was taken -- this is the other side of the wall that I was just pointing to. This is the neighbor to the north, the adjacent house, the neighbor to the north. As you can see, he also has a six foot wall around his pool area, and, again, the screen enclosure basically does what Mr. Sorensen wants it to do. The difference being that he meets the setback on his south side, but, again, you'll notice there's one very small bathroom or Page 21 November 16, 2000 laundry room type window on that side of the neighbor's house, so there's no way that he's going to be able to view that. You can see the row of queen palms in between there. Basically for variances, we look at light and air circulation going back 50 or 75 years, and this does meet that requirement. It does seem unusual because it's such a large variance from 7.5 feet to zero, but, again, you have approximately ten feet of separation between the two structures, and the lot was configured irregularly by the builder before Mr. Sorensen purchased the house, and we have received no objections, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? If not, is the petitioner here? MR. SORENSEN: I'm Kay Sorensen. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes, sir. MR. SORENSEN: I'll answer any questions I can. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any questions of the petitioner? I guess not. Anyone else from the public wish to speak on this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that the planning commission forward Petition V-2000-22 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with the recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Priddy. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to say before we take the vote that I'm not a fan of variances, but this one looks like one that I can support. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. All of those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. Thank you. Next one is V-2000-29, Everglades Corner, Inc. All those who wish to give testimony, please rise, raise your right hand, be sworn in by the court reporter. Page 22 November 16, 2000 (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Mr. Sammy Hamilton representing Everglades Corner is requesting a 30 foot variance from the required setback of 50 feet established for gas stations to 30 -- to 20 feet. He's planning to replace an existing gas canopy. Basically, as you can see, this is the existing canopy, which is 19 feet from the property line. He wants to tear this down and build this one, which would be 20 feet from the property line. The code requires 50 feet -- foot variance setback. However, there's an existing building, and in order to meet that required setback, the building must be torn down. Staff believes that this action will provide a safer ingress and egress to the site and recommends that the CCPC forward this to the BZA for recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Would you care to elaborate a little bit on how it's going to be safer? MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' The way it is now, the canopy is perpendicular to the street, and the access being from here, it's harder to come in and go to those gas stations. However, this provides -- since people drive like 55, 60 miles an hour, it's real hard to come in and not hit the gas pump or the canopy pole. However, this will provide safer access. Since it's perpendicular, it's easier to come in and pull in and get out. I went to the site, and I looked at it. The way it is configured right now, it's not very safe, and I believe this would be much safer, and this also provides for wider aisles, and, actually, it reduces the encroachment by a foot. Right now, it's 19 feet from the property line. With this, it's going to be 20 feet. The right-of-way is also real wide in this area. It's over 100 feet, and there is a wide grass shoulder between the pavement and this property line, so it will not look like the canopy is right at the edge of the road. There's a wide area separating the pavement from the property line. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You also referred to a safer internal circulation. People are coming in at 55, 60 miles an hour, that seems a little fast. Page 23 November 16, 2000 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Not-- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I would hope that -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Not internal circulation; I was talking about the driving on U.S. 41. Internal circulation, for one thing, it provides for wider canopy, wider aisles, and it's easier to pull in and go to the store and go out, then come here and get out. With this, he will do some also minor changes to the parking layout, and he's basically generating the place, and it will make it a much safer and nicer place to go in and get out. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to be convinced of that, because you know I'm not a big fan of variances at all. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I know that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I want some -- you're telling us that there's a minimal visual impact, there's a safer internal circulation and a safer ingress and egress. Those are your three principal reasons for recommending approval. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. One thing we must -- I must insist on, that's -- the gas station is at the corner of U.S. 41 and State Road 29. This is Everglades City here, so it is not in the urban area. It's, I believe, 20 something miles, 23 miles east of 951. So, there are no neighbors. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And Commissioner Rautio, I would also point out that this is a service that the public needs out on that highway, that there are very, very limited opportunities from the East Coast to the West Coast for gasoline services. This is one of maybe two, and we should probably encourage it being as nice as possible. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Good point. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's also a very restrictive site in terms of environmental and latitude of what you can build there. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe it's zoned conservation with ST overlay -- I'm sorry, zoned agricultural with -- AZ, ST overlay, basically a very sensitive area. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I realize it says that on the map, but the bottom line is, the canopy is not going to be any farther out than what's already there, it's just going to be longer. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. Actually, it will increase the setback by a foot. Page 24 November 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Any further questions of staff? If not, does the petitioner wish to speak? MR. NINO: Sammy and Brenda Hamilton. MR. HAMILTON: I don't have anything unless you have a question. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Come up to the podium just for formality. MR. HAMILTON: For the record, my name is Sammy Hamilton, Jr. from Everglades City. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of petitioner? If not, thank you, anyone else from the public wish to address this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward Petition V-2000-29 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER BUDD.' Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Budd. Any further discussion? If not, I'll -- signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. The next item up is PUD-84-7(6), which I believe is a companion to DOA-200-4, having almost filled out my Form B, I'm going to excuse myself from this due to one of the owners is a shareholder of my employer, plus a business relationship, and I turn these two items over to our vice chair. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. Let's see. All those who wish to present testimony today, please rise and raise your right hand to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino. The petition you have before you purports to increase the area of Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek by 168 acres. The addition is -- on the wall is the master plan for the Fiddler's Creek portion of Marco Island -- Marco Shores, and you'll note that Page 25 November 16, 2000 configuration, and when you go to the proposed new map, you'll see that in this location here, there's some added land which comprises 168 acres in area. Although they're adding 168 acres, it's important to appreciate that they are not asking for any additional dwelling units as a result of this expansion. What they are simply doing is spreading their current authorized number of dwelling units onto the additional 168 acres as part of a golf course community. You'll note that the master plan iljustrates the continuation of the golf course system for the lake and open space system into the 168 acres of land. One way of looking at this petition is that by its approval, you will, in fact, reduce the number of potential dwelling units that otherwise could have gone into this part of Collier County by some 500 dwelling units, namely three times the acreage that is contained within this project, in fact, which results in a lesser density to the area and to this project in particular. Since they're not adding any additional dwelling units, there can be no additional impacts in terms of traffic, water and sewer usage, all the level of service relationships that we have established in the growth management plan for determining consistency of projects with Collier County's growth management plan. So, we can stand here and advise you that this petition, if approved, does, indeed -- is, indeed, consistent with all of the elements of the growth management plan. It doesn't lie within -- it lies within the Deltona settlement area, so, therefore, issues of environmental concern were addressed by that original Deltona settlement agreement, and as you probably heard several times in various amendments to this petition, way back in its infancy, the developer donated 15,000 or so acres to the State of Florida, and as a result of that, they were -- the rest of their lands were exempted or there was a defined area that were, therefore, exempted from any future environmental consideration. So, as a result of that, this project did not have to go to the environmental advisory board for consideration. We recommend approval of the added 168 acres and its subsequent amendment to the Fiddler's Creek portion of the Marco Shores PUD. I'd have you appreciate that no development standards are Page 26 November 16, 2000 being changed as a result of this. The only change is really to the legal that is in the document and a new master plan. Those are the only changes we're involved with here, and we go to the development order, the Marco Shores development order, again, because the development order has a whole raft of acreage allocations, when we add 168 acres to the equation, you'll see that all those numbers have to be changed to reflect that added acreage and to replace -- and, again, to replace the map with a new map recognizing the added 168 acres and the master plan configuration for that 168 acres. Again, staff recommends approval of the development order as proposed, and the developer may wish to get into more detail on the plan if that's what you wish. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is the golf course going to be added? Is that what most of this land is going to be devoted to? MR. NINO: Most of the land will be, yes, golf course and supporting lakes and open space. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is the golf course going to be available to the public or just the people on-site? MR. NINO: I don't know. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, if it's people off-site, that would have some traffic impact, wouldn't it? MR. NINO: Well, that could be the case, but I believe all the golf courses are private in this development. It's a gated community, and all the golf courses are private. MR. KEESEY: Am I recognized? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes, you may speak. MR. KEESEY: For the record, my name is Larry Keesey. I'm with Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, and I'm here representing today the 951 Land Holdings Limited, the developer of Fiddler's Creek. I'll get to the golf issue in a moment, but I'd like to just sort of orient you here. Mr. Nino has done an excellent job of sort of summarizing why we're here, which is really the 168 acres that we want to add to the existing previously approved Fiddler's Creek project, and in order to do that, of course, we need an amendment -- well, first, we need to rezone the 168 acres to PUD Page 27 November t6, 2000 and add it to the Marco Shores or Fiddler's Creek PUD, and we also need to amend the development order of this development regional impact to approve the addition of the 168 acres. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That brings up a point. We're focusing on PUD-84-76 paren -- excuse me, 7(6). Are we also considering at the same time the DOA-2000-047 So, we are discussing both of these at the same time, and they are both separate? MR. KEESEY: Yes, that was my understanding. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to get that on the record. Thank you. MR. KEESEY: Yes, that's my understanding. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. And Mr. Nino has done an excellent job of discussing the plan which you see on the chart here, but we also have put up an aerial to sort of orient you. This is U.S. 41 going down this way, and then over here just -- I think it's probably covered, but 951, of course, intersects with 41 up about here and goes north-south. The white outline is the currently existing boundary of Fiddler's Creek, and the red is the 168 acre parcel, parcels actually, that we're adding by this amendment. There are, as you can see, two parcels. One is a rather small ten acre piece, which was the site of a -- the Rookery Bay Utility Sewer -- or Treatment Plant, which was decommissioned pursuant to DEP regs. and is no longer there and has been taken off, but, of course, it is obviously a very disturbed little parcel, and that is that ten acre piece right there. The additional 157 or fifty-eight acres is this area over in here, which corresponds -- you can see it on the plan. The plan incorporates it with golf course and residential use over on here, and it shows it added to the Fiddler's Creek. So, those are the two parcels we are talking about, and as Mr. Nino indicated, the parcel here is within the urban coastal fringe subdistrict. It could be developed with three -- I thought it was actually four units per acre, but in any event, it would take off because we are not adding any residential units to the number already approved within the rest of Fiddler's Creek. We are shifting some of those units to this acreage, but if developed separately, this parcel could be developed with either five or 600 Page 28 November 16, 2000 more units, which will not be added to the County's build-out. In other words, we are taking that five or 600 units off the books and simply shifting the already approved acreage or units here. So, this amendment does not increase any of the residential nor commercial acreage. Fiddler's Creek will have as a result of this amendment 90 golf holes, five golf courses, one of which is a hotel, which I guess the people coming in could use that stay at the hotel, but it is a private development. The remainder of Fiddler's Creek is private, so we don't anticipate additional traffic impacts, nor does the traffic study that was submitted as a part of this indicate any difference, so -- any increase at all in traffic. There's no significant impact on the regionally significant roadways. So, we think it's rather straightforward in terms of what we're doing. Again, this parcel could be developed with even mobile homes. We think it's much better to incorporate it into a master plan, the golf residential community such as Fiddler's Creek, which is what we're doing. Are there additional questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Question for staff. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, for the record, we did not receive any letters of objection to this petition. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Nino, you had mentioned in your history, just to help me catch up here, that Deltona had a blanket exemption earlier on because of the tradeoff that they made with contribution of acreage. Does that blanket exemption then extend to any extensions that this project would go for? MR. NINO: Well, the Deltona settlement agreement included an area of land larger than the boundaries of Fiddler's Creek and Marco Shores, so -- even though they didn't -- they didn't own it at the time, but it was in the boundary of the settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, am I to understand then that they can continue to expand this project then without any further environmental reviews? MR. NINO: If it is land -- if they are acquiring land that was in that original Deltona settlement boundary, then that land, irrespective of who purchased it, is exempt from environmental consideration. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Any other questions? Page 29 November 16, 2000 Mr. Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: (Shakes head). COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have members of the public who wish to speak? MR. NINO: I have no registered speakers. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Sorry? MR. NINO: I have no registered speakers. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No registered speakers, okay. Any other further comments from the board? We'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Madam Chairman, I move that we forward PUD-84-7(6) to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Priddy and a second by Mr. Budd for approval. Is there any further discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed, same sign? (No response). COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Madam Chairman, I move that we forward Petition DOA-2000-04 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Priddy, a second by Mr. Budd. Any further discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed, same sign? (No response). COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Motion carries. Mr. Wrage, you may take over again. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Just a moment here while I collect myself. I believe the next one is PUD-2000-15, Glen (sic) Eagles, Glen (sic) Eagle, Trustee. All those wishing to give -- is that correct? MS. MURRAY: Greg Eagle. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, sorry, 2000-15 PUD. All those Page 30 November 16, 2000 wishing to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). MS. MURRAY: Good morning, Susan Murray, planning services. The subject site is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard, just south of its intersection with Rattlesnake Hammock Road and just south of the Sierra Meadows PUD. The applicant is proposing to develop the site for a maximum of 54,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for office and infill commercial use, which shall equate to a maximum of 7,260 square feet of gross leasable floor area per acre. The PUD master plan shows two commercial development tracts, a north-south -- a north tract and a south tract. These total 5.66 acres, and there's one additional tract along the western boundary of the subject site which totals 1.78 acres. That is a preserve/open space and water management tract. To the north of the subject site we have the Sierra Meadows PUD, which is an undeveloped commercial PUD. To the south is Lely Cultural Parkway and then further south, a residential portion of the Lely PUD; to the east, Collier Boulevard, and to the west as part of Lely PUD is Lely Elementary School. The commercial development tracts will be located along the sites, 654 feet of frontage along Collier Boulevard. The preserve areas are located along the western boundary of the site and will create a natural buffer between the subject site and the abutting school property to the west. Access to the site will be from Lely Cultural Parkway, approximately 400 feet west of its intersection with Collier Boulevard. The project will interconnect internally to the Sierra Meadows PUD to the north, and there will be no direct access to the site from Collier Boulevard. The uses permitted by right are those permitted uses generally found in the C-1, C-2, C-3 and portions of the C-4 zoning districts. However, development of the southernmost parcel will be restricted to those uses permitted in the northern parcel minus fast food restaurants, gasoline service stations and convenient stores. This is done in order to provide a lower intensity transitional area between the residential area to the Page 31 November 16, 2000 south and the higher intensity commercial tracts which abut the project to the north. Staff is of the opinion that the project is compatible with neighboring properties. The property is located in the urban mixed use residential land use classification as designated on the County's future land use map. A rezoning action to PUD to allow commercial land uses is permissible under the office and infill commercial subdistrict provided it meets the criteria listed in the FLUE. One of the most notable criteria is the requirements that the parcel perform a transitional function from areas of higher to lower intensity land uses, and as I mentioned, the southernmost parcel will prohibit some of the higher intensity land uses typical of commercial zoning districts in order to create a step down effect in land use intensity from the commercial tract and commercial PUD to the north through the site to the south and lowering intensity. These uses are authorized uses of land in the urban residential mixed use subdistrict of the growth management plan. The project was not required to be heard before the EAC. However, the petitioner did submit a vegetation and listed species survey for staff to review. Staff did review the survey for consistency with the environmental provisions of the LDC and the growth management plan, and applicable stipulations have been placed in the PUD document. The subject site's generated traffic does not exceed the significant test standard, which is 5 percent of the level of service "C" design volume on Collier Boulevard. The current traffic counts for this segment are 21,261 PSDT, and it is operating at LOS "C", which is above its adopted LOS "D" standard. Therefore, it is consistent with the appropriate policies in the transportation element. Interconnection of projects wherever possible is encouraged by the transportation element, and as I mentioned before, this site will have no direct access to Collier Boulevard. It will interconnect to the commercial project to the north when it is developed. I have received no phone calls or letters of objection. I would like to place on the record clarification to Section Page 32 November 16, 2000 5.5-C of the PUD document, which I did discuss with the petitioner prior to the hearing, and it was just kind of a point of clarification with respect to the turn lanes, and I'd like to add that if deemed necessary by the County, a right turn lane from Lely Cultural Parkway shall be constructed by the property owner prior to the first -- prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, and that is just more of a point of clarification. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them for you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Susan, you've made the point that you can't have fast food or a gas station down there at the southern end. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can they have them up further north? MS. MURRAY: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is there an access, a curb cut for this property to the north of this parcel? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So, anybody who wanted to go to the gas station or the convenient store would probably come in through the other property? MS. MURRAY: Umm. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Otherwise, they'd have to come down to Lely and wind their way back up to the north. MS. MURRAY: It depends on which way they're traveling. If they were traveling -- actually, let me think just a minute here. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's a traffic light at Lely Cultural now. MS. MURRAY: Let me just think, just a second. The Sierra Meadows PUD has access from Collier Boulevard, and it also has access from Rattlesnake Hammock. So, if you were traveling southbound on Collier Boulevard and wanted to go to a gas station, you would likely turn -- I would say you would likely turn into probably the Sierra Meadows PUD if you knew the cut-through exists. Otherwise, you would have to go to Lely Cultural Boulevard and turn in and then cut through to the northern parcel. Page 33 November 16, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, interconnectivity seems to me like a laudable objective, but somehow it turns logic upside down to put the high usage uses at the end where somebody could most logically access them through the interconnectivity. MS. MURRAY: I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, our growth management plan states that when you're utilizing the office and infill commercial subdistrict, there needs to be a step down mechanism from uses of higher intensity to lower intensity. The Sierra Meadows PUD is an approved commercial PUD with uses that are approved in the C-4 zoning district. So, I guess my point is, they've already kind of set the tone where the higher intensity uses are permitted. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Already up there. MS. MURRAY: Yes, and so we are obligated to review this petition in consistency with the growth management plan. So, from that aspect, it makes sense, but I don't disagree with you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Just south of Lely Cultural Parkway is residential; is that right? MS. MURRAY: Correct, as part of the Lely PUD, yeah. Lely Cultural Parkway is a four lane, divided collector. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It seems to me if you buffered both the residential and the commercial, that it would make a lot of sense to have the convenient store and a gas station down there where somebody could just hook right in and do it. MS. MURRAY: It would be a lot easier. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Contrary to that though, Ken, would be the impact on the school. That's an elementary school right there, right? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Incidentally, just to help me, does the school board ever get a chance to see these plans and have comment on them? MS. MURRAY: Yes, sir, they do. They are routed to the school board for their comment. They did not return any Page 34 November 16, 2000 comments to me. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No comments on that? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. The nice thing about this project is that there is this significant buffer area separating the project along its western boundary. As well, the portion of the school site that is developed along its -- the school site's eastern boundary is kind of the drop-off, pick-up area, so you've got a little bit of separation there as well, because that really is conducive to vehicular activity and not schoolchildren playing. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But if you had the higher intensity uses down there, you would potentially have more conflict with the school operation? MS. MURRAY: That's -- that's very true. It's kind of a tradeoff. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: What impact would this have -- that's a very heavily traveled road, and -- MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: -- people travel fast on that road. Would this require another stoplight? Would it slow down -- what would it do to the traffic? MS. MURRAY: Well, the nice thing about this petition in particular is that it's not going to take direct access off of Collier Boulevard. So, you will not have another turn lane or you will -- you will reduce the number of cars that are slowing down to make a turn into this project because they really are going to have to go to Lely Cultural. Again, it's kind of a tradeoff. People still have to slow down, but you're reducing the number of cuts onto Collier Boulevard, and that's really the goal we really tried to strive for, and it's very rare that this occurs or has the ability to occur. So, we are very supportive of that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just one final question, the petitioner, this last part about the right turn lane, the petitioner is in agreement with that? MS. MURRAY: That's correct, yeah. It was just more of a point of clarification. There was some description in there about a right turn lane, but we never really defined that one would be required, so I wanted to go ahead and put that in there. Page 35 November 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? If not, we'll hear from the petitioner. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the petitioner. For the record, I do want to state that we are in agreement with the revised stipulation this morning and all the other staff recommendations that we've previously received have been incorporated into the PUD document. With me today is the project planner, Greg Stuart, and he or I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Anderson, does your client intend to put a gas station, convenience store in the project? MR. ANDERSON: It's a possibility, yes, sir. One of the beauties of what we proposed is that someone traveling east on Rattlesnake Hammock will be able to turn in to the Sierra Meadows project, traverse through it to get to this piece without ever having to get on to 951, and the same holds true, somebody coming east on Lely Cultural Parkway will be able to make a left turn into our project to get to Rattlesnake Hammock road without ever having to impact 951. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So, for all practical purposes, you putting a gas station where staff is suggesting to the north kind of fits because people can come from both ways equally? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I mean, I personally would agree with Commissioner Abernathy that that ought to be on the corner of Collier and Lely, but what you're going to really be doing is attracting traffic from the north through Rattlesnake Hammock -- or off of Rattlesnake Hammock into that, so having it in the middle would make sense. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Bruce, I notice you have eating and drinking places, all retail and alcohol beverages subject to location requirements of 2.6.10. Is that proximity to a school? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes, proximity to school and churches. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, you need a pub there for the college students. You're going to have to put it further Page 36 November 16, 2000 north, I take it; is that right? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Don't limit the use to college students. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any pertinent questions for the petitioner at this point? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to make sure, you've had no objections to this project at all? MS. MURRAY: I've had -- no, no correspondence, no phone calls. One person said he had some questions and was going to call me back and never returned the call, so -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Pretty amazing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any -- thank you. Anyone else from the public wish to comment on this petition? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. Next item, PUD-2000-16, Collier Boulevard Mixed Use. All those who wish to give testimony, please rise, raise your right hand, have the court reporter swear you in. (The speakers were sworn). MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of current planning staff. The petitioner is requesting to rezone the subject site from agricultural to PUD to be known as the Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center. As you can see on the location map, it's located on the north side of 1-75 and west side of Collier Boulevard and south side of access road number two, which is now called Magnolia Pond. Petitioner proposes a mix of residential, commercial and office uses. The maximum number of residential dwelling units Page 37 November 16, 2000 is 433. It's on a 43.3 acre tract which results in a density of ten units per acre; also, on the commercial tract, which is 25.3 acres, a maximum 240,000 square feet of retail floor area and 30,000 square feet of office space. It should be noted that the site is south of the Golden Gate Commerce Park PUD, which is a very similar petition that was approved about a year ago that allows for residential dwelling units and commercial. They are both within activity center number nine on the future land use map, which permits commercial uses. The other surrounding uses are the Citygate which allows industrial and some commercial. There's a water treatment plant, a Toll Gate which also allows commercial and industrial uses. The traffic impact statement indicates that the project will generate approximately 9,000 trips, and I have a traffic map here that shows the project north of 1-75. It's currently operating at level of service "B", and at build-out, the project will still be operating at acceptable level of service on Collier Boulevard. However, on Davis Boulevard -- let me zoom in a little bit -- there's a little segment in red that designates a deficient segment of Davis Boulevard. It's a very short -- less than a quarter of a mile in length. The rest of the segment down is operating at acceptable level of service and as noted in the staff report, due to that small length, staff has never considered that as part of the adequate public facilities ordinance deficiency where we would have a more determined development. We never stopped issuing building permits. So, therefore, staff has deemed this project consistent with the traffic circulation element. Basically, the trips barely exceed the significance test on that segment and is not going to -- appearing to be a problem from traffic circulation. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a few questions, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yeah, Mr. Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Ray, way back -- way back when I remember -- I think it was probably what's now the Golden Gate Commerce Park, when they thought that was going to be a hospital, we were having some discussions about curb cuts on Collier Boulevard and access to this property and maybe even some property to the west of it. Have all those issues been Page 38 November 16, 2000 cleared up? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, and I could show you on the master plan. The master plan indicates the project has its access off this Magnolia Pond, which was formerly known as access road number two. To the north is the Golden Gate Commerce Park. This access road into the commercial lines up with the existing or the proposed access to the Golden Gate Commerce Center, which will -- that project has access onto Collier Boulevard with a signalized intersection and a median cut. So, this project can have access to that traffic light through the Golden Gate Commerce Park. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And while we're talking about traffic in that area, and I don't know if there's anyone here from transportation, but when are we getting our turn lane at Collier Boulevard and Davis extended back to the off ramp at the interstate? Can anyone answer when that construction is supposed to begin? MR. BELLOW: Sorry, I don't have that information. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Because that is certainly something that is backing traffic up in that general area at this moment. MR. BELLOWS: I can get that information for you later. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: The -- there wasn't a quorum at the Environmental Advisory Board meeting. This petition will be heard in their December meeting. As noted in the staff report, the project has preserve areas along the southern and western property and in between the commercial and residential tract. The petitioner has a 1.4 acre area proposed for development. Mitigation will be proposed within the Panther Island mitigation bank. Staff has approved that mitigation. Therefore, we'll take this recommendation to the EAC in December for supporting of the petitioner's plan of development. The petition is -- the commercial uses within the project are very similar to the uses approved in the Golden Gate Commerce Park to the north and to other commercial PUDs in this activity center, and staff has not received any correspondence for or against this petition and is recommending approval, and I'll be Page 39 November 16, 2000 happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Bellows, you mentioned a traffic deficiency on Davis Boulevard. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is that in the plan to be prepared? MR. BELLOWS: No, that's a state road, and they do not have funding for it within the build-out of this project. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, we will -- would be asking to approve a project that would further exacerbate that problem. MR. BELLOWS: To an extent, yes, but it's such a small segment. The rest of Davis Boulevard in that segment is operating at acceptable level of services. I had discussion with the new transportation services staff and the new MPO director along with Stan Litsinger with the comprehensive planning staff, and they've assured me this short segment that's deficient is not a problem, and that we will not enforce the adequate public facilities ordinance in conjunction with this segment. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: How short is the segment? MR. BELLOWS: Less than a quarter mile. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Of course, it could be two feet, and if it doesn't work, it congests the whole park. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, and it should be noted that the project is also part of the interchange activity center number nine, which is a gateway into the county. There's an interchange master plan that will provide some architectural and landscaping enhancements and access improvements. They may have something along the lines of access improvements dealing with this area, but it's not been approved yet. MR. NINO: If I might, Mr. Chairman. You know, in answer to your question, Dwight, the long and the short of it is Collier County has said on a number of occasions, insofar as the impact on that leg of Davis Boulevard is concerned, that we were not going to allow the state to hold us hostage to our ability to approve projects because of that deficiency that is attributable to the state, and this is not -- this Page 40 November 16, 2000 would not be the first project that would have this problem insofar as that link is concerned. So, for whatever it's worth, that's where staff is coming from. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm just curious why transportation isn't here. MR. BELLOWS: Well, this is -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Were they not invited or did they not realize that we would be rather concerned about transportation here? MR. BELLOWS: Well, this is basically a planning issue and not a transportation, so much of the construction -- it's not part any -- it's a state road, and I felt that it wasn't necessary to have them to discuss this part. Stan Litsinger said he might attend if he had time, but I don't think he had time. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, as Mr. Nino said, we are moving forward and not being held hostage because the state is not taking action. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? If not, we hear from the petitioner. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning again, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the applicant. I would point out that one of the reasons that -- we've had meetings with the transportation staff before we ever came here today, and that may be why they're not here, I don't know. There is a planning design, an engineering study under way as I understand it based on my discussions with county transportation folks. FDOT is conducting that study now about the widening of this, you know, short quarter mile segment. It's the two lane segment of Davis Boulevard that anybody that ever travels in that area knows that you get to, and as I understand it, the County is also looking at participating in some funding of that, but that hasn't been decided yet either. Certainly under the Collier County road impact fee ordinance, the impact fees that this project will pay could be used to widen Davis Boulevard. That's permitted under the road impact fee ordinance. Page 41 November 16, 2000 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, could I ask Mr. Anderson -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Would the applicant be willing to make a concurrency commitment then to Davis Boulevard being improved before their project goes forward? MR. ANDERSON: No. Well, we will abide by the concurrency ordinance, I'll tell you that. We're going to be subject to it just like everybody else out there, and it should be on a first come, first served basis with regard to who gets in and pulls a building permit first. That's how the adequate public facilities ordinance is structured. It's not who gets the first zoning approval, and, therefore, you know, you can sit on it for years and years and tie up capacity. It's who has a real live building permit application in, and we -- you know, we'll be bound just like anybody else out there will be. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: My concern is that we're in a deficient situation right now, and that it doesn't appear that the various agencies are working together sufficiently to solve this problem. The County is saying it's a state problem. The State, I don't know what they're saying, they are not here, and I realize that, you know, you're having a problem here. The board has a problem, but I would be more comfortable if the applicant would agree to having their project go forward only on the basis of this problem on Davis Boulevard being corrected. MR. ANDERSON: I'd like to do that, but that would be so unfair to single us out with regard to all the other landowners that are out there who are all participating in this interchange master plan process that the comprehensive plan has called for. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, you're not being singled out. You're in front of us, so you've singled yourself out in terms of asking for approval for this project, and in that regard, this is the only opportunity we have to put some pressure on getting that road situation repaired. That would be my view. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I don't know how we would be putting pressure on, because they are not the ones that can put pressure on the state or county to get that -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, if this approval, for instance, was denied because we had concern about the traffic considerations -- which staff has taken a position on it's not their Page 42 November 16, 2000 fault, it's the state's fault, but I think in a broader context, we have a responsibility to think about this for the entire community. MR. ANDERSON: I can tell you what we would be willing to live with, is we would certainly have no objection if our impact fees, our road impact fees from this project were dedicated to the widening of this segment of Davis Boulevard, that would be reasonable. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And, in fact, if it were actually applied and done prior to your pulling a building permit? MR. ANDERSON: No, I'm sorry, I cannot subject ourselves to not being treated the same as any other property owner under the Collier County concurrency ordinance. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: On Page 3, it says transportation services recommend approval subject to intersection improvements, and I assume they're not talking about this intersection. So, the transportation department of Collier County has looked at it and put their blessing on this project, right? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: And I'd like to point out from a transportation planning aspect, I'm in charge of doing the traffic reviews for all county staff when they bring petitions forward to you. The reason staff is recommending approval is that that segment of Davis is so short, it's not going to really have an impact on traffic flow over the entire length of that segment, and it's only a concurrency issue that I was referring to where the State has to come up with a plan to mitigate that, but it's not going to stop the County from issuing building permits in this area for any project. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you, and I believe I'm correct, it's not within the power of this board to even recommend how impact fees are spent, so we will -- MR. ANDERSON: And we'll be -- we estimate that we'll be generating about two million dollars in road impact fees from this project, and I would also point out that the Collier County comprehensive plan encourages that the various activity centers in the county be developed as mixed use, and this is one of those mixed use projects. You don't often see them, but this is a mixture of commercial and residential. So, we are providing what the county comp. plan ideally asks for at this location. Page 43 November 16, 2000 Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of the petitioner?. Anyone else on your team wish to speak, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Only in response to questions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anyone from the public wish to address this issue? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward PUD-2000-16 to the Board of County Commissioners for the recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: A motion made by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Rautio. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, just my question on the motion. I realize I'm the new kid on the block, so you'll forgive my brashness in part, but I wonder if we're missing an opportunity to somehow impact the plans be it to the county or the state to move forward on the improvement of Davis Boulevard by going ahead and approving this very fine application, but one that exacerbates, I think, the problem. Are there any responses to that? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I think if we turn this down, that we don't do a thing towards getting Davis Boulevard fixed. It doesn't do anything towards getting David Boulevard fixed. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, our actions on the planning commission have nothing to do with the traffic circulation in that regard? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, only in terms of a recommendation, remember? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, could we -- could I -- we add to our approval then a recommendation to the county board that -- our concern about the impact of this on Davis Boulevard? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I think that will be noted in the minutes of this meeting. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. I would ask -- I'm not going to add it to my motion, but I would simply ask staff to forward on to the county commission that we're concerned about that, and yes, I, for one, would love to have that stretch of road fixed Page 44 November 16, 2000 because I travel through it several times a week, and my wife and kids travel through it twice a day. MR. BELLOWS: The executive summary reflects the motion of the board and concerns. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried, thank you. The next item is Petition Number PUD-00-17, Collier Boulevard Commercial Center PUD. All those who wish to give testimony, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ray. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The petitioner is requesting a rezone of a 19.54 acre site from industrial to a PUD to be known as the 1-75 Collier Boulevard Commercial Center. The name was changed just recently as a result of our addressing department's concerns of -- that it's close in names to other developments in the area, and so, therefore, the new name of the PUD is the 1-75 Collier Boulevard Commercial Center PUD. The subject site is located on the south side of Davis Boulevard and west of Collier Boulevard. The petition proposes 148,000 square feet of retail commercial uses. The PUD document allows for either a single use of development such as a shopping center or a mixed development with office and retail uses, The site is located within the activity center south of Davis Boulevard. It's adjacent to industrial land use classification, and it's surrounded by the Westport Commerce Center commercial PUD now. The master plan indicates access off of Collier Boulevard and off of Davis Boulevard and an interconnection with the Westport Commerce Center to the south. The traffic impact statement indicates that the difference between the trips that can be generated from the existing industrial zoning versus the trips that could be generated from the proposed commercial development will not exceed the Page 45 November 16, 2000 significance test on Davis Boulevard. Therefore, there is no significant impact because the difference in trips is irrelevant and insignificant. This petition -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE.' Mr. Bellows, is this the same quarter mile that -- MR. BELLOWS: The same quarter mile, yeah, that we just talked about. This fronts on it. The difference with the other one is further north, but under current zoning, they can develop without County Commission approval through the industrial zoning. I think that's the main difference between this project and the one we just heard, is they were going from agricultural, so the uses generated from agricultural are rather relatively insignificant, while the differences -- the zoning -- the industrial zoning can generate almost a similar amount of trips. This petition was not able to go to the EAC because they did not have a quorum, so this will follow, like this last one, will be in December, and staff has -- our environmental staff has reviewed this and has recommended approval and will be taking that recommendation to the EAC also in December. That EAC will hear this prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing this item. Staff has determined this project is consistent with the adjacent developments in the area. There's commercial -- the Toll Gate Commercial Center to the east and the Forest Glen project is a commercial development in the area. Staff has received a letter in support of this project, and if you'd like, I can pass out a copy of it. It's from the Ronto Group in the Forest Glen development. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Ray, what happens to the two little parcels that end up being triangles that are, I guess, immediately to the west and immediately to the south of that gas station that's on the corner? MR. BELLOWS: Up in here? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: That still retains its zoning, industrial zoning and whatever uses that are permitted in there. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And those are separate parcels and separate ownership, I guess, from -- Page 46 November 16, 2000 MR. BELLOWS: you of those parcels. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: you know, oddball -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I don't have the ownership information for Because those are going to be, -- projects at some point. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. This is the property that the petitioner owns and is coming in for. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions for staff? If not, we can hear from the petitioner. MR. PICKWORTH: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Don Pickworth. I'm representing Linda Marszalkowski as the trustee for the group that owns this property, and I have with me Tim Hancock, who has done the planning work on this project for US, As Mr. Bellows indicated, this property is currently zoned industrial, straight industrial and has been for many, many years, and Ms. Marszalkowski had -- has over the past several months talked to a number of people, including a number of the county commissioners, and there just seems to be a general agreement that given the interest of the County in the interchange master plan and spiffing up the area, if you will, that being right on the corner, the use of this property for industrial would not probably be the best way to go. So, with that in mind, we have -- we have applied to rezone the property to commercial. It's a similar situation to the discussion with Bruce. I mean, we have also met with the transportation planning people. In fact, I met with -- last week with Don Wolfe, the transportation planning director, and Stan Litsinger and the others, and, you know, the upshot is that there are some transportation commitments in our PUD. We were given some right-of-way. Our accesses have got to be in accordance with the County's policies on access management. With that, I guess if there's any specific questions on the project, either I or Mr. Hancock will answer them. Oh, by the way, the triangle, I don't know. We are rezoning our entire ownership. There's no -- there's no residual property that we control that will be industrially zoned. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Pickworth, will it be safe to say that since this project comes forward and may actually get Page 47 November 16, 2000 built and you're donating some right-of-way, that that might be the stimulus for helping the Davis Boulevard roadway get farther down the -- MR. PICKWORTH: We were given the right-of-way on 951 because, you know, those plans where they're going to have the -- I mean, they're going to need a lot of room down there, and that's -- they've already gotten Davis from us. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You started to say a fly-over. MR. PICKWORTH: Well, did I say a bad word? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Or grade separation. MR. PICKWORTH: I'm sorry. We keep hearing about these, and they keep scheduling and then canceling informational meetings, but, you know, according to what I was told by the transportation people, something is going to happen out there someday, someday. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Something is going to happen someday. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' That brings me to a question, Don, what -- do PUDs sunset ever? MR. PICKWORTH: If you don't do anything with them, they sunset in five years. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Five years. An awful lot of people have just discovered 951 since we've renamed it. An awful lot of commercial being approved there, and it all has to be done in five years or it goes back to what it was. MR. PICKWORTH: Well, you've got to make a good faith effort to begin within five years. You don't have to totally build out your project, but if you get your approval and then do nothing -- well, the way it works is it doesn't necessarily go back. What happens is they bring you back in here and -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Breathe new life into it. MR. PICKWORTH: Well, either breathe new life in, or they decide that maybe what you got approved originally, based on what's happened over the last five years, might not be the best thing out there anymore, so you're basically putting yourself at risk that you may not have what you thought you had, so -- and a year or two ago, they went through a long series of those reviews on a lot of projects. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions for the Page 48 November 16, 2000 petitioner? If not, anyone from the public that wishes to address the board on this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing, and I will make a public apology to Mr. Hancock about his dress. I think he looks extra nice today compared to what he was two or three weeks ago. I will entertain a motion on this. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that the planning commission forward Petition PUD-2000-17 to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Been moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Pedone. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: See what you can do when you get a customer? MR. HANCOCK: Put a suit on him. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He dresses up quite nice. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Next up is PUD -- PUD-99-28, Cocohatchee Bay. All those wishing to give testimony on this, please rise and raise your right hand, be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Can we take just a moment, a brief recess while we seem to organize our maps. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: How about a real five minute recess? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I said a short recess. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Oh, okay. (Small break was held). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Call this meeting back to order. Commissioner Budd received an emergency phone call. I really don't have any details. I think a member of his family was in an accident, so our prayers go with him. He has left. Page 49 November 16, 2000 Okay. We are back and ready for PUD-99-28, Cocohatchee Bay, and I believe we have everybody sworn in, so with that, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino. The petition that you have before you would ask that this County rezone lands currently zoned in a number of different zoning districts to a PUD, planned unit development residential zoning district. The land is 532 plus or minus acres in area and has an irregular boundary, to say the least, and includes -- the majority of the land lies to the west of Vanderbilt Drive and circles an island of development that includes the Wiggins Pass Marina, Pelican Isle Yacht Club, the Cocohatchee River Park, Marina Bay and the Anchorage Condominium. That land is zoned RMF-12 with a cap of three dwelling units per acre and RMF-6 in some instances, RSF-3. So, you have essentially RSF-3, RMF-6, some agricultural zoning, and RMF-12 and RMF-6 down in the corner here. Now, you should appreciate that what those zoning districts allow includes multiple family housing, for example, in the RMF district at a maximum height of 50 feet, and in the RMF-6 district at a maximum -- and RSF-3 district at a maximum height of :35 feet, but the fact remains that within this area of the county, both single family and multiple family houses can be constructed right now if somebody were to make an application for a subdivision plan or a site development plan. That land is currently zoned and allows those housing structure types at a density not to exceed three dwelling units per acre. To the east of Vanderbilt Drive, you have land that is zoned -- currently zoned for single family purposes at four and three dwelling units respectively. You-all know where the land is. When we -- the proposal that's before you, while it was advertised at 790 dwelling units, has since been amended, and the revised PUD that you have in your documents speaks to a density of 590 dwelling units. That being the case, of course, you're dealing with a density far less than the density that is otherwise authorized on this property. Now, you will read -- you will note some objections that you've received and that I'm going to hand out. These -- these were -- came to my office after you received your staff report. Page 50 November 16, 2000 One of the letters of objection -- as a matter of fact, I think there are a couple that I would like to speak directly to because as you'll recall, there was also a consideration in the issue of the Dunes, it's difficult for people to understand that Collier County's application of density applies to the entire area of land that a person has title to, whether it is submerged land covered by water or whether or not it is so environmentally sensitive that you would unlikely be able to obtain permits from the state and federal permitting agencies. Density is based on the gross acreage of the land that one owns, and if we were to apply simply that rule, 1,500 units of housing to 1,700 units of housing could, otherwise, be constructed on these lands. The current -- however, that -- that is further made moot by the fact that the land is zoned to permit that kind of density, and assuming that one could obtain permits from the state and federal agencies, they would be able to go right into a development process. So, when we deal with this petition from the view of analyzing its impact, we have to compare the impact of 590 housing units, which is what this petition requests, versus the currently authorized number of dwelling units, and when you -- and that is the way that we're required under the law to analyze this petition in terms of impacts. So, given that fact, there's, obviously, less of a traffic impact with this project than the impact that is inherently in place with the current zoning, and that trickles all the way down the elements that we are required to review this petition by for consistency with the growth management plan. Additionally, our staff, our environmental staff advised us that this project meets the objectives and policies of the coastal conservation management element, which is the environmental element that speaks to the preservation of environmentally sensitive lands and habitat and wildlife habitat characteristics. Ninety percent of the land in this project will be preserved in either a preservation context or as open -- open space connected with a golf course. That is far in excess of the requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The Collier County Growth Management says -- Plan says that 25 percent of the existing viable native vegetation has to be preserve. They are way above that requirement. That 60 Page 51 November 16, 2000 percent of a residential project has to be retained in open space. This project is 90 percent. We can advise you that this project meets all of the elements of the growth management plan. Given that -- that is not the only criteria that you're held by. You're held by a whole series of findings that say it's -- that being the case. Is it still compatible? That's a very subjective element. We've talked about that many times before in front of you. This project would have -- this project as it's proposed would have a golf course, 15 holes of an 18 hole golf course in the northeast quadrant of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive. Three of the 18 holes will be on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive. The actual location of residential structures will be in those yellow pods you see, and to the west of that, of course, is a commitment to preserve the entirety of the remainder of the land. There will not be any housing units south of the Anchorage all the way to the Dunes project, and you'll appreciate, the north part of the Dunes -- about a hundred acres of the Dunes project is also in a preserve. So, when you drive down Vanderbilt Drive, what you see as green is always going to stay green south of the Pelican Isle development and the Wiggins Pass Marina. When we deal with the issue of residential structures, this project proposes that the first tower would be limited to 15 stories in height because it is immediately adjacent to a 15 story tower in the Arbor Trace PUD. South of that 15 story structure, they would then -- the PUD then proposes that the remaining towers would be constructed to a height of 20 feet (sic). In addition -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Twenty stories. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Twenty stories. MR. NINO: Twenty stories, I'm sorry, 20 stories. In addition, there's a housing element that runs in this narrow band of land. It's 286 feet wide, and this band of land here is another residential tract on the PUD master plan which doesn't show up in that plan there, and on this residential tract, they propose to build a multifamily product not to exceed a height of two stories. To the north of that is the Falling Waters project, which has a two story condominium product. To the south of that is Tarpon Cove, which has a two story condominium product. Page 52 November 16, 2000 Given -- given those -- the location of residential structures, particularly the high-rise structures, the fact that they're so separated from existing residential structures leads us to a conclusion that those towers are certainly compatible with their surrounding environment, and so far as the two story housing is concerned, obviously, it's two story condominiums opposite and adjacent to two story condominiums, and we need to find that that is, indeed, compatible. The -- this is in a highly urbanized area. You know, one of the things we -- you need to find is, is it ripe? Is this area ripe for development or does it encourage urban sprawl? It has utilities. It's in the heart of Collier County's development corridor. It is certainly ripe for development. Again, findings that we normally tend to make in our staff report to you. I received some additional objections that I need to hand out to you. There are not copies of them, so you just have to pass them down, and I'll have to make copies of them and transfer them to the board. There are petitions in there -- there are petitions of objection in there as well. Unfortunately, once again, we have a project that was scheduled to go to the EAB. The EAB met and failed to have a quorum and is not scheduled for an EAB meeting until the first Wednesday of December, and I don't want to editorialize any further on that. However, the environmental staff report that you have in your packet, the findings of our staff and the recommendations of our staff that are being made to the EAB are included in the PUD document, and, obviously, any other recommendations that come out of the EAB meeting, I'll transmit it to the board, and if the board concurs, they will be included in the document as well. It's important for you to appreciate that another issue here that you're going to hear about is there is an eagle in there, and the PUD is structured, as structured, contains an eagle management plan. It basically says that until that eagle decides to find a new home, that development can't go forward. It just can't go forward. It's there, and it will have to wait until the eagle finds a new home. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Where is the eagle, Ron -- MR. NINO: The eagle is -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- location? Page 53 November 16, 2000 MR. NINO: -- somewhere in there, right there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, this project could not go forward unless that eagle moves? MR. NINO: No, the residential towers that are within 1,500 feet of the eagle's nest cannot go forward. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: is. Show me where 1,500 feet MR. NINO: It's in your packet. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, show me up there, so everybody can see it. MR. NINO: Oh, okay. MS. BISHOP: Fifteen hundred feet would be right here, zoned. That's the secondary zone, 1,500 feet. The primary zone is about here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Karen, that's not part of the testimony unless you're at the microphone, okay. MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop, agent for the petitioner. Those areas are shown on this map, both the primary and the secondary zone that so you have a good idea of what would be affected. MR. NINO: The PUD has development standards that we're comfortable with. Basically, the standards in the PUD require a building separation of one half the sum of the heights of the buildings. That standard is commonly used, and, however, it is also common that there can be some administrative reduction of that for a common architectural theme and for buildings that are skewed or angled to one another, because that affects the perception. It makes a difference if buildings are maybe opposite one another or if they are like that or if they are like that, there's justification for reducing that distance. That provision is in there, and that's an administrative function. We recommend approval of this petition to you, recommend that you send it on to the board with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ron, I know traffic is a major issue here, but my first concern when I look up there is this golf course, and we're talking about a lot of traffic, and I know it's not part of the PUD. It's not part of our -- how does the golf course get from one side to the other? Do we have the -- MR. NINO: There will be an underpass just like Audubon, Page 54 November 16, 2000 similar to the Audubon. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That horrible word, overpass, but we're going to have an underpass; is that it? MR. NINO: An underpass. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, I have a question of staff. Ron, what you're basically stating to us is our options here today is do we turn this down and take the chance that the property owners go build what they can build without asking any questions -- MR. NINO: Exactly. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- they can go pull permits from Horseshoe Drive today and build whatever they want within our current rules -- MR. NINO: Within our current rules. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- or do we make sure we get a better product for the County, and this -- MR. NINO: Correct. I can unequivocally stand here and say, if there was -- this is the most environmentally friendly response to the development of this land. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay, but let's talk about traffic. We don't fix traffic by turning this down because the property owners can go make traffic bad without asking us. MR. NINO: Exactly. Exactly. Traffic impacts are allowed right now under the current zoning ordinance to an extent greater than this proposal would result in. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So, by approving this, to some degree we fix our traffic problems. MR. NINO: Well, we -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Potential traffic problems. MR. NINO: -- we reduce the level of impact -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: That we could have. MR. NINO: -- that we could otherwise have, but, obviously, it shouldn't come to any surprise to anybody to realize that eventually Vanderbilt Drive will one day have to be widened, and the impact fee revenue from this project and from the Dunes is far more than adequate to take care of the traffic corrections on Vanderbilt Drive. Page 55 November 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ron, one question, and I know we're going to hear about the eagle. Under the zoning right now, can they go in there and build whatever -- and I can't see it from here. I think it's RSF-6, multifamily, they can go in there and build those now in spite of the eagle's nest? MR. NINO: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I just want that clear. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So, nothing changes with the eagle? MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Whether we approve this or turn it down, nothing changes with the eagle. MR. NINO: Right. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: He is not at this meeting, thank God. Any questions of staff? We will hear from the petitioner. MS. BISHOP: Good morning, Karen Bishop, agent for the petitioner. I'd like to clarify just a couple of things, the eagle being the first thing. The primary zone would stay intact, and there would be no development in that, but in the secondary zone, you can have up to two stories, but you have to -- you cannot build during the nesting season. So, there would be development allowed in a secondary zone but not the primary zone. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You're only restricted when you can build. MS. BISHOP: When, right. Also, I want to note that we have promised to give a hundred foot of right-of-way on our northern line, which is the other part of the Livingston Road east/west segment. Fifty feet has already been provided on the projects to the north, so together with ours, you'll be 150 feet from Vanderbilt. This Livingston Road segment goes from Vanderbilt Drive and eventually shows connection to 951, apparently, jumping over 1-75. So, those are the -- we have done that in place for future traffic as they need it. Plus, we also have provided for giving additional right-of-way along Vanderbilt and Wiggins Pass Road for those improvements necessary on those roadways. Page 56 November 16, 2000 The golf course underpass really will be an underpass instead of an overpass, because -- mainly because of the way the traffic is and the close proximity to the Livingston Road segment. We will be putting this at such a level that we will be using pumps to keep the water out of the little golf course underpass, so that you do know that will be a very minimal hump, not as high as it is at the Audubon. We have, I believe, taken this project a little farther than most would. The golf course has made tremendous changes in the last year -- we've been working on this project for over a year with Commissioner Carter, the staff, as well as we had a public workshop in September where all the homeowners' associations, their boards were invited to speak on a panel and to review our projects, both the Dunes and Cocohatchee, and that was two months ago. We have made several changes to accommodate this property because -- by the way, it is a pretty awesome piece of property. The west side of the road -- I'm sorry, the east side of the road where the golf course currently sits has both scrub, has beautiful cypress, which, in fact, we have preserved those. We have eliminated lakes in our project so that we could, in fact, save the habitat and not put a hole where you would have nice habitat. We have -- since this plan was done, we revised the plan to make sure that the golf course is not in the eagle primary zone at all. It is in the secondary zone specifically, not in a primary zone. So, this exhibit is a little inaccurate in that case, but the master plan we show with our project does, in fact, have that right alignment. We are currently involved in permitting this project with both the Corps of Engineers and the district, so you can be assured that we are going through a substantial amount of review environmentally. Even though we didn't get to go in front of the EAC, based on what we're doing here, I can't imagine that the EAC would have a problem, since we, in fact, are protecting the eagle, protecting his habitat, protecting the gopher turtles on-site; in fact, leaving the flow-way that comes from the north through and eliminating lakes so that we can save as much vegetation as possible. We have agreed with staff on their recommendations to Page 57 November 16, 2000 remove the 20 foot -- or excuse me, the 20 stories from that northern building for compatibility and then go with the 20 stories south of that, which end up being adjacent to the marina. Everything else we will put into conservation easement upon our final permitting at the agencies, which show on our master plan that they will be in conservation easement forever, and they will be maintained by the homeowners' association. If there are any other questions, I have brought my biologist as well as my drainage guy so that if you have any questions, we can answer them for you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That strip of property that Mr. Nino pointed out, what was the zoning on that again, that one right up there? MS. BISHOP: I can't read that far. MR. NINO: RSF-4 with a cap of three. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: With a cap of three, okay. That's never been a preserve property before? MS. BISHOP: No. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: There appears to be in one of the petitions here, Tarpon Cove, talking about rezoning preserve land, and referring to that area there specifically. I just wanted to make sure that that was on the record, that that's not preserve. MS. BISHOP: It is not. There is preserve to the north, which is odd because the preserve to the north properties is, in fact, that 50 foot right-of-way for future Livingston Road. So, when Collier County goes back in to build Livingston Road, they will be mitigating the preserves away from those projects because those projects showed preserve -- have literally permitted preserve on a 50 foot right-of-way, future right-of-way. In our case, the land was not permitted, so until you permit property, it wouldn't go under preserve. Tarpon Cove to the south of us, I believe has preserves on their northern line. Now, our plan intends to keep the flow-way intact and does -- because there's a lot of water that comes across this area, believe me, and a big drainage issue there, so we would not be allowed to impede that in any way, and we are looking at putting our development pods in between the flow areas. So, there's -- you're probably only talking about, at the most, a few buildings there. One would be a caddy area that we are Page 58 November 16, 2000 looking at next to the maintenance facility, which is right at the western end -- or excuse me -- yeah, western end of that little strip and then possibly another multifamily piece, which is right on the 41 piece. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: One of the reasons I bring this up, particularly to staff, is this particular petition is saying that people purchase property thinking that this area would always be preserve land. They actually purchase with the understanding and the fact that there would be no development between our area and Falling Waters, and they are concerned about this narrow strip of land. It's unfortunate that we have the situation, because those property owners should have checked this out before and understood this. I'm very sensitive to what you're saying, but we can't penalize this particular developer and landowner for something that's not already on the record, and that, perhaps, you have an issue with your -- the people that sold you the property, the real estate people for the fact that you may want to check out exactly what was there, and I respect you-ali's right to sign the petition, but I think you signed a petition that really doesn't accurately reflect what the public records of this county state. MS. BISHOP: Well, and also, just to address that one step further, the MPO plan for transportation has shown this segment of Livingston Road on there for a very long time. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's what I thought. MS. BISHOP: So, you know -- and they are very pleased to be able to get this roadway segment because it's part of the need to help with the congestion in this area as well as maybe moving up the four laning of Vanderbilt and improving some of these other roadways in that area would be a part of that help. Our impact fees, you know, should be enough to do that if they keep them in that area to move that forward. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Just as a follow up to that, I'm very interested in hearing what the public has to say about -- particularly somebody who signed this petition, so thank you. MS. BISHOP: Thank you. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I recall some years ago we Page 59 November 16, 2000 had a bald eagle down on Marco, and it was in the way and timing and so forth of that development, and one night overnight, somebody came in and cut down that tree, and so the eagle moved. I'm wondering -- you know, we're a little more sophisticated these days in terms of trying to take care of these problems. I'm wondering if the developer has any plans to provide some sort of security in that area so a similar event doesn't occur. MS. BISHOP: Well, sir, first of all, we are under contract with that property. I want you to notice the tree that they show there, it's a dead tree. So, at this point, it's only a matter of time before that tree comes down on its own and the eagle looks for another home on its own. We have requested from the owner to look to putting up fences and stuff. There have been people out there actually taking down trees to fell them across the path through there. I believe they think that they're helping the -- keep people out of that eagle area. In fact, they're taking down tall trees. There isn't very many. It's near the marina, and typically, eagles don't like to be around a lot of commotion, but in this particular case, I believe this eagle is urbanized because he has been hanging out around the marina, apparently good food there, and he flies between the high-rises to the south, so, you know, this guy is used to humans to that degree. We anticipate with our golf course construction that there will be security based on our property at that point, that there would be no one going over to that eagle area, with vegetation and other things to keep our property separated from the general public. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thinking about during the construction phase though where there's a lot of people in and out. MR. CORACE: For the record, my name is Don Corace with Signature Communities. With regard to the eagle, first of all, it should be understood that the potential high-rise component of this project more than likely will not be developed within the next four to five years. We're completing our Dunes project, as you're well aware of, and, obviously, we'd be competing with ourselves. Page 60 November 16, 2000 So, we have a fairly patient time line. As it's indicated in the staff report, the eagle is in a tree which is dead. A consultant has indicated that with a substantial storm, that eagle -- the eagle's nest could be damaged, but, again, we're not in any position to develop that property at this point. Our main focus for the project is to commence construction of our golf course the first quarter of next year and complete that project the first quarter of 2002. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Doesn't that eagle have some relatives like by Germain Auto? MS. BISHOP: I'm guessing they all hang out together. If they're not related, they're buddies, I'm guessing. And they have actually fledged -- there was two fledglings there last year, so -- so, they are living quite well in those neighborhoods in general. So,apparently, there's still habitat available for them, but there have been fledglings. Last year there were two. They left the nest, and so these eagles are quite happy where they are right now. So, we are leaving them alone. MR. NINO: I think the material I handed out to you has a letter from the Audubon who -- which gives you a history of how successful that current nest is. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It sounds like a successful nest. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Further questions of petitioner? Hearing none, and members of the public, please, I would ask that you hold your comments down to five minutes. Ron. MR. NINO'- Yes, I have a number. Chris Thornton, Kathy Robbins, Dr. Jeffrey Kaplan. If you'll stand and get in line. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm going to ask -- because I have a short memory, if you were sworn in, and then ask you to give your name and spell it for the court reporter. MR. THORNTON: I was sworn in. My name is Chris Thornton. That's T-H-O-R-N-T-O-N. I'm with the law firm of Treiser, Kobza & Lieberfarb, and I'm here today representing the Estuary Conservation Association. It's formerly known as the Wiggins Pass Conservancy. They've got about two to 300 members from the North Naples area. I'm joined today by the vice-president, Dr. Jeffrey Kaplan, who will also have some words for you today. The mission of the Estuary Conservation Association is to Page 61 November 16, 2000 protect the estuary system in North Naples from Vanderbilt up to Bonita and to maintain safe and clean waterways in that area. The first issue I'd like to touch on is the current zoning of this property. As indicated, it's mostly -- it's all residential multi-family or residential single family, but also, the property in the zoning re-evaluation process in 1990, the property was overlaid with a special treatment overlay, and I'd like to read a few excerpts from the Collier County land development code on why this property was given this designation. The purpose of this district is to assure the preservation and maintenance of these environmental and cultural resources and to encourage the preservation of the intricate ecological relationships. Also, this overlay district classification will be used for those lands of environmental sensitivity and historical and archeological significance where the essential regulations established by this code or ordinance do not adequately protect the land. So, in that ST overlay, it basically runs all of the property west of about this line, and I don't know exactly where it is, it depends on elevation above me, but basically, all this property has already been picked by the County and designated as special treatment overlay because of its environmental sensitivity. This request would basically get rid of that designation. The property would just be PUD, and those are there -- there are protections within the special treatment overlay that would be removed. So, we would ask that in approving this PUD, the special treatment overlay be left where it is. Leave the special treatment overlay in the PUD, and that special treatment also, it creates a procedure where if you own special treatment land and you own other land that you want to develop, you're allowed to come to the County and say, I'd like to take my development rights from this special treatment property, move it over here and gather all my density up on land that's developable. That's what this developer is doing. They're taking density from all over the place and forcing it up in the air, but the difference is, this -- in that process, the special treatment process and transferring those development rights, the County gets the land in fee simple rather than the land just being at a preservation, and this preservation has a laundry list of permissible uses, including golf cart paths, boardwalks, things like that, I guess docks, and if Page 62 November 16, 2000 they were to go through this process that's created for special treatment properties, the property would be either given to the State in fee simple or the County or to a nonprofit conservation organization, the code allows that. So, the property is appropriate for transfer of development rights possibly. If it were to get that, the property should be given in fee simple to a conservation organization such as Estuary Conservation Association possibly. Barring the denial of the application, I just ask that the special treatment overlay remain in place. In addition, the density -- before we say thank you to the developer for giving up 1,160 units, it's just a surprise to me to learn that I've been trespassing all these years, every time I go fishing out at Wiggins Pass channel. I think it's a little bit disingenuous for the developer to claim the density upon what is navigable waters, I presumed, of the State of Florida. This is -- I haven't done a title search, but it's something that I would ask that the County look into and maybe have the county attorney's office review it. According to the PUD document itself, 100 acres of this property is navigable estuarian waters, and it doesn't seem appropriate to take that property and move that development potential to the wetlands. In addition, the density calculations, they come up with a figure of 1,178 units. The density calculations are supposed to be based on existing zoning, and they've listed only residential single family and residential multi-family housing as existing zoning designations. However, a large portion of Section 17, which is basically this property, I'll try to point it out, that right there, a large portion of that section is actually zoned agricultural. The density is a lot lower than residential multi-family or residential single family, and I have the current zoning maps which show large portions of that property to be agricultural rather than residential multi-family or residential single family. So I think before we say they can build 1,178, let's actually look at the existing zoning and bring that down to where it should be and actually know how much density they're giving up. As an example, I'd like to point out on the ground existing -- it's known as parcel one in the PUD documents. I'll put this back Page 63 November 16, 2000 up if I can. The site plan there doesn't show a parcel that's included in the density calculation known as parcel one. It's an 11 acre parcel in this location, this parcel here. As you can see, half of that parcel is water and half is listed on this -- which was created by the developer's consultant, half is listed as mangrove forest. So -- and it's an 11 acre piece zoned four units per acre. So, they're calculating 33 units. They're saying, I could go out today and build 33 units on that property, it's just not realistic. So, I'd just like to point that out before we say -- before we just take the developer's word and say, thank you for giving up all that density, let's look at what's out there and see what can actually be done before we take that step. I would -- the PUD document doesn't list this. It's asking for residential uses. I just want to make sure and get some assurances from the developer that this property will never have a marina on it, no gasoline and no commercial marina uses in the estuarian system. I think that's probably taken care of as it is already drafted. I just wanted to make sure that that can never happen on this property. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I've allowed you an extra five minutes because you're a speaker for a group, but I would ask that you sum it up, please. MR. THORNTON: Okay. I'll just make one more point, and I won't do a summary, but I just want to get a clarification and make sure that this is the entire ownership of this developer in this area. I understand a lot of the property below to the south has been included in the Dunes PUD, but before we approve the Dunes and approve Cocohatchee Bay, I want to make sure that any property in between there is not left open for development when it should be included in this preserve that they're proposing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' I have a question. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: You're asking us to, perhaps, take a look at keeping the ST, and then when they transfer development rights as they're proposing, that the land would be given to the State or the County. It seems we're getting a much better deal by the land remaining in preserve and their homeowners' association being financially responsible from here on for maintaining that. If they give it to the State or the County, Page 64 November 16, 2000 my concern would be, where is the money coming from, you know, to maintain, keep the exotics out and whatever. So, I think we would be much better served with their proposal, keeping it in a preserve knowing that we've got some financial backing, you know, for the maintenance of that. MR. THORNTON: Keeping the ST -- transfer of the development rights is something, I assume, the developer gets to decide whether he want to do that or not. It's not something you can force them to do. Keeping the ST in place -- as I read parts of the ordinance, the ST was put there to protect sensitive lands, and it creates -- basically, it's additional hurdles and hoops so that when they do develop any ST land, they've got to come back before you. They've got to come back before the EAC before they get their plans approved, and if you go ahead and approve this PUD as it is, the ST designation is totally taken away, and this property is no longer ST. It's additional protection that will be removed if you approve this PUD as it is. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But -- but we're knowing through the PUD what the end result is going to be with the preserve, so why would we need them -- I mean, there's a tradeoff. MR. THORNTON: The list of uses in the preserve is, I guess, the point. There's a laundry list of uses that are allowed, including golf cart paths, recreational facilities, things like that, and we would -- we do want to see -- and this is, admittedly, a good project as far as the environment goes. It protects a lot of wetland, but the list of uses in that preserve, there are too many uses there, and it would be better for us if there was an easement or given to the State with no uses allowed at all. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: One other question, you mentioned the density calculation on the property that's to the north. You're not insinuating that this landowner has been paying taxes for years and has no right to build any units on that property? MR. THORNTON: Well, I just would like some confirmation, either through the county attorney's office, just for somebody to make sure that it is on a fee simple. I mean -- MS. STUDENT: I'm just going to say that as a matter of practice, we don't do title searches on property that the County doesn't own. I think we have some ethical issues there. Page 65 November 16, 2000 What we do -- and we take -- you know, staff gets the information, and, you know, we take their word for it just like we do when a plat is reviewed and there's a title search that's provided with it. We do not independently do title searches. MR. THORNTON: I just find it hard -- if -- if the proposal were to put all 592 acres in a preserve and do nothing in it except for one house sitting right in the middle of Wiggins Pass, is that -- is that private property that a home can be built on? That's what I'm getting at, and if they have a deed from the board of trustees -- it's just a real simple answer, and maybe that's the answer. That could be it. MS. STUDENT: I don't know. I have to defer to staff on that, but there are other situations in this county, albeit, I believe, in the City of Naples, where there are residential structures built on water. So, it is not -- it would not be unusual. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, if I could piggy-back upon those comments. Your organization indicated that you might be willing or have in other situations taken title to specific lands. MR. THORNTON: I haven't been authorized to take any land. I know that -- I mean, possibly the developer might be interested in having somebody else take the burden of preserving this land. I would have to get that authorization from my client, and it might not be just my client, but there might be other organizations that might be willing to take it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, this applicant in other -- the other project, the Dunes, has indicated that preserved areas, that they would be very happy to have somebody take it over because it is a burden on the developer to -- you know, in perpetuity to take care of this, and the homeowners is the only vehicle they have, but I'm sure they would be interested in talking to another group responsible to take on this task. It seems to me that way you could have your cake and eat it too, the protections that we're talking about on the ST overlay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, I -- yeah, sitting here also as a taxpayer of this county, and if I have an opportunity to let one group of people take care of that financially, I'm certainly interested. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, I'd encourage you to Page 66 November 16, 2000 pursue that. MR. NINO: If I may, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. MR. NINO: It's inaccurate to characterize the rezoning of property from AST or RMF ST to PUD as eliminating the ST. That's an inaccurate statement because the PUD introduces another vehicle for preserving the same amount of area or at least the area that has been achieved under a mitigation agreement with the state and federal permitting agencies. It's called a preserve. It's registered under Chapter 7.34 of the Florida Statutes which provides that -- which provides a perpetual easement over the property and says it can never be used for any other purpose other than a natural -- in its natural state. So, that's an unfair character -- it's an inaccurate characterization of that process, and we've done it countless numbers of times. I mean, I would remind you of the vast mangrove area in Pelican Bay that is zoned Pelican Bay PUD and the large area in Pelican Marsh. I mean, it's done regularly. We've transferred them to PUD preserves instead of STs. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Nino, that was going to be my question. I just wanted to make sure that we were trading an ST overlay approach for another mechanism which is the PUD preserve. MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And that is a recognized approach in Florida law, in county ordinances to do that type of thing. MR. NINO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Because I was having concern with the statement that we took the whole ST overlay off. We used another mechanism, from what I understand now, to protect that, and I think our attorney wants to say something. MR. NINO: And the transfer of development right issues that Chris identified is to an off-site. In other words, if I have an ST area -- if I wish to build more units on this upland area that I have, right now under the ordinance, I could go to an area designated ST somewhere else in Collier County, acquire that land, transfer it to a conservation organization, and with the consent of the board, have the right to enjoy several more units. The Hawthorne -- is it the Hawthorne Suites? The newest Page 67 November 16, 2000 hotel next to the Pewter Mug is the recipient of that kind of TDR, and that's the only way it goes through a conservation agency, but if it's a transfer -- if it's an on-site transfer, that's not -- that's not TDR in the context of our land development code. MS. STUDENT: I had a question for Mr. Nino. I just want a clarification about the submerged lands issue. I believe that you testified earlier that with the reduction in density, it really rendered that point moot because if you took that acreage out and didn't count it whatsoever, they still would meet the density requirements of the comp. plan, and I just need to know if that's a moot issue, because I don't want our office to have to be involved in -- MR. NINO: Sure. The northeast -- the northeast corner is 168 acres. Three times that is almost the density of what's being requested here. So, it's an academic issue, but I did address it specifically in front of the board yesterday, and I would imagine the same title search would apply to this property as was, in fact, done to respond to the argument in the Dunes case, and there was a local law firm that did research and showed unequivocally that yes, the owner of the land, which included some of the Dougherty property which is the subject of this property, is, in fact, owned by those people. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any further questions of this -- if not -- did we answer your questions? MR. THORNTON: I had two responses if I could. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Briefly. MR. THORNTON: Again, to reiterate, some of this land is zoned ag., and before we decide how much density the developer is giving up, the calculation should be done correctly, and then I understood Mr. Nino to say that by getting rid of the ST, property is put in a PUD preserve which will forever preserve the property with no uses at all. That's not my understanding of this application. The preserve lands have a lot of permitted uses. They are not preserved with no uses at all. MR. NINO: Every one of these -- again, Ron Nino, for the record. Every one of those uses would have to withstand review by the water management district and the DEP. Relative to the agricultural, when we said that the Page 68 November 16, 2000 agriculture -- the agricultural area is within the urban designated area. The agricultural -- an agricultural designation is for all practical purposes a holding district. We are -- we are entitled under the growth management plan to zone any agriculturally designated land in Collier County that's within the urban boundary to a density classification not to exceed three units per acre in the coastal management area and four units per acre in the non-coastal management area. MS. STUDENT: And I'd just like to add to that, for the record that under the authority of Snyder versus Broward County, once the property has received a certain designation in the comp. plan, in this case an urban designation, the County would be very hard pressed to take that away since it's been so designated in the comp. plan. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Okay? MR. THORNTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' The attorney here for Wiggins Pass Conservancy has been given a very generous allotment of time. Now I understand the following speaker is the president of the same organization, so, it would seem to me that we're double-dipping to a degree, if you would limit him to new material. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So noted, and I think we gave a certain latitude, although I have to admit that the commissioners asked quite a few questions. I would hope that the next people take that into account, and please don't address what we've already addressed. If you have some different issues -- DR. KAPLAN: I'm not going -- for the record, my name is Dr. Jeffrey Kaplan. I'm the vice-president of the Estuary Conservation Association. Just -- I'll be one minute, that's all. I just would like to let you know, we have two to 300 members of our organization that are very concerned about this project, not that we're against it, but we -- our responsibility is to really make sure that the estuary system is as pristine as it could possibly be. I'd just like the people to raise their hand who are all part of the EAC, just to show you that we have a whole lot of people who Page 69 November 16, 2000 are here, and we are looking into -- the president of our organization is looking into agencies that will -- might take this land in trust. We, as the EAC, I don't think would want to take on such a burden, but we are looking into that now, and we are going to just try to monitor very closely this whole process. We've hired Chris to be our representative, and that's why I'm not going to speak any more on this issue at this point, and we're going to just be monitoring this very closely. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. DR. KAPLAN: I did it within a minute. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes, I have one question. DR. KAPLAN: Sure. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You're the Estuary Conservation -- DR. KAPLAN: Conservation Association. What-- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay, Conservation Association. DR. KAPLAN: Estuary Conservation Association, formerly the Wiggins Pass Conservancy. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any other questions -- DR. KAPLAN: Thank you very much. Any questions? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- for this gentleman? If not, I thank you, and I thank the folks that did come with you today and sit with patience for the last three and a half hours. MS. ROBBINS: Hi, I'm Kathy Robbins. I live at 642 Wiggins Pass Drive. I'm not a member of the association. I didn't sign a petition, although I would have. Basically, I came here with the understanding that it was in a preserve. From what I've learned today, there's basically -- if I understand it right, there's nothing I can do about that now, so now I'm going over to the part with traffic, and you can't do anything for traffic except that I could ask for recommendation whether -- if you're building a golf course first in the first quarter of next year, is the road going to be repaired first or are we going to have the golf course first? I mean, Wiggins Pass Road is a disaster turning off and in. It's one -- two lanes, and there's no sidewalks on the one side. It is a dangerous road if you're going to have a lot of traffic, so I would ask for consideration on that. I love Vanderbilt Beach Road, the way it is now with the Page 70 November 16, 2000 bicycle paths. I would hate to see that change if you have to put four lanes on. That's kind of all I wanted to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. NINO: Rita Reuss, Keith Jennings, Linda Kra]ewski. MS. REUSS: May I use this side, does it matter? MR. NINO: Sure, it doesn't matter. MS. REUSS: Good morning, and thank you for the time to present to you. My name is Rita Reuss. I'm president of the Pelican Isle Yacht Club Homeowners' Association. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Were you sworn in? Were you sworn in? MS. REUSS: No, I was speaking as part of the public and did not understand we needed to be sworn in, but I'll do so. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: She'll be glad to do that. (The speaker was sworn). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. REUSS: Thank you very much. Some of the things that were discussed here already have -- I'm not sure added to the confusion or clarified it, but it did cover some of the questions, but we had before this group a request for a continuance and for, at the very least, a delay in deciding the disposition of this. We have only -- I understand this project has been in process for a year, but we have only received notification of it, and I as president of the Pelican Isle only received notification of it about two weeks ago. We have gathered together as many as we could, and you will see the letters before you, representatives of Pelican Isle, Marina Bay Club, Cove Towers, Tarpon Cove, Pristin Place, the Anchorage, Harborside, Audubon, Wiggins Bay, Arbor Trace and the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association to let you know about our concern, and some of them are also members of the EAC, but I'd like them all to stand, if they would please, and show our support or our concern and a need for a continuance. Thank you very much. This group has hired counsel, Burt Saunders. We did it this Monday, I believe. The time has been going so fast trying to get this together, and he also requested the continuance because he and his partner, Tony Pires, were unable -- both of them were in Tampa and unable to be here today. Page 71 November 16, 2000 There are many issues, some of which, your hands are bound. We understand the complexity and the difficulty of your job, trying to balance the needs of individuals and residents and the rights of developers, but this is a serious concern. It's a major project. I've heard a lot about, you know, the developer is giving up so many lots and so many -- his ability to build, but, you know, I'm not sure it's all out of the goodness of his heart. There's got to be some reason why we're going for high-rise condominiums and not for whatever number of individual residences as to the marketability, the dollars involved and all the rest of that. So, I'm not sure it's all out of the goodness of his heart and concern. We're appreciative that the preserves are there and that we're working with that. There are a lot of questions, however, about the use of the preserves. I'm hearing boat docks, boardwalks, all kinds of uses commercial type things. I don't know and need our counsel to help us with what can be done in relation to that. I've heard about it's in the PUD. You have less steps you have to go through if you're in that than if you're not, but I've also heard today that we have five years or four years to go. We thought it was 790 units, and now I hear it's 590 units. A lot of concern over what the boundaries are for the eagle, and it seems to me with all of the time that we seem to have, since they can do nothing with the eagle, that it would behoove us in fairness to the homeowners, the residents and the communities involved if we could have an extension of time on this matter and a delay in a decision by this group for us to be able to get our act a little bit together and do some outside consulting, analysis and expertise. There are just -- with the traffic, it goes back during in season -- I understand that we are talking about there could be a decrease from the 1,100 and some homes to the 500 units, but nobody says for sure that those homes are going to be built. Again, it goes back to the marketability of it, and we're not really helping traffic anyway by putting this up, and I would challenge you to try to drive in season from 111th back to Pelican Isle Yacht Club during in season and to make it in less than a half an hour, and to get out of the projects is getting extremely difficult. So, to put this project ahead of a sensible community development plan and a traffic plan, I think is almost bordering Page 72 November 16, 2000 on irresponsible at this time. I don't know within the County who has what authority, but I think we'd like to see just a little bit of time that we can get our act together with that and maybe make even a presentation for the traffic pattern. I know there are going to be other people speaking about the very specifics, and I think you've heard a lot of the confusing facts before us today, and I would appreciate a delay in the decision making. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a comment. Were you not aware of the September 14th or 15th meeting? MS. REUSS: No, I was not. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do you live here all the time? MS. REUSS.' I live here -- I'm a permanent resident of Florida but travel in the summertime, but I was not made aware by anyone. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm really surprised that this many people did not know about that. I happened to have been out of town. I was in Georgia for a wedding, so I could not attend that, but would the petitioner -- MS. REUSS: They may have done that, but we -- especially Pelican Isle did not get information. We don't get information about a lot. I don't think they think we exist. MR. NINO: May I -- may I offer another -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Time out. One person is going to speak at a time. I'm going to control the meeting, and I will have -- applause is about all we allow, okay, and if you want some discussion, please take it in the hall, and ma'am, I've allowed you really more latitude. What I need from you is a good reason as to why -- this board is very hesitant to recommend an extension, because notifications go out. We meet the code. Can you give me a really good reason? MS. REUSS: My reason is that we don't know. They've said five years. There's confusion about the facts and what really can be done with the preserve. You have a lot of concerned citizens that really would like a chance, and there's no -- seemingly no rush here, and we did not get notice. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We will take that into consideration. Thank you. MS. REUSS: Thank you. Page 73 November 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Next speaker. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, it might -- it might be worth noting, however, that if the concern is that the -- are allowed enough time to make a presentation on the merits of this project, they certainly have that opportunity at the Board of County Commissioners on December the 12th, which is almost a month away. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And I think we're going to discuss that when we get done with the public input. Next speaker, please. MR. JENNINGS: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. Keith Jennings, for the record, property owner in the area. First of all, I'd like to say that as far as the ST boundaries, they are different from the preserve boundaries that are being proposed, and in the interest of the estuary itself, I propose that you agree to the ST boundary as it was overlaid on this property and not let the encroachment of development further west of that ST boundary which is the proposal here. Otherwise -- also, when you look at density, don't let them do more than 800 units. That's a DRI that would require unbelievable hurdles for them to go over, and let's be realistic, the Army Corps of Engineers, South Florida Water Management District, DEP, federal -- Wildlife Preserve -- federal -- you know, federal, state and local, they're not going to be able to develop on 80 percent of this ground to the west of Vanderbilt Drive, and, you know, just be realistic on densities here. I don't care if you took all their densities and put it on 150 acres of upland property to the east of Vanderbilt Drive, now you'd have 20 towers at 40 floors to get to the densities they need, they'll never be able to market it. The other thing is, if you allow them to build the golf course prior to the high-rises, you're going to allow more traffic to come into the area prior to the revenues that they need to build the impact -- the revenues that we get from the impact fees for the buildings to widen all this. The impact fees for the golf courses are a lot less than the impact fees for these high-rises, and we don't even know if they're ever going to be building high-rises based on this eagle leaving or not. That eagle might be there for the next 20 years, and the impact now is for a golf course that will be bringing people from outside of the area to use the golf course because they cannot sell it to their members inside this Page 74 November 16, 2000 area. Lastly, they have jurisdictional boundaries already set by the Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management. They can mitigate that by paying money for preserves elsewhere, and that's how they get to use some of the lands that some of the people in Tarpon Cove were told were mitigate -- or were jurisdictional boundary lands. So, you can move that stuff all around just by paying mitigation fees.So, the argument on density and on preserves and on some of these other things that have been brought up is moot when you say, fine, go ahead and try to do more than 800 units. That's .a DRI. I love it. We'll get so many people out here to put restrict;ons on how that's developed -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But, sir, they've already committed to the number of units. MR. JENNINGS: Yes, but you're saying that they have the right to go back based on their density overlays to get more than 590 units. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But if we approve this PUD, they are limited in the number of units they can build. MR. JENNINGS: I understand that. If you don't approve them, then they -- you say, well, they can go back in and get 1,170 units, then they'd have to go through a DRI process. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Not necessarily, but that's -- MR. JENNINGS: The PUD size for this County is 800 units. Anything over 800 units would require a DRI. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: All that is not one ownership right there. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All of that is not one property. MR. JENNINGS: The Dougherty --- that's all the Dougherty property. That's all the Dougherty property. Plus you can -- MR. NINO: DRI threshold is a thousand units, not 800 units. MR. JENNINGS: Eighty percent of a thousand units. MR. NINO: Between 80 and 90 -- between 80 and 100 percent is perceived not to be a development of regional impact. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We are not going to get down to a verbal argument. The issue before us is the PUD, and I understand your argument, okay. MR. JENNINGS: This other C-2 parking, the C-2 area over here, this part brought into this, I'd like to also know what the Page 75 November 16, 2000 deal is, because now the County Commissioners just decided to go ahead with a joint application for a beach park across the way here with Mr. Harvey. Is that -- is there some other deal that's going on here? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That is not the issue here today. You are not addressing the county commissioners. That is -- we work for them, okay. MR. JENNINGS: I understand. Is that part of this PUD? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You need to ask them. MR. NINO: No, it is not. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It is not. MR. NINO: It is not part of this PUD. MR. JENNINGS: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You bet. Thank you. Next speaker. MS. KRAJEWSKI: Hi, my name is Linda Krajewski. It's K-R-A-J-E-W-S-K-I, and I represent the Arbor Trace senior community that is right next door to the proposed project. I'd like to say that the residents -- I represent about 140 seniors in that development that's been in North Naples now for about ten years. We're not opposed to the developer developing his project. They believe that everyone is entitled to develop on their land. Our concerns are the ones that have already been voiced as far as the density issue, so I'm not going to reiterate all that, you've heard it. One of the major concerns that the residents have is the bald eagle. The pictures that are displayed here today actually were taken by a resident of Arbor Trace who has lived there for nine years and has observed that eagle's nest over the last nine years, and the history of that nest, briefly, is that in 1990 that was first reported that there was an eagle's nest sighted. The first activity in that nest was in 1991, and there have been five eagles that have been born from that nest. When the nest was cut down in '97, I believe it was, the nest -- the eagles did relocate 650 feet from where the original nest was cut down. Let me get to the point, because I know we're going long here. It just -- I think our residents just can't understand that a developer is willing to wait that long to develop a community based upon this eagle leaving. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Again, that is not an issue to us. We Page 76 November 16, 2000 have heard what they are willing to do, and they can't do anything. MS. KRAJEWSKI: I know, but I just -- I guess it's a concern that the County would approve a permit based upon a stipulation of when an animal leaves an area. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I don't think that's a stipulation at all. That's not the way I understand it. MS. KRAJEWSKI: That's the way it's reading in the staff report, unless I'm reading it incorrectly. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Maybe because they're building another development just south of that, and they want to sell that one first before they market this one here because, otherwise, they won't sell both. MS. KRAJEWSKI: I understand that, but if there's all this other property, if we're talking about supposedly 532 acres that are buildable, why are we building on land where the eagle is, is the concern of my residents. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We will ask the petitioner that question. MS. KRAJEWSKI: Thank you. Traffic, of course, has been addressed, and we're wondering if we need to have our own study done, possibly in season that reflects an actual number of cars that are on that roadway, and, again, if time is on our side, why aren't there plans in order now with the County for that road to be changed to better the flow of the traffic? So, the residents of Arbor Trace have basically the same concerns that the surrounding communities do, and we have joined with the other communities around the area to just try to get some answers, basically. We just feel like it's a lot of what ifs. We are not really sure what is proposed, and, of course, we are willing to meet with the developer to try to get some answers. As I said, we are not opposed to it. We have a development. They're entitled to develop. We just would like some more specifics on this project before it is approved. Briefly, also, there is a commercial issue here. Originally-- and it really was the first PUD that I have read. There's a commercial zoning, and I didn't read anything on that on this second one, so there's a question as to if the commercial is still Page 77 November t6, 2000 going to be developed, where it is and what type of commercial is proposed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker. MS. WINN: Hello. My name is Karen Winn. I live at 430 Cove Towers, and I'm on the board of Aruba Cove Towers, the Cover Towers Association. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sorry, were you sworn in? MS. WINN: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. WINN: I don't want to beat over your head what the purpose and the intent of your jobs are, but I want to read a brief statement right from your Collier County land development code. It is the purpose of this code and intent to preserve, enhance the present advantages that exist in the county, encourage the most appropriate use of land, water and resources consistent with the public interest and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the development of land. It is the responsibility and rights of the citizens of this county to bring to the attention of the proper authorities all of the disadvantages in the public interest, discourage inappropriate uses of the land, natural resources and to speak out against any possible or probable future problems that could evolve from the use or the development of the land and to protect our environment. In this rezoning issue, there are many, many issues I have concerns with, and most of them have been addressed. Some of them that have not have been, potable and nonpotable water supplies, drainage, sewer and waste disposal run-off and draw down of our water tables. Boat docks we talked about, and I did hear personally from Senator Saunders yesterday that there are proposed boat docks going in this area after he had talked with the developer yesterday, and in protecting our environment. The Bald Eagle Management Program, Protection Program is in compliance with the habitat management guidelines as outlined in the recovery plan for the southeastern states bald eagle. It calls for primary zone except under certain circumstances extending 750 to 1,500 feet outward from the nest tree. The precise distance is dependent on the proximity of the space configurement of critical elements, such as the nest Page 78 November 16, 2000 tree itself, the feeding area and roosting trees. The guideline calls for no development to occur within that zone. The nest tree is within the parameters of the golf course development, and it's situated, not as was pointed out earlier on the edge, but more in the middle of this piece of property. Around that nest tree are dead and dying, slash, pine trees that are used as roosting areas for these eagles. Eagles spend in their non-nesting days 74 to 83 percent of their time in these roosting trees. Now, these are directly around this nesting tree and through the perimeter of the property. They have -- in those primary and secondary perimeters, they provide a good visibility and a clear flight path for them to forage for fish and birds and tortoises, which also inhabitate this particular piece of property. The gopher tortoise is also an endangered specie which does live in these 532 acres and who has had free roam of these 532 acres now forever. This developer is also proposing to move these tortoises, which are endangered species, and take them out of this 532 acre area, place them on 17 acres, but they are going to allow them to cross under the Vanderbilt Drive with their golf cart tunnel. I don't know if they're going to put a sign up that says, here, turtles, you can cross here. You can safely now get across Vanderbilt Drive. Indigo snakes are also a protected species, endangered species. They are known to cohabitate with the turtle. Now, none have been spotted in the sightings that -- the 72 hour sighting that was made, but it is a known fact that they do live there, and that is also part of the eagles' foraging and diet. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ma'am, I'm going to ask you to sum up, please. MS. WINN: Okay, all right. If we were only looking at a golf course community or a golf course, period, and it had the 250 feet encroachment, I think I could live with that if it was in a peaceful, serene, environmentally managed golf course setting. It's unfortunate the golf course won't be public, but we're not just looking at another golf course. We're looking at a PUD project that is going to come in, the golf course is going to be built. They will -- these trees are dead and dying. There are 14 acres of this 532 acreage that was burned in a fire several years ago. Now, they are dead and dying, but it is still a viable area for these eagles. Page 79 November 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I thank you, I really do. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have one question for her. Ma'am, did the gopher tortoise have free range over Tarpon Cove before your condo was built? MS. WINN: I don't know. I didn't live there before. Now I'm COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And could the eagle fly and live in trees where you're condo now sits, because -- MS. WINN: It's a possibility, but I didn't live there before, and I wasn't a resident at the time. I'm a resident now, and I am very concerned. Just because that may have happened before I came does not mean that I don't have the right to be concerned about the future well-being and interest of our generations to come. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I think what a lot of us don't like to hear is I'm here, I've got mine, now let's shut the gate. MS. WINN: Absolutely not. That is not what -- I'm trying to protect the future generations to come and the enjoyment of the environment and the wildlife in that area. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker, Ron. MR. NINO: That's it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: One second for the court reporter. Karen. MS. BISHOP: I'm going to address a few things. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: MS. BISHOP: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: them. I've got a list. I do too. I'll check them off as you address MS. BISHOP: CHAIRMAN WRAGE: you cover them. MS. BISHOP: Okay. I was going to say, do you want to start asking No, go ahead, and I'll check them off if I want to start with -- just to let you know, I did speak to Burt Saunders Tuesday, was when he came to me and mentioned to me that he was representing these homeowners' associations and that they were requesting a continuance, and I discussed with him that I'd be happy to meet with the residents, as we already did in a public forum in Page 80 November 16, 2000 September, to go over our project with them and to show them what we are doing. Burr -- I didn't realize he wasn't going to be here today, but I told him that, you know, we've already been doing this for so long that we really need to move forward because the golf course element of the project is a vital, important part of this project, and we need to get moving on that. The -- there is a golf course impact fee. We will, in fact, be paying all of it. We will not be looking for any reductions in impact fees. So, there will be a number that equates to, you know, several hundred thousand dollars off the bat that goes into the pot along with the Dunes project, which is, in fact, moving forward with its buildings at that time. The construction of this golf course, it is our intent to bring the construction traffic off of 41. That is a direct access off the main drag. It gives a lot more flexibility for traffic. It is not our intent to come off of Wiggins Pass Road. I'm not going to say that we aren't going to at some point have some traffic there just by virtue of construction, but it is our intent to bring it off of Old 41 -- I mean off of New 41 because it's just a better access for US. Also, based on the ownership, Mrs. Dougherty's ownership, Collier County has determined that Mrs. Dougherty owns this property by the virtue of taxing her for all this property to date. So, they have made a determination of some sort that she owns it because they tax her for it. Yes, there are jurisdictional lines in place. Yes, there's mitigation available. We believe that we are going to be doing an outstanding job. We have to go through many agencies to get our final permits for those. The intent is to save gopher turtle habitat, not to touch vital lands, mangroves which are a part of the ST overlays. We would not be getting into any of those. I do want to remind people though that there are, in fact, plenty of projects in this town that used to be pristine mangrove lands, and, in fact, now are developments, such as Port Royal, Vanderbilt Shores, Pelican Bay and Gulfshore. So, there are those opportunities available. We are not going after any of those opportunities. The preserve uses, I can see where there's a little confusion with the preserve uses. The golf cart paths are intended to -- we have preserves on the east side of the road, and they are still Page 81 November 16, 2000 designated preserve even though they are different kinds of preserves. The preserve on the west side of the road where the mangroves are will have a conservation easement on it that will be a non-passive conservation easement. That will not allow golf cart paths through it. So that, in fact, will be on that west side. We have preserved our rights for docks in this PUD. That is a right by anybody that has waterfront property. However, we do not show any docks on our current applications to the agencies, and we're not even sure that we are going to head in that direction because of all the things that would have to happen for that to go on, including potential dredging of areas, which we're not interested in getting involved in those things at this point, but it does show it in there as a right. Even if I didn't have it listed, I would still have the right to go after them at some point. The preserves on the east side of the road are very awesome preserves that we want to boardwalk across a couple of them for the golf cart paths. They will -- the flow will be intact. The trees will be cut down, but they will not be dredged. They will not be filled. There will just be a path going through that. So, I had to have that in there to allow -- if I put a preserve designation on it, I have to have golf course path in there to allow myself to cross that path, or I have to split the preserve in half on either side of this little golf cart area, but it is definitely not our intention to have golf cart paths anywhere outside the golf course. Let's see what else. The traffic, there is actually four lane plans for Vanderbilt Road complete. They're on the shelf, and they've been shelved. They've been updated and reshelved. So, the transportation department and the commissioner for this area would be the ones, I think, to discuss when they are going to take those plans off the shelf and actually build this roadway section, but they have been done for many years and were just updated recently by Johnson Engineering and put back on the shelf again. Our plan was based on the future potential right-of-way that they needed for both Vanderbilt and for east/west Livingston Road and for Wiggins Pass Road. For all those future roadway works, we have anticipated those needs and have committed to giving what's necessary for that right-of-way at that time. As far as getting those roadways built, I think there's Page 82 November 16, 2000 certainly enough people here who could make a case that it's a time to take those things off the shelf and get this going, but I believe that people in the south part of Vanderbilt are concerned that somehow all that traffic is going to dump into theirs, so there's a conflict that has nothing to do with, I think, the logistics of building; more the politics of how is it all going to end up when they're done. Let's see. No marina. No marina. We also are working with several entities. The Audubon designation for a golf course, which we know is not the Audubon Society, but what those people are for is increased water quality and saving of habitat, protection of vegetation. I mean -- so, even though they are not associated to it, what their concerns are, are on and beyond what you might -- or what you might consider part of the Audubon's listing. We also have met with the Conservancy and have been discussing with them having them be a part of our process so that they can see what we're doing. I mean, when I said that we took away lakes off this golf course to save habitat, I'm serious, which means we'll have to bring fill in in lieu of digging enough holes on site to make this a balanced site so that we could save and protect habitat. Those gopher turtles will have free reign over the golf course. So, they will have free reign to go everywhere they want. We've protected their habitat, and they will continue to be able to do that in those areas. We did the same thing in our project at the Dunes, protected their habitat, created an area for them and let them be happy. Did I get everything on your list? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The issue is going to come up of postponing it, and as you know, this board generally is not in favor of those things unless there's some real reason to, and from what I've heard from you is when would -- you've had public meetings. MS. BISHOP: Commissioner Carter sponsored a public forum that I was -- and he's the one who notified all these associations, and when I sat there at this meeting, there were something like ten associations up there, and I'm surprised that there would be none -- there would be associations that were not represented there. I was under the impression that they all were represented there in one fashion or another through the second district Page 83 November 16, 2000 association as well as the master homeowners associations. We did, in fact, put that on. It was out -- they advertised it. We put it on. We met at St. John's to go over both of our projects at that time. We were at public notice for the EAC even though it was postponed because of their quorum issues, but, you know, I feel that we -- that there shouldn't be a reason for us to postpone at this point. We have several -- another public hearing to go to, the EAC as well as the BCC, plus the public notice from the Corps of Engineers and the district for my environmental permitting. So, there is plenty of opportunity, I believe, for public input, and as I have already said, we are more than willing to meet with Burt Saunders' people and to go over our projects with them because we plan on being a good neighbor all in all. I mean, this is -- we're not intending to -- it would not be prudent for us to work in an environment of hostility around us, so we'd like to have a meeting. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think I had written down one of the speakers was talking about the bald eagle and it's going to be right within the golf course -- MS. BISHOP: No. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- questioning the location and the building aspect. Could you clarify that? MS. BISHOP: If you'll check your eagle management plan, you'll see that we have removed any golf course outside the primary zone. Originally, we did, in fact, have -- and this exhibit does show some inside the primary zone, golf course and a lake area. We have since removed that after meeting with Fish and Wildlife and their -- even though we offered to put up vegetation hedges and all these kinds of issues, because the eagle, in fact, shops to the west. His shopping ground is the mangrove areas and the water areas, because fish is his primary source of food, so -- but we will, in fact, move and have done that and committed to that in our PUD, to move that outside of that area until such time the eagle is gone, which is going to happen because the tree is dead. The tree will come down at some point. There are no other trees around this eagle. They were all burned in that fire. There's only two opportunities on my site for trees big enough to accommodate the eagle, and one is down by the marina, which is where the eagle's nest was about seven years Page 84 November t6, 2000 ago, and we don't believe he would go to the clump of trees to the north because of the 15 story high-rise being built on the other side at Arbor Trace. So, from that perspective, we believe, we're anticipating that if he stays, he's going down to the marina where he used to be. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, the location of it, that answer has been taken care of? MS. BISHOP: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: a couple of other eagles, one in Collier's Reserve, the Germain -- there's several more in the area -- MS. BISHOP: There's a community of eagles in this area. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right, and they seem to be surviving quite nicely. MS. BISHOP: They're great, and this -- like I said before, this is an urbanized eagle. He sits right down by this marina and hangs out there, which is kind of odd because of all the noises and the horns and the music and -- he, apparently, likes it. So I'm -- I'm basing my assumption on my professionals and what I've observed, that if he stays, he's going to go to the south, and then his zone moves with him, and then we would not be able to build any buildings, you know, within those -- anything above two stories in a secondary zone, nothing in his primary zone. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want that on the record for sure, MS. BISHOP: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: He, do you know for a fact that it's a he? Just as an aside here, aren't there MS. BISHOP: Well, it's they. It's Mom and Pa. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: On the continuance issue, we haven't really discussed that yet. We're going to bring that up in a minute? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll make a motion now not to continue. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Did I understand that we have stopped to make a motion not to continue? Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Page 85 November 16, 2000 COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Have we closed the public meeting? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No. We're just talking about making a motion about not continuing this, so it means we're going to go forward with it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. We have a discussion period, and it sounds -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'll get to that, if I don't get interrupted anymore. The motion has been made by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Pedone, not to continue -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Could I make one remark in relation to the continuance? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No, no. We've been gentlemen up to this point, please. You'll get an opportunity to speak in just a moment. There's an order of procedure here, okay. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It carries. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I didn't vote because -- I'm sorry, as a point of procedure here, I have a right to say something before we vote on it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry. You did say that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I did. So, a real quick discussion, so we can talk now? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just wanted to say that I don't support a continuance specifically for a couple of reasons. One, it has gone along for a long time, and two, I believe that the group of people here recognize now that they definitely need to get ahold of the second district association and find out what your notices are that you-all get, because I know I get them as an individual and as well as someone that's been involved, and take up the offer of the petitioner here to have some discussions with them, and by the 12th of December, you may have a number of items that you can have resolved. So, I don't feel that we should stop this process now. We should let it go, because you do have a number of other opportunities to talk about the very specifics of this, and you Page 86 November 16, 2000 guys are organized now, so go for it, and I'm going to support no continuation. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any kind of question from the petitioner? Because this is an emotional issue, I'm going to ask if there's anybody in the public, and I'll give you an extra minute, anything that we haven't discussed here today? Yes, sir? MR. NOYES: I'm John Noyes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You need to come to the podium. Have you been sworn in? MR. NOYES: No, I have not. (The speaker was sworn). MR. NOYES: I'm John Noyes, N-O-Y-E-S. I'm the non-developer member of the board of directors of Falling Waters North Preserve. We did not receive a notice. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: It was advertised, was it not? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. All I can tell you, that's noted, but I can't take and act on that because we've been told that proper notices went out to the owner of record, and I'm assuming MR. NOYES: In our site plan, all of our designated areas to the north, south, east and west of Falling Waters are wetlands and preserve areas. The city or the county put the right-of-way for Livingston Road in a wetland area and a preserve area and a tortoise habitat. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. NOYES: That's it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: One final. Have you been sworn in, sir? MR. HEYDA: I have not. I solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me God. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No, we're going to let the court reporter do it. MR. HEYDA: All right, Ms. Court Reporter. (The speaker was sworn). MR. HEYDA: I was at the September-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: State -- I'm sorry, one more thing. MR. HEYDA: James J. Heyda. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. HEYDA: I live in Tarpon Cove on the north end. I was at the September meeting, and I'm going to give you Page 87 November 16, 2000 the reason that you should grant the continuance. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Use the microphone there on the wall, please. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We've already voted on that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We haven't voted. MR. HEYDA: At no time were we told that there was construction going on in this strip over here, so those of us from Tarpon Cove never were aware until a couple days ago. The developer came here and he said, all of this area, except over here where the -- or here where the buildings are going and except for the clubhouse, no homes. I thought, great, and I was satisfied, and for that reason alone you should go ahead and allow these communities to come in and have their attorney be present and present their argument to you in a legalistic way. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. ASHKETTLE: It's a question that hasn't been answered yet, CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Will you come over here, please, because -- this is definitely the last one. (The speaker was sworn). MR. ASHKETTLE: My name is Phillip Ashkettle. I'm a resident of Pelican Isle Yacht Club. THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, spell your name, please. MR. ASHKETTLE: P-H-I-L-L-I-P, A-S-H-K-E-T-T-L-E. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. ASH KETTLE: I -- I haven't ever received any information on this, so the question may already be answered in the PUD, but the question first is, the membership for this golf club until the buildings are completed I'm assuming is the Dunes; is that correct? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You have to ask the questions to us, and I'm not sure-- MR. ASHKETTLE: I want to know who the membership of this golf club that has to be finished -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That's not an issue to us, unfortunately. MR. ASHKETTLE: Well, there's a bridge -- if any of you that know Vanderbilt Road, there's a bridge just south of Pelican Isle Yacht Club that does not have a walkway on it, that has bicyclers regularly going across that bridge. This being a Page 88 November 16, 2000 designed community for the membership with the buildings in place has no impact on that. This being a golf club that's going to have drive-in people has a huge impact on the safety of this community, and I do think it's the responsibility of your commission to deal with the safety of the community. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I agree. I will -- we'll ask that question of the petitioner here. MR. ASHKETTLE: Okay. Thank you. MR. CORACE: Don Corace with Signature Communities. What part of that do you specifically want me to answer? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The safety issue that he brought up about -- and I realize we're not talking about the membership. He's talking about the issue of the safety of that area. MS. BISHOP: The plans were done about -- like we said, the plans are, in fact, completed. What has to happen is the County has to implement the next process, which is find the money to build this, put it out for bid and get those roads built. That's how that's going to happen. Now, what -- we have already agreed to the extra right-of-way necessary for this, which does include additional sidewalks on both sides of the road, because everybody -- I bicycle -- I bike across that thing, and that is a very dangerous bridge. The only way that that's going to change is for the County to build that roadway segment and to increase those to four lanes and to replace that bridge. That's the only way that this is going to happen, and that is -- those plans are completed and ready to be moved to the next level, which is permitting and then construction, and so what needs to happen is someone needs to get with their county commissioner. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just to help the prior gentleman to that, the sliver of land that seems to be in question has always been a part of this? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir, it has. We showed that -- actually, we don't show this all the way down on this map, but our other maps have always shown that. That is where we locate our maintenance facility, because the traffic from the maintenance facility is going to go directly out to 41 instead of coming down Wiggins Pass Drive or Wiggins Drive then into our project, so that we'll keep all the truck traffic on 41 instead of coming down Wiggins Pass Drive. Page 89 November 16, 2000 We also have a facility there for the caddies, a caddy facility. It's apartments or whatever you want to call it, but we have a place for the caddies to live. Essentially a program is going to be set up to have caddies, and that's essentially what that is going to be, and there is another multi-family pod, but, you know, we haven't finished our environmental permitting yet, so I can't even tell you what I'm going to do there and how much land I'm going to have left to even work with. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But you are going to be available to meet with these folks -- MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir, absolutely. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- between now and the Collier County Commission? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, we need to take a break to change the court reporter. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, just long enough to change court reporters. (Recess was taken.} MS. STUDENT: Commissioner-- Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes, ma'am. MS. STUDENT: I believe we need to take another vote on the issue of the continuance because Commissioner Rautio did not vote and she should have and -- because the only way you cannot vote is if there's some kind of voting conflict of interest. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: She doesn't want a recount? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we do not continue this petition. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: And, Mr. Chairman, I second that vote -- that motion. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: A motion made by Commissioner Priddy, second by Commissioner Pedone that we not continue this item, 99 dash -- PUD 99-28. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I've satisfied myself with the discussion. I wanted to clear up the record so we're ready for a vote. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All in favor of that motion, signify by saying aye. Page 90 November 16, 2000 Opposed? Thank you. I will close the public hearing. Prior to a motion, any final discussion or comment? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I just have one overriding concern here which really doesn't direct the effect of this specific project because I think it's well founded and within our current rules. But I'd like to serve notice on planning staff, Ron in particular, and if I can, that I would certainly like to see some policy that this has to go forward from this board, with this board, concerning the calculation of densities and how we include unbuildable land in those calculations. To my mind that intuitively is not correct. We realize there's a background for this and reasons for that from a protection of the environment but I would very much like to see that topic brought forward or a future LDC or zoning change and would ask respectfully that we have that kind of discussion with our board. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And I would -- as a property owner and a supporter of property rights, I would certainly say it's appropriate to have that discussion, but the outcome is not going to be as simple as the county saying we're no longer going to do the calculation that way without bringing a checkbook with them. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It may not be but I would like to have that -- MS. STUDENT: It's fraught with legal issues, too, because if you don't allow somebody to use land for something, you have Bert Harris and takings issues. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Listen, I've heard Bert Harris for years but, nonetheless, I would still like to have that discussion. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. With that I will entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we send PUD-99-28 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy, second by Commissioner Pedone. Any further discussion? Page 91 November 16, 2000 If not, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. I will wait one second while the room clears. (A recess was had.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. And with that, the next petition up is PUD 99-13, which is the Balmoral PUD. All those who wish to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The witnesses were sworn by the court reporter.} CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Don. MR. MURRAY: Yes. Good morning. MR. NINO: You can get right to the issues. MR. MURRAY: Yes. My name is Don Murray. I'm principal planner with the county. The major-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Don, you're going to have to speak up. Some of us are hard of hearing. MR. MURRAY: I'm sorry. Is that better? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. MURRAY: Don Murray. And this PUD was continued from November 2nd to this time to give the petitioner time to revise the PUD document to provide certain stipulations within it. The applicants have done or included most of the stipulations that we wanted. They've added some new language in Sections 612(B), which is Page 27 of the new PUD document which you should have in front of you. Sections D, E and F on Page 28 and the second paragraph of Section 6 -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Sir, if you wouldn't go so fast. MR. MURRAY: -- 15(A)-- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. We were on Page 27 -- MR. MURRAY: Okay. Let me go over it again. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- 612(B} and then you went to -- MR. MURRAY: I went to Page 28. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- Page 28. MR. MURRAY: I went to Page 28. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Wait a minute. Mine starts at 29. MR. MURRAY: Yeah. I just want to point out the new Page 92 November 16, 2000 sections, the new-- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right. I'm circling them. MR. MURRAY: Okay. I'll slowdown. You've got Sections 612(B) on Page 27. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: All right. MR. MURRAY: Sections D, E, F on Page 28. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. MURRAY: Okay. The second paragraph of Section 615(A) on Page 29. Staff has reviewed this. We don't have any major objections with or concerns with the new language except in Sections E and F on Page 28. We do believe that the language can be adjusted. It can be worked out prior to a Board of County Commissioners hearing. Most of that language deals with the water distribution lines, which is a utilities issue, and at this time I haven't received any response regarding that language. Because of this, staff believes that the language in the PUD document, the way it has been revised and is adjusted, is acceptable to staff and I would like to recommend that you approve it with the stipulation that the language of E and F be -- that it is worked out with county staff prior to a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. We would rather that this level of controversy not be on the table at this time. We've met with the petitioners. This all stems from our staff's insistence that we have the same bullet, conditions for all these PUDs. We met these folks. We thought they agreed to it. They sent us back something different. I'm disappointed in that. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' I'm terribly disappointed and a little angered myself for this is at least the third time it's been here for US, MR. NINO.' Nevertheless -- nevertheless, they -- the umbrage -- with all respect, the umbrage taken is not that major an issue; however, as Don pointed out, two of the stipulations having to do with utilities, our utilities department has a problem with it and we can massage that. But I'm still concerned about the omission here that they don't acknowledge that they're going to contribute 40 feet of Page 93 November 16, 2000 right of way from the north-south leg of Whippoorwill Lane with no credit for impact fees. And that omission bothers me. It's an omission that we're not prepared to support. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, actually, if we don't like what's in here, we can turn it down today, right? MR. NINO: Yes, you can. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Recommendation for denial. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I mean -- excuse me. Recommendation for denial. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Don, are you done or do you have some more to add to that? MR. MURRAY: Based on a conversation I had with the applicant, I just wanted to also point out in Section D on Page 29 it does stipulate that a developer-contribution agreement be done prior to issuing any building permits that would require the developer to pay its fair share contribution toward any utilities, road extension, and so forth, drainage facilities, prior to getting those building permits so that they would -- what it's saying is they have to do this before they can proceed at that point. So you may want to consider that -- that out of fairness. MR. NINO: Excuse me. Again, Ron Nino. There's one other omission. Are we still -- we're still at five feet side yards? MR. MURRAY: No. They changed it. MR. NINO: They changed it? Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a comment. Am I the only commissioner besides Priddy having a problem with this? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm having a major problem. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And I really think it should be resolved before we hear all of this. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Listen, everybody, but where I am right now, unless I hear some very positive things out of these folks, I'm for turning it down and letting them start over because we have asked them on three occasions to work things out and get it back here before us and, quite honestly, I think that they have just dug their heels in and decided they're not going to cooperate like the rest of the folks, and I think that's fine. It's their prerogative, but it's also mine to vote no. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY-' Mr. Chairman, I -- it would seem to me that we could accomplish that by forwarding it and Page 94 November 16, 2000 recommending denial and put the onus on them to overcome the shortcomings. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I just -- and the reason I brought that up, I want the feeling to go out to the petitioner before I hear them that there's static up here, so to speak. And with that, I do apologize for having a little discussion before we heard from the petitioner, but I felt you ought to know that. So, with that, we'll hear -- I'm sorry. Any further questions of staff? If not, we'll hear from the petitioner. MR. WARDEBERG: For the record, my name is Greg Wardeberg. I'm an employee of Relleum, Inc., the applicant in this matter. Just for your information, our planner, Michael Fernandez, who would normally make this presentation today, is on vacation in Spain so you're stuck with me today, so I'd like to try to get into some of the things that can answer some of your questions perhaps. At the last planning commission meeting, it was recommended that we be continued, to go back and address some of the stipulations that staff wanted in the PUD. We did go back and do that. In fact, there are stipulations -- the recommendation for Item Number 1, Item Number 3, Item Number 4 and Item Number 5 were all incorporated into our document. In addition, as Mr. Murray has stated, we added some additional language to further clarify that, and I'll get into the reason for that additional language in a little bit here. So, those four items were addressed and we had other stipulations that other developers in that area had put in their PUDs, so ours is nearly identical with a few clarifying thoughts in our PUD. So, we felt after including those in our PUD, we had addressed what staff had asked us to do before coming back to you this time. As of yesterday, when we received the staff report, there were two additional stipulations that we had not seen yet. Those are Number 2 and Number 6. There -- we have a problem with -- with the two of those. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Excuse me. Just for clarification, you're talking about the addendum to the petition dated the 7th Page 95 November 16, 2000 of November? MR. WARDEBERG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: A three page separate from our attachments. MR. WARDEBERG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. I'll be on the right page at the right time. It's -- I don't know where. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you have mine maybe? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just to ask staff, is that -- is that correct? Those are the only two disputes we have right now; Number 2 and Number 6? MR. MURRAY: Yes. These -- these were the only -- MR. WARDEBERG: And the new language in -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I know. Wait. I'm sorry. We're having a lot of discussion here and we need to talk -- even the commissioners need to talk into the microphones so that the court reporter can record that, but my question to staff is that two and six is where the -- MR. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- dispute is? MR. MURRAY: Those were the two that were on the addendum on -- that you have. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Right. MR. MURRAY: Those stipulations were the ones that were left out in this PUD document and then the language in E and F that I pointed out earlier. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I just wanted to clear that up. I'm sorry to interrupt. MR. MURRAY: No problem. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And before we go on, there was some discussion among the commissioners. Is everybody clear? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, I'm sharing my copy because Mr. Abernathy doesn't seem to have one and Mr. Priddy doesn't have one, so they're sharing and we're not sure where it got lost in the paper-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- but to me it's very important we look at the exact information you're talking about, and that's why I slowed staff down to make sure I was circling the right information because, as we said before, we've gone over this and Page 96 November t6, 2000 over this. And I'm always predisposed to vote for something that I understand. And if I don't understand it, it's hard to vote yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. With that, thank you. MR. WARDEBERG: There are a number of reasons we're struggling with these two new stipulations and the primary reason being is that we don't feel they belong in the PUD document. They should be part of the developer-contribution agreement that we will be following up with at a later date. Committing to these is a concern for us at this point in time. And we feel they should be addressed in the developer-contribution agreement. The other fact to this is none of the other PUDs that have been approved in this particular area have these stipulations in their PUD, so we feel like it would be unfair to single us out separately from them. Since we're trying to make this a global issue in that particular section, our PUD should be no different from them as to what's included in it as far as that -- as those stipulations now that they're trying to add now. We feel they can be addressed in a developer-contribution agreement. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Where do we stand with the developer-contribution agreement? MR. MURRAY: From what I understand, that is underway. Mr. Hendricks is coordinating that, and I'm not sure at this stage because our staff is not involved with that, but it is underway. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Ron, are we likely to run into a problem if we don't, you know, stop and require this now? Where do we stand on that? I mean, how, if they don't go along with the developer-contribution agreement? I mean, where does that leave their project if they say no later on? MR. NINO: Well, they will -- they will -- none of these -- no one of these PUDs can proceed to development until they strike the developer-contribution agreement with the county. And to my knowledge, all the stipulations that we've asked for are -- at least I thought they were in all of the other PUDs. I didn't work on all of them directly, but there may have been -- I think we did find an omission in one of those, an oversight. We're going to try to make up for it in the developer-contribution agreement relative to the 40 foot -- Page 97 November t 6, 2000 relative to it being clear that the 40-foot widening for Whippoorwill Lane is a dedication with no impact fee credit. Remember, the -- the genesis of that is 30 feet of that 40 feet, there's already a right of way. Why should we pay for something that's already a right of way? If anything, there may be some nexus to the additional ten feet, but I'd leave that to the attorneys with the exception that we have -- we're going to insist on that 40 feet of widening, the peripheral lane, being a free donation to the county. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So, in effect, we could approve this today omitting two and six and they're still going to have to work that out with the -- through the development agreement, developer's agreement prior to construction? MR. NINO: I would suggest here two and six. MR. MURRAY: That was my understanding. That was my understanding. MR. NINO: Well, we would rather have it in the agreement. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, it seemed to me a more -- a direction to the PCC would be for us to include it as a requirement rather than exclude it, representing the will of our concerns and the recommendation of staff. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You've implied you're going to agree to it in the developer's contribution agreement. Why not -- what's the tactical advantage of keeping it out of the PUD document? MR. WARDEBERG: Well, we think it can be negotiated, but we believe that our PUD is different from the other PUDs that have been approved along Whippoorwill. We are the only development site on that corridor that has access to Livingston Road. Initially when we bought our property pack in 1992, Whippoorwill Lane was terminated at our south property line, so we felt that at the time we purchased it we'd be able to vacate that section of it and use that property. We never had any intention, nor had we any knowledge that -- that the road would continue and then perhaps do this east-west connector that they've been talking about. And now that's something that the county has -- has required and we feel that -- that we should be treated a little bit differently than some of the other developments along -- along Whippoorwill simply because they have to have -- Whippoorwill Lane, they have to give up that Page 98 November 16, 2000 right of way to have access. We don't. Our primary access is off -- is off Livingston Road. And that's how we always intended to develop the community. Now we are in a situation where we've got roads on three sides of our community. And that's definitely a negative impact to us. We have to buffer our community from roads on three sides now. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And you're backing away from saying we're going to agree to it in the developer's contribution agreement. You're saying we've got to negotiate it. That's what you -- MR. WARDEBERG: That's all part of the negotiation of the developer-contribution agreement, yes, would be part of the negotiation. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, it seems that what the applicant may be saying, and you can correct me, is that they would like to have impact fee credit against this rather than have it be a fee donation. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, I suspect -- I'm not sure that -- again, part of what we're talking about, but I think that's probably what we're looking at. MR. NINO: That -- that plus they feel that their impact on the water management is not as great as other properties and they think they can cut a developer -- I suspect they think they can cut a developer-contribution agreement that is -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: More favorable. MR. NINO: -- more favorable to them. And they may be able to do that, but we want the same conditions in every PUD and leave that negotiation between them and the BCC under the developer-contribution agreement. You want to make sure that it does become a part of the developer-contribution agreement. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. We're on -- are we finished with the 40-foot strip? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm not sure we've resolved anything. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, we can take it out of the PUD. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a couple more to ask about it before we start taking anything out or put anything in. MR. WARDEBERG: From our standpoint, I've reviewed all the other documents of the other communities that were approved in Page 99 November t6, 2000 there, and I was not able to find either of those stipulations, Number 2 and Number 16, in any of those documents. So, we assume that they would be worked out as part of their developer-contribution agreement and we would like to do the same. MR. NINO: My review does not support that statement. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: My memory doesn't either. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm looking to the petitioner. Do you want to go forward with this? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: We have the public here as well. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All right. I just want to make sure that -- MS. RIHS: My name is Dominique Ribs. I'm also here for the petitioner, Relleum, Inc., and I also am in a unique position because I'm also trustee of Arlington Lakes who just was before you or before the board, actually, and had their PUD approved. And in their PUD there is no such language for the 40-foot road right of way either in Paragraph 2 or Paragraph 6, and so we are in the same boat, that you guys are wanting consistency. We wish to have consistency and, therefore, we're stating that it needs to be in the developer-contribution agreement. We're not going to fight the fact that it's 40 feet. What we are trying to do is have the opportunity to have it in the developer-contribution agreement where all the parameters are addressed. We would like to have that agreement wrapped up very quickly. If it can be done in 30 days, that would be what our prerogative would be as well. We would like to know what it's going to say as well. But we have not a problem with actually the land. What we have a problem with is how those impact fees are done or how the unit credits are done. At this point we don't even know whether it's according to how many units you build, whether it's according to how many units are approved, and we may be approved for a certain amount and not even build that many. So, there's a lot of money that we would be technically leaving on the table. But the bottom line is you want consistency. It is in no one else's PUD, these two statements. We have reviewed them. I've got Arlington's right in front of me and it is not in there. And, therefore, we feel that likewise we should be treated Page t00 November 16, 2000 consistently rather than selective enforcement. We are very agreeable to signing up on a developer-contribution agreement. 40 feet is not an issue with us. The other reason that we are different is because on the east-west road, that is supposedly being taken from Wally Lewis' property for that east-west road. The reason we've put in extra language is the fact that we may step up further than what we're obligated and state for the public's good and for the good of the entire Section 18, that we may allow it to not just be a straight line on Mr. Lewis' property but, rather, to have some curvature to it and, therefore, we would want something for that because that's certainly not land that we've ever anticipated in giving for a road right of way. So, that's why we feel again it has been so clear what terms go into the developer-contribution agreement compared to what terms go into the PUD. And if you're trying to be consistent, then two and six should not be in here. Furthermore, in our PUD, it states that we must enter into a developer-contribution agreement. We can't do anything without doing that. So, you've protected yourself in that regard. One of the last issues, which I really would prefer Mr. Wardeberg to speak to, but I will at least begin it, is in regards to why we're different with our sewer-water distribution. And that is because we paid when we purchased our property to be part of the Kensington canal and to be part of the loop system that's off of Livingston Road. And there is capacity for us on that and we have already paid to be in that loop. Now we're being asked to pay for a loop that we're not going to be using, and so the only thing we're stating is that if we're not using that loop for the sewer-water that we not pay those additional dollars, but we do need to use the loop because there's not capacity on the other loop that we had already paid for, then of course we would pay for it. And that's all that this language in this document has done. We've included the extra stipulation that the county wanted. We just put a clarification in there that if we're not using that loop, that we would not pay for that. We're definitely already contributing to the road and that is a separate -- those are separate. Page 101 November t6, 2000 But, basically, you're trying to go for consistency and we feel that we are doing that. We're not going to make you go to a quick take or something like that. That is not what our intention is. Our intention is there's not enough parameters in the language that you're trying to add into our PUD that is not in anyone else's PUD because it is in everybody's developer agreement. And Mr. Hendricks in your real property section is working on that. I've already read it for the Arlington Lakes and they are revising it at this point. So, I think that process is going along and we're -- we're getting quite close on that process. So, we are workable with everything but we want to be treated consistently and that means certain items are apples and they go in PUDs and certain items are oranges and they should go in the developer-contribution agreement. And that's all we're asking you to do. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. With that, I would like to ask staff to respond to that. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, we went to the planning -- we went to the County Board of Commissioners asking them to acknowledge this as a unified plan of-- a unified plan of development approach and we presented the board with stipulations that we were going to make comments to each and every PUD. The board adopted those stipulations and to the best of my knowledge they were in Whippoorwill Lakes, Whippoorwill Pines. Obviously, we missed one in Arlington. And you know what, I think we're legally in the position to do a scrivener's error to the Arlington PUD to add those PUDs, to add those stipulations that the board directed us to add by adoption. And that's what I fully intend to do. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Neil, or somebody with reference to the language on Page 28 and your page for sanitary sewer and potable water facilities, who's going to respond to these, because the language looks different to me, what you've got in Paragraph 4, talking about pro rata shares and determined on per unit basis, et cetera, and then reading, say, even E, talking about such costs with area wide benefits incurred by this development shall be recognized as all of this developer's Page 102 November t6, 2000 participation in area wide potable water distribution facilities, et cetera, et cetera. Is that saying the same thing or is that what you're objecting to, because to me, reading that, I don't think it's the same language in four that we have in this November 7th as what I have on Page 28 of the PUD document? And we're talking about Iooping the lines more feasible, et cetera -- excuse me -- your dead-end mains. From my knowledge of this, this is -- MR. MURRAY: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I mean, we can argue about this all day long. MR. MURRAY: We have other language in here that I went over in Section 615 and in other areas that were on that list of the stipulations. And based on that checklist, they -- they did have the language in here. MS. RIHS: It's on your Page 29. If you look at B, C, D, that is where your language is. The language we have added is on Page 29. If you're in A, it says, should the developer in its sole discretion elect to contribute land for the right of way for the east-west road connector between Whippoorwill and Livingston, that that donation will be eligible for roadway impact fee credits and that it would be made through a developer-contribution agreement. That's the added language because that is where I was explaining to you that we were stepping up to something that we had no obligation to because east-west road presently is on Mr. Lewis' property which is not the property we're speaking of today, but we're stating that it -- he is in negotiations right now with the county, and if it does come back, that the county says to us, you know, we'd really like you to consider allowing us to go through a bit of your property. We, of course, would want something for that and it would have to be negotiated at that time. But we've agreed to pay the money that needs to be paid for the road contribution for Whippoorwill Lane-- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right, and I understand that -- MS. RIHS: -- and the east-west. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- but I -- and maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was working on Page 28 under utilities and Page 103 November 16, 2000 questioning D and E that were circled, and if those -- D, E and F, with reference to sewer and water collection system. MS. RIHS.' Number 4 is Number C is on Page 29. Number 3 is Number A. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: On Page 29, four is C and -- MS. RIHS: Yes. And three is A. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Three is A on -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Number C is on page -- MS. RIHS: And five is D as in dog. I thought -- wait a minute. Yes. Yes. Five is D as in dog. We didn't mean it to be confusing but they listed their comments differently than what we had used in ours. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, how can you -- I have to think about this for a moment, but I'm not sure when we're looking at -- if you're going to have all of the costs recognized as all of the developer's participation in this area wide agreement, I'm not sure that that says the same thing. I'm sorry. I haven't had a very long time to read this and compare them. MR. NINO.' And our utilities department has reviewed that and they have a problem with it as well. And that's why we've suggested to you that your action include a consideration that Items E and F on page either 20 or 29 are subject to change based on the direction we get from our utilities division. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right, and I guess -- I switched the road over to the utilities because that's an area that I have some familiarity with it. MR. NINO: However, regarding the other matter that is raised here, I believe -- I believe the east-west leg that they're talking about perhaps being on their property, isn't that really in part of the drainage canal that you think you might cover and become part of the road? Isn't that currently a drainage canal? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes. MR. NINO.' Why would you want -- why would you feel that you should get impact fee credits for something that's already used by the public or used for public purpose? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's a very good point, Mr. Nino. MR. WARDEBERG: Can I address that? The canal is not for public purpose. It is an agreement that was done by four parties; Kensington being one, Hiawasee being one, which is a parcel Page 104 November 16, 2000 that's a small parcel that's next to Kensington before you get to Livingston Road, our parcel, and then 40 acres of our parcel, and then 35 acres of what is now Whippoorwill Woods PUD. Those are what that canal was designed to handle, those -- those four parties. So, it's not -- it's not a public -- it's not a public use. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, by fixing that, what do you expect to get? MR. WARDEBERG: By fixing what? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: By turning that into a road right of way, what do you expect to benefit? MR. WARDEBERG: Well, we would like to be eligible for impact fees given that if we attribute part of the property for the right of way for the road which would allow that road to meander versus a straight shot along a canal that would probably have to be -- have a guardrail next to the canal and a straight shot of road. We just think we can make it much more attractive if it meanders between the two properties, so that's why we've proposed that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But wouldn't your benefit back financially still be taken care of in the developer agreement as opposed to a -- a straight shot at road impact fee credit? MR. WARDEBERG: Well, not if we give it up now. That's -- that's why we would like to negotiate that into the developer-contribution agreement. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And that drainage canal is not going to have any impact then on -- it's going to be an integral part of Balmoral but nobody else? Is that what you're saying when we were talking about the drainage? MR. WARDELBERG: Well, Kensington will -- Kensington right now is the primary user of that canal. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MR. WARDELBERG: In the agreement, we can contribute to the canal as well. There's some question as to whether that canal -- actually, not the canal, but the culvert that it flows to out to 1-75 hasn't the capacity to handle anymore water to it, so we may not be able to contribute to that and we've looked in other alternatives. We may end up going south through our neighbor's property, which we are working with him on that as well, so Page 105 November 16, 2000 there's some big questions with the capacity of the culvert out at 1-75 where that canal flows into. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And, so, in this particular 6.12 water management, the B that they've mentioned earlier, Balmoral shall not be deemed to benefit from area wide drainage improvement should its drainage requirements not contribute to the required area wide improvements? MR. WARDEBERG: That's right. We -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Somebody's objecting to that in the county and you're stating that you're probably not going to benefit from anything else that's done around you because you're going to take care of it all on your property? MR. WARDEBERG: That is our feeling, that we -- we -- that when we bought the property and negotiated to have our canal flow through it, our drainage needs would be met through that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And you're anticipating covering it and making it carry more water because it's underground and you do your various RCP's and, et cetera. So, you're actually -- you honestly think that that statement is clear in here, that you probably won't benefit from any other area wide drainage improvements? MR. WARDEBERG: Yeah, we've already paid for that use. And my background is as a civil engineer. We can put that canal into a conduit and not affect the capacity upstream of Kensington. Obviously, that would be a huge concern of doing that -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right. MR. WARDEBERG: -- as we don't want to flood ourselves out, so there are some, you know, engineering issues that need to be looked at to do that, but we've had some preliminary calculations done and that is doable, to put it in a pipe. Right now it flows out to one pipe under 1-75. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. I'm not totally convinced but I understand what you're saying. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Any further questions for the petitioner? Okay. I think we will hear from the public and then probably ask you back. Okay? Speakers, Ron, from the public? MR. NINO: Rich Yovanovich is registered to speak. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, I spoke to you the last time regarding this specific petition. Page 106 November 16, 2000 I represent several of the developers in that area. One is Whippoorwill Woods. I did the PUD for Arlington Lakes. I can tell you that the intention always was when we went through with that PUD for Arlington Lakes, as was explained to me by my client and by Miss Rihs, that that 40 feet in front of Arlington Lakes was going to be donated to the county for nothing. There was never any impact fees contemplated for that 40 foot in front of the Arlington Lakes project. If it didn't make it into the PUD, that -- I apologize for that, but that was an oversight and was never an intention that that would be separately dealt with in a developer-contribution agreement. That was always going to be given to the county for free as part of our solution to a global problem. In fact, Whippoorwill Woods doesn't have -- Whippoorwill Woods is the first PUD out there that has none of these obligations, including it has no obligation to donate any right of way, it has no obligation to participate in solving the utility's easements issues and it has no obligation to solve the roadway issue yet. They have voluntarily agreed to spearhead and take this forward by submitting a developer-contribution agreement to the county that addresses not only the construction of Whippoorwill Lane but also the construction of upsized utility facilities to deal with the entire problem. The issue here is we have no objections to the density that they want in their project. We have no objections to their project. Our concern is that everybody along Whippoorwill Lane, who benefits from Whippoorwill Lane, and everybody who benefits from the utilities and everybody who shares in the drainage issue in that whole area contribute to resolving the issues. And they do it fairly. That needs to be in the PUD. We cannot continue to be held hostage to developer-contribution agreements outside of our control that requires everybody along Whippoorwill Lane to do what is right, which is to resolve the utility issue, resolve the roadway issue, to resolve the drainage issue. All three of those need to be dealt with in the PUD. They must have obligations to do that and they must have obligations to do it quickly. Page 107 November 16, 2000 For instance, they want the flexibility in the utility provision, and I know utility staff has some issues with it, but they want the flexibility to decide where they want to go. Do they want to go Livingston Road for their wastewater, do they want to go Whippoorwill for their wastewater? Well, we're designing the pipe right now for the wastewater. We need to know. We can't continue to wait. They need to have a time frame for when they're going to make their decision. If they decide they do not want to use the wastewater line at Whippoorwill Lane, then they should not pay for it, but they need to decide. And this -- this provision is just too ambiguous and we don't know when that decision is going to be made. Frankly, the loop system, the fact that they're going to connect the two, I don't know what value that has, but it certainly -- it needs to be looked at. They can't say, well, that's our total contribution. They may have more of an impact. I mean, I don't know. Those things need to be addressed in the interim. I -- I'm not an engineer, but my guess is all of the properties in that area contribute to the drainage issues in that area, and all the properties in that area need to be part of the solution. I don't think they could simply say, well, we've got the Kensington canal, we're going to -- that's all we have to do. I don't know what the answer is, what the Water Management District is going to require regarding that issue, but they need to be part of the solution and they need -- they need to say in their PUD they will be part of that solution, both in the short term and in the long term, because there are some short-term issues for development while Livingston Road will be built. And they need to participate in resolving some short-term issues for properties in that area as well as the longer term issues. And none of that is addressed in the PUD. And I think that was the intent when the Board of County Commissioners sat down and discussed stipulations to address those major issues. You know, over time just because those stipulations were agreed to -- I don't know how long ago now. It almost seems like a year. You know, you can fine tune them as you go along. You realize that maybe you didn't address it properly in what went to the board but the concept was there. Page 108 November t6, 2000 And I think what Ron was saying, we need to make sure that this PUD addresses the concepts that came from the board and those concepts were a global solution to Whippoorwill Lane roadway utility and drainage issues, and that's all we're asking for, that that be in the PUD. The clients that I have represented to this board through Arlington Lakes always understood that that was what their obligations were, whether it made it into the PUD or not. They always understood that that was their obligation and we want it to be the obligation of not only this property owner, but anybody else in that area, including Livingston Village. And we don't want this to continue to drag out and make it subject to a separate developer-contribution agreement. We want them to -- then we want an obligation in here that basically says what the developer-contribution agreement will say. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: With that said, do we have the appropriate language either from staff or Mr. Yovanovich or somebody to put in here? Do we have to delay? Do we have to deny? What do we have to do to make this work right? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Why wouldn't we just forward this on with approval if that's what the board wants to do with staff's stipulation? And that's not what they're asking for, but they can either agree between now and then, work some of these things out or they can fight it out two weeks from now with the Board of County Commissioners but that's what my inclination is. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, as -- I guess what I feel here is we've got -- they come here looking for a solution and, of course, my inclination is -- is to -- I would support a motion or recommend denial and make them go back and start over again. But having said that, there's members of the public that want to speak. Let's hear them and then we'll have the discussion at the end. Ron, can we have the rest of the members of the public? MR. NINO.' I don't have any registered. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. I made a mistake. It's the next one. Sorry. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No registered speakers? MR. YOVANOVICH: I just -- can I clarify one thing, Mr. Wrage? I know I'm done but I just want to -- we're not asking you to deny this petition or continue it. We just want you to direct the Page 109 November 16, 2000 petitioner to work with staff to make the language work. And if it doesn't work out, let's battle it out. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, I can't force them to do that, but I can recommend denial which makes them go back to negotiate. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Done that twice before. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I will take members of the public. No? Okay. With that, any final questions from the commissioners of either the staff or the petitioner? No? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I realize that there's a long history on this that I haven't been privy to; however, I've caught up pretty fast. It would seem to me it would be appropriate for us to have a clean package in front of us to make a vote on rather than having all these loose ends and all you -- if we tend to send loose ends on to another body to resolve, I don't think we're perhaps doing as much as we could or should be doing. So, my inclination is just to let you know. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Final comments from the petitioner? MS. RIHS: I just want to clarify that on the Arlington Lakes in their agreement to donate the 40 feet for road right of way even though it was not in their PUD, that that is correct. But in their PUD they did have special language and this is the same thing that we're requesting today, that stated that because they were giving a flow way, that that would be their total contribution to the drainage issues and costs throughout Section 18. And I can read you that language if you'd like. And what we're here today is asking the same thing. And basically Rich has said the same thing. If we don't use the sewer off of Whippoorwill Lane, we shouldn't pay for it. What I understand Rich as saying is that he would like to know within 30 days are we going to use it off Whippoorwill Lane or not? If we're not, tell him. That way they don't deal with raising up the capacity to serve us. And we're fine. I'm stating that if you go with the PUD language you're trying to put in, that you already blocked that decision and basically have stated your decision is you're going to go with it whether you're using it or not. And the only thing we're asking you to state is that we don't Page 110 November 16, 2000 use it, we don't pay. And that's the only thing we've asked for. So, if we do use it, we are going to contribute just like everyone else, but if we don't, we don't pay and we understand that you're wanting to have a time frame on that and that's not a problem. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. And it would not be a problem if we approved this with staff stipulations because then your time frame becomes when this hits the Board of County Commissioners. We can take care of it that way. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm not totally convinced that the words that are in here really mean what the words are on the addendum. I'm just not convinced that that's going to achieve the purpose of what we've been discussing here today. That's why I'm having difficulty with this. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But if our motion -- if our motion includes the language that the Board of County Commissioners approved and the staff stipulations, then they're under the gun between now and the Board of County Commissioners meeting to give the answers that everyone else is wanting. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: But what I don't understand is I think this is the third time it's been back before us and on the other two occasions we told them to include the language the way it was supposed to be. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Actually, I think one time he didn't show up. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: That's true. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Didn't give us the courtesy-- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: That's right. That one time no one showed. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- of showing up. MR. WARDEBERG: No, that's not true. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: We're not going to argue with you but I think what we're trying to tell you collectively is we're not happy with you-ali's attitude. We were stood up one time. This is the third time we've heard it. Our options today is to deny this and let you come back another time or send it on with the verbiage that's going to force you to make some decisions. And I'm inclined to force you to make some -- give you your Page tll November 16, 2000 approval but force you to make some decisions before the county commission meeting. MR. WARDEBERG: I'd like to clarify one -- one thing. We have not -- we did not not show up for one meeting. We -- we -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, I was here one day when it was on the agenda and you were not here. Mr. Fernandez was not here. MR. WARDEBERG: Well -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, in fairness, it turned out that Passidomo's law firm had sent an E-Mail or a fax to the planning department at six o'clock in the evening, which they didn't know about, so -- the planners didn't know about it, so they came ready to go and Fernandez thought that Passidomo's people had gotten it continued as I recall that. So, it's de minimis anyway. MR. WARDEBERG: Well, that's news to us. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Personally, yeah, and I'm not sure that's a major issue here. MR. WARDEBERG: Well, just to give you a little history, we were -- we were in front of the planning commission before when we had just our 40-acre piece of Balmoral. We had since bought the other 20 acres that we've added to it, which was the Alexandria PUD, so that's why we're back in front of you. We have no -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Alexandria doesn't exist anymore. It's all -- MR. WARDEBERG: It's part of Balmoral now. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. WARDEBERG: Yeah. We have no problem paying our fair share. The problem that we've got is we have some alternatives that the people on Whippoorwill do not have. We have sewer and water out on Livingston Road which we thought we were going to have access to by our purchase agreement when we bought the property. We are different from that respect. The 40 feet that Arlington Lakes is going to give up for Whippoorwill Lane, they have to give it up. They have to have access. We have our access off of Livingston Road. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But you also have access to Whippoorwill Lane. Page 112 November 16, 2000 MR. WARDEBERG: something that we favor. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: one. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes. petitioner? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: That's true but that's not necessarily Well, that's back to Fernandez Let's --final questions of Close the public hearing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let's close the public hearing and I'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward Petition PUD-99-13 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with the stipulations that were passed by the Board of County Commissioners approximately a year ago and with staff stipulations. MR. NINO: Would you add on any stipulations currently in the PUD inconsistent, that would be deleted? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes, I would do that. Any stipulations and their PUD document that is inconsistent with the direction of the county commission. Is that what you're asking? MR. WARDEBERG: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's been moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Young. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I would prefer that we forwarded recommending denial and let this -- all this transpire between now and the commission meeting. I'm not sure any of us understands exactly. We've been months and months trying to figure out the language and I don't know that the light is turned on brightly here today. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But, Commissioner Abernathy, I think if we deny it, it doesn't help the process between now and then because they're going to do nothing between now and then except show up to the county commission meeting and make this same argument before them, where this way, they've got to maneuver and get some of these other deadlines and what Page 113 November t6, 2000 they're going to do and what they're not going to do in place before then. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do you not think that it would catch the attention of the county commission if five or more of us voted no on the -- and we want it denied and you all want it approved? Don't you think that would get somebody's attention? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any final discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Better withdraw your motion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let's vote on it. Call the vote. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Call the vote. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Call the question. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' I've been voted down before. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Everybody clear now? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Call the question. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm going to be inclined to -- to probably not support the motion basically the same reason as Commissioner Abernathy because I'm -- I'm not totally clear and I would rather see -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'm not going to be upset for losing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I know. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: The same thing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You haven't lost yet. Got to have a recount. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Got two down here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All those like sign opposed? I believe that is five to two? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Five to two. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Five to two. COMMISSIONER PEDONE.' I'd like to make a motion that we recommend denial to the Collier County Board of Commissioners for Petition PUD 99-13. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Never say we didn't have humor. A motion made by Commissioner Pedone, seconded by Commissioner Priddy. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: He is a gracious loser, isn't he? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yeah. Page 114 November 16, 2000 Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? I believe that was unanimous. Moving on to Conditional Use 2000-11. I believe that is Longon Lakes, Number 2. All those who wish to give testimony in this, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The witnesses were sworn by the court reporter.} CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. I forgot to inform the public, all the public that makes us stay after one o'clock have to buy us all lunch. But, anyway, MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, Planning Services. This is a request for an expansion to an existing conditional use for earth mining. The location you can see on the visualizer. On the broader map to get you oriented, Collier Boulevard or 951 and Immokalee Road. It's the location of the site and more specifically Immokalee Road to the north. Some roads you may recognize as reference, Friendship Lane and Platt Road. The northern portion is the portion that was approved and is in operation, and what you're looking at today is this southern hundred and two acres, which is currently citrus grove similar to Phase I. I can't fit the entire thing on but, again, this is Phase I. It's an older aerial currently being dug and Phase 2, again, citrus and ag operations. That's before you now. Traffic impacts; the current operation has a deceleration lane from Immokalee Road into the site. In this staff report, I mention that it should -- this operation should cause approximately 80 to 100 truck trips per week day, and this should not be considered necessarily in addition to the existing Longon I because, again, this is like a Phase 2. As they're currently digging, they're moving southward. So -- because they have more area to dig, they may get more than the one hundred trips per day, but not necessarily a hundred percent doubling of the number because they're going to use the same access, going to use the same equipment to fill the trucks. So, it will be an additional number of trucks but it will not be the full. It won't be -- Phase I plus Phase II. Page 115 November 16, 2000 This segment of Immokalee Road is operating at a level of Service C. However, you know that west of Collier Boulevard that's operating at level of Service E, that is currently under construction, and from Wilson Boulevard west to Collier Boulevard, that is scheduled to begin four laning in 2001. You notice on the stipulations, the first stipulation I had, blasting is not permitted. I carried that forward from Longon I, Phase I of this. The petitioner has informed me that the sand that they're trying to excavate in a portion of two is under a layer of cap rock and there may be one or two times that they would have to blast to shatter that rock and be able to get to the sand underneath. The -- I spoke to our engineering department and, basically, they expressed the idea that staff is neutral on blasting, that every time there is blasting, a county inspector is on site with a seismograph and they monitor the -- the blast. In your packet, you have the one E-Mail I received, an objection. Mrs. Ball went through a number of her concerns and she's here today to speak also. I just also wanted to state for the record that this is in the rural agricultural area; however, it is not subject to the final order. Earth mining is not one of the prohibited uses in the final order. For the previous reasons, staff recommends approval. The EAC did not hear this conditional use because the citrus grove qualified the site -- previous use as a citrus grove qualified the site for a waiver from an environmental impact statement; therefore, the EAC was not required to hear it. However, the EAC was scheduled to hear the excavation -- commercial excavation permit again at the first meeting -- at the meeting in November for which there was no quorum. The EAC will hear the excavation permit at the meeting in December. I didn't feel I should delay this. There are two separate permits. The excavation permit depends on the conditional use not vice versa; therefore, I felt it was appropriate to bring the conditional use before you, before the EAC for the excavation permit. And -- that's right. The petitioner has advised me that the -- the Department of Environmental Protection has certified samples of the sand that they've excavated from this site as Page 1t6 November 16, 2000 beach renourishment quality and I did have a sample of it here. MR. NINO: Oh, is that yours? I threw it in the wastepaper basket. MR. REISCHI.: Let the record show that Mr. Nino is destroying evidence. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' We've heard beach quality sand before. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Before you go any further, I do realize that I need to make a disclosure. I spoke to Mr. Glenn Simpson in the hallway, who is one of the owners of Big Island Excavating, and he had shown me these particular samples that we're looking at. So, I just want to make sure that's on the record. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' I, too, have a disclosure. I spoke to Patty Swilley, a resident in the area, concerning this project. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Question, Fred. And I know it says here, but I just want to clarify that the ingress and egress is within the internal part of this project directly on Immokalee Road; right? MR. REISCHL: To my understanding that's correct and that's what's been expressed to me by the petitioner. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO.' And you had said that -- we talked about this before. Wasn't this the one they were going to make sure that the dirt road was watered down on a regular basis and were protecting the children -- MR. REISCHL.' Good question. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- standing at the corner and a number of things? I'm concerned about this one particular E-Mail here. It doesn't sound like some of the things we thought were going to happen happened. MR. REISCHL: Okay. That was another one that's just off this map, farther west on Platt Road. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MR. REISCHL: That one has not been developed at this time and I recently heard from an attorney for that owner who apparently wants to come back and amend the conditional use. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions of staff? Can we hear from the petitioner? MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the Page 117 November 16, 2000 applicant. I'll try to be very brief and then after the public spoke, we'll be back to answer any questions that you may have. I would emphasize that this application is for one of the few land uses that is still allowed in the agricultural rural area under the state imposed moratorium and I would also emphasize that the agricultural rural and conservation zoning districts in Collier County are the only zoning districts that allow for earth mining. And that by virtue of these two factors there is a presumption in favor of earth mining on agricultural rural land such as this. I'd also point out that unlike other land uses, earth mining is not a use that can be located just anywhere. You have to dig where mother nature saw fit to locate suitable soil. This expansion will not result in any new or additional trips from that which presently exists. This new expansion area will primarily be used for the excavation of beach compatible sand and percolation sand for drain fields. Now, it is important to emphasize that this is the only inland source in Collier County of beach compatible sand that has been approved by the Department of Environmental Protection for use on Collier County's beaches. The next closest site for beach compatible sand is in an area known as Ortona, which is northwest of La Belle in Hendry County. At current prices, the beach compatible sand from Longon Lake's excavation is $13.35 per cubic yard for material and hauling costs. This is to be contrasted with the cost of the county to get sand from Hendry County, which would be $16.05 per cubic yard for the material and hauling costs. That's a cost savings of $3 per cubic yard that the public would realize. And with the stockpile of 50,000 cubic yards that the county typically keeps for erosion emergencies, that would be a total savings of $150,000, plus the excavation in Collier County will pay road impact fees. And the excavation in Hendry County will not pay any road impact fees even though they would be using our roads to haul sand in and out of the county. Clearly, approval of this petition is in the public interest. Like I say, I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may Page 118 November 16, 2000 have now or later. Also with me is Mr. Simpson and Jeff Davidson, the project engineer. We posted up here a map of the area and I would just ask that if any members of the public speak on this, that they point out where they live in relation to the excavation site. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of the petitioner at this time? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Anderson -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- 50,000 cubic yards, how many truck loads would that be? How many cubic yards in a truck? Three? MR. PRIDDY: 18. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, that would be quite a few truck trips if you have to replenish that all at once. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions? If not, Ron, members of the public. MR. NINO: Mike and Millie Ball. Just step out to the podium and state your name and spell it and point out on the map where you live as requested, please. MS. BALL: Okay. Millie Ball. I worked all night. Oh, you want me to point -- Ball, like in basketball; B-a-I-I. I live -- oh, let's see -- right there. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. BALL: I'm not an eagle but I do value my habitat. I tried to write a letter to contain all the concerns so -- I'm very concerned about the proposed expansion of the Longon Lake's earth mining operation. It will have significant impact on neighbors living on Platt, Pantera, Fawn and Friendship Lanes. I base this assessment on current operation at the Longon earth mining pit. In reviewing the engineering report prepared by Chanow -- Mr. Chrzanowski, I believe some additional items need to be addressed with consideration to the environmental impact. Noise. Earth mining -- earth moving equipment can be heard from early in the morning, 5:30 a.m., until late at night every day of the week, even Saturday and Sunday. The sound of motors and the beep, beeping of the back-up alerts can be heard over a mile away. Page t19 November 16, 2000 Since the proposed location of the new pit will be even closer to residential areas, these sounds will change from annoying to obnoxious. Working people and school children are entitled to a decent nights sleep and the use of screened in porches. Some of the houses in the area are not air conditioned and people must leave their windows open for ventilation. There will be no escape from the increased noise. Since the FLUE policy, 5.4, requires land use to be compatible with the surrounding area, this increase in noise is not consistent with -- with the quiet residential area. Another problem is the sporadic nature of the noise which is even more disturbing and the constant roar. When the petition for the original pit was filed back in February 1999, the planning commission was assured that -- I'm quoting here -- the petitioner states the volume of truck traffic with its associated noise will be less than that from the existing citrus grove during season. However, the earth mining operation can't function year round. And I have this as an attachment. Neighbors at that time were verbally assured that the pit would operate only during normal business hours during the week with a rare Saturday and no Sunday operation. These commitments were not kept. It's like comparing a mini mart that's only busy during Christmas break to a Super Wal-Mart. Five semi truck tractor-trailer loads per season compared to 250 dump trucks a day is a big difference. It's a high intensity use. Dust. Management of even more flying dust is not addressed. Excavation plus planned removal of vegetation will create even more dust problems. Daily watering of roads inside the pit area and other erosion control measures such as planting sod or trees needs to be instituted and closely monitored to limit excavation of existing asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Dust also creates more work for air conditioning units and makes housekeeping more time consuming. Since the water table in the neighborhood has been lessened, it takes even more rain to wet down Friendship Lane. The ground is so dry, the rain is absorbed more quickly than in previous years. Potential for impact on residential wells. The original Longon Page 120 November 16, 2000 Lake site's current reservoir size is estimated to cover an area of approximately 12 football stadiums with a permitted depth of 30 feet deep. I tried to figure out what the -- what the combined water usage would be with the proposed increase. And it says that Jungle Larry's -- I think everybody's been to Jungle Larry's. It's been -- Jungle Larry's is 52 acres. Okay. The combined total acreage is roughly two hundred and sixty something. That's roughly the size of -- five times the size of Jungle Larry's, a three-story building five times the size of Jungle Larry's. That's a lot of water. Now, I'm not an engineer. I can't tell you that's not going to affect the water table but common sense, you know, I have some concerns. I'm not an engineer though. I'm a nurse. Since it is a known fact that water follows the pathway of least resistance, it is hard to believe that the use of that much water would not impact the water table. All residences are dependent on wells to supply water for personal and agricultural use. Already there has been a noticeable decrease in standing water in the yards and ditches along Immokalee Road compared to areas less than a mile away. One well has had to be replaced. Residents have noticed an increase in brown sediment that has never been a problem before the pit became operational. If the proposed lake is dug almost twice as deep and triples in size, there will be a decrease in the quality and quantity of available water. There's also -- there's also contamination from leasing -- leaking diesel fuel and other chemicals. Some truck operators are independent contractors and it would be difficult to adequately supervise and prevent accidental spills. Established precedent. A proposed earth mining project -- this is the one you were asking about -- to be located less than a quarter mile from Longon Lakes II was addressed in the February 8th, 2000 county commissioner meeting. A list of restrictions was instituted at that time. And I have that as an attachment. It should be modified to allow work only from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and require paving of both roads if any dump truck traffic is permitted. Another problem is if this thing is approved, then they have -- Page 121 November 16, 2000 they can use that as a justification to come back and work on that other pit. It's not going -- right now it's not operational. Truck traffic on Friendship and Platt Lanes. Both roads are private dirt roads, maintained at the courtesy of a few local residents at their own expense and time. The intersection of Immokalee Road and Friendship does not allow two cars to pass side by side. Use of these roads was not addressed in the environmental study. One landowner has already been told dump trucks could use both roads because they adjoin the property. Since turn lanes have already been established on Immokalee Road for Longon Lake I, only access to the current pit should be permitted if this expansion is approved. However, since any dump truck use of Friendship Lane would create additional hardship for current residents, this concern needs to be specifically restricted. A minimum requirement of paving and maintaining these roads in addition to improvements already established by the county commission would lessen environment impact, but traffic would still remain troublesome. Immokalee Road is already recognized as one of the most dangerous roads in Florida. Dump trucks are dangerous because of their heavy loads prevent them from stopping quickly to avoid accidents. At least 20 elementary age school children catch the bus at the intersection of Immokalee and Friendship Road. The road shoulder is very limited by a ditch and heavy traffic use. A traffic study should be considered to validate the heavy truck traffic near the pit and also the number of residents using Friendship Lane. In addition, a number of vehicles must be parked along Friendship Lane near Immokalee Road at the school bus, arrival and departure times, to allow for parents to be available to monitor children at these times. The school bus for a handicapped child stops on Friendship Lane because of the child's limited ability to walk. Other people commute to work and must be afforded access to Immokalee Road via Friendship Lane. Platt Road between Friendship and Immokalee Road is not a reasonable detour because it deteriorates with potholes and mud. Management of water runoff. Roadside ditches are not deep enough if excess water overflows onto the road area. Need to Page 122 November 16, 2000 fender off access to earth mining operations. All access is including gates need to be monitored and secured to limit access to pedestrians and ATVs. And another concern is loss of property values and aesthetics. Our property is certainly less available with a noisy dust earth mining operation in the neighborhood. It would be difficult to sell a house within earshot of a commercial earth mining operation. This property has previously been a quiet orange grove. The current pit is shielded from Immokalee but the neighbors; that is, those along Friendship Lane have an unobstructed view of bare dirt and earth mining equipment. Impact on livestock and exotic animals. Current -- constant noise and dust is distressful on horses, hogs, cows, chickens and panthers, all of which are kept outdoors. Noxious smell. Diesel fumes would now replace the smell of orange blossoms, especially if the pit is expanded even closer to our neighborhood. And, finally, the lack of a closer plan since -- since the original pit was supposed to be completed quickly and then converted to an RV park and the plan has apparently changed. I believe there should be a date established by which time no additional dirt could be removed and the area would be resodded to an aesthetically pleasing landscape. A bond could be required to assure that the pit would not be left an eyesore in the event of resale, bankruptcy or land being donated back to the county. I'd like you to know how many people live in the neighborhood. Friendship Lane, I just did the south part, which is the part that's really a concern. Friendship Lane has ten homes with 18 adults and t2 children. Platt Road is 18 homes with 42 adults and 11 children. Pantera Lane has four homes with eight adults and two children. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Pam -- MS. BALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- and not that all that isn't pertinent, I would ask you to sum up. I have offered you a lot of latitude in time frame here. MS. BELL: Okay. Well, that makes a total of 37 homes, 79 adults and 32 children. And all the homes are single family units Page 123 November 16, 2000 located on at least five acres with private wells. Most residents commute to work via Friendship to Immokalee Road. I have talked with our neighbors as our mutual work schedules permit. Over half of them have signed a petition against the approval of Excavation Permit Number 59.755, Attachment 3. I ask that you seriously consider the problems created by the failure to turn down this addition to the earth mining pit. It is not welcome nor compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: One question. One question, ma'am. Have -- and particularly the issue of hours of operation, have you talked to code enforcement about that? MS. BELL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, they do have a limitation, I think, hours of operation, and I would -- you know. MS. BELL: And they have -- that's good. That's something that -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And we will ask the petitioner that question also. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' I have one question. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And one question from Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You said something about Longon I as a part of its conditional use approval, there was a time frame after which it would be converted to an RV park? MS. BALL: No, sir. That was the -- that was never put down in writing. We're -- but that was a general understanding message that was put out. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: On the record? MS. BALL: That's hearsay. And that's why I want to make sure I put everything on the record so that we don't have this problem. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The RV park was not part of the record? MS. BALL: No, sir. And these are them. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have some questions for the petitioner. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Go ahead. MR. PRIDDY: Glenn, probably you would be best to answer Page 124 November t6, 2000 these. What's -- what's your projected rather than build out, dig out for this second phase of this project? MR. SIMPSON: Well -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: First give your name for the court reporter. MR. SIMPSON: Yeah. I'm sorry. My name is Glenn Simpson. I'm one of the owners of Big Island Excavating. One of the things that I think is important to understand here is that this isn't -- it isn't a regular fill operation which is what to this point we started out as a fill operation and it's quite intensive. We've since bought a 640 acre piece down off of Oil Well Grade, an existing mining operation, and moved all of our fill operations to there. What we're proposing for this property is that there's some very valuable and unique materials on this site. It's a lower volume use but it's a much less intensive use of the property than it would be if we had a regular fill mine on it. Because it's -- it has a lower intensity, that means that it does stretch the time line out. It would depend on the -- basically, the consumption of the beach sand and the specialty materials within the community to determine that, you know, based on the supply that we have. But -- but just some estimations that we have right now, we would anticipate that it would be somewhere between ten to 15 years before it was completely consumed. Now, that's the longest projections we have. Looking at some of the consumption rates with a little higher consumption rate, about eight to ten years would be the maximum that it would be in operation. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. And how long before you finish with Phase I? Are you about done? MR. SIMPSON: We're finished with Phase I, the surface material. The only thing that were left is to get the shell and sand out of it. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY-- How long before you're done there? MR. SIMPSON: I'd say maybe a year to two years at the most. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. What's the -- what do you intend to do with that hole when you're done? Is it going to fill up with water, be a lake, what -- Page 125 November 16, 2000 MR. SIMPSON: Well, there's a couple of things. As far as commercially, what we intend to do with it is at this point put a couple of houses on it and fish a lot. We've incorporated some areas that was part of the old reservoir, the orange grove that is really productive land for producing fish. But as far as the effect it would have, number one, it's right on top of the primary recharge area for Collier County according to the Water Management District studies that have been done and some information that has come from Collier County Natural Resources. We have been talking with the South Florida Water Management, Big Cypress Basin. We anticipate putting in a weir in the Golden Gate canal that runs along the east side and putting a back pump in there so that when the water is available within that canal, when there's excess water available, we could pump it back and use the lake as a storage area, which would take some of the peaks off the storm downstream and would also by stacking the water higher than the natural water table would increase the recharge and actually increase the water available for wells and for the water supply. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. What I was really looking for was the short answer, that within a year or two years that's going to have water in it, which is not going to affect the water table for these people's wells the way it has over the last two years. MR. SIMPSON: Well, the -- this -- the assumption is that this has affected the water table -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well -- MR. SIMPSON: .- because we have -- we don't discharge any water. All water is kept on site. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Let's assume that I think that it's affected their wells. In two years that hole in the ground is going to have water in it? MR. SIMPSON: Yes, sir. Actually, it's only just cells that don't have water because all the other areas are where we store the water on site. So, it's just a small area that doesn't have water. And we move that about every year to two years. Then it's just one cell at a time and there will be four cells on this site. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. Hours of operation. With the approval of this new condition you can live with seven o'clock in Page 126 November 16, 2000 MR. SIMPSON: MR. REISCHL: MR. SIMPSON: problem. the morning and eight o'clock in the morning, nine o'clock in the morning? MR. SIMPSON: Well, the existing stipulation, I think -- and I have to ask staff to look on the report, but I think that it's 6:30 in the morning until 7:30 in the evening. Is that correct or is it 6:30 in the evening? MR. REISCHL: I don't recall there being any restrictions on hours of operation in Phase I. It might be the excavation plan. Okay. That might be the excavation. That's probably where it is. But that's no COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: What I'm asking you for is before we make some up, do you want to throw out something you can live with in the way of hours of operation? MR. SIMPSON: Yes, sir. The -- what's in the existing excavation permit, and I believe it's 6:30 to 7:30. I could be wrong but that's not a problem at all. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And hours of operation for trucks coming in and out? MR. SIMPSON: That's basically the same. There is one -- one thing that the -- one stipulation that the county has put on the excavation permit and that's if there were any municipal jobs. Sometimes they have to do things like beach renourishment. They have to put the material out at low tide. Sometimes road construction, they prefer to do it at night because the traffic is a lot lower impact to the traffic and the roads. So, there was a stipulation regarding municipal jobs that they could specify different hours of operation if it was solely going to a municipal job, but that's the only time that it would outside those normal operating hours. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: That would almost need to be in an emergency situation, not a standard operating procedure, would it? MR. SIMPSON: Right. Not a normal operation, but the stipulation is there if the municipality required it we could operate outside those hours. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, what days of Page 127 November 16, 2000 the week? I didn't hear that addressed? MR. SIMPSON: Five days a week. Sometimes we do maintenance on the equipment and -- excuse me. Six days a week. We do maintenance on the equipment on Saturdays and sometimes Sunday afternoon, so we do move it around a little bit, but as far as the trucks, there's -- you know, that's all just during the normal five-day work week and very light on Saturdays if there is any. But we need the -- the weekends really to do our maintenance and preparing a water management system and things like that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Simpson, has Bobby Cadenhead gone out of the beach sand business? MR. SIMPSON: I hope so. Excuse me. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Do you have a contract? MR. SIMPSON: With the -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' With the county? MR. SIMPSON: With the county, no, sir. We're in negotiation with the county, but we do have contracts with a couple private concerns that the DEP has allowed us to -- in fact, they're -- they're giving blanket certifications if the material comes out of our pit. Hideaway Beach is getting some and last year we sold over 10,000. I think it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 16,000 yards to the county for the Hideaway Beach area, and some of it went down on 7th Avenue South, I believe, along where they were doing the improvements. We do have some that's being -- that's being sold up in the City of Bonita for the Bonita Beach area. But that's -- there's quite a bit of demand but it's not a large volume. It's just something that's constant. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's coming out of an existing site? MR. SIMPSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Glenn, while you're up here -- in fact, I was in hopes when you came up here you would answer some of the questions, I hope, for some of the other speakers because I would like to finish the public before we get into rebuttal. But while you're there can you address -- and I know you have some expertise in this matter -- that the sediment that I seem to have in some E-Mail and letters that I got? Page 128 November 16, 2000 MR. SIMPSON: Well, yes. For everyone's information, I do environment permitting as my profession. I have been qualified numerous times as a water resource manager, water resource specialist and doing expert witness work in litigation. And I have a good understanding of -- of the way the water functions in that area, not to mention I've lived there since 1968. There's -- the issue about the change in the water quality is basically something that's a natural phenomenon because the water has a lot of tannin in it which is makes an orange color. If you have a lot of rain in the normal rainy season, you have less of the tannin that shows up in your water. If you don't have the rain, the tannin tends to concentrate and you don't have the flushing effect and you'll have more tannins, more orange color to the water. Some of the concerns I've heard expressed is about the water quality and we've noticed it, too, but it hasn't -- the problem doesn't have anything to do with our operation. The problem is related to just the natural conditions because we have had a very, very dry summer and I've lived here pretty much all my life and it's the driest this time of the year as I've ever seen it, so you can expect that to be a normal function. The other issue is affecting the wells and the draw down affecting the wells. What we do is we're not allowed to discharge any water on site. In fact, by changing the land use, the Water Management District requires us to hold on site up to the hundred-year storm with no discharge. Normal operations, you can start discharging water at a 25-year storm event, which in this area seems to come every five to ten years. But we have to hold the water on site up to the hundred-year storm. If we're dewatering, even if the water level in that area gets up to that level, we still can't just discharge because it's not a storm event. So, we keep all the water that we pump on site and like I was mentioning the cells, we pump from one cell to another and we stack the water up in the cell that was being stored. That recharges the area. Another thing that we will be doing on this project, along the western boundary and the southern boundary we also put in an infiltration trench. When we pump -- no matter where we pump Page 129 November 16, 2000 the water to hold it, it always flows into that infiltration trench and it creates a barrier around the project where water is being recharged into the ground, so that it will minimize any off-site impacts you may have by drawing down at any point. It's a practice that's been approved by the Water Management District and we've been doing it for years on many other projects. And it is especially effective on a project like this. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. And one final question she brought up and I'm confused and I've been by your site. What is the traffic issue on Friendship Lane, because I thought your trucks came right off of your property on Immokalee Road? MR. SIMPSON: Yes, sir, and we have no intention of changing that. I think the issue comes from the fact that we do have -- even with our existing operation, we do have legal access to Friendship Lane because of easements that are part of our deed. But we don't use those. We have no intentions of using those. That's the county has our access for our pit operation through the Immokalee Road access and we intend to keep that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So, there's no dump trucks going down Friendship Lane? MR. SIMPSON: No, sir, not unless they're dumping dirt down there. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And I certainly think you ought to keep your legal access to that, but as a stipulation in approving this, I want to make sure that we state that all your truck traffic is going to come in from your-- MR. SIMPSON: Perfectly fine. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: What -- are you leaving -- when you're all done with this project completely, are you going to be able to drive around the edges of it or -- MR. SIMPSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. MR. SIMPSON: In fact, we do have a reclamation plan that is approved by the state that basically describes what we have to do for closure. But our intention is to, at this point -- I mean, we can't put a trailer park out there. We can't do anything else because of densities. We could put single family homes around it, but I'm not sure the demand at this point is there but we are going to keep it Page 130 November 16, 2000 where it's aesthetically pleasing. We're going to enjoy it as best we can as a recreational facility until for some reason it does have a different higher and better use. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I see several estate homes there in the future if you leave enough room to build one. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I have one final question that the lady brought up. And correct me if I'm wrong, but you do have a bond requirement? MR. SIMPSON: Yes, sir. Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Rautio, I think -- or Commissioner Rautio has a couple of questions. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Did -- she said something about access to the mining operations. Is that an issue? MR. SIMPSON: The site is fenced and maintained. The fences are maintained. The last thing we want is to have any access other than through our main road. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: access -- MR. SIMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, you have pretty restricted -- because it's fenced. Okay. MR. SIMPSON: There's an existing access through the -- for the orange grove right now, which will be taken out as soon as we close, but it's a locked gate anyway. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. One other thing. Somebody said something about the staff being blasting neutral. I just wanted to be clear on whether we're -- we were or weren't going to allow blasting. MR. REISCHL: Well, my initial recommendation was to prohibit blasting. Mr. Simpson asked if they could get -- I think he said two or three times to be able to get through cap rock. Stan Chrzanowski will have a more detailed answer. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good afternoon. Stan Chrzanowski, Development Services. MS. STUDENT: Excuse me. Were you sworn? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Court reporter. (Mr. Stan Chrzanowski was sworn by the court reporter.) MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to raise some points of order because this is an example of we're supposed to have the public speakers and then like a rebuttal by staff. Page 131 November 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, I -- MS. STUDENT: We're getting kind of far afield and things like this can happen where people come up and aren't sworn when we start to do that and we have a resolution that sets up our procedures that are applicable to the Planning Commission. And I mean we can have some latitude, but I'm getting concerned when other people are popping up and there's dialogue and we're not following our procedures quite like the way the resolution is set up. COMMISSIONER PEDONE.' Mr. Chairman, I believe at this point -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And I agree with you. And we will address that issue as a commission. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Excuse me. I wasn't here for the start of this because I hadn't intended being here for this hearing. I'm here for the next one. The blasting on the first phase was not an issue because they were not intending on going to a depth where they would need to blast. So, as part of the stipulations, we asked if they minded if we put in a stipulation that there was no blasting, and they said no problem. But now he's going a little deeper and there is a cap rock layer that he may need a couple of times to blast to get through. It's not one of these operations where every week they're blasting. Staff is blasting neutral. We have no problem with it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. I would like to get back to the public before we get into the rebuttal. Like I said, I hope that -- MR. NINO: I've got some more speakers here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' -- you know, that Mr. Simpson would clear up some of the questions prior to testimony. Ron? MR. NINO: Yes. Robert Schultz, June Grogloth. Yes. And you were sworn in, ma'am? MS. GROGLOTH: Yes. MR. NINO: And would you give your last name and spell it for the court reporter, please? MS. GROGLOTH: Grogloth, G-r-o-g-l-o-t-h. And this is my property here. I'm on the corner of Friendship and Immokalee Page 132 November 16, 2000 Road. And my concern is -- all right. I am having well trouble. Like I had been there eight years and the minor things I've always taken care of, but since June I've had to put in two check valves, complete new pipes, and I had Bob Stringer, the county man, out and the old filter that I'd had, when he knocked it, there was sand that I was drawing up. And I do not have at the present time when he was there but now my pump is beginning -- the pipes are beginning to leak again, which to me is a sign again that the filter is building up again with the sand. And it becomes -- and I put in a complete new holding tank, so forth and so on. But, anyway, trying to be a good neighbor and not complain to anybody with all the night workings and I just keep my door closed and the air conditioning going, which is very costly. And, in fact, my light bill last month was $143 for a widow, not doing much cooking and that. It's quite expensive. But, anyway, it -- I'm not for going on with more. I did agree to the first because I thought that being a good neighbor that money wise that the kids could get on their feet, but now it seems like it's just money greed. I'm sorry. And I understand that he's even had some fossils and had some people go -- had a fossil trip even where they charged $40 a head, I understood. And I have lost 12 trees in the one corner of my ten acres where the cows are, and one fell on the fence, of course, and the cows ended over in the -- I walked out on the lanai and here's the cows on the hillside. And I said, Susie and Molly, get back home. But, anyway, I had to have the trees cut down and had to have the fence fixed, so forth and so on. It's just a lot of extra things that I don't think that needs to be done and put up with. We are agricultural out there and the people getting the notices, it's 300 feet. 300 feet is nothing when you -- when you consider this here is my next door neighbor that lives here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ma'am, you'll have to give testimony to the microphone, please. MS. STUDENT: Besides that's the requirement of the code and we follow that requirement. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And I understand that. MS. GROGLOTH: My next door neighbor is here and that's Page 133 November 16, 2000 more than 300 feet, so he doesn't even get a -- or this person either. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. GROGLOTH: So, they get a complaint from one or two people, that's not true. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker? MR. SCHULTZ: Robert Schultz. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Will you spell your name for the court reporter? MR. SCHULTZ: S-c-h-u-l-t-z. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. SCHULTZ: I'm against this going through because I'm kind of new out there, but I've been over there a year. I've seen a difference in the well water out there. I've seen these land mining operations where I understand they were supposed to be business hours. They've worked 24 hours a day. They start early in the morning as early as 2:15 in the morning. I've seen dump trucks out there that early. I mean, I've been -- I used to work nights. I'm out of work right now, so I've been up a lot of nights. I mean, a lot of these people might be sleeping when I'm up. I'm right, right there. I live just on -- she lives on one side of the road and I live on the end, and we're right, right up against that -- I'm right up against the grove. So, if they start digging in the grove, I'm going -- I'm putting up with noise now every night. They've got them pumps running every night. Hey, I mean, when I first come out there it was quiet. You can't even hear the birds anymore. They're chasing -- I've had rattlesnakes out there where I've never had them before, never seen them because they're digging up their homes, chasing them out. How much more are they going to dig? You know, it's going to be -- and the dust. They talk about the dust out there. I've talked to one guy. He says the dust come from Friendship Lane. Well, I'm getting all the dust because the wind's coming out if the east. If the dust -- the dust was coming from Friendship Lane, it would be coming -- the wind would be coming out of the west. I mean, this ain't right. I mean, I've got a vehicle out there Page 134 November 16, 2000 MR. BALL: CHAIRMAN MR. BALL: right here. CHAIRMAN MR. BALL: used to be silver. Now it's white from the dust and that's not coming from Friendship Lane. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Have you called code enforcement about the -- MR. SCHULTZ: No. I don't know nothing about it. I'm kind of new out there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. You'd certainly wonder. MR. SCHULTZ: I don't know nothing about it. I'm just -- I mean, they want to do their operation, I mean, work on regular business hours, but seven, eight o'clock in the morning start, leave at five. Forget about the rest of it. I wouldn't mind it but then shut down all the noise. I mean, we're way out there. You know, that's where people moved out there to get away from this noise and stuff. I mean, unless you want them on top of you and see how you feel. You know what I mean? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. That all the speakers, Ron? MR. NINO: Yes, it is, unless James Williams is on this one but I have him on farm op. MR. BALL: My name is Michael Ball, B-a-I-I. I got caught up -- cut out when Lynn got called up. You didn't get a chance to call my name back. Me and Glenn, and we go back a ways -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a point of order. They ask that you point where you live on that map, please. Right here. WRAGE: Thank you. And that gentleman that was just here, he lives WRAGE: Thank you. I'm not used to this. I don't usually talk in front of a bunch of people. I'm just a country boy and that's -- this don't go over too good, but we -- we used to rent for Glenn up in the very front, right -- right here we had a trailer and we rented from him for two and a half, three years? Something like that. Two and a half or three years. We got to know him pretty good. We knew the orange grove was in trouble and that's why we didn't fight the first time when Page t35 November t6, 2000 they started digging it up because they told us they were going to dig up one little piece at a time and pay it off and get out of debt and they'd be out of debt by the time this was all done and taken care of. And that's why we didn't fight it. You know, we didn't want them to go down the tubes or nothing or get in trouble, you know, but now it's like he said earlier, you know, they're getting greedy. They bought this other pit over here, 640 acres now, and they want to get this -- this one here is another hundred and two acres and go twice as deep, stay three or four times as long doing it. I don't know who -- this gentleman here that said only 80 trucks come a day, I don't know where he got his numbers from but a minimum of 250 trucks are coming in and out of there a day. I don't know where you get your 80 trucks or a hundred trucks but you was way off on that. And there's no way that this pit is any comparison at all to an orange grove even in season. During the season -- the last season they got harvested, five semis were loaded up and left that grove. That was the whole harvest. When we have 250 dump trucks, which is equal to one semi, every day coming in and out, there's something major wrong here. And the road coming back from the pit going back to town, it's already disintegrating and it was just built, just about two years ago redone. They're getting potholes and waves in it. And if you come out there -- have you been out there? Have you seen the -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I go by there just about every other day. MR. BALL: Have you seen the tire tracks from dump trucks trying to stop from hitting -- stop hitting the buses that were stopped, people -- to the people turning in there? There's a big safety issue here that we need to stop these trucks going down there or slow down on them or -- and then that's -- don't take it -- that's not Glenn's fault. Okay. That's not his fault that these trucks are speeding and doing that stuff, but if he didn't have the pit there, they wouldn't be going there to have to get the dirt. You know what I mean? Let him go down to the one he's got over on Oil Well and dig and quit turning us into lake front property. We didn't want to be lake Page 136 November 16, 2000 front property, man. We like the -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And I appreciate all that. Okay? MR. BALL: Okay. Yeah. When they were loading the trucks, it takes three minutes to load a truck. They were backed up there end to end. And they were loading them at three different places, so you can calculate how many trucks come out of there in a day. Here lately they've said they're out of fill. They've called a bunch of people up and told them -- you know, called the actual truck companies up and said we don't have no fill no more. You can't come here no more. So, they have to go to the other pit that they bought down on Oil Well Road. And that's where most of the trucks were for. There was one more point that I wanted to bring up which I can't remember so -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That's all right. MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any questions of the petitioner of staff? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I have a question for the petitioner. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: For Glenn or Bruce? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. Glenn. This may sound like a stupid question so if you'll forgive me? MR. SIMPSON: It's from you, it's not stupid. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I know the trucks, when they do back up make all that very obnoxious beep, beep, beep noise. Is there -- and I realize it's a safety concern, but is there any possibility that that could be turned off while you're on site? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No. MR. SIMPSON: I wish it could. It's the loaders, the front end loaders that have the back-up alarm on it. And we're required by OSHA standards to have that functional at all times, and if for some reason it fails, we have to stop using that machine until we get it fixed. The -- that is the biggest noise generator of anything out there is that alarm because you can hear it, the back-up alarm, for some distance. I don't think it has to be as loud as it is, but it's a government regulation. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can you turn it down? Page 137 November 16, 2000 MR. SIMPSON: Maybe some mud daubers will build a home in it. That might help. I don't know if they'd get us for not cleaning mud dauber nests out. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Is there really a problem with starting, say, 5:30 in the morning? I mean, are your people really running them that late or two o'clock in the morning as this one gentleman seemed to have alleged? MR. SIMPSON: If there's a truck out there at two o'clock in the morning, I'd like to find out who it was, because we haven't -- we don't have anybody that operates at those times. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, but how about the digging? MR. SIMPSON: We haven't been digging that -- we have dug -- a couple of times we've had to dig in the evenings but about nine o'clock is as late as we dig. Our operators get kind of fussy when we want them to put in more than 12 to 14 hours a day. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions? If not, I'll close the public hearing. And I would definitely entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' I don't -- I'll make a motion and I would ask for some -- some help and comments with some of the stipulations. I would move that we approve -- recommend for approval CU-2000-11 with the stipulation that the hours of operations for trucks be from seven a.m. to five p.m., the operations for digging be those same hours, maybe extended on Saturday till noon, that any maintenance operations that requires, you know, noise be limited to those same hours. I don't think the neighbors would have a problem if a mechanic is over there or, you know, working. That's not making noise on Saturday or Sunday, but if they've going to be, you know, backing equipment up and moving it around that -- that those be limited to the stated hours. I have, I guess, maybe a question for staff here. Ron, a lot of these conditional uses, do they come back in five years? MR. NINO: They can if you so recommend. I mean, we have had conditional uses granted whereby after five years they have to revisit you and the board. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY-' I'm going to make that part of my stipulation and I'm doing that~ Glenn, as an effort to make sure Page 138 November 16, 2000 that you all put out an effort to be good neighbors because a lot of your neighbors are not happy with you right now. I can tell you that from talking around and I understood the need for, you know, the product and the proximity to the end use of it, so let's all try to work together on that. Were there any other -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: How about number of trips a day? There was some stipulation or some indication -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. I think the number of trips is going to significantly decrease when they get into this next product because they're going to want to get top dollar out of it from the county for sand and they're not going to be selling it for the fill that they did on the front, so I think we're going to automatically see that. I know what else. I want to stipulate that none of the trucks can come and go from anywhere other than the main entrance off of Immokalee Road, that they cannot use Friendship Lane or access through the -- the side entrances. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you want to make any provision for municipal uses? MR. SIMPSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. I think that, you know, if we've got some emergency that government needs the ability to, you know, to call for product, whether it be, you know, the sand or asphalt or anything else to fix a problem, so, yeah, I think that stipulation in there really protects the public. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It would be emergencies though. Quite often they'll do road work at night, routine road work. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Let's put the stipulation that county can access the pit for an emergency situation and not simply as a matter of convenience to work at night. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Any notification that the people would have to know or they just call code enforcement and say they're working and code enforcement is informed that -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. I would just tell the -- you know, tell the neighbors that if, you know, if you're out there 5:30 and you hear a beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, call code enforcement because they're 15 minutes past the time that the motor should be shut off. Page 139 November 16, 2000 That will conclude my motion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. Any further discussion? MR. REISCHL.' Mr. Chairman, the petitioner had asked to remove the staff's blasting condition. Did you want to leave that in there, no blasting? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I don't think you can break it up with a headache ball. You almost have to have maybe a limited number of blastings. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I would -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I think the first go around that there was a commitment to the neighbors that there would be no blasting, that was the commitment that was done on the other pit, so, yeah, I'll leave that in there. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. And with that point, I'll -- who made the second to that motion? Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO-' Commissioner Abernathy. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Do you agree to that? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. With that, I'm going to call for the -- any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's closed. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE-' I have closed the meeting. MR. ANDERSON: We want to make sure we understand the stipulations, all of them. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I'll ask Mr. Priddy to repeat all that. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Hours of operations, 7:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., monday through Friday, can be open from 7:00 a.m. to 12 on Saturday. Glenn, those are the same -- those are the operations all the big -- all your big competitors have. If they can make it, you can make it. Your neighbors are not happy with you. The other thing for us to do is turn it down. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yeah. I think in all reality we need to be having a discussion amongst us. Page 140 November 16, 2000 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. MS. STUDENT: The public hearing was closed. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The public hearing has been closed. I'm sorry. MR. ANDERSON: Can it be reopened? MS. STUDENT: There has to be a motion to reopen it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I've got a motion here and we're having a discussion. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. We're clear on the hours. Okay. Return in five years for the conditional use to continue. There was no blasting, no excessive trucks off of Friendship Lane, and I believe that was -- MR. REISCHL: And the emergency governmental contract. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The emergency governmental contract. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And that's your agreement, too, with the second? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, sir. Call the question. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Carried. Thank you. Pass your finding of fact down to the vice-chair, please. With that, we move to our final of the day of conditional use, 2000-14, Townsend pit fill --fill pit. Sorry. All those in -- wish to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The witnesses were sworn by the court reporter.} MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray for the record. I just want to put on the record that this petition was scheduled to be heard by the EAC at the beginning of November. However, they did not have a quorum. The findings and recommendations on the environmental staff have been incorporated and the staff report that you have and we would request that you forward those to the Board of County Commissioners as well. The property is located approximately three miles east of the intersection of U.S. 41 and County Road 951 on the north side of U.S. 41 east. I'll try to keep this real brief. It's 42.5 acres, has approximately 800 feet of frontage on U.S. 41. Page 141 November 16, 2000 The petitioner plans to dig a 20-acre lake, approximately like 372 feet wide by 2488 feet long. They informed me it would take about a year to do that with approximately 20 dump truck trips per day, plus ten ancillary trips per day. As you can see from the site plan, the haul road will be located on site and the site has direct access to U.S. 41, so any permitting or turn lanes or anything will be under the jurisdiction of the FDOT. As such, there will be no access of trucks through any private lane -- private roads or neighborhoods or anything like that. The closest dwelling unit is approximately 1500 feet to the southwest of the subject site and surrounding the site is primarily agricultural, fallow agricultural lands that are used for grazing purposes. With that, I'll say that we are recommending for a recommendation of approval with -- subject to staff's stipulations and if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. Stan Chrzanowski is here as well to answer any questions you might have with respect to stormwater issues. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a comment. Although I kind of know where this is, please, a map of where it is in relationship to the county. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. I realized it wasn't in there. Actually, I was going to put it up, but the map is really lousy. You can't tell. So, if you're familiar, it's just west of the Krehling plant in the same area if you're familiar with the area. My apologies. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Where is the Krehling plant? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Krehling is up north. We know where Krehling is. MS. MURRAY: The East Trail. MR. NINO: East Trail plant. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I'll ask the petitioner to describe more accurately where it is. MR. ARNOLD: We can do that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: We also have an aerial. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold representing the applicant. Page 142 November 16, 2000 This property is located about 200 feet west of Krehling's industrial facility out on the East Trail, about three miles east of 951. It's immediately north of the undeveloped portions of Fiddler's Creek. That's now currently ag fields of that portion of Fiddler's Creek. And as Susan indicated, our neighbors are currently all agricultural land users and we're proposing to utilize about half of the 42-acre site for lake excavation. With that fill material primarily the fill right now is located in northern Collier County. There's still a lot of activity in the south Naples-Marco Island corridors and we think that the material and the need is in that area. We are asking for your approval. I do have Tim Hall here with Turrell and Associates, also Mr. Smith here from Grady Minor and Associates who are here to answer any questions. We've talked to staff throughout the process. We don't have any problems with their stipulations or conditions. The only clarification I think that we had, and we had discussion with Stan Chrzanowski, there's a stipulation that references a limnologist because of some mesometric (sic) conditions that could be applicable to the site given the water table levels and proximity to the gulf. And we don't know of any certified limnologist in the Naples area. I know that we've dealt extensively with a company, Mesmer and Associates, who are primarily geologists, who've done extensive work and have also been involved in Fiddler's Creek to the south who would have the same situation potentially with their lakes. And I guess I would just ask for some clarification on the record from Mr. Chrzanowski whether or not there might be someone other than a limnologist that might also meet their satisfaction. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And I thought, Mr. Arnold, that if I talked to the gentleman and he seemed to know what he was talking about about lakes that I would agree that he was probably qualified. If he understands my concern, then he's probably qualified to answer it. I have no problem with Mesmer if they want to use them. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, could you -- could you just define for me the term Iimnologist and what his Page 143 November 16, 2000 specialty would be? MR. CHRZANOWSKI.' A limnologist is a person that does fresh water bodies. I think it's lakes and rivers, but in this case mostly lakes. It's a science unto itself. MR. ARNOLD: I think Mr. Chrzanowski and staff's concern would be that because of the depth of the lake, which is somewhere between 20 and 25 feet, that there could be a saline layer developed that doesn't allow the water to circulate properly and become a healthy lake environment. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And the county's fetch formula, which has come up in 1973 by Black, Crow and Eides in a study is based on a lake that is homogenous. And the wind causes the lake to mix. If the lake is deeper than a certain level, the top of the lake will mix but the bottom never will mix and you'll get an anaerobic condition and the lake, the bottom of the lake, will go stagnant and everything will die. The problem occurs -- Lake Marco is just south of Fiddler's Creek. Lake Marco meets the fetch formula by a few feet, but yet in a study done by Deltona in '77, they found that the lake was meromictic, which is the term that he was trying to pronounce before. MR. ARNOLD: Sorry about that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI.' Which means that the top of the lake mixes and the bottom doesn't. That is exactly the condition that the fetch formula was trying to do away with, but since we know that this lake matches the fetch formula and yet is meromictic, the salinity of the water at the bottom of the lake is so high that the density is not enough for the wind to overcome. So, we want to make sure that doesn't happen here. And I am not a limnologist but the person that -- that they intend getting should understand that and will know the concerns. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: I don't really have anything else to offer. I think that unless there's -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE.- Any questions of the petitioner?. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. What do you do just after you dig the lake? MR. ARNOLD: Right now we can't do anything and have no other plans unless we decide to come back and expand that Page 144 November 16, 2000 lake. It's outside of our boundary, as you heard Mr. Anderson say earlier, that there really aren't any other land uses currently besides agriculture and earth mining. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I mean, you can't build a home on it. MR. ARNOLD: No residential, no commercial. It doesn't qualify for any other uses under your growth management plan other than for agriculture and earth mining. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: See, that's always a concern of mine when we do these smaller projects, is that we end up with, you know, with no one that's got any interest; no caretaker, no, you know, nothing left there. I mean, I'm not opposed to the -- to the project but, you know, it's like what do we do with this at the end? You know, they walk away and leave it to the county to -- you know, as a burden or does it get turned into an estate? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If it's near, by Fiddler's Creek, I thought maybe they'll just take it in. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's agriculturally zoned. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you could have eight home sites. Is that correct? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, you can probably have one, I think, under the current growth management plan and the Governor's order that places a moratorium on the property. We qualify for one today because it is only one parcel of land. I would tell you that some of the other uses that -- that there has been an expression of interest; a small rural church had approached and looked at taking an option to have the front portion where we show a maintenance facility and at some point coming back and having a small church site there. A cellular company, you can have small cell towers under the agricultural zoning by right up to -- I think it's 50 or 75 feet. Uses like that can help generate some revenue but long term, right now there's no other plan other than to come and excavate this material, and if all goes well, we may come back to you in another year or so and expand that lake facility. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: You know, my only concern would -- you know, would be that we leave an acre, two acres, of buildable ground so that something can be on that property on Page 145 November 16, 2000 and on. MR. ARNOLD: Right now the lake is approximately 20 acres. The entire site is forty-two and a half. So, we've shown an impact to the western side of that to get our haul road and some of the other requirements to do the excavation on that site. The front portion is about three and a half acres between the lake and U.S. 41. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. And that's fine. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It would be -- it would be long enough for a water landing strip. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Turn it into it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? Commissioners? Anyone then from the public then wish to speak on this? If not, we close the public hearing. Motion. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'm not the only one that can make motions. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right. Okay. I move that we send a recommendation of approval for Petition CU-2000-14 for conditional use; one, earth mining, subject to the following conditions, A through E, that were listed in our report. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's been moved by Commissioner Rautio and seconded by Commissioner Priddy. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? Motion carried. Before you go, Mr. Priddy, under old business -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, I'm coming back. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Not today but during the chairman's report at the next meeting, I want to discuss the problems that we've had with length of limiting the public. We've had four that are the longest, worst meetings in the four years I've been on this commission. And I think we need to discuss that at the next meeting as to do we continue the latitude of which I've allowed or do you think we should tighten up. And I wanted you to think about that and we'll discuss it at the next meeting. Page 146 November 16, 2000 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This is an example of a bad meeting? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. This is a bad meeting. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Length. Lengthy. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Long meeting. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No public comment? I believe we are adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 2:15 p.m.) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:15. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GARY WRAGE, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY DAWN M. BREEHNE AND ROSE M. WITT, RPR Page 147 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR -c, OUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS CITY / [~ATE ON WHICH VO~E OCCURRED · II !b - COUNI~/! NAME OF BOARD. COUNC1L_COI'~VIISSlON, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE cc£C ' THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNLT OF: E3 CFFY [~OUNTY 1'3 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: MY POSITION Q ELECTIVE J~ 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 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 positicn. 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 ~ .,rson holding elective 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 orshe 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 ioss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not 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: '~'~'hough you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you .st 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 AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) PAGE 1 CE FORM 8B - REV. 1198 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 flied. IF YOU MAKE NO A'I-i'EMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEb---i-ING: · 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 flied. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, :~'>J/ /x~/~"~)"~ , hereby disclose that on (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary ot a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: by which cJ Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES {}1 SURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT; REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - REV. 1198 PAGE 2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DMSION November 30, 2000 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield 3584-B Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-25, James R. and Susan L, Anglin Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, November 16, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No, 2000-25. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-33 is enclosed approv:r~g this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Ross Gochenaur Planner II G:/admin/l] D-2000-25/RG/cw Enclosure James R. & Susan L. Anglin 61 Southport Cove Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) Land Dept. Property Appra/ser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 6~6-~-"~ CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 3 3 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-25 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 30-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 50-foot boat dock facility in a PUD zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield, representing James R. and Susan L. Anglin, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 57, Southport on the Bay Unit 2A, as described in Plat Book 24, Pages 9 and 10, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 30-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20-feet to allow for a 50-foot boat docking facility in the PUD 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. -21.- o Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-25 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 16 day of NOVEMBER ,2000. ATTEST: Executive Secretary COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER~~RIDA Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjo~:~ M. Student ~ Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-25/RG/cw -2- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION November 30, 2000 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-26, Paul M. Kneeland Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, November 16, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-26. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-34 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Sincer~ /,~ Ross Gochenaur Planner II G:/admin/BD-2000o26/RG/cw Enclosure c~ Paul M. Kneeland 28801 Trenton Ct. Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier. fi.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 3 4 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-26 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 Cotmty, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public heating after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 25-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 45-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-4 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield, representing Paul M. Kneeland, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat, Block H, Lot 4, as described in Plat Book 6, Page 2, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 25-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 45-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. 3_ o Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-26 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 16 day of NOVEMBER ., 2000. ATTEST: JO~N M. DUNNUCK, III ExcVcutive Secretary COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Interim Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjor~ M} Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/B D-2000-26/RG/cw 2