Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/04/2001 RJanuary 4, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 4, 2001 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: CHAIRMAN: Gary Wrage Russell Budd Ken Abernathy Michael Pedone Russell A. Priddy Dwight Richardson NOT PRESENT: Joyceanna J. Rautio Sam Saadeh Lora Jean Young Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page I AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 2001, 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 10 DAYS 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: November 16, 2000 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES BCC REPORT CHAIl~M~.~WS REiPORT 7. A1DVER~FI:SED PUBLIC HEARINGS BD-2000-31, Miles L. Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Charles Griffin, r~questing a 108 foot extension for a boat dock protruding a total of 128 feet into the waterway for property located at 19 East Pelican Street, further described as Lot 35, Isles of Capri, Unit 1. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) BD-2000-33, Miles L. Scofield of Turrell and Associates, Inc., representing Edward W. Scott, requesting a 47 foot boat dock extension for a boat dock protruding a total 67 feet into tl~e waterway, for property located at 10455 Keewaydin Island, further described as Parcel 22, in Section 14, Township 51 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) Co Fo PUD-86-22(2), William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., representing Peter and Mark Longo, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as the Pine Ridge Center PUD having the effect of revising the PUD Master Plan to show a reverse frontage, re-label part of Area "B" between Pine Ridge Road and the reverse frontage road as Area "C", and revising the PUD document to correct the project acreage from 8.79 acres to 8.73 acres, change the address of the landowners, and add additional permitted and accessory uses similar to the C-3 Zoning District, for property located on the south side of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896) approximately 660 ft. west of Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) PUD-88-11 (2), William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc.,.representing Anthony F. Jancigar, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as the Pine Ridge Center West PUD having the effect of revising the PUD Master Plan to show a cross-access road and re-label part of Area "B" between Pine Ridge Road and the reverse frontage road as Area "C", and revising the PUD document to show the neighboring landowners' current address, re-label existing exhibits and add exhibits "D", "E", and "F", add Section 3.4L pertaining to architectural standards, add parking and loading standards, and add additional permitted and accessory uses similar to the C-3 Zoning District, for property located on the south side of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896) approximately 660 ft. west of Whippoorwill Lane, in Section ! 8, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) R-2000-07, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., representing Hospice of Naples, Inc, requesting a rezone from "RMF-6" and "A" Rural Agriculture to "CF" Community Facility for a group care facility, for property located at 1095 and 1205 Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 11.6+ acres. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) CU-2000-16, Jeff Davidson, P.E., of Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing Jesse Hardy, requesting conditional use "1" of the "A" Rural Agricultural district for excavation of aquaculture ponds for property two miles south of 1-75 and I mile east of Everglades Boulevard in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 28 East, consisting of 160+ acres. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) 8. OLD BUSINESS: 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. A~D~D URd~' 2 January 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, let's call this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. January 4th, 2001. We'll start by calling the roll. Commissioner Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Young appears to be absent. Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio is excused. Commissioner Wrage is present. Commissioner Budd? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And Commissioner Saadeh is absent. And Commissioner Richardson? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. MR. NINO: For the record, Mr. Chairman, let me advise you that Commissioner Young called me yesterday and advised she wouldn't be able to attend. She says she lacked transportation. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So noted. Any addenda to the agenda? MR. NINO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You have before you the meeting -- minutes of the meeting of November 16th, 2000. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I make a motion -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any addition or correction? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's been moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Priddy to approve. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, we went by addenda to the agenda. I guess that's the appropriate place to talk about continuances for this agenda. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. NINO: Item C and D, staff requests that those two be Page 2 January 4, 2001 continued indefinitely. Ray Bellows, are you here? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. NINO: You want to indicate why those two are being continued? MR. BELLOWS: An issue concerning transportation and access and median openings along Pine Ridge Road came up at the last minute. And we have a new transportation services director, and she wanted more information, so we have continued and have a meeting with her scheduled some time in the next week or so. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, thank you, Ray. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So moved -- second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's been moved and seconded that we move C, Charlie, and D, Delta, indefinitely, or-- MR. NINO: Indefinitely. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Indefinitely. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.} CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. Any -- back to Planning Commission absences. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I'll probably be an hour late next time. I have an 8:00 meeting in another organization. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We will so note that on your paycheck. And a Board of County Commissioner report, Ron? MR. NINO: I think I -- yes, I think there's something of interest happened at the board meeting in dealing with the Cocohatchee that you might want to put back in your computer. For the first time the issue of workforce housing got addressed in connection with the Cocohatchee because they were building a golf course and of course that's going to employ people and going to employ people who probably can't afford the housing that normally goes into that part of town. So -- and a workforce housing requirement was made a stipulation on approval. For example, like 30 percent of the housing that was -- that would be allowed in this -- the leg of the L would have to be workforce housing. So you might want to put Page 3 January 4, 2001 that somewhere in your computer, because if it came up once, I'm sure it's going to come up repeatedly on zoning petitions that trigger low income -- I mean low paying jobs. But I would hope that rather than it get addressed each and every time that a policy gets adopted -- and I've raised that issue with Bob Mulhere to determining that it not be handled on oh, gee, did we remember, did we forget, but exactly some strategy be laid out for making it a requirement. You know, if we're going to -- the board's going to impose it, then it ought to be somehow memorialized in some law. MS. STUDENT: Well, for the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. That's something we should really find probably in the housing element of the comp. plan, and it's something that should be in there perhaps with a cross reference in the Future Land Use Element as well. MR. NINO: But other than that, I think -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Ron, I had a question. And this was probably from the commission meeting before that. But what did they do with the rock quarry, Glenn Simpsoh's project out on 846? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I think -- did they pass it with the request, specific request we had with it? MR. NINO: I'm not sure. But I could report back to the next meeting. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a comment back to affordable house being. In the last year, somebody remind me, I'm not sure that we've even seen anything before this board in affordable housing in the last year. MS. STUDENT: One. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah, there was one project that had some in it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, there's a definite need and a definite lack thereof. With that, chairman has no report. We'll go into the advertised public hearings. For those wishing to give testimony, sign-up slips are outside. Please fill them out, give them to Ron Nino. And we'll start with BD-2000-31. Ross -- all those wishing to give testimony, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in Page 4 January 4, 2001 by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ross? MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 108-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 128 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 19 East Pelican Street on Isles of Capri and contains about 60 feet of water frontage. There's a single-family home on the property. The project consists of the replacement of an existing 108-foot legal nonconforming dock with a longer dock and lift, which would have total less deck area than the original. The bottom at the site is very shallow, and most of the surrounding properties have similar extended docks ranging of 122 to 125 feet. No objections to this project has received (sic), it meets all criteria and staff therefore recommends approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Why is the present one nonconforming? MR. GOCHENAUR: Sir? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Why is the present one nonconforming? MR. GOCHENAUR: A lot of these older docks on Isles of Capri were built anywhere from 10 to 30 years ago. The permitting records are incomplete back at that stage. And we generally consider that anything that's appeared on the property appraiser's records as of 1990 is granted legal nonconforming status. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ross, is this an improved lot? MR. GOCHENAUR: Sir? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: An improved lot? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. There's a single-family house on the lot. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? Can we hear from the petitioner? MR. SCOFIELD: Not unless you have questions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anybody got any questions of the petitioner? If not, anyone from the public wish to give testimony on this one? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Page 5 January 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Petition BD-2000-31. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's been 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 carries. BD-2000-33. All those wishing to give testimony on this, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ross. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 47-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 67 feet into the waterway. The property is located on Keewaydin Island and contains about 106 feet of water frontage. There's a single-family home on the property. The project consists of a four-foot wide walkway, accessing a small terminal platform and two boat slips. The bottom at the site is very shallow and the waterway is relatively broad. Similar docks on neighboring properties extend from 40 to 80 feet. We've received no objections to this project, it meets all criteria, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? Does the petitioner wish to give testimony? MR. SCOFIELD: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anybody from the public wish to address this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve Petition BD-2000-33. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 6 January 4, 2001 Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carries. Mr. Scofield, you are getting shorter again. I like that. I do believe we've extended the next two, so now we're down to E, R-2000-07. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, may I ask staff, will we get new material on C&D when it comes out, or -- MR. NINO: Yes, you will. MS. STUDENT: I'm sure. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, with that, all those wishing to give testimony on R-2000-07, please rise, raise your right hand, be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This rezone is for the Hospice of Naples, Inc. They are located off Whippoorwill -- excuse me. Whippoorwill -- MR. NINO: Whippoorwill. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Whippoorwill Pool Lane, off Pine Ridge Road. They own an 11-acre site. It's 11.6 acres. They have four acres of lake on that site. And the property is zoned -- most of it is zoned RMF-6, and a portion of it is zoned A, agricultural. In the past, in 1991, they obtained a conditional use for a business for the Hospice of Naples. And over the years several times they came to us to amend the conditional use to add buildings, reconfigure the parking lot and things like that. And basically this time they are requesting a rezone to community facilities so they don't have to come back in front of the board every time they want to do a minor change on the site. The staff reviewed this petition. They are not planning on adding anything right away. They may have some additions in the future. And basically the development of this site is restricted by the size of -- by the lake that's already existing there. The staff recommends that you forward this today to BCC with a recommendation for approval. Staff has not received any letters, only phone calls in opposition to this petition. MR. NINO: I have a question. Unfortunately I should have Page 7 January 4, 2001 paid more attention to this earlier. It's me, Wayne. Do you know if the county has acquired the additional 40 feet of taking fee title to 40 feet of Whippoorwill Lane? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold, representing Hospice. We also have David Corbin, with Architectural Network, as well as Diane Cox, who's president of Hospice of Naples. The county did contact us early on in the process as part of the Whippoorwill improvements, asking us if we would be interested in donating 40 feet of right-of-way for the county. As we came through the pre-application process, we indicated we probably weren't in a position to donate the 40 feet of property, but we certainly wouldn't stand in the county's way in acquiring that right-of-way. I don't believe that acquisition occurred. And maybe Diane can confirm that. She's confirming that no, the county has not moved forward on their purchase of the property. MR. NINO: However, there will be further building -- I mean, we're not simply dealing -- this property is not built out. There are expectations to intensify the development on this property? MS. ARNOLD: Our expectation essentially is to continue with the initial building program, which is on the northern tier, as you can see, where the current hospice facility is. The expansion to the south currently has a single-family home on it. That home eventually is going to be removed. We'll be adding a media center, conference, classroom space, things of that nature, essentially where that single-family home exists. The site planning that we've been doing, we've contemplated that 40-foot reduction in our front yard area to accommodate for that; shouldn't be any problem with us dealing with that, even with the limited building envelope we have. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Before we finish with the staff, Ron, why is that coming up now? Why hasn't that taking place prior to the meeting here? MR. NINO: Well, it's not unusual for rezoning applications to provide a -- to require that land be dedicated to the county for any road widening that's anticipated. And I regret that I had to raise the issue in that manner because, quite frankly, staff should have had some discussion of that in their report. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, any -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I forwarded this to the transportation Page 8 January 4, 2001 department and they sent it back to me with no comment. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That was going to be my next question. Transportation has signed off on this; is that my understanding? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically they sent it back to me saying they have no comments, so they signed off on this, yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? MR. NINO: Well, we need to appreciate that we do need 40 feet of right-of-way dedicated to the county. If the county's going to buy it, that's one thing, but -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: When we get to that point, we'll talk about recommendation. With that, we'll let the petitioner speak. MS. ARNOLD: I'll just go ahead. Again, Wayne Arnold. I'll just make a brief presentation. I hope many of you are familiar with the Hospice organization and what it's currently doing. Rezoning to CF for the roughly 11-acre site will accommodate not only the existing facility, but as I mentioned, for the media center, conference space, classroom space for the Hospice and its ongoing activities. We have a conceptual plan over here on the board that I'll take you through briefly. If we have some more specific questions, as I said, David Corbin with Architectural Network's here, he's been doing a lot of the site planning and architectural work. To the north, the parcel we have -- right now a commercial PUD, Pine View PUD that was approved here in the last few months. You have Pine Ridge Center's East and West that were on your agenda prior to ours that were continued indefinitely that sit here. So we have commercial to our north. To the south was an existing single-family home that was acquired by Hospice, oh, probably six months ago now back in the summer. And that is the area for our future expansion along with the frontage of Whippoorwill Lane. The balance of the site is primarily lake area, and that's shared with another residence to the south, as well as another five-acre tract to the south. And again, this really does allow to us have one unified zoning district to operate under. And again, as staff mentioned in its report, it really does work as a transitional use from the commercial as we progress down Whippoorwill Lane. Page 9 January 4, 2001 I think all of us can appreciate that the character of Whippoorwill has changed dramatically over the last year and a half with the number of rezonings that have come in for what will be primarily be multi-family development. And again, as Ron mentioned relative to the roads, because Hospice is a nonprofit organization and they paid retail dollars essentially for the property, we weren't necessarily in a position to just make that land donation back to the county. That's the way the county typically initiates its right-of-way activity, and that is to ask for a donation. Because there could be tax benefit to certain property owners in giving the land to the county. And again, what we told the county, we won't stand in the way of acquiring the property. We're not going to hold the county hostage. We just aren't in a financial position to give that property back after having just acquired it. The -- so we have coordinated and spoken with transportation. I also spoke with the real property department. And this is what's going to become I guess an MSTU. There may be some impact fee credits that are available, if we do make a donation, in lieu of that. And that is an option. But I'm not sure that it's -- I'm not -- I think where Ron is headed is potentially asking us to go ahead and donate this land to the county. And I wish we could say we're in that position, but we're just not in that position today. Again, if there are any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What is the proposed addition there to the west? MS. ARNOLD: To the west -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You talked about the one to the south. MS. ARNOLD: To the west, those are currently approved and the site plan is on its way to the county. That was part of the original conditional use. That would be the -- that area will house the additional beds for the Hospice facility. I think there -- David's done the design. Maybe he can tell you exactly what's going to be in the building. I forget the number of bedroom facilities there. MR. CORBIN: Good morning. David Corbin with Architectural Network. Page 10 January 4, 2001 The building to the west is a new residence addition. And what it is doing is taking the place of the existing residence wing. This is the existing building. And there are currently residents -- excuse me, beds in the southern portion of the existing building. With the growth of Collier County in the last 10 years since Hospice has been in existence, the number of patients cared for by Hospice has grown tremendously, requiring extra clinical staff and therefore offices for them. So the idea is to replace this residence wing with a new residence wing here that will be up to State of Florida standards. And then this area here will be gutted and that will become clinical staff area. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought I saw somewhere in here where there were 12 beds now and that number wasn't going to change. Is that right or wrong? MR. CORBIN: No, there's six beds right now, and this is going to be -- those are going to be removed, and then eight beds put in here, so there's only an increase of two beds. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, I see. Maybe I dreamed that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Mr. Richardson, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I have a question for the applicant. It seems that this right-of-way issue is going to be important, at least to my consideration'of it. And my compliments to Hospice. You're doing a wonderful job and I'm very much in favor of having this facility and institution in our midst. However, as good neighbors, and as we try to work our way through this, I really think it's going to be important for you to more accurately consider the donation of that 40-foot right-of-way. And I realize you're tax exempt status and all that, and some of the issues that you've brought up, Wayne, but as far as my vote is concerned, I'm going to make that a requirement, that that donation be put in the record. So if you'd like to come forward and do that, it would help us in our consideration. MS. ARNOLD: I think I'd certainly need to confer with Ms. Cox on behalf of Hospice. Page 11 January 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I think there perhaps needs to be some discussion up here, because I would not support that motion with that donation. I feel like unlike a developer that is here in our county to make money and to do business, that that may be very well appropriate and this would be the time to make sure that the citizens of the county have that right-of-way. I think this is an opportunity for everyone in the county to participate in the finances of Hospice and what they do in our community by the county paying for that right-of-way. So I certainly cannot support that direction. MR. NINO: Let me try to add something to that, that we -- I do know that -- and Dawn Wolfe is here from transportation, confirms that real property has been negotiating the right-of-way for those non-PUD's dealing with Hospice, and there are some other residential properties. And perhaps in view of the fact that we're in active negotiation, it seems like just because a hammer happens to come by, that maybe, you know, we're not being ethical. And Don agreed that perhaps in view of the fact that we're in active negotiation, that there is -- there is extenuating circumstances here, is what I want to say. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions from the board? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Let me just pursue this, because I brought up the issue. What is happening in terms of the acquisition? Are we -- is the county changing their position then, or staff changing their position that they really want to go buy this, rather than have it part of the deal? MR. NINO: According -- I discussed with Kevin Hendricks some months ago, we are buying from those non-PUD's. All the PUD's that we approve had a requirement to dedicate it, free of charge. However, the board several, nearly a year ago now, authorized real property to go in and buy all of the remaining links that weren't attached to any PUD. And they've been doing that for a year. I would have thought by now they would have taken title to the -- MS. WOLFE: Good morning. My name is Dawn Wolfe. I'm the transportation planning department director. Just a few board meetings ago the Board of County Commissioners did authorize the acquisition of the non-PUD Page 12 January 4, 2001 parcels down to almost the -- what would be the southern termini of Whippoorwill Lane at a little bit more than a million dollars for the acquisition of all of those non-PUD parcels that did not already provide the right-of-way. Technically we are in the active acquisition process. Had this item come up before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners prior to that time, I am sure that we would have looked at it in a little bit of a different light in recommending that we seek a dedication of that right-of-way, versus having to go out and procure that right-of-way under the process that's currently under way. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Answer your question? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm not sure I'm hearing the same voice from the two staff groups. MS. WOLFE: Actually, it is. What it's saying is this is coming up at this point after we've initiated the process for all of those non-rezone properties which are of the planned development nature. This is coming in after we've already initiated looking at what it would be -- what it would take dollar-wise to acquire the right-of-way off of all of these non-PUD properties, primarily all those residential properties. The Hospice property I believe being one of those properties where they're initiating the process to actually negotiate purchase. As I said, had this come in to you three months ago, prior to the board authorizing the purchase of those non-PUD parcels along that road, we would have sought a dedication from them. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I understand. Thank you. MR. NINO: And that's consistent with -- our staff should be recommending, as a condition of rezoning, the acquisition without charge for road widening as a function of all rezonings. If we don't do that, we're remiss. That's why we send to it transportation real property, to see if any additional land is required. However, there are some extenuating circumstances here in the sequence of time. And when you -- in retrospect, really, they don't have to apply for this rezoning, which is again another factor. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: To summarize for me, then, the board has set policy that we're not going to seek gifts from non-PUD landowners for right-of-way under any circumstance; is Page 13 January 4, 2001 that correct? COMMISSIONER BUDD: No. MR. NINO: Well, I wouldn't put it that way. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I know you -- I want to hear MR. NINO: If I were in the real property division, I would first be seeking a gift. And in failing to obtain a gift, then they're left with no choice but to pay them a fee for the value -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So since I have sought a gift and failed to get it, you're saying that that's okay, from the staff's standpoint. MS. WOLFE: I wouldn't necessarily say this -- as I indicated, had we been seeing this prior to the board actually authorizing the purchase of the non-PUD parcels, we would have been -- and then -- and this was coming in and we knew we were actively pursuing at the board's direction the construction of Whippoorwill Lane, that we would have said okay, well, we need 40 feet of right-of-way off of your property, you need to establish your site plan design that provides for it. There would have been the potential that we would have given them some type of compensation for that right-of-way, regardless. In this case it's a matter of we're going -- we're coming through prior to them submitting as a separate process, because they were at the time of that initiation not a rezoning, and have acquired them through that process. In some way there would have been some compensation to the property owners through that, with the exception of these major PUD's which came before, wanted to have the access off of a county public road and were therefore required to provide that right-of-way without compensation under those major planned unit developments. But like I said, this is -- we're in a little bit of a special case. I don't think we've really seen this type of an issue come up before the Planning Commission before. Like I said, it's -- which is coming first in this case. And in this case, the authorization to actually acquire those non-PUD properties occurred prior to this one coming in as the PUD so -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman? Is Whippoorwill Lane now a private road? Is that why we're doing all this? Page 14 January 4, 2001 MS. WOLFE: Whippoorwill Lane is not -- is for the most part an easement roadway, providing access to private properties. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Not owned by the county. MS. WOLFE: It's currently not owned by the county. And to a great degree, it is not constructed past the Hospice today. In order for the other parcels to have access to public roadways, the road has to be constructed -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I remember, that's what I was -- Hospice has a Whippoorwill Lane address, doesn't it? MS. WOLFE: It does. And in many -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Serviced by it, by Whippoorwill Lane? MS. WOLFE: Right. And it's a private access road. And I believe the standard is that private roads, as in this -- I believe is what this would be considered, a private access or private lane. It does have a designation of a roadway, I believe, for addressing purposes, for emergency services, that they would need have some type of a lane address. Private roads,. all of the gated communities around here all have private roads within them and they all have named streets, which would be similar to this situation. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: This is the only road that services the Hospice; is that right? MR. NINO: Yes. MS. WOLFE: Yes. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And I think it's important to -- MR. NINO: But in this process we'll be making it a public road. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I think it's important to understand, too, that if we wanted to use the big hammer, and we're all in agreement with that, these folks simply can pack up and go home, and we wouldn't have the opportunity to hit them, because they don't need to be here today. They're not coming here today needing to do something tomorrow. They can simply go home until the issue gets worked out. So -- MS. ARNOLD: And I think if I might, I think where Ms. Wolfe was headed is even in the process of this acquisition, because of the way the county has established this improvement district for Whippoorwill Lane, there always would have been the potential that in lieu of the actual dedication that there would be impact Page 15 January 4, 2001 fee credits toward the construction cost of that dedication. And I think that's how some of the other properties have been handled. But I think that in this particular case this was initiated several months ago, and it's not as if there's an attempt here to avoid doing our public duty, but it's just that we are in I think a little bit of a unique situation here, and I think clearly our impacts to Whippoorwill Lane are significantly different than a 700-unit PUD. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, any further questions of staff or the petitioner? Anyone from the public wish to address this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Planning Commission forward petition R-2000-07 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, motion made by Commissioner Budd, second by Commissioner Abernathy. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you all very much. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Next on the agenda, CU-2000-16. All those wishing to give testimony in this, please rise, raise your right hand, be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Chahram? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian, from planning services staff. This is a conditional use for an earth mining activity to be located in an area generally known as the Hole-in-the-Donut in Southern Golden Gate Estates area. Probably the map on the board is clearer. This is -- this is 1-75 and 951. Golden Gate Estates, Southern Golden Gate Estates. This area is zoned agricultural. And that's where the Page 16 January 4, 2001 property is. The property consists of 160 acres. This is an area designated as a NRPA, natural resource protection area. And in that area, earth mining is not permitted. However, bona fide agricultural uses are permitted. And the applicant is proposing to have a fish farm, basically, there. What they are proposing is to build fertile eggs, which will be 80 acres in area, combined area of 100 -- a combined area of 80 acres. And since bona fide agricultural uses are permitted in NRPA, therefore, this one is deemed a permitted use. We have a letter from the DCA opining that earth mining in this area would be a permitted use, provided that it is done for bona fide agricultural uses. And the access will be through -- the access will be through an easement in here, which goes to DeSoto, and then it will be connected to Everglades Boulevard through 52nd Avenue Northeast. Since this is an area called Southern Golden Gate Estates, the Growth Management Plan does not allow road improvements. Basically we cannot improve the roads, or we cannot have stipulations that the applicant improved the roads for this business. This petition was reviewed by the EAC, Environmental Advisory Council, and by a vote of 5-1 they recommended denial. They cited the NRPA designation as one reason. They said this is an area of natural resource protection area. And also, they said it's not compatible with surrounding property uses. Which staff disagrees with that, since it is zoned agricultural, surrounded by agricultural on three sides, a bona fide agricultural use should be deemed compatible use with surrounding properties. Staff has also received a letter from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida opposing it. However, staff recommends approval of this petition for a period of three years. And after the first three years, we will make a site visit to make sure that it's a bona fide agricultural use, a bona fide fish farm. And if so, we bring it back to this board for another conditional use. If not, we will put a stop to the earth mining activity. With that -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry, Chahram, did you say two Page 17 January 4, 2001 years or three years? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN WRAGE: MR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN WRAGE: MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Three years. Two years? Three. Three years, okay. Basically staff recommends approval of this petition, subject to all stipulations. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, I'm somewhat confused. The conditional use is for earth mining or for fish farming? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Fish farming does not require conditional use. Fish farming is a permitted use. However, in order to have a fish farm, you have to have ponds. In order to have ponds, you have to dig lakes. And that -- digging lakes by itself does not require a conditional use, but they have to haul off-site. The dirt must be hauled off-site. That requires a conditional use. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, that's leading to my next question. In three years you go out there and there's no fish pond, he's got to fill it back up; is that what we're saying? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, we -- actually, we're not saying that, no. A pond by itself is not going to destroy the environment. A small pond there, it would be okay. But if we see the intent was not the fish farming but was to just sell the dirt, then we stop that; otherwise, it would be hard to bring the fill back in and fill the pond. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I don't have a problem with what he's trying to do, but what do you do then at that point if he's not? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We believe that what they are saying is true. We believe they are going to have a fish pond. But as they say, trust but verify. So we are trying to make sure that we are right. COMMISSIONER PEDONE-' I have a question. It says that they intend to excavate this site for a period of 30 years. How much do you expect them to get done in three? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That is -- they can get one lake done in three years, if they want to. The problem is it's way out and it's going to be hard for them to sell the dirt. It's -- dirt will be mostly used for the Golden Gate Estates area. And we don't believe there is a market to sell this dirt in five or 10 years. But -- and they are -- on the application they are saying 25 to Page 18 January 4, 2001 30 years, and that is because there's a difference impact fees if you dig a lake in 30 years than you dig it in three or four years. The impact fee goes up tenfold, if you want to do it in a shorter period of time. COMMISSIONER PEDONE'- Well, I guess the question is, is the fish pond a by-product of the earth mining operation, or is the earth -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, other way around. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have a hard time believing that one. I really do. As far as I know, clean fill is a commodity that's very much in demand in Collier County. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If they intended just to have the earth mining activity, they wouldn't be designing the fish ponds. The way they are designed, it is going to be costly to build it. It basically is going to eat up all the money they are making from the, you know, earth mining activity. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But that's the only way they can do it. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: What do you do with the fish pond? I mean, do people come and look at the fish, or do they go fishing? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, no, no, it's a commercial fish and fish farming activity. It's 80 acres of lakes. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: For bass and -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Is this a saltwater -- going to be a saltwater operation? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We'll let that question -- the petitioner answer it. Let's finish with the staff report. Any further questions of staff? MR. NINO: Let me just add that obviously if you read Chahram's report, you'll note that there's an awful lot of caution in it. There are -- we do have concerns, and our concerns of course is that what we're dealing with here is a bona fide agricultural activity, and that -- and the excavation of earth material is an activity that needs to be done to facilitate the agricultural end use. Our concern was that we wanted to make sure that indeed there was going to be a bona fide fish raising activity here, breeding or raising or whatever, and we therefore placed the minimum window on that, which was three years. Page 19 January 4, 2001 And they're going to either have to stockpile, if they can't sell sufficient amount of that material to establish that bona fide -- to make that bona fide statement, then they're going to have to stockpile it on-site. But they've got a three-year window only in order to prove that what they're saying is the reason for the excavation materializes. And after that, it comes back to you and to the board to determine to what degree their activities qualifies them for going forward with the project. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What agricultural use is the property being put to now? MR. NINO: I don't know. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I think there is none. There is a house there, the owner of the property lives there, but there's no agricultural activity that I know of. MR. NINO: And going back to the EAC, I think the EAC's -- implicitly in the EAC's attitude, I think you could say that it wasn't a question of compatibility, it was a question of the activity by itself seems to be not in keeping with the intent of the NRPA, natural resource protection area. I mean, growing row crops, tomatoes and excavating a couple of million cubic yards of earth, you know, are two different things. And I think that underlies the attitude of the EAC. When it says it's not compatible, I think the EAC is saying it's not compatible with the intent of the NRPA. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Ron, would it be fair to say that the attitude, though, would not be any different if it were in fact to do row crops, because hasn't that been that they really don't want anything to take place inside that~NRPA? I mean, is that fair? MR. NINO: Well, technically that's where the purist would say thou shalt not disturb, plain and simple, yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If I may. The -- if the applicant -- and we'll talk to him in a minute, but if the applicant left the dirt on-site, he wouldn't have to come here. MR. BADAMTCHIAN-' He wouldn't have to come here, correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: He could just -- Page 20 January 4, 2001 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: He could come today to us and obtain a clearing permit, an excavation permit, if he decides to keep the dirt on-site. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That may be a solution. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That may be a solution, but we are talking about 1.8 million cubic yards of dirt, and it's more environmentally damaging than hauling off the dirt. Because they are preserving almost half of the site as natural -- in its natural state. If we ask them to stockpile the dirt, they have to remove trees and vegetation from that area to stockpile the dirt. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, if it's a permitted use, he could do it just that way. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They can do it that way if they choose, yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I mean, that's what our code allows. MR. NINO: Although, there are constraints. The constraints are how much dirt can you store on "X" number of acres of land. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's all dirt now. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? If not, we'll hear from the petitioner. And I think you've heard the question. THE COURT REPORTER: I haven't sworn you in, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KARL: My name is James Karl, K-A-R-L. I'm the attorney representing the petitioner. I'd like to put it in context. And I think the questions that were raised are the ones at issue. This really is a petition about whether or not we take and stockpile the fill or remove it from the site. Mr. Hardy, my client, and the owner of this property has lived on this property for well over 20 years, close to 30 years, and he has been desirous of undertaking this aquaculture activity for some time. He's been consulting with the university, he's been consulting with the Department of Agriculture. He's very serious about what he's doing, and he's going to do it whether or not he's allowed to take the fill out. The problem with leaving the fill on-site, in addition to what staff has pointed out, that there are limitations, it's going to create the need to clear additional areas, and if you look at Page 21 January 4, 2001 staff's report at Page 6, they estimate, and we agree with this, that the fill that will be generated by the excavation, if placed on the unexcavated portion of the site, would generate a mound over 25 foot high. And this creates problems regarding irrigation and what actually could grow on that mound. It's going to be much better environmentally, as well as aesthetically, to actually remove the fill. And this is why we're here today. And we believe that first of all, there's no question that Mr. Hardy is entitled to engage in this aquaculture activity. There's no question that he's entitled to dig these ponds. The question is whether or not he can do what is environmentally and aesthetically advantageous and that is take the dirt out of there. And we respectfully submit that that should be given a strong consideration. I'll be glad to answer any other questions. I don't think the issue of the authenticity of the aquaculture should even be relevant for two reasons: Number one, because they are in consultation with the Department of Agriculture. Agriculture has said dig the ponds. They've taken all those steps necessary. And our environmental consultant who is also here can speak to that. And number two, because the mechanism that staff has placed upon us, this three-year review back to the board, is really a failsafe. I mean, obviously we're going to have to make not only proof that it's a bona fide aquaculture activity, but we're going to have to actually have that activity in place within that three-year period. Thank you. I'd like to introduce Marco Espinar, who's the environmental consultant. MR. ESPINAR: For the record, Marco Espinar, Collier Environmental Consultants. If you have any questions, I'll be more than glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a question to orient myself on the map. Show me where the property is and where the route will be, you know, for the truck primarily. MR. ESPINAR: That's not our project. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I couldn't find it. I was trying to figure the interstate on it. MR. DAVIDSON: For the record, I'm Jeff Davidson, the Page 22 January 4, 2001 engineer for the project. The proposed route -- the project's here, and this is 1-75, the yellow line, and we're about two miles south of 1-75. The route to the project would be Everglades Boulevard to 52nd, I believe it is, or 54th, that goes over to DeSoto, down DeSoto and then to another road; I think it's probably 52nd that goes over across the north of the property and down an easement, down Fakaunion Canal. And we're about two miles south of 1-75. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And all of that's an improved road, right? MR. DAVIDSON: The improved road -- the county road stops about a mile and a half north of the property, and then there's a limerock road, an improved limerock road, not paved, that runs south to the property boundary. It's not a county right-of-way. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And Chahram, they would be required to keep that up; is that right? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They have to keep that up, but they cannot improve it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: They have to keep it at least what it is now, right? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. ESPINAR: And if I might add, if you look at Stipulation No. 3 under the environmental, the applicant has agreed to adhere to just that access and not to take it south or go down Jane Scenic Drive or anything. That will be our access. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I had a question just as -- is this going to be a freshwater operation or a saltwater operation? MR. ESPINAR.' Yes, sir, freshwater. Catfish and bluegill. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: In other words, the -- doesn't have anything to do with the petition, but this is for consumption, right? MR. ESPINAR: Yes, sir, for consumption. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No tropical fish or any -- MR. ESPINAR: No, no, catfish and bluegill. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: How many truckloads of dirt Page 23 January 4, 2001 are you going to be moving per day? Or give me some sort of feeling how much volume of traffic there's going to be and how much impact it's going to have. MR. DAVIDSON: Jeff Davidson again. The 30 years was based on worst case conditions. And that was approximately, Stan, correct me if I'm wrong here, I think it was 50 or 60 trucks a day. And really moving the fill off-site is based on market conditions, because we have to have a place to move the fill, and the only alternative would be to stockpile the fill on-site. And we'd prefer not to do that for the reasons we've already discussed. So we're not sure. It depends on the market. It depends on how much -- you know, where we can sell the fill is the bottom line. Worst case we're thinking 50 or 60 trucks a day. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could I ask the applicant if selling the dirt is a necessary ingredient to the economics of this project? MR. KARL: The project has to be reviewed as a whole. And I'm not going to suggest that there isn't earmarked from the proceeds of the sale of the dirt the extra expenses that we're going to come into as a result of these ponds. These are not just the holes that are dug. They're carefully designed with depths and connections between the two so that the aquaculture is successful. So there is expense involved. A lot more than there would be if you were simply digging a hole. And sure, we do plan to use the proceeds from the sale of the dirt to meet some of those expenses. But I think that it's very important to note that Mr. Hardy -- this isn't the typical situation of somebody who's out there and decides he wants to engage in an activity that's going to make a big profit by the sale of the dirt. Mr. Hardy has lived there, he is a long-standing resident. This is something -- he even dug a pond back in 1997, a small one, a test pond. This is something that he's been working with for some time. I have no question that this is a genuine activity. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Might I ask the environmental consultant. You appeared before the EAC? MR. ESPINAR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And they did not approve, or Page 24 January 4, 2001 did not recommend -- MR. ESPINAR: Right. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- your project. Can you explain to me from the NRPA standpoint, which I'm sure you're very familiar with, or help me understand how this is compatible with the intent of the county to preserve those areas? MR. ESPINAR: Well, that area is slated for restoration and hydrological restoration. And it is my opinion that the four ponds out there is going to attenuate a lot of -- or, you know, have a lot of water storage. In essence, it will be a benefit for that area, because it's restoring some of the hydrology, the groundwater, in that area. Right now the water just sheet flows over that whole entire area. The area is an upland right now. I mean, it is an upland. And the water just sheet flows through there. The four ponds will store a lot of water in the -- to the north of the restoration areas. So I think it is a compatible use. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I note that Clarence Tears from the Big Cypress Basin, however, disagrees with that analysis. MR. ESPINAR: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You say your view is correct and his is wrong. MR. ESPINAR.' Just a difference of opinion. Like I said, my opinion is that we are storing a lot of water and the hydrology there is going to be restored. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's certainly not going to flow through there, though, when you've got the ponds built, some retaining walls and all that around it, which you've described that you're going to have to have to make this a working operation. It will be an impediment to the natural hydrology of that area. MR. ESPINAR: That area is one of the highest grounds in the whole vicinity. It is an upland. The water right now does sheet flow through the east and the south of the property. But in essence, his property is probably one of the highest pieces of property out there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So apparently Mr. Tears was not aware of that upland? Page 25 January 4, 2001 MR. ESPINAR: I'm not aware of how much information Mr. Tears was -- was available to him, and I have not spoken with Mr. Tears. MR. LENBERGER: If I may, Stephen Lenberger for the record, the environmental specialist that reviewed the project for the county. We gave copies of the Environmental Impact Statement, as well as a site plan to Clarence Tears, as well as the DEP and the Division of Forestry, so he would have been aware that it is an upland site in the elevations, because it's in the ElS. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And you -- of course because it was included in our packet, he did recommend that we not go along with this? MR. LENBERGER: He said it was incompatible with the restoration plans which are being developed at this time in con]unction with the Army Corps of Engineers, but he didn't state any specific reasons why. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Does the county staff have a view on which position is more appropriate for us to take? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning. Start Chrzanowski with development services. I don't see how digging a lake can interrupt the hydrology. Like they say, they are the high point of the county. The water does go around them. All lakes in Collier County are simply penetrations of the water table. The water in the lake will rise and fall as the hydrology rises and falls. If they get a lot of rain, the water in the lakes will get higher; in the dry season the water in the lakes will get lower. Marco is right about one thing, the lakes act more as a sink for water. They hold more water than an equal amount of ground which generally has like maybe 25 percent voids in it. So you do have a little buffering in there. You do get some evaporation loss that you don't get from water that's under the ground, but you don't get the evapotranspiration loss that you get when there's trees on the land. So I've talked with a few people about this and generally they agree that over the long term it's probably a toss-up whether you dig a lake or not. But I can't see the lakes having an adverse effect on the hydrology of the area. Page 26 January 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But are we not back to -- I mean, I understand where you're going. But the real question, if we take Mr. Hardy at his word, under oath, we're not talking about whether the lakes are going to be dug. He's going to dig the lakes, irregardless of what we say. It's a matter of whether he piles the dirt up or hauls it off. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If you dig a 20-acre lake 20 feet deep, you're going to pile 20 acres 20 feet high. And you,re not going to be able to irrigate it. It's going to be constantly dry, nothing will grow on it. When the rains come, the erosion will wash the sediment all over the place. It will be, as far as I'm concerned, more of a disaster than hauling the fill off-site. If you're going to dig a lake, you've got to haul the fill off-site. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, just one last? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ron, it seems to me we -- I'm left with some incompatibility in our zoning code that permits this kind of operation, yet doesn't recognize the by-product that results from digging these holes. And it would seem to me that our code, in some future discussion we might have, should deal more directly with the consequences of this kind of a project. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If I might, about three years ago, there was a gentleman came in here to dig catfish ponds -- a catfish pond. Only he wanted people to be able to fish in the pond. And at that time there was in the Land Development Code a provision that you could haul any excess fill off-site from an agricultural operation. It was generally assumed that he was in here, like they're making the assumption about Mr. Hardy, that he's just been here for the fill. As far as I know, right now he's got catfish in that pond that are fair sized going toward his goal. The commission at that time considered it a loophole that you could claim to be doing aquaculture and haul all the fill off-site without any control on it. So about two or three years ago, we put a special provision in there that agriculture over 4,000 cubic yards hauled off-site needed a conditional use. That's why you're hearing this today, because of that. It was an attempt to answer what you see as a problem. The answer is that you have to review it and then allow the off-site hauling. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Look at each one Page 27 January 4, 2001 individually. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, you have speakers on these -- on this petition. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions of the staff or the petitioner at this point? If not, anyone from the public wish to speak on this? MR. NINO: Kathleen Avalone and Mimi Wolok. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ma'am, were you sworn in? MS. AVALONE: No, I wasn't. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Give your name and spell it for the court reporter, please. MS. AVALONE: My name is Kathleen Avalone. A-V-A-L-O-N-E. And I am co-founder of the Citizens For the Protection of Animals of Southwest Florida. There are a couple of points that I'd like to make. If you grant approval for these so-called aquaculture ponds, in reality what you will be approving is earth mining, which is not allowed in this area under the final order. Most fish ponds are one to five acres, according to Dr. Bart Green, principal investigator for the International Center For Aquaculture and Aquatic Environments. This proposal will use 80 acres for four ponds. That's fuzzy math. Most aquaculture ponds are 12 to 15 feet deep. These would be 20. In 1997, a permit was issued specifically for a catfish pond. Not a test pond, as the petitioner is claiming. Three years later, there are no catfish in this pond. MR. HARDY: You haven't checked it. MS. AVALONE: Assuming -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No comments from the public. You get an opportunity to testify, if you want to. MS. AVALONE: Assuming a fish pond is made in the first phase of this project, predation is a major concern. It was stated at the EAC meeting that no predator control would be instituted. This is unrealistic and, for the most part, untruthful. I myself heard Mr. Hardy state that turtles which might come to feed would also bring in money. Since it is inevitable that predators, cormorants, otters, alligators, raccoons, turtles, will be attracted to this food source, it is also inevitable that there will be Page 28 January 4, 2001 wholesale killing of these animals. It was also stated at the EAC meeting that no environmental damage would be done to this land. Destruction of 80 acres of rare upland habitat land is not considered damage? Objective 6.8 states the county shall protect natural reservations from the impact of surrounding development. Public lands are on all four sides of this project, and the Water Management District says it will indeed impact these lands. This project is in Priority I panther habitat. And it's about time that that fact be given the priority it deserves. Objective 7.3 requires the county to develop and implement programs for the protection of animal wildlife, especially practices to reduce disturbances to Florida panthers, among others. Since the Florida panther is an endangered species, it is not only a moral obligation but a legal one as well. Several groups are presently involved in legal action against federal and state agencies which have failed to meet their responsibilities concerning the preservation of the Florida panther habitat. We are asking you today to meet your responsibilities to our land and wildlife and deny this permit. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker. MS. WOLOK: For the record, my name is Mimi Wolok. M-I-M-I, W-O-L-O-K. I'm staff attorney for The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. We turned in written comments last week. However, in the fax transmission, it did not come out very well. Would you mind if I passed the letter out now and read it into the record? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That would be fine. MS. WOLOK: On behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida's 5,800 member families, I appreciate the opportunity to comment before the PAB today. Over the years The Conservancy has actively participated in the protection of South Golden Gate Estates, including this Hole-in-the-Donut area. We were very much involved in ensuring that landowners were able to get a reappraisal of their property in the process of getting higher prices for the South Golden Gate Estates properties from the state. The South Golden Gate Estates is a vital part of the watershed in the western Everglades ecosystem. Any proposed Page 29 January 4, 2001 projects that are Inconsistent with the protection and restoration of the western Everglades must be avoided at all costs. The Conservancy believes that this petition should be denied. The EAC staff report states that the only way this petition for an excavation could be deemed consistent with the FLUE is if the intended and primary use is a bona fide agricultural use and the excavation is a directly related use necessary in order to achieve the end use. We believe the excavation of over 1.78 million cubic yards of fill cannot be interpreted as anything but the primary use of this property. The petitioner plans to dig up to 20 feet in depth. While this may be recommended for earth mining lakes after the fill has been removed, we do not believe that the same rules apply for aquaculture facilities in Florida. In fact, we know that aquaculture facilities don't require 20 feet, especially for catfish and bluegill. We believe that the Big Cypress Basin -- the letter that you received is based on credible scientific evidence that Big Cypress Basin has a lot of information about the overall sheet flow and health of the ecosystem down in South Golden Gate Estates and the Hole-in-the-Donut. And as you had already pointed out, their opinion conflicts with the. biological opinion of the petitioner's. And we believe that Big Cypress Basin scientists should be -- should take precedence in this case. We also believe that the NRPA overlay allows only uses that are directly related to agriculture. Later conversion of earth mining into an aquaculture business is not directly related to agriculture. The subject 80-acre property has already been deemed important for conservation by both the county and the state. This is a NRPA area, and as the EAC pointed out, the spirit of, you know, what NRPA's are all about would be violated by the digging of 20-foot holes over 80 acres in this area. The reason for the denial at EAC, as you already know, is they don't believe the use is compatible with the surrounding uses, and specifically it was pointed out that this 'pond, based on the surrounding habit -- natural habitat, wild habitat, would -- may convert into alligator ponds, and that there wouldn't be any catfish left. I mean, petitioner says that they wouldn't keep the Page 30 January 4, 2001 wildlife out, and we believe that that is a very legitimate concern. So The Conservancy respectfully requests that this petition should be denied for the reason that it's inconsistent with the intent of the county comprehensive plan. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Question? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, I have a question. Ms. Wolok, I would like the record to reflect that I am one of those 5,800 member families that you are representing today. Given the fact that this petitioner, irregardless of what we say, and irregardless of what anyone wants, can go dig those ponds by simply going to Horseshoe Drive and getting a permit today, they can go do that this afternoon. Even if we tell them no, they can go get those permits. MS. WOLOK: Can they do it if it's violates NRPA, if it is found that -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But it's not going to be found. If they put in -- go get permits and put in a fish pond, that's allowed. The Governor and Cabinet specifically said that's okay. Given those circumstances, would The Conservancy rather see dirt piled up and destroy the rest of the property, or the dirt hauled off? And I think that's what the issue is here today. MS. WOLOK: Well, that's a hard question to answer. Because if you pile up the dirt on the side of the pond, it would show that -- it would help show that the intent of this is as an aquaculture pond and not as an earth mining business, because they wouldn't be as interested in getting the money from the fill. And from the environmental standpoint, it would be a little more difficult to argue that the fill should be piled up on the side. So this is definitely a dilemma. But if this commission finds and the BCC finds that the primary -- the whole question is, is this a primary use? Is earth mining a primary use or is the aquaculture the primary use? And it seems clear to The Conservancy that earth mining is the primary use and aquaculture is the secondary use. However, if this commission and the BCC finds that this three-year probationary period is appropriate, then The Conservancy asks that it be allowed to accompany the county staff on perhaps monthly monitoring visits out to the site so that we can -- our biologists can also be assured that this is indeed a Page 31 January 4, 2001 viable aquaculture business. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Would digging the lakes at 15 feet give you a better comfort level? I mean, if that's what scientists say, you only need 15 feet as opposed to 20 feet, does that give you a better comfort level that what they're intending up front is a fish farm and not a mining operation? MS. WOLOK: Well, the problem is we don't have the information that that would be -- that that would be viable financially for the petitioner or that biologically it would make a difference to the South Golden Gate Estates area. The important point is that it's an incompatible use with the surrounding habitat. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I don't buy that argument, but okay, thank you. MS. WOLOK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anyone else wish to speak on this? MR. DAVIDSON: Yes. I'm Jeff Davidson again. I would like to clear some things up about the design of the lakes. I've done a lot of lakes in Collier County, probably 20 or 30 lakes, excavation, commercial excavation type lakes, and a lot of research went into the design of these lakes. And these lakes are nothing like the commercial excavation in the rest of Collier County. For one thing, the depth of the lakes is not 20 feet; it's a maximum of 20 feet. And it goes from a minimum of 12 feet, and it slopes from one end, from the deep end, from 12 feet down to -- the shallow end of 12 feet down to a deep end of 20 feet. And the reason we did that is so that -- for one reason, there's a -- since the property is relatively high, the depth -- the water table depth during the dry season we think will probably drop to about seven feet below natural grade, seven to eight feet. And that will give us only four feet in the shallow end of water. And, you know, a little bit more on the deep end. So that's the reason it slopes the way it does. Also, the lakes are interconnected, so we can pump down during harvesting and the fish would collect in the deep end when it's pumped down. And there are a lot of things that went into the design of this that is above and beyond what's usually in a commercial excavation operation. And also, we're meeting the county requirements, the Land Page 32 January 4, 2001 Development Code requirements on the minimum depth on one ends and the maximum depth on the other end. And we're trying to stay within that range. That's also the requirement -- or the recommended requirement of the South Florida Water Management District. So we're staying within those parameters in the design of this, as well as keeping in mind the aquaculture requirements. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Would it be correct -- may I ask? Would it be correct for us then to assume that the average depth of the excavation is something like 10 feet then? MR. DAVIDSON: The average depth is around 16 feet, a little less than 16 feet. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's 12 foot at one end and 20 foot at the other. MR. DAVIDSON: That's just the average of 12 and 20. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I didn't know how far the slope was. MR. DAVIDSON: Well, it's in there somewhere,. because on the end, if you're looking at the plan there, there's the shaded end of the lake, that is a littoral shelf, and it was -- was stretcher. And the littoral shelf requirement in the Land Development Code for a commercial excavation, there's a four-to-one slope requirement. On these lakes we have a ten-to-one slope requirement -- not requirement, ten-to-one slope, because based on the research that Marco Espinar did and the information I got from him and other sources, that slope is desirable for the breeding of native fish. And so it's shaped like that. And there's also stretcher in the bottom for the fish to be more comfortable in their environment. And when the lake is pumped down -- that's on the shallow end, by the way. When the lake's pumped down on the deep end, the fish would congregate, then they could be netted on that end for harvesting or, you know, whatever method Mr. Hardy uses to harvest the fish. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And your depth is also somewhat related to the amount of loss of water in the dry season. MR. DAVIDSON: That's right. And since he's on a relatively high area, we did quite a bit of research. I visited the site twice, and I know Marco's been there several times to estimate what Page 33 January 4, 2001 we think the dry season elevation of the water table would be, which would -- you know, it's relatively easy there to determine that, because the canal, Fakaunion Canal, is adjacent to the property. And we had their water marks and other ways -- there's a downstream weir that we got the elevation of and things like that to come up with a determination of what we think the low season water table would be. And we estimate that that lake, in the shallow end, would have four to five feet of water during the dry season. So they're not as deep as they look. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, any further questions? No more speakers? I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners for conditional approval, subject to all staff stipulations. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's been moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Priddy. Any further discussions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, question on -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'd like to ask staff, this 1.75 million cubic yards, the applicant and you have said you both agree on that number as a reasonable -- I'm trying -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's basically the number that we agreed on. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And that's where the 12 foot at one end and 20 foot at the other end -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- you figured all that out? And it's going to be -- that's a lot of dirt. Did we get any indication -- maybe I failed to ask this earlier -- as to how soon the first pond's going to be there and in operation? Will it be there within the three-year period? I know we're going to go back-- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are saying three-year period from the time they apply for a site clearing permit. After they are done with the board -- with the county, if it's approved, they have to go through the South Florida Water Management District to Page 34 January 4, 2001 get a permit. And there's a letter from South Florida Water Management saying that they're not in favor of it. So they have an uphill battle there. We are saying three years from the time they are ready to go. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: One other question, if I may. I haven't heard really any response to this wildlife protection question. And that seems to be an issue that you could solve or could help us understand a little better, because that does sound like a problem. MR. ESPINAR: For the record, Marco Espinar. We recognize that some predators or alligators or otters might get into the ponds. And the applicant has shown no intent of, you know, preventing an animal from utilizing those lakes. The lakes are designed with underwater structure, rocks, as we've discussed. We've also discussed a ten-to-one littoral shelf that's all going to be fully vegetated. And in essence, you know, this is going to be some loss. There will be some economic loss of some fish. But that's part of the business of aquaculture. And the applicant recognizes that and there's nothing really to prevent it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Let me understand. You're saying that predators that might stumble onto these lakes in their natural pursuit of their sustenance, you're not going to do anything to keep that from happening? That doesn't seem to be consistent with a commercial operation. MR. KARL: Yeah, just to clarify on that point, our belief is that the predator issue is one that can be addressed once the first lake is in place. If predators become a problem -- I mean, I think we have to say that if it becomes a major problem, such as alligators where we're having a substantial loss, then we would have to take some steps. But I believe those steps, and Marco can address this, too, the steps to keep them out of, you know, fencing and so forth would not be extreme. MR. ESPINAR: We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Also, the department of aquaculture, an arm of the Department of Agriculture, will also be holding our hands throughout this whole process. In fact, we'll be meeting with them on-site on numerous occasions. And we've already been in communications with Tallahassee. And like I said, they will be an integral part of supervising this aquaculture operation. Page 35 January 4, 2001 MR. DAVIDSON: Jeff Davidson again. I've spoken with Mr. Hardy about that. And he's been there for almost 30 years on that site. And there's a canal there, Fakaunion Canal, which is full of fish. I bass fish out there all the time. You know, there are tilapias in there, there are bass, there are brim, and there's a few gators in there. There's a cormorant once in a while. And there are some predators in that area. But he believes, and I believe as well, I've been in this area for 47 years, and I don't think the predators are going to be a problem. And that's why we've determined to cross that bridge when we get to it. We didn't want to, you know, cause an environmental problem here saying we're going to shoot the otters and that sort of thing, but we don't think it's going to be a problem. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I just want to understand which side of the issue it is. The predator comes on site. Are you going to try to just prevent him from being there, or are you going to do something more drastic? MR. DAVIDSON: As of right now, we don't intend to do anything with the predators. Because we don't think the predators will really cause a problem, because there aren't that many predators around. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If they do become a problem, what is your position? Are you going to eliminate them or just keep them away? That's the question I have. What seems to be the applicant's interest here? MR. DAVIDSON: If they do become a problem, I don't know, what do you think? MR. ESPINAR: Well, we can eliminate some of the predators. And here we are, we're talking hypothetic. We don't know what predators we're talking about here. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just -- MR. ESPINAR: I mean, if it's a hawk, if a hawk comes in, he's going to come, grab a fish and he's gone. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. MR. ESPINAR: You know, versus, you know, if an all -- a resident alligator comes in, then we could call Animal Control for removal of the animal. So we don't know. It's hypothetical. We don't know what predators are going to be there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You don't have a particular Page 36 January 4, 2001 shooting plan in mind then? MR. ESPINAR: No. No. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: All right. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' I would point out, Mr. Richardson, that if it's an alligator, the state has just extended the harvesting of alligators to year round. They're going for about $32 a foot, and permits are easily attainable, and that can become an economic source, if it's an attraction for the alligator, so -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So it's going to become an alligator pond instead of a fish pond. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, could be. MS. STUDENT: I just -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: One point of order. I don't seem to have closed the public -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, you didn't? Excuse me. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I tried, but it seems to still be open. And I'll allow one more question. Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I want to discuss, I don't want a question. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Well, I am going to close the public hearing. And I would point out, commissioners, at what time I do that, that's for disc. ussion amongst ourselves. I certainly don't want to inhib,t any questions from the public. With that, I will entertain a motion. Perhaps we can have discussion after that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think we already had a motion. MS. STUDENT: Excuse me, I thought the hearing was closed and we had a motion. And then there were questions from different ones of the commissioners. That's my recollection. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No, I don't -- MS. STUDENT: That's my recollection. I don't know if the court reporter can read it back, but that's my recollection. But I want to make -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But then I think the discussion needs to remain up here, as a point of order, unless there's really a point that needs to be clarified. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, just for procedure standpoint, I didn't get all my questions answered -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry. Page 37 January 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- before the motion was made. So procedure-wise, what do we do, just squelch those questions then? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, not really. I tried to leave the question period open as long as possible, you know, so no one is squelched. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The motion came before I had a chance to ask more questions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We're at the motion point. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We got the motion. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Then we're still until discussion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All right. If I'm -- excuse me, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: Go ahead, that's all right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' I'm reminded of one of the Lewis Carroll books in the Alice in Wonderland series Through the Looking Glass. And Alice -- the queen said to Alice, why Alice, I believe a half a dozen impossible things before breakfast every day. Well, unfortunately for this petitioner, I've already had breakfast today. I view this as either an earth mining operation or an attempt to establish that there's a viable economic higher use for this property to use as a tool in any eminent domain proceeding. I don't believe aquaculture is really a part of the game at all. If it is, it's going to be done in sort of a superficial way to keep the hounds at bay. In three years we'll go out there and find that, oh, this was a tough winter, the fish all died. We'll find that the alligators ate all the fish, or we'll go through a song and dance and we'll put it off and say well, we'll go back in another three years. And at the end of the earth mining operation, we're going to have two three, four 20-acre holes out there with no fish, and the applicant, the petitioner, has reaped the income from his land mining operation. It's clear to me as the nose on my face. So I can't support this petition at all. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy, your discussion borderlines on lecture, I think. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Abernathy, I can only say by way of discussion that as a landowner in the county, I have been approached within the last six months for available lands for Page 38 January 4, 2001 commercial fishing operations. So I think that there is, from my aspect, a viable, you know, business out there for that. Now, you may be 100 percent correct, I'm not going to argue that, but I can state that there are folks out there that are very interested in this. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just one comment, Mr. Chairman. The three-year period that we're going to have an overview on this, I know that at least The Conservancy has indicated they'd like to have an institutional involvement in the review during this period to see if it's an ade -- if this in fact is being used. I think they represent an opinion that the EAC certainly took into consideration. And I'd like to ask the motioner to include something along that line in his motion. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'd like to leave the motion as it is, because The Conservancy is a private enterprise, and as much as they are respected, the county professional staff is also respected and certified in all appropriate training for an environmental review, as would be appropriate. If they feel they want to bring someone else along, they can cross that bridge when they get there. But I don't see where we have the authority, if this was an addition on a house, that we would authorize some other neighbor to come look at the house at some future time on someone else's private property. I don't think we have the authority and I don't think it's appropriate, so I'd rather keep the motion as is. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And finally, I'd like to point out to the commissioners, you have before you a finding of fact. You have four issues here in terms of your recommendation. And those four, and really those four, are your consideration. So any final discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I think Marjorie would like to -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry. MS. STUDENT: I just wanted staff to clarify for the record, apparently there was some confusion about when the three-year time period runs. For staff to clarify for the record, and then what -- how we would look at it, so you know if the permit that the three-year period runs from, if they for some reason don't apply for that, then what will happen? Page 39 January 4~ 2001 MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' No, the stipulation is clear. And we had the same stipulation yesterday as we have it today. MS. STUDENT: Apparently there was some confusion about that, because some people -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yesterday they said -- I said that they are going to have three years. After that we are going to go and make a site visit to make sure it's a bona fide agricultural use. Probably I failed to say that that year will start from the day they obtain a clearing permit. Which I didn't today also until Mr. Richardson asked me that. MS. STUDENT: And they obtained that permit from the county. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They obtained a clearing permit from the county. MS. STUDENT: And what would happen if they for some reason didn't obtain that permit, it would just go on indefinitely then and -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Then they're in violation, if they don't obtain a permit. MS. STUDENT: No, not if they did anything, if it just lay there dormant. I'm just trying to open end this. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If they don't do anything with it, the conditional use expires in three years anyway. That's in our Land Development Code. MS. STUDENT: That's true, so -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay? MS. STUDENT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I thought I said that once. All of those signify -- in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I believe that's 5-1. And with that, we are down to old business. I don't have any. Ron? MR. NINO: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any new business? Public comment from anyone? If not, I believe we are adjourned. Page 40 January 4, 2001 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10.'00 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GARY WRAGE, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 41 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION January8,2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-31, Charles W. Griffin Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, January 4, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-31. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2001-01 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Sincerel/}~ ~~ Ross Gochenaur Planner II g/admin/BD-2000-31/RG/im Enclosure c: Mr. Charles W. Griffin 19 East Pelican Street Naples, FL 34113 Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier. fi.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 01 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-31 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 108-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 128-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-4 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Charles W. Griffin, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 35, Isles of Capri, Unit 1, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 48, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 108-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 128-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. 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 FLIRTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-31 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 4th day of January ,2001. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Community Development and Environmental Services Interim Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marj~udent' ~ Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-31/RG/im -2- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION January 8, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Turrell and Associates, Inc. 3584-B Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-33, Edward W. Scott Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, January 4, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-33. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2001-02 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Sincere Ross Gochenaur Planner II g/admin/BD-2000-33/RG/im Enclosure c: Mr. Edward W. Scott 8557 US HWY 20 Michigan City, IN 46360 Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics e PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier. fi.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 02 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-33 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 47-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 67-foot boat dock facility in an A-ST zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield of Turrell and Associates, Inc., representing Edward W. Scott, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Parcel 22, Section 14, Township 51 South, Range 25 East a/k/a a part of Government Lot 2, Collier County, Florida (Exhibit A) be and the same is hereby approved for a 47-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 67-foot boat docking facility in the A-ST zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: [ 1. All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. 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-2000-33 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 t~th dayof January ,2001. ATTEST: JEOx~utiMv~ sD~alTCK' III Community Development and Environmental Services Interim Administrator COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marj orie6M. Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-33/RG/cw -2- 05 O0 04:44p Turfell & Rssociates, Inc (9411 643-6632 p.2 3785 N. AIRI~ORT ROAD, $UXTE A NAPLES, FLOR/DA 34105 WITHOUT REVIEW OR OPINION OF TITLE 02/08/Z00~ ~ 09:HAK D¥[G~? I. ~OC%, 419~.OQ Retn: ~ICK u~ P.~e] ]D Numar. 00720880005 O,an~ #l I~N: 318-20-1376 Warranty Deed This Indentur~ Made this ~ %('~ dayof February M. L. SMITH and DIANNE C. SMITH, husband and wife 2000 ^.D.. Between of mc C~mnty of' Collier EDWArd) W. SCOTT, a married $c~e of Florida , gra!~lor-% ~4 ,~,o$ ~ ;,: 6557 U.S. HIGHWAY 20, Michigan City, IN 46360 uf ~c to.n= o~ La Porte , Sac ~ Indiana , K~nte~ ' Withesseth ~, ~ o~o~. r~ ~ m ~.fi~ or~ ~ of ......................... TEN ~L~ ($10) ~o~s. I~nB~~of Collier $~ of Florida ~L T~T P~T OF ~~NT LOT 2, IN S~CTION 14, ~SHIP 51 SOUTH, ~GE 25 E~T, LYING ~OUTH OF A LI~ 2,571.57 ~ET.SOUTH, ~D ON A FE~ENDICU~, OF ~D P~LT,~L TO THE NORTH LINE O~ SAID SECTION BKING A STRIP OF ~ KXTENDING FR~ T~E ~F OF ~XICO TO THE ~Y OR IN~D WATERWAY; T~ETHER WITH ~ ~IP~I~ RIGHTS ~PURT~T TRENTO. Subject to res=fictions, reservations and easements common to the subdivision, and taxes subsequent to 1999. The property herein conveyed DOES NOT constitute the HOMESTEAD property of the Grantor. The Grantor's HOMESTEAD address is 705 Meyer Drive, Naples, FL. 00-2 and II~ gmt~ta do hereby fully we,ran, ~c tide Io a~d land, and will defend 'gm ~amc agaJmd tawlld claims of All persons whom~-v=. In Witness Whereof, ~ ~an~, ~ h=c,~r, to ~, m~ m~ ~ ~ m= ~v ,~ y~, r,,~ ~.,~= 0~,,~,. $igned~.~ed and delivered in our prcseacc: Printed Name: ~da Davis Wi tries s P.O. Ad&~s: 7~ Mg%'ER DtII%'E. N,~ FL 34120 D~g c 7 S~ZT~- - ?.0. Address: 7~ MEYER DR IVF. Na~ ~ 34120 STATE OF Florida COUNTY OF Collier ~]m £o~-oinG in~mm~t was u. knoMGiz=i ~fom ~ ~ ~ d~y of F~ruary M. L. SMITH and D~E C. SMITH, husband ~d wife ? "'. ~' ~.~.~.~,,~t No~ Public' ......... ~ ~ .~--~-~-~ My ~mis~ ~ ,2000 Exhibit "A"