Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/18/2001 RJanuary 18, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 18, 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: CHAIRMAN: Gary Wrage Ken Abernathy Russell Budd Michael Pedone Russell A. Priddy Joyceanna J. Rautio Dwight Richardson Lora Jean Young NOT PRESENT: Sam Saadeh ALSO PRESENT: 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 18, 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 ALLOTFED 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 l0 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITFED 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. i. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 7, 2000 and December 21, 2000 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS BD-2000-32, Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Elliot F. Brainard, requesting a 25 foot boat dock extension for a boat dock facility protruding 45 feet into the waterway for property located at 82 Southport Cove, further described as Lot 9, Southport on the Bay Unit 1, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenatlr) V-2000-31, David & Cheryl Surgeon requesting an after-the-fact variance of 1.4 feet from the required 5 foot rear yard setback for accessory structures to 3.6 feet for property located at 2925 Coco Lakes Drive, further described as Lots 45 and 46, Coco Lakes, in Section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) PUD-2000-06, William Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development, Incorporated, requesting a rezone from "E" Estates to PUD Planned Unit Development to be known as "Ragge" PUD for a mixture of commercial and office uses on property located at the northwest corner of the intersection between Pine Ridge Road and Whippoorwill Lane in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.78 acres. (Continued to 2/1) (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) Do PUD-92-08(1), Bryan Milk of RWA, Inc., representing William T. Higgs, requesting a fezone from PUD to PUD known as White Lake Industrial Park PUD having the effect of changing the name to White Lake Corporate Park PUD, increasing the industrial land use from 67.4 acres to 86.3 acres, and changing the property ownership for property located northeast of and adjacent to the intersection of 1-75 and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) CU-2000-18, Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, representing SunVac Corporation- SM&H Stables, requesting Conditional Uses "19" and "20" of the "A" zoning district for sports instructional schools and commercial renting of horses and trail rides for property located at 2740 Newman Drive in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) Fo To approve a Resolution adopting Activity Center ~9 Interchange Master Plan that provides an enhanced gateway to Naples through landscape, transportation access and architectural design improvements. (Coordinator: Amy Taylor) 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS i 0. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM i i. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN i/18/01 CCPC AGENDA/RN/im 2 January t8, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Good morning. We're going to split the difference here between the commissioners' watches and the clock on the wall and we'll call to order the Collier County Planning Commission, Thursday, January 18th. And we'll start with the roll call. Commissioner Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Young? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy seems to be absent. Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Present. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage is present. Commissioner Saadeh must still be out of the county. Commissioner Budd seems to be absent. Commissioner Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And Commissioner Richardson? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any addenda to the agenda? MR. NINO: We have a couple of continued items. Items C and D are requested to be continued. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Indefinitely, or to -- MR. NINO: Next meeting. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Next meeting. I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So moved. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Priddy, second by Commissioner Rautio. Any discussion? If not, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried. Any other changes? MR. NINO: I guess under new business we ought to talk about -- or old business, we ought to talk about the appropriate time to set a meeting for a workshop. Commissioner Young has Page 2 January 18, 2001 asked for a workshop, and we should talk about it. MS. STUDENT: I just want to say for the record -- Marjorie Student, county attorney -- that we've been coordinating with Mr. Nino, and we had talked about February 15th, I believe, but one of the other attorneys that I want to come down had a conflict that day, so we're talking -- we can talk about it later, but I just wanted to put that on the record. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could I ask what the nature of the workshop is, what the subject matter is? MS. STUDENT: Well, from our end I think we'd be talking about ethics and gifts and the Sunshine Law, and public records is part of that. And then also I just did a presentation to the board about ex parte communications. I have an outline I prepared that I make available, talk a little bit about the background of that, and the ideal way to do it. I am conducting polls of other local governments to see exactly how they do their disclosures. (Commissioner Budd enters the boardroom.} MS. STUDENT: That would be part of it. And maybe an overview of the different kinds of petitions that come before you. And staff can explain that and some of the input that goes into it. And that would be coupled with legal concerns about looking at the criteria and competent substantial evidence and that type of thing, so -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So this would be process and administrative kinds of things, as opposed to Land Development Code or content issues? MS. STUDENT: Yes. Because I think -- oh, goodness, if we were -- I mean, I think we could hit the highlights of the code in terms of process, and maybe what the criteria are for the various approvals and so forth. If you have some questions about particular parts of the code, I think probably we'd want to have Mr. Mulhere here for that. And if you could, when we discuss this more fully, give us some direction, that would be great. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, back to -- I gather from the questions that the board's in favor of this, pretty much? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm definitely in favor of it. It's an attempt to have an orientation, and the two new members in Page 3 January 18, 2001 particular I think could benefit from an overview, so I strongly support this approach. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, back to time, date and place. MR. NINO: So we're discussing it now. First -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm aware of that. I'm asking for suggestions, okay? MR. NINO: We're -- our schedules look like the first meeting in March would be most desirable. That's when Ramiro Manalich will be available. MS. STUDENT: Yeah, I think he'll be available. He wasn't available for February the 15th. And I think that -- I'm just trying to think ahead if the 28th isn't a Wednesday, and if March 1st is a Thursday. I don't have a calendar right here. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The first -- the first meeting in March, whatever that might be. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: In other words, you're talking about tacking this on to the end of a regular scheduled meeting? MR. NINO: Correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And March 1st is a regular scheduled meeting. MR. NINO: Okay. MS. STUDENT: I don't know if it might be the board's desire to call a special meeting for that. Because the only problem with that is if the meeting is long. And I don't know, maybe, Ron, you can adjust the agenda so it's not real long. MR. NINO: We'll have to adjust the agenda. I don't imagine the workshop would last more than an hour. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I would prefer, personally, that it be tacked on. I think from the looks of the nodding of the heads that they would seem to be in agreement. So tentatively we're shooting for the first meeting in March. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And if there's something you want us to read in advance, it might limit our questions. We could follow the process real quickly, particularly for the new members. MS. STUDENT: Well, what I can share with you, we just did a separate workshop for the Board of County Commissioners on these matters this past Tuesday, and our office prepared really a book with Sunshine, public records and some emergency Page 4 January 18, 2001 management stuff. And we could make that available to you, I'm sure. I would be glad to do that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I would appreciate that, thank you. MS. STUDENT: And Commissioner Richardson, if you would -- if you had any concerns about LDC content, any particular provision of it, if you could let us know in advance, that would be good so we can -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Great. MS. STUDENT: -- plan. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'll do that. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. MR. NINO: I would hope that the workshop would not be content driven. It's primarily how you best do your job as commissioners. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right, understood. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, any further discussion? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have a question. Not for the workshop, but I guess a little bit of a relation to it, because I thought we had some attempts to have a joint meeting with the City of Naples planning board, and I was wondering if that has had any progress, or is that still in limbo? MR. NINO: We haven't talked about it in a long time. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: The last time I think we had a meeting, it was at the City of Naples. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's been approximately two years ago, or three years -- two years. At least two years ago. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Where they thoroughly made us look like pikers on -- MS. STUDENT: It was May of '99. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, we need to correct that impression. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Is there a feeling that we need to do this again? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I think it's a good idea. I think some sort of contact between the two planning boards -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Seeing no objection, I guess Ron, would you at least make initial contact for us? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: And see if you can get them to do Page 5 January 18, 2001 it, because they do a nice job. MS. STUDENT: We had crescent rolls and everything. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: We had a lot of things there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: They have better food at the city. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Little bottles of water with -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moving right along. You have before you two sets of minutes. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Move approval of the December 7th and the December 21st minutes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Rautio. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I found them fascinating reading. MR. NINO: On your last agenda that -- I missed your last meeting, I did have on the agenda an issue -- a matter scheduled that was responsive to Commissioner Rautio's concern about why minutes were released to you out of order. All I can tell you, based on our office, that that's the order in which we received them, and that's the order in which they were sent to you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, we do -- MR. NINO: We really don't control the minutes. That's controlled by the clerk's office. And that's when according to Yvette Monroe, who is responsible for this -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Nino, we have a motion and a second on the floor to approve these minutes, and then we can talk about why we haven't gotten them in order. MR. NINO: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The only thing that I believe was in a set of minutes that I was gone that that question was arisen, and -- but that's fine. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And I do want to comment then that please be a little more aggressive about finding out why minutes are late. Because they do give them to you far enough in advance that if we have a scheduled meeting, we should be able to find out why the court reporters are not making them readily Page 6 January 18, 200t available to you. That's my request. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Perhaps as chairman, maybe I could ask you as a committee woman to ask the clerk's office why they are so late. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you, I'll be glad to investigate that, report back. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any Planning Commission absences? Hearing none, BCC report. Ron? MR. NINO: I'll tell you that the saga of the Sabatino variance request is a continuing one. It was continued the last meeting. And the second -- he's determined to go forward with the second hearing. I suspect it will probably end up in -- well, I'm not going to suspect anything. MS. STUDENT: Yeah, that wouldn't be appropriate. MR. NINO: In any event, the board is seeing fit not to deal with those issues, and it's continued. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: or has it been denied? MR. NINO: Sorry, it was denied. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: he's out of the box for six months. MR. NINO: school board-- CHAIRMAN MR. NINO: CHAIRMAN MR. NINO: CHAIRMAN MR. NINO: Ron, has it been continued That's what I thought. So And the school board one was approved. The WRAGE: Pardon? WRAGE: Yeah. WRAGE: Yes. Unanimously, by the way, too, right? It was unanimous -- -- exact opposite of what we did. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I have no report. And with that, we'll move into the advertised public hearings. First one is boat dock, 2000-32. And all those wishing to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ross? MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 25-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 45 feet into the waterway. Page 7 January 18, 2001 The property is located at 82 Southport Cove in Lely Barefoot Beach, and contains about 63 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the addition of a float-on boat slip to an existing permitted dock. There is an existing family home on the property. Twelve similar extensions, ranging from 30 feet to 46 feet, including one to 34 feet on adjacent Lot 8, have been approved on this waterway in the immediate area. The property owners association has submitted a letter of approval for this project. We have received one letter of objection from the owner of adjacent Lot 8, and I passed out copies of that letter in which Mr. Feratsis (phonetic) is of the opinion that the proposed dock would severely hinder his ability to access his existing dock, would block access to the dock. I've talked to Mr. Scofield about this, and he provided me with the drawing that's on the visualizer here. On the basis of that drawing and the fact that the project does meet the required setbacks, I don't see that access would be a problem, but Mr. Scofield will address this issue in specific terms. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Before he does that, can we get some technical assistance on our screen? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: This one's working over here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just keep pushing buttons, is that -- okay, we will continue, Mr. Scofield -- I'm sorry, any questions of staff? If not, if we could hear from the petitioner. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. Rocky Scofield, representing the petitioner, Mr. Brainard. This lot, as you can see by the handouts, is the one in the center there. It's a -- he's on an inside radius. It's a small lot with converging riparian lines. Very difficult to get a boat to. And what the applicant's proposing to do, he's proposing -- the platform you see in front of this is actually a float. It's a float-on to bring a 20-foot boat up onto. The -- and that's -- it's kind of like a jet ski float, but it's a larger one for a bigger jet boat. It's 20 feet long. The -- and it's actually 23 feet, and we're asking for 25 feet, because there's a little bit of play in the float there. So we don't get beyond that. What I'm going to show you is some photographs from the neighbor's docks and every -- and the access to this. This photograph was taken from the applicant's dock. The Page 8 January 18, 2001 neighbor complaining, you can just see -- barely see the end of his dock right over here. That's the lift, motor lift on his outside lift piles. The mangroves extend way out beyond the dock. The reason we can't get in conventionally and put a lift alongside in front of this man's dock is he's in the -- he's up in the corner, as you can see on your drawings there. So we can't access this dock from the side. So we have to come straight into it and then back straight out. The mangroves extend way out past the dock. It almost hides -- it actually hides the neighbor's dock. This is the gentleman over here that's filed the complaint. This is Mr. Feratsis's dock here. And you can't see, but back here, here's the mangroves that extend out right there. And behind that, tucked back in the mangroves, is the applicant's dock. So you can see, there's no way that he can get in and out. Now, this gentleman's dock, if you look at the handout I passed you, the only access that he has is from the south, from this side coming in. There is no access. I permitted this dock a while back for a gentleman named Mr. Crosack (phonetic). The boat access is coming in this way. Now currently Mr. Feratsis has three jet skis. On the other side over here he has three -- two jet ski lifts and then the big boat lift which he has a jet ski into. The one you see in the back comes straight in. It's a little lift on the other side tucked in behind the mangroves here. So the proposed dock for Mr. Brainard has no bearing on access to this man's dock. There is all kinds of room. And his access is from the south. On the handout I gave you it doesn't show the mangroves overhang, but you can clearly see from the pictures they extend all the way out to the ends of these docks. Again, the last photo I took -- excuse me, I should tell you where I'm taking that from is from Lot 7 on your handout. It's a vacant lot, but there was a dock built there a long time ago. I assume it was before the codes changed. But it is a dock on the vacant Lot 7. And this photo was also taken from that dock on vacant Lot 7. It shows Mr. Feratsis's dock, Mr. Brainard's lot, you can't see his dock tucked back in the mangroves, and this is Mr. Turillo's (phonetic), which is Lot 10 on your drawing. Now, Mr. Turillo had the same problem, kind of. You can see we have a dock going straight out on your -- and two lifts, one on Page 9 January 18, 2001 each side. That's the same thing we're proposing, not with two lifts, because we don't have room. It's just a very small awkward lot and we're coming straight in. Question? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Scofield, you're saying that Mr. Turillo, the one you were just pointing to, how far does his dock actually extend? MR. SCOFIELD: The Turillo dock? It's 40 feet, I believe. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: 40 feet. MR. SCOFIELD: Uh-huh. The thing is, is back in this -- the mean high water line, it's very shallow back in, and it's tucked back in the corner, so we have to come out -- the mangroves extend out, you know, so far out past the end of the dock that we can't -- there's just no way to access getting a boat in along sideways there. Now, I might want to -- I need to point out here, this lot, Lot No. 9, was owned by Mr. Feratsis, the gentleman who now lives on Lot 8. He filed -- when I did the boat dock extension for Mr. Turillo on Lot 10, Mr. Feratsis filed an appeal to that, and citing the same reasons that it was going to block his access and he couldn't get in, and all the same scenarios that you have in the letter before you today. Go ahead, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Then his statement in his first sentence -- actually the second sentence, about he will be adversely affected if his unprecedented request for a 25-foot boat dock extension is granted? I'm not clear that this would be an unprecedented request; that Mr. Feratsis is trying to say that there aren't other ones that have the extensions, and he obviously knew about the other one if he went against it. MR. GOCHENAUR: If I could address that. There's at least one 46-foot dock permitted in this area. That's on Lot 17. This shows dock extensions in the area of the project. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. GOCHENAUR: And here on Lot 17 we have a 46 footer. So it really is not unprecedented. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have a question. MR. SCOFIELD: There are several others over in this same cove that's Bay Front Gardens which is just right across the Page 10 January 18, 200t canal that extends out 45 feet. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Mr. Scofield, in the center of Little Hickory, I guess it's called, yeah, Little Hickory Bay, opposite that dock we're talking about, what's the depth? MR. SCOFIELD: The -- you mean the depth -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: In other words, if someone is coming down the middle of the bay. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, there's plenty of water there. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: There's plenty of water, that he goes right past this dock and -- MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, yeah. This dock is tucked back in the corner. I mean, there's more than enough width across here. And there's no -- you know, there's no impact to navigation whatsoever. There's plenty of room. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: And right now-- MR. SCOFIELD: When you look at it on there, if you look at it, this dock really, if you were to draw a line, kind of, it doesn't stick out, you know, much further than the other ones, if you're coming on an arc around there. He's just tucked back in. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Right now, without the extension, what's the depth of the water in front of Mr. Brainard's dock? MR. SCOFIELD: It's in the -- you have a cross-section, it's handed out to you on the application. You got it there? Okay, I'm sorry. Yeah, here's -- there's the cross-section here. Right now there's about -- there's three feet of water at the front of Mr. Brainard's dock. But the whole problem is we can't get a boat in alongside. We have to come straight in as we did on Mr. Turillo's dock also. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: But the chances are that the area that's being proposed for the float-on boat slip would not be used by Mr. Feratsis to get into his dock? MR. SCOFIELD: Are you saying would it impact him? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: In other words, with the depth that you have there, it's very unlikely that he's using that particular area to access his dock. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, no, it's not. And by the pictures I put up there, his access is from the south. Mr. Brainard, the applicant, is on the north. The mangroves stick -- extend out on the pictures. And his access is totally from -- and you can see Lot 7 is a fairly large lot. And the water opens up over there. And I Page t I January t8, 200t permitted that extension on all of these -- on the two adjacent lots. And the access is from the south. He used to have a 30-foot boat, the former owner did. But Mr. Brainard bought the lot on Lot 8 because of the problems of getting a boat into Lot 8. He sold it to Mr. Brainard and now he doesn't -- he's complaining about him being able to put a boat there. And that's why this gentleman bought the lot, because it had a dock and he wanted to put a boat in. If we were to come in right now and just tie up a boat, we'd have to tie it up this way basically anyway. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah, question. Mr. Scofield, can that -- could that float-on boat slip be oriented sideways so it doesn't stick out so far and you still have access to -. MR. SCOFIELD: Well -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm not a boater, so I'm -- MR. SCOFIELD: Okay, that's fine. That's why I brought these pictures. This is the picture I -- this is the picture I showed before from Lot 7. The mangroves extend all the way ou.t to the end of the dock on Lot 8. So getting in sideways is very difficult. The same thing over here. I'll show you a better picture. This is Lot 10 and the mangroves extend way up past the dock there. Here's another picture. This is taken from the applicant's dock, looking over to Lot 10. This piling is the end piling. The mangroves extend way out past the end of the dock. Coming in sideways in here is a very difficult situation. Most of the -- when we permit -- when I permit docks on inside radiuses, normally we try to do them all perpendicular in this area so people come in and back straight out with minimal impact to the neighbors so they don't get in -- once you string out along the line and get wider lots, then the docks, they're accessed from the side. But most of the time we do these straight in and out. It's the least impact to navigation and to the neighbors. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But it creates a situation where you have to go further out into the bay, which seems to be Page 12 January 18, 200t the concern here. MR. SCOFIELD: It creates a situation where you go further out from the mean high water line, not necessarily further out into the bay. Because you're tucked back into a corner. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: How much water does he need to have his torpedo boat in there? MR. SCOFIELD: He has -- the applicant? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. MR. SCOFIELD: He has adequate water depth right in front of his dock right now, as you can see by the cross-section. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The three foot two? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. That would -- on extreme low tide, the float may -- the end of the float may sit -- well, no, we would still have water there, because those are low water measurements. So we'd still have a foot of water under that float in an extreme condition. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So it could work if it were sideways, because you have enough water for it to work. MR. SCOFIELD: You have enough water for it, you just don't have the access. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: You can't get a boat in and make a turn onto a float-on slip if it was turned the other way. There's not enough room between that dock and the one next to it. MR. NINO: If it were side loaded, you'd be impinging on your neighbors. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: You'd have to go into your neighbor's -- MR. NINO: You'd have to -- MR. SCOFIELD: See, yeah, if-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's not wide enough. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay, the mangroves on this -- Ron, the mangroves on this stick out so far, they stick out past the dock. MR. NINO: You'd have to trespass on your -- MR. SCOFIELD: And the floats are such that you have to -- you can't come up sideways and float onto it, you have to drive straight onto them, because they're V-d out in the middle, and that's how it holds the boat. So there's no access from the sides because of the mangroves and the neighbor's docks. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Another question, Mr. Scofield. Do you know what, just incidentally, what the Page 13 January 18, 2001 applicant's intent is to doing this? Meaning if he's going to sell the property, he's doing this so he can sell the property, is that your -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: That has nothing to do with it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm just curious. MR. SCOFIELD: I just talked to the owner. He is not -- I talked to him last night. He's in California. The property is not up for sale. I know that he's looking for long-term lease renters on the property, but he has no -- he told me last night he has no intention of selling this property any time soon. MR. NINO: But there's a house on Lot 9, though. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, yeah, the house has been there. Mr. Feratsis used to own the house and dock on Lot 9, the one that we're doing today. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And Lot 7 is not occupied? MR. SCOFIELD: It's vacant, but there is a dock there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: There is a dock? MR. SCOFIELD: I assume that was permitted quite some time ago before the code changed. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: There's no house but there's a dock. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is that dock a conforming? MR. SCOFIELD: It is a conforming dock. It's less than 20 feet out from the shoreline. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So that one would have to be extended if somebody wanted to use it with this kind of boat? MR. SCOFIELD: I would imagine -- on Lot 7 he would -- to put a boat lift in front of his dock, he would have to get an extension. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Would that extension fit into the configuration with these others that we're being asked -- MR. SCOFIELD: No, see, when you start hitting Lot 8, 7, then you're coming back out on these -- on more water frontage. And then those docks typically go out and then they access from the side to a lift. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? Anyone from the public wish to speak on this issue? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a Page 14 January 18, 2001 motion that we approve Petition BD-2000-32. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Pedone. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. Next item is B-2000-31, Coco Lakes Drive. All those wishing to give testimony in this, please rise and raise your right hand, be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Fred? MR. REISCHL.' Good morning, commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a 1.4-foot after-the-fact variance in the Bailey Lane PUD. And to orient you a little here, Golden Gate Parkway, Airport Road, and there's the Bailey Lane PUD. In a little more detail, once again, Airport Road, Bailey Lane. The biggest landmark is probably the WilsonMiller building on the corner. And the Coco Lakes -- the Bailey Lane PUD is developed as Coco Lakes, and this is the location of the subject property within Coco Lakes PUD. The rear yard setback in the PUD is five feet. As a result of a construction error, the setback is now 3.6 feet from the rear property line. It is adjacent to a preserve. MR. NINO: And the Royal Poinciana Golf Club. MR. REISCHL: Correct. There's the house; the pink line is the accessory pool and cage; the blue is the property line; a 25-foot preserve; and behind that is the golf course, the adjacent golf course, Royal Poinciana. I blew it up a little bit to get a better look at that. This is one of the building permits that is more recent and did require to show the outline of the hole in the ground for the pool and not just the entire accessory structure. And Mr. Surgeon has photos which show a lot better than this drawing does, but you can see that the edge of the screen is inches from the edge of the water. It's an unusual pool design, and that added to the complexity of the problem, I suppose. Page 15 January 18, 2001 But again -- oh, I did receive no complaints from -- okay, I just received a letter. "We are the residents of Coco Lakes PUD. We are aware of the variance requested by the Surgeons. We wish to advise you that we have no objection to granting their petition." And that's from Simmons, Mr. and Mrs. Simmons. And another letter, "As a developer of Coco Lakes, please be advised that I am" -- getting old and need my glasses. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aware of the petition. MR. REISCHL: "As a developer of Coco Lakes, please be advised that I am aware of the petition filed by David and Cheryl Surgeon requesting a variance relative to their swimming pool and Collier County's rear setback requirements. I do not object to the CCPC granting the Surgeons' petition." CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But staff recommends a denial, right? MR. REISCHL: Right, there's no land-related hardship. It was designed to fit within the setbacks and it's a result of a construction error. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Construction error of the pool people or the screening people? MR. REISCHL: I think it's a combination of both, because of the way the pool is designed. And again, you'll be able to see a lot better when Mr. Surgeon shows the photos. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, with that, can we hear from the petitioner? MR. SURGEON: Yes, sir, thank you. For the record, my haree's David Surgeon. I am the petitioner and the homeowner here. Commissioner Rautio, if I can answer your question specifically, it was an error, a construction error, on the part of the pool builder. If I can, I would like to put the photograph up here. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And that's Bahama Pools? MR. SURGEON: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. SURGEON: Okay, I guess the thing that I had wanted to do with this photograph is help you to visualize the situation here that you've -- you know, you've seen the layouts and the sketches and so forth. But indeed, this is the back of the pool and the -- you can see that the screen is sitting on top of the pool Page 16 January 18, 2001 ledge. So had the pool builder made the pool in the right place, the screen would have fit right on top of it and that would have -- there would have been no problem. The accurate dimensions were given to the pool construction company, and it was just an error on their parts, which they've admitted to. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And they're -- excuse me, they're not here today to defend themselves, they're expecting you to do it on their behalf, even though they're licensed contractors and do have insurance? MR. SURGEON: Yes, ma'am. And what I wanted you to see back here, to give a better appreciation, is from this line where the pool ends to about probably where this landscaping ends is probably the setback area. Now, it -- and it appears to be -- see, this is what is a little unusual about it. This area which appears to be my backyard technically is not my backyard. That is a preserve tract, P. So this is actually the end of my lot line right around in that area. Then we have -- and instead of being five foot in from that lot line, there are three and a half feet -- yeah, something like three and a half feet in from that line. But then this is the preserve tract, and then there's a fence here that separates the preserve track from Royal Poinciana Golf Course. And as you can see, they have their own buffer back there of trees and so forth. I'm not able to see them, they're not able to see me because of that buffer. Do you have any questions on that photograph? We're looking at that photograph from the north. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: So there is nothing between you and the Royal Poinciana Golf Course? MR. SURGEON: The only thing that's between my property and Royal Poinciana Golf Course is the preserve tract which is owned by the developer. And he's -- the developer is the second letter that you received this morning, which -- who has mentioned -- actually, he's the developer and he's the president of the homeowners' association, and he is the one who has expressed that he has no objections with this. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's Mr. Steve Loveless? MR. SURGEON: Yes, ma'am, Steve Loveless. Page 17 January 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, question for the petitioner. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I was just wondering if there was -- it may not be possible, but this preserve -- and maybe Ron, it's a question to you -- the preserve was set up as part of the PUD? MR. NINO: Yes, it was. Set up to meet the 25 percent native vegetation preservation requirement. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: There wouldn't be any way for the applicant to acquire an additional foot of property? MR. NINO: I -- I'm not prepared to say that. MR. REISCHL: That is a possibility. We did discuss it. And Mr. Surgeon decided to go ahead with the variance request as a first means of solution. He could purchase a portion of the preserve tract. He would own it. It would still be a preserve tract. He couldn't build on it or anything, but he would be the underlying landowner for that 1.4 -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If that were to take place, that could solve this variance request. MR. REISCHL: Right. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then I'll ask Mr. Surgeon, do you -- I'm very sympathetic to your application in the words that you've used, that is, you know, you're in a hardship situation as far as moving in and that sort of thing, but I'm just interested in this notion that you're faced with a long and expensive legal battle of some 25 to $30,000. And I can certainly empathize with that problem. What is the nature of the suit? Would it be against the construction company, the pool company, or would it be to acquire this property, or what? MR. SURGEON: No suit exists at this time. But I have had conversation with my -- with the -- with Mr. Loveless, excuse me, concerning the issue of can we purchase that extra foot and a half for however many feet that runs. And it's not at all certain to whether that -- I mean, whether that would be an agreeable solution with him. Certainly if it would work out, you know, it's one possible way of resolving this. But he was not immediately receptive, although the question was posed. And then as to the other issue, let me -- I would like to show Page 18 January 18, 2001 you another photograph that might help explain my comments. See, that -- what you're looking at is the pool. And the back of the pool is right -- and you can see that the screen enclosure sets on the back of the pool. And that's because we were dealing with a very tight situation. It had to be designed that way. To change this, I've got all the plumbing, there are waterfalls, all that kind of thing along that back wall. So in order to change this and have a swimming pool that has integrity, functions right and so forth, the only possibility that I can see that would be acceptable to me is to basically destroy the whole thing and start over. I don't know how in the world it would be possible to try to cut off such a significant back wall and then do some sort of a construction splice. But I think, just from comments, I think I could be confronted with trying to accept that sort of a compromise. And that would not be acceptable. I think that's just a long-term problem waiting to happen if it were to do it that way. MR. NINO: Another way of -- if I might, Ron Nino for the record. Another way of looking at it would be, if it hadn't been for the hesitation on the part of staff, that entire preserve tract could have been a part of the fee of every lot. There could have been a preserve easement over it. Our staff has traditionally refused to do that because we don't have the same degree of certainty with respect to the integrity of that preserve tract, keeping the natural state integrity of that preserve tract. But if you think of the possibility that this could just as easily have been part of the fee, in the real world don't you in fact have the required rear yard setback in place, albeit it's not under the fee ownership of each lot? And heavens to Betsy, we have many PUD's that under this scenario in fact do allow zero rear yard. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Just as a statement for the record, do I understand you, Mr. Nino, saying that the preserve area has its integrity in its natural? The pictures I saw, it was all sod, MR. NINO.' Well, that would have been the -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I want that to be on the record. MR. NINO: -- that would be the reason for our hesitancy to include it in the fee of every lot. Page 19 January 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So right now the natural aspect of it does not exist -- MR. NINO: Doesn't really exist. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- for that preserve. MR. NINO: For that preserve, correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And that's another issue here that's sort of only secondary. But we do have a construction error, and I'm concerned for the owner, and I'm very sympathetic to you also. I just would like for to you to perhaps elaborate a little bit on your efforts to have your pool contractor resolve this construction error. And one of the reasons I state this is that we all have on occasion made contractors move footers, do things. We have declined variances related to construction errors. And I'm not predisposed to accepting this one. I can certainly understand your problem and it looks pretty good with a "preserve" back there. It's not going to be infringing on other people. But what have you done to try to get your contractor to resolve this, or is he footing the bill for all your efforts here? MR. SURGEON: Well, as far as -- as far as is he footing the bill, he did pay for the filing of the variance, which was a gesture of good faith, and also an acknowledgement that he understood that they were the ones at fault. And we have all the documents that prove that. As far as what to do next, again, it's an extremely large undertaking because of the design and the fact that the back wall is so significant. And that would be the thing that would have to come out, with all the plumbing lines, everything running through there. So as far as -- I mean, we really do have a predicament, honestly, in this situation. And I think as a homeowner, I certainly realize that, the pool construction company realizes that, too. And, I mean, that's about where we're at. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I think the underlining current here is it would have enhanced your position a little bit if they would have been here to defend themselves instead of sending you, so to speak, as the sacrificial lamb for their mistake. MR. SURGEON: Well, in all honesty, they didn't send me. I mean, they knew that -- they knew to begin with that I was the one that was going to come in and talk about this. Because Page 20 January 18, 2001 indeed, I'm the petitioner and the homeowner. The only thing I can tell you about Bahama Pools is that they have had no other problems in Collier County. I think you have record to that effect. They made an error, they made an -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And that is an issue with this board, as we've struggled with these very same things time and time again. I think what Ron was trying to say is the fact that it's next to a preserve is not a big problem, but yet all variances are a problem. This one probably will not affect your neighbors or anyone else, which we will take into account. MR. SURGEON: I appreciate that. Because that is one of the comments that I did want to make that is that it would not obstruct the view of any neighbor in the future. And indeed, as a matter of fact, even the infrastructure is not even in for the site of the development that would be just to the north of me. But at some point in time I hope that it is and I hope that I do have a neighbor there, and there's just no way that this could cause an obstructed view to anyone in the future. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions from the petitioner? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I guess I'd just like to pursue the -- in considering my action on this, at least, I'd like to pursue the possibility that you could go back to Mr. Loveless on a more direct basis and acquire the additional property that you require. It would seem like that could solve the problems here. If you had additional foot and a half, whatever it takes, from the preserve, make that part of the -- part of your property, or if you've got something that showed the commission that the -- that that intent there was and was supported by the developer. He seems to be disposed to not objecting to the variance. Seems to be just another baby step for him not to oppose just adding that onto your property. Doesn't really change any of the physical structures we're looking at or the preserve or any of that. And from my thinking, I'd like to see it continued so that that action could take place. MR. SURGEON: The action being that I would go back and contact my -- the developer of the area and see if he is agreeable to doing that? Page 21 January 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And then come back. That's -- I'm just expressing a viewpoint. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ron, what impact does that have on a developer with his PUD in terms of a preserve? MR. NINO: Pardon? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: What -- is that action even possible on a PUD that said I'm going to have "X" number of land for preserve? Does he have to go back and change his PUD for that? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: He'd still have preserve, it'd just be owned by somebody else. MR. NINO: He'd still have to -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' The calculation would be the same, it would just be owned by somebody else. MR. NINO: He would have to sell it with the condition that the -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Be an easement preserve. MR. NINO: -- that there be an easement granted back to the property owners association, declaring that a preserve. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: But isn't that supposing that the developer wants to sell the piece of property? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, the point of it is we've still got the pool in the same place. We really still haven't done anything. To me that's kind of academic. I mean, that's my -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Hasn't accomplished a thing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Hasn't accomplished anything. That's why we're looking at a variance. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, what it has accomplished is it's removed a variance. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, no, what -- I think -- I think from my standpoint, if we're going to punish anybody, it ought to be the pool contractor. And I think to make the homeowner jump through some hoops that's going to accomplish absolutely nothing in reality is -- you know, is not what we're here for either. I've -- you know, understand I've made mistakes, and I sure hope I get the opportunity to make some more in the future but, you know, I think we need to deal with -- you know, find some way to deal with the contractor and not the -- you know, not the homeowner in this instance. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, however-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Could we stop the discussion and finish Page 22 January 18, 2001 with the testimony? And then we'll have the discussion amongst the commissioners. Any further questions of the petitioner? If not, anyone from the public wish to address this issue? With that, I will close the public meeting and open up for discussion prior to the motion, okay? (Commissioner Abernathy enters boardroom.) COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It seems, however, if we go after the contractor, you know, which would certainly, you know, be appropriate, since he's the one that made the error, what we're really burdening is the applicant, because he then does not have access to his home till this is all taken care of, which would -- and how does that change any of the physical situation? COMMISSIONER BUDD: I couldn't agree more, which is why I'm also not in favor of asking the owner to purchase land. Because while these negotiations go on, he still can't move into his house. Again, we're burdening the owner. And along the way is just a -- as a minor deal, we get the opportunity for some attorneys to make a couple thousands dollars in land transactions and fees, because nobody's going to do this for nothing. So we're beating up the wrong guy. And I am fully in favor of approving the variance that has been requested. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: If that's a motion, I'll second that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And I will thirden (sic} it. MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, just to get on the record that Mr. Surgeon is in his house. The building department, after the variance was filed, separated the certificate of occupancy from the house from the certificate of occupancy from the pool. So the pool is the one that's -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You're saying he's living in the house, but it's too cold to swim in the pool anyway, he's not using it. Okay. I guess I heard a motion from Commissioner Budd, a second by Commissioner Priddy. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I would like to ask then, maybe this is a question for our legal staff. I certainly am sympathetic, but how do we, quote, make the contractor who created this problem suffer? He's the one that's creating a variance, so we have to change our rules because a pool contractor made an error and didn't stop soon enough to fix it. And I truly sympathize. What do we do there? Is there anything we can do? Page 23 January 18, 2001 MS. STUDENT: Well, we're not changing our rules. There are criterion in the code that are to be applied to the facts and the grant of -- consideration of grant or denial of a variance. I don't know if the -- maybe Mr. Nino can address this, but we have situations, I believe, where contractors have a history of -- it's duly noted for contractor's licensing, isn't that correct? But this is a private matter between the property owner and the contractor. MR. NINO.' On the other hand, several years ago the criteria for the granting of variance did move from the strict interpretation of land-related hardship, and did open it up to a more discretionary area. I don't see that you can't find that there are unique conditions here that ameliorate the granting of the variance, i.e., the fact that it's next to a preserve tract, which for all practical purposes could just as easily have been an integral part of the fee of each and every lot, and it's next to a golf course. I mean, I don't think that you can't find that there are natural conditions present here that ameliorate the granting of the variance. MR. REISCHL: And if I could help to answer your question, too. Mr. Surgeon filed this in 2000. He paid $850, which is double the after-the-fact fee. As of January the 1st, the after-the-fact fee is now $2,000. So that's an additional financial penalty, if you will. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Any further discussion? The court reporter I'm sure noted that Commissioner Abernathy has arrived. I will assume he's going to abstain from voting, having not heard all the testimony on this motion. And with that, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) MR. REISCHL: I would like to make a comment. I'd like to explain why I'm going to say aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, let me call for the vote and then you can explain. All those again, same sign. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Aye. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, just a second. Page 24 January t8, 2001 Do we have a point of order? MS. STUDENT: We have a point of order. Under Florida law, you can only abstain if there's a voting conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety. Perhaps it should be that Mr. Abernathy is here but is not ready to participate until after the vote's taken, and, you know, because he just came in, unless he feels he can vote. I don't know that we heard him on that. He did have the agenda package. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I was prepared to vote when I came. MS. STUDENT: Okay. Well, we need to -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MS. STUDENT: -- do that again, I guess. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I stand corrected. I asked the question, I got no response. Okay, let's call for a vote on the motion per commissioner. Commissioner Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Young? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. And I would like to state that the reason I am -- actually, two reasons: A, because this pool contractor has not had other variances before; and that is a, quote, preserve tract, even though to me sod is not a preserve. So I'm going to change my normal stance against construction variances and vote yes on those two reasons. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage, aye. Commissioner Budd? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Richardson? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. With that, we go to petition PUD-92-08. MR. NINO: I'm sorry, that was continued. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Whoops, that's been continued. Page 25 January 18, 2001 We're going to Conditional Use 2000-18. SM&H Stables. With that, all those wishing to give testimony in this, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian, from planning services staff. Mr. Ken Cuyler, representing Sun Vac Corporation, is requesting a conditional use for horseback riding lessons and horse rental activities for a parcel of land zoned agricultural. And located on Newman Drive. Newman Drive is located -- this is Davis Boulevard Extension, also known as Beck Avenue. Then there's a road called Benton Drive, which goes down for about a mile. Then there's Newman Road. Newman Road is a small stretch of road which basically dead ends on both end. Basically this is Beck, this is Benfield, this is Newman, and this is where the property is located. This is an active stable. They have horses. They do boarding stabling, breeding and training of horses. And that's a permitted use. They are -- the property is zoned agricultural. It's outside of the urban area. And they had this business for a number of years. What requires conditional use is the fact that now they are renting horses. They are adjacent to a state park. And people, they rent horses who visit that state park. Presently they have eight horses available for hire. And other thing, they have a trainer who teaches horseback riding lessons, which is -- which requires conditional use. And that's basically the extent of it. The only problem that we have and some of the neighbors have is the way this property is accessed. There are several homes along Benfield Road, and one or two on Newman Drive. And basically the complaint from some of the neighbors were that people driving up and down this road are creating traffic hazards and there are children playing there. The road's a narrow road. M&H Stables, they have paved the road. It used to be a gravel road. They have paved the entire road. And basically that concludes my presentation. This -- MR. NINO: Chahram, wasn't there historically some Page 26 January 18, 200t question as to -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, we have a legal opinion that they have the right to use the road. We had -- MR. NINO: Newman Road. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Newman Road and Benfield Road both. Benfield, no, is not a public road, it's a private road. But we have a legal opinion that yes, both roads can be used by all property owners to access their property. And M&H Stables being one of the property owners, they have the legal right to use the road. And according to the trip generation manual, this business will create between 35 to 50 trips on those roads. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Per? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Per day. And most of those traffic are not from horseback riding lessons or horse rental business. They have around 60 horses that they board for different people, and that's a legal use of the land. And as I said, it's not part of this conditional use. And basically -- staff recommends approval. Staff has several stipulations. One of them is that they, M&H Stable, they have to maintain Newman and Benfield Road. And there's another stipulation that we added after the packet was mailed to you, and that's to limit the number of horses available for hire to 10 horses. Right now they have around eight horses available for that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And you're asking that you limit to it eight horses for rental? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: To 10 horses. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: 10, I'm sorry. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: As I said, we had several phone calls from neighbors that they were unhappy with this petition. I believe some of them are here to speak against it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, question. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just -- I have just a question. In other words, one of the stipulations you've added that's not in our packet is for 10 horses -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- correct? Okay. Commissioner Richardson? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: As I understand then, Page 27 January 18, 2001 there's about 60 horses that are boarded there now -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- that create traffic. Part of this 35, 40 trips a day that you estimate? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So that the 10 horses for hire would be, you know, like one-sixth or one-seventh of the trips that would get generated, so we're only talking about -- I'm trying to get a sense for how much additional traffic these 10 horses -- or the use of these 10 horses are going to create. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Horses for hire probably will create around seven to 10, 12 trips a day. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's assuming every horse is ridden every day. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. And they are not horses that you rent for half an hour. It's to visit the state parks. They have 22 miles of trails, and basically it's an all-day activity. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So it would be your position, the staff's position, that the 10 horses related to the 60 that are already there are not going to create that much traffic. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Will not add that much traffic. And 60 horses is what they have today. They may increase the number of horses. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: May I clarify one point, Chahram? It would appear that they're already advertising to rent horses. Are they already renting horses in violation of getting this conditional use? MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' They are already advertising to rent horses. There was a question whether or not they need a conditional use. Because they have an active stable. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And their opinion, it was an accessory activity to their main activity. And we discussed that and we came to the conclusion that they need a conditional use. They applied for this conditional use, but I believe they still believe that they don't really need a conditional use. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, I guess that was my question. If I go out to Mr. Priddy's ranch and ride his horse at his consent, Page 28 January 18, 2001 there's no problem. But if he charges for that, he needs a conditional use. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's our interpretation, correct. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Bring dear, not cash. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The petitioner applies for conditional uses 19 and 20. You speak only in terms of No. 20. And the resolution for the Collier County speaks for only 20. Do they want 19 and 20, or just-- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, they just want No. 20. We decided that they only need No. 20. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' All right. They agree with that? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They just wanted to be covered, you know -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' They agree with you? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, they agree with me. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? On my -- I think it says that we're going to hear from Richard Yovanovich today? For the petitioner? MR. CUYLER: That's incorrect. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Ken Cuyler, with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson. Mr. Yovanovich had a conflict on this issue and is involved in some other things, so they've sent in the first string. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That's in the public record. MR. CUYLER: For the record, I'm representing Sun Vac corporation, and SM&H stables. Hopefully this is going to be one of the easier petitions that you have to deal with. This use is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and with Land Development Code. It is an existing use. And let me address something, just so there's no doubt in your mind. The owner of this property has always acted in good faith with the county and has always done what not only he thought was correct, but my understanding is what the county thought was correct as well. It recently came to light that there was an interpretation that perhaps a conditional use would make it better for the Page 29 January 18, 2001 county and cover the owner as well. And he has -- he's indicated that he wants to cooperate and do whatever he needs to do. So he has filed his petition, and we are going through this process to make sure we do get through this conditional use. But I just didn't want to leave any impression with you that he at any time purposely violated any regulations at all. And I think staff will confirm that, if you ask them. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So then they did not pay the double the -- any fee for -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, we did not charge double. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- the conditional use. Thank you. MR. CUYLER: I think it's really kind of a different interpretation that has evolved and we've said fine, whatever you need, we'll do. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. CUYLER: This is not a high intensity use, as the commission has pointed out. The traffic -- and there may be some discussion of the traffic. The traffic for the conditional use aspect of the operation is -- our estimate is probably 10 percent of the total traffic. Possibly a little more, but certainly in that range. I'd also point out that the owner paved both Benfield Road and Newman Road at his own cost, $100,000, and nobody asked him to do it. But it was a lime rock road and he had people who did visit his enterprise. He thought it was appropriate to do that. There is a condition as -- or a stipulation as part of the conditional use that he maintain it at his cost. So none of the neighbors are contributing anything to the maintenance. There is an additional stipulation that was not in the agenda package, and that is that there be a limit of 10 horses for this riding portion. And we are in agreement with that. We don't have any problem with that. So I would suggest to the commission that this is an appropriate use in an appropriate location. Most of-- there are residences along some of the roads out there, but this is rural agricultural, and this is a rural agricultural use. If you don't have it in this area of the county, then you don't have it anywhere. So we would suggest that this is the appropriate location, we're in agreement with every stipulation, and we would ask for your approval on this petition. And I'd like to reserve a few Page 30 January 18, 2001 minutes, if there are some comments from the public that I need to address. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of the petitioner? Anyone from the public wish to address this issue? MR. NINO: We have a Cindy Thomas and James Wing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention, but were both of you folks sworn in? MS. THOMAS: Yes. Good morning, commission. My name is Cindy Thomas, and my husband and I own 15 acres on Benfield Road. It's the last three tracts -- five-acre tracts on Benfield, adjoining Newman Drive. And I just want to say, as a property owner on Benfield Road, I am against any commercial use that is going to use Benfield Road as its access. It is a private residential road with many children that live on this road and have played, ride their bikes, ride their scooters, rollerblade and have used this road for years. The amount of traffic that was already generated by M&H Stables is tremendous. When they moved out there, I didn't realize what kind of traffic and the high rate of speed that we would have traffic coming across our driveways. The reason we moved out there, and we've lived there for 19 years, is because we did not want to be in a high traffic area and raise our children. The Benfield Road is a narrow road. It was originally a camp road. It is not properly aligned on the easement that exists. The road is 16 feet wide. And I believe for a normal two-lane road, it requires 24 feet. I'm not sure if that's correct, but the road is 16 feet wide. And the road was paved -- as you can see in this picture, it is paved right up to the power poles. The power poles actually ascend out of the edge of the pavement of a very narrow road. We've had several people who have hit power poles. And I talked to one girl, ran into the power pole that is on my property, and one of our neighbors hit a power pole, and both of them said they looked down for a split second and ran into a power pole. You know, it -- this is a dangerous -- you know, as a property owner, not only safety for the people that are on the road but as liability, my liability as a property owner if somebody gets severely injured by running into one of these power poles. And it Page 31 January 18, 2001 is literally paved up to the power poles all the way along this mile stretch of road. You know, my car is not a small car. And you can see, there's not adequate passing room for two cars. One car pulls over if the other car is going to pass. And with any commercial traffic, any deliveries, you know, it's not appropriate on a 16-foot road, and it is not properly aligned on the easement. There is -- Newman Drive was a dedicated easement years ago for commercial use years ago, I believe. I mean, that was I believe 18 years ago, I'm not sure. But it is already a dedicated easement of Newman Drive that would give access to the horse stables without having to come down Benfield Road, being a private residential road. You know, like I said, my main objection is the safety and the liability issue being for our children to be able to use the road as we have used it for years and years, and the liability of if somebody gets hurt running into one of those power poles. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah. How would you access Newman -- I mean, they don't show it on this little map, so what is the access to Newman Drive, other than Benfield Road? MS. THOMAS: Through 951. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: You can? MS. THOMAS: Yes, there is a dedicated easement of Newman Drive to 951. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Easement or road? MS. THOMAS: There is not a road that exists there. It's an easement that the state has already taken -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio? MS. THOMAS: -- for the county. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: When this gentleman paved the roads, did you have some discussions with him about paving your private road? THE WITNESS: Well, I mean, I believe there was discussion with the other neighbors, but I assumed that it was being done and that it was properly permitted for the use that they were using it, and so there was no reason. As a property owner, if they had gotten proper permits and permitting for the use, as a property owner, I didn't see where I had any right to object to it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay, I may reserve the right to Page 32 January 18, 200t ask somebody, staff a question about that later, but thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I understand your concern about safety. It's a real concern. Would you be in favor-- with just the existing situation, would you be in favor of some speed control on that -- MS. THOMAS: There would definitely have to be some type of speed control. I mean, we have the 15 acres. We have five -- three five-acre plats. And when you come off of Newman Drive onto Benfield Road, by the time they are in front of my driveway, there are -- people are traveling in excess of 40 miles an hour on a 16-foot wide road. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So you would encourage -- MS. THOMAS: With children that play on this road. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You would encourage us to add some stipulation to put in speed control on that road? MS. THOMAS: Speed control. Also to address the issue of the power poles that are adjac -- that are -- you know, you have power poles that come out of the pavement, I feel that that issue needs to be addressed. And the width of the road needs to be addressed if you're going to put commercial traffic on this road. And also the proper alignment on the easement. I believe that it is within the easement, but it is not properly aligned. It goes from one side of the easement and one end of the road, completely to the other side of the easement at the other. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have one other question, and maybe staff could help. With this site location map that we have Can you here, can she point to where her piece of property is? spot it? MS. THOMAS: We are right here. The last three. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: These three. MS. THOMAS: Those three pieces. Yeah. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And that's how many acres? MS. THOMAS: 15. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: 15. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No questions? Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker? MR. WINGE: Thanks for the opportunity to talk to you people Page 33 January t 8, 2001 about this situation. My name is Jim Winge. I am a property owner of Benfield Road. And I would like to put this in place, which clearly defines them using Beck Boulevard, coming down Benfield and then using Newman. Newman is an existing easement to Collier Boulevard, a direct access easement. Benfield Road is also an easement, a clearly defined residential family easement. We have houses, we have families, we have children. This gets to a point where -- I wrote a couple of things to really address this. And one item I have is a picture of my son. This is Benfield Road. This is how we use Benfield Road. And M&H Stables placed a sign at the front of our road, leading us to believe that they were neighbors with horses, like other neighbors we have with horses. It states "Private Owners and Guests." We do not charge our guests money to come out to our house to ride our horses. So this is clearly a commercial use issue, with a residential road with families. I have a family, and my concern is who uses Benfield Road, families or business. Commercial access should never impact a defined residential family road anywhere in Collier County, anywhere in the State of Florida, if possible. This is what makes it possible. Newman Drive. Their plan is good. Let them have their stables, let them charge their public. Let them have a direct access road to do this. It is far better than impacting a neighborhood that is clearly established. I would also like to add that I do not want you to take the road from us and give it to them for their business. I look at this situation as people should drive through commercial to go to residential, like we all do. We go to work and we go home. Not through residential to get to commercial. That is not what this whole county's designed as and planned as. This is rural and it's not urban, but under urban, these criterias (sic) are in place for these reason: Safety, children, families. And even in a rural atmosphere, the Florida Sports Park was placed as a commercial entity into a rural area of Collier County. It was relocated there. It has a direct access. This doesn't impact people. Their plan impacts three roads. Beck Boulevard, Benfield Road and Newman Drive. Page 34 January 18, 200t Let's eliminate a lot of the impact, let these people do their business. Newman Drive is a perfect solution to this whole problem. And it has been a problem for us since day one. They have been illegally doing a business commercially, transacting money, and we have got a taste of something very sour already we do not want no part of. And I please ask you people to give us the regard that you would give yourself. Do not put a 7-Eleven at the end of anybody's road for a commercial transaction. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I would like to ask the gentlemen -- I think your name was Mr. Winge? MR. WINGE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Can you point out where you live on Benfield Road? MR. WINGE.' I live at the front of this road. I get the impact of my neighbors and all their people. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Point to it on the map, would you, please? MR. WINGE: I'm at this point right here. I'm the first residence. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: How many acres is that? MR. WINGE: Five acres. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. WINGE: This is a low density area. One unit per five acres. I counted the number of properties that adjoin Benfield Road is -- has a possibility right now existing in this plat book of 40 units. Some are going on acre parcels that have been I guess broken up years and years ago. But now being in the Belle Meade area, it's a low density impact area. And we have really the capability of one unit per five acres. But I counted even the acre parcels and the two-and-a-half acre parcels that are on county plat right now. And I question that 10 horses for trail rides. How many times a day? 60 stalls to rent out to people is 60 people coming out to see their horse every day. Plus the 10 people that ride for the first two or three hours and then another group comes in and rides for another two or three hours. And then maybe another Page 35 January 18, 2001 group comes in and rides for another two or three hours. You have an impact of over 100 people can access and do this horse stable per day, which maybe this is good for the public, this is good for tourists, but let's make it easy to get to. How do you get to the M&H Stables? You go down Collier Boulevard to Newman Drive. You can't miss it. Very easy. Problem to a solution. And you're letting the citizens help design Collier County in the process, which I think is my responsibility, too. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, thank you. MR. WINGE.' I'd like some more questions. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'll give you one more question, if I may. MR. WINGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You're suggesting that the 60 horses boarded there now is an illegal operation? MR. WINGE: It has been from day one, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I've not heard that in the testimony we've heard from staff. If you have some indication of that, I'd like to hear it. MR. WINGE: Yes, sir. I had code enforcement went out and cited them. This is a copy of code enforcement. They're making a money transaction, commercially doing business out there already. Do not reward them with my road, please. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just to the one issue. MR. WINGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is this an illegal operation? I want to hear staff on that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Stabling and breeding and raising horses are not illegal. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Including the boarding of horses? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Including the boarding of horses. And we are not here for those, we are here just for the rental portion of it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just so you understand what we are facing here. MR. WINGE: I see. I'm just looking at it another way; a money transaction is a commercial entity of life. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the traffic that's there right now, that's there because of a legal operation -- Page 36 January 18, 2001 MR. WINGE: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- is creating -- and I understand what both of you have said about the possibility of danger on that read. How about -- and we don't have a way for Newman Drive to go over 951 now. I mean, that's an easement, but the road's not there. So with the present situation, would you be in favor of having some speed controls assist you in this safety issue that you both have raised? MR. WINGE: No, sir. This -- I would be willing for this: I would be willing to give him back money for the portion that he did to my property. I would be willing to give them temporary use of this road, provided that they put in their road. Their address is such and such Newman Drive, make it to Collier Boulevard, make it the least impacting avenue to gain access to this stables. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, that might be a longer term solution, but that's not what we have in front of us right now. MR. WINGE: I realize that. I'm trying to tell that you I'm totally in objection to what they have as a plan. This is not a good plan at all. This is just what they want to do. And I wasn't presented with all the facts when they came up and even paved my road. I -- way back before it was even done, I was in total disagreement with them to even pave my frontage. I have all documentations. I, you know, got an attorney to contact their attorney with my situation, that I did not want them to pave my frontage. And now I learned that they have intended to do it as a business from day one. Now they're finally going about it the right way. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have a question. This easement on Newman Drive between where it ends and 951, who owns the easement? MR. WINGE: It's a dedicated easement from the Corps of Engineers. It's been in place long before Benfield Road was even created. These -- Benfield Road and -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah, but somebody has to own this property. Who owns that property? MR. WINGE: I have no idea the adjacent to that easement. The easement is everybody's. As is Benfield Road is an Page 37 January 18, 2001 easement also. But I'm trying to get you people to realize that this is -- a residential family has been using this road and now you're wanting to take it away from us to allow them to use it, which is two different uses, two impacting uses. I've got a quality of life in place now I want to keep forever. We all live in these areas because of traffic and city and maybe to have a little bit more room between our neighbors and enjoy this life that we have in Collier County. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Question, Chahram. This is a public road, right? MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' No, it's a private road. Dedicated -- basically a private road that people owning properties in the area can use. It's not a public road. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay, we're talking about Benfield is the private road. Newman Road is the public road? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, Newman is a private road. MR. NINO: They're all private roads. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Oh, they're all private roads. MR. NINO: However, we must appreciate that a private road, when it is uninterrupted usage by the public for the length of time that these roads have been used by the general public, by prescription in fact makes them a public road. They're public roads, but the county doesn't owe up to any responsibility for them. But the county hasn't accepted them, but by prescriptive law they're public roads. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And you cannot get to New -- you cannot get to 951 or Collier Boulevard from Newman Drive; is that correct? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. The road does not exist. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Does not exist. MR. NINO.' Doesn't exist. But let me also say for the record, Mr. Winge says he's in a residential zoning district. Mr. Winge, the property along Newman Road is not in a residential district. It's in an agriculture district. And the Growth Management Plan specifically says that when you use the word residential or residential district, it does not include agricultural. So from the point of view of the land use laws of Collier County, housing in an agricultural district doesn't make it a residential district, it's an agricultural district. Page 38 January 18, 200t COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So it's not a residential road, whatever that means. MR. NINO: No, it's not a residential road, correct. Now, they may have been misinformed, but that is the law. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Final questions? MR. NINO: And again, since he introduced into the record a code violation, you should be -- appreciate that the code violation was for the renting of horses. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Which is why we're here. MR. NINO'- Why we're here. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: For the renting of horses? What was the date on that, please? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: May 10, year 2000. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: May 10, 2000. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you, sir. MR. WINGE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Next -- MR. HOOLIHAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name's Dan Hoolihan. I'm a landowner on Benfield Road. My concerns are -- let me not reiterate. I'm sure you heard enough. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. HOOLIHAN.' I'll try to hit some areas that you haven't heard yet. And basically I want to hit on the business ethics, which basically goes with the conditional use. The business ethics -- let me just start off by saying, I don't mind them having a business, as long as it's a legal business. And from the beginning, it should have been legal. I'm sure that if you were to check the records and if you were to do so, you would find violations. That's the reason why we're going through this right now. Because now they have to run a straight and narrow line and they want to be proper and they want to be legal. The first part of my questioning of their business ethics would be the tactics used to schmooze over the residents of Benfield Road by putting in this road, by upgrading it, putting asphalt on the road and making it look like they're doing us a favor, but in reality, it's for their business. And in the beginning, I really have to admit, when I heard that they were coming down our road and putting in this stable, I was kind of welcoming it. I thought it would kind of give us a little upgrade in class and I also thought hey, we've got another Page 39 January 18, 2001 neighbor. But as things went on, after the road was put in without our permission, you kind of feel -- you kind of get a taste of what's going to happen down the road. And just a small taste so far has brought us here with our genuine concerns of safety and liability. And that would be one thing I'd like to bring up. And let me go through my notes here. I'm sorry. I guess the solution would be to go down Newman Drive instead of impacting Benfield Road. Which there's another question. And there's two words, there's a dedicated easement and a deeded easement. I think we need to clarify what Benfield Road is before you make your decision. And other than that, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Anyone else wish to address -- MR. NINO: And Mr. Chairman, let me again, for the record, because the words business have been -- illegal business have been thrown around. There has not been an illegal business operation until recently when it came to our attention that they were renting horses instead of just boarding horses. So let me say that for years, in the county's opinion, this property has operated in a manner consistent with the land development regulation. We talked about a business. You know, many, many agricultural uses could very well be constructed to be businesses. But in fact, in the jargon of zoning laws, they are not businesses, they are agricultural uses that have many -- obviously many of the aspects of a business. But it's an agricultural use. It's a business agricultural use that has always been permitted and is permitted in many parts of the agricultural area in Collier County. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Can we allow the petitioner to respond? MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, as briefly as I can, a couple of things. First of all, this, I think as Mr. Nino pointed out, is not a private residential road. This is an agricultural district. I think an agricultural use has -- with all due respect to the residents, and I know that they have their concerns. But I think an agricultural use has as much argument that there's residences out here in agricultural use as the residential uses that there's an agricultural use. I mean, the zoning district allows both uses. Page 40 January 18, 2001 Stabling is a permitted use, it is an allowed use. The traffic that we're talking about, 90 percent of the traffic is legal and is permitted. There's only five trips a day or so that's attributable to what we're here for the conditional use for. And I would suggest that makes a minimal difference. Those cars would be going down a lime rock road. If somebody is complaining about the paving -- if I were a resident out there, I would want it paved. Because those cars are going to be going down the road anyway. I would rather have them going down a paved road than a lime rock road and kicking up a bunch of dust all over my property. I agree with the gentleman, if there was a 7-Eleven down at the end of the road, we would be talking about a different situation. But we're talking about an agriculture use that has an absolute property right to operate at the end of that road. This does provide a service, there are people that want this service, there are people that want their horses boarded, there are people that would like to take trail rides through the state park. It's a perfect location for it. And again, I would ask for your recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners of approval of this item. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question. Would your client be amenable to putting in some -- you know, and I'm not intimately familiar with it, but putting in two or three speed bumps along that road to -- as traffic calming devices? MR. CUYLER: Sure. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I had a question. What is the speed limit on improved and unimproved roads like this? MR. CUYLER: Probably 30 miles per hour. And we don't mind the traffic controls. I mean, we obviously don't encourage anyone to do anything that would break the law. You know, people speed. You know, we would like to stop it if WE -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And irregardless of what the speed limit is or what the sign says, people are still going to probably speed. But if they hit one of those bumps at a high enough speed, they'll slow down the next time. And I think that -- we could not put speed bumps on a, quote, public road, but since it is a private road, speed bumps could probably be put in Page 41 January 18, 2001 without a problem. MR. CUYLER: If we have the ability to do that and we don't get objections from the residents, we would be willing to do that. And also the speeding, I mean, we haven't identified who's doing the speeding. I mean, there's an assumption on the part of the residents that everyone's speeding back to the stables, but I haven't seen any proof that it's not actually the residents that may be going that fast. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: On the criteria that we give for the conditional use, this fee about the ingress and egress of the property for flow structures. Thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access of fire, you know, in case of catastrophe. Would you tell me how I could say yeah, we have adequate ingress and egress that's safe? Because this is a private road, and we've heard a number of objections from people that own on it. Could you help me with this, if I have to say yes on this -- MR. CUYLER: Certainly. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- particular criteria? MR. CUYLER: Certainly. The -- when you say that it is a private road, it is a private road just as much for the use of the stable property as it is for any other property out there, residential or otherwise. In terms of safety, the -- I think that the paving that has been done improves the ability for emergency services to reach both residential properties, as well as the stable property. In terms of safety, you know, if there are -- if there's something that either the county can do or we can do in terms of speed signs or something like that, I mean, I'm not sure that it's anything other than -- and I'm making some assumptions, because I haven't seen people driving too fast, but, I mean, making the assumptions that the young lady is correct, then, you know, whatever we can do, but we can only do so much. I think the ingress and egress and safety really relates to there is a roadway there and is it a -- you know, is it safe to drive on it and the answer is yes. I mean, if cars have to slow down a little bit, then they would be doing that on the lime rock road as well. I don't think the paving has changed anything. MR. NINO: And if I might, Commissioner Rautio, another Page 42 January 18, 2001 indicator of safety would be is the road operating at levels of service in -- greater than its capacity. Now, even as a deficient road, i.e., at 16 feet versus two travel lanes of 20 feet, the amount of traffic on that road, I suspect, is a fraction of what would be considered the thresholds by which it triggers into an unsafe traveling experience. I would think that there's probably less than 100 cars a day on Benfield Road. And that level -- that number has got to be a fraction of what the lane capacity is in the other. We have an expert in the room. She's not listening, but we do have an expert in the room that might give you some indication of what would be the capacity of Benfield Road. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right, but then also with the -- what is it, the uniform control traffic structures, et cetera, whatever that uniform set of guidelines they use, is there anyone from staff that can tell us whether or not since this is a private road, do those fit the speed signs, the slow for children, the different signs that are there? Can a private -- MR. CUYLER: I'm not your staff. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I know you're not staff. I'll let you answer that while staff is chatting in the background. MR. CUYLER: The answer-- MR. NINO: Your question is what can we do in terms of traffic calming -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Traffic calming -- MR. NINO: -- devices on a private road? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- traffic control, you know, the signs that you say there might be a speed limit, something along that line. Help us, because -- MR. NINO: Maybe Dawn can help us here. The question I think is what can we do in terms of traffic calming on what's essentially a private road. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And use of the traffic signs, et cetera, that would help this. MS. WOLFE: For the record, my name is Dawn Wolfe. I'm the transportation planning department director. What the county could do in this case actually is not much. It is at the -- it is a private road, it is not maintained by the county. We could provide some recommendations and directions in regards to issues such as traffic calming or signage, reduction Page 43 January 18, 2001 and posted speed limit, the utilization of, you know, rumble strips to identify this should be a slower speed or to the extent of perhaps the inclusion of the speed humps, so to speak, that would physically force the vehicles to slow down in order to go over that or rip off the bottom of their chassis. I mean, there's all sorts of methodologies that can be used. As these are not county maintained roads, it would be on the private property owners either coming together or, you know, as a result of some requirements that they would have to come in and do these modifications. As a standard for roadways, yes, we do look to have -- a typical 24-foot wide is a paved area for the roadways. However, there are considerations going on as to what makes a livable road, what is workable. And, you know, considerations are being discussed on several levels as to regards to how wide do you really have to make a road. A lot of it has to do with the speed, the enforcement of it. Unfortunately I do not know the answer to who enforces speed limits on private roads. I don't have that answer. That's -- that would be a law enforcement issue. I don't know, Ron, if you have that answer. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So all you can do is make recommendations and tell them what you would do if this were a county road. MS. WOLFE: We make suggestions. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And then the effected parties have to somehow agree, or the petitioner would say yes, we'll do X, Y and Z to slow down the traffic on the road, make it obvious that we'd rather you go some other route to get to this stable when it comes to Benfield. MR. CUYLER: Two things. First of all, I can't be quoted on this, because I'm not positive, but I don't think those Benfield easements exist anymore that go the other way that they're talking about. I think they've been vacated, but I'm not positive on that. The other thing is, even if you make the assumption that it is the stable that's causing the traffic, and I don't think you can make that assumption, and you make the assumption -- or you know that 90 percent of the traffic is legal under any circumstances, even if we walk out of here and don't have the Page 44 January 18, 2001 other 10 percent for the trail rides, and we're talking about that 10 percent, it is this property owner -- I mean, I haven't heard the residents come in and say hey, let's get together, we understand you have an operating business, you have certain property rights, let's all get together and see if we can, you know, address some of these traffic issues and slow down the traffic. It's my client to the tune of six figures that's paved the roadway and is willing to do some more in terms of traffic control. I mean, we certainly don't mind doing far more than our part to try to do that. But we have a legal right to conduct that use. The gentleman is wrong, it's not a residential area, it's an agriculture area, and it's an appropriate use in that area, and he has the right to have 90 percent of that traffic on there. Even if you make the assumption they're speeding, we're willing to do our part. But, you know, if the residents want to assist us, we're willing to put in the speed bumps at our cost as well. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, Ken, don't you also have a compatibility issue for a conditional use? MR. CUYLER: The land --well, the land code presumes-- because you have the ability to have the conditional use, the presumption is that it is compatible. And I think certainly a stabling -- horse stabling area in an agricultural district. Now, the question then becomes if you use the agricultural district for residences, does that make your normal agricultural uses incompatible? I would suggest no, it doesn't. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, you may be right about that presumption, but we have to make a specific affirmative finding that it is compatible, which doesn't sound to me like a presumption. But be that as it may, you would concede that we could impose conditions on the conditional use -- MR. CUYLER: Yes, absolutely. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' -- such as speed bumps, signs and so forth. MR. CUYLER: And you have a couple of conditions. Now, these -- we don't -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' I'm not saying I'm necessarily in favor of them, I'm just inquiring -- MR. CUYLER: Right, right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- if we agree on what can be Page 45 January 18, 2001 done. MR. CUYLER: Yeah, I think the conditions usually are if you -- when a project comes in and you identify an impact of that project, I guess if you've gotten to the point where you're 100 percent sure or close to it that the impact is all as a result of this petition, then, you know, I mean, we're talking about five trips a day, as best I can figure out, or six trips a day, which is 10 percent of the 50 that staff has determined. And again, I'm not going to argue about reasonable stipulations now or ever, you know, if you feel you need to do that. But I think we do need to concede the general premise that this is an appropriate use and an appropriate legal use. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And part of my questioning here was simply because we're supposed to sign this finding of fact, conditional use form. I'm not sure these residents have seen that. That's why we're being very careful about what it is we're doing. Because we do have to put our names to four different criteria here, relating to compatibility, affecting other properties, et cetera. And that's why we're probably belaboring this a little more, because we're not -- MS. THOMAS: One of the issues I'd like to -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ma'am? Ma'am. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Marjorie wants to shed some light, I think. MS. STUDENT: All I wanted to remind the commission was you look at the compatibility of the conditional use, not the underlying use that's already there and permissible by the agricultural zoning district but it's what -- it's the over and above that, what the conditional use is for. That's where the compatibility is. Stables are already a permitted use in ag. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Normally we allow the petitioner and staff unlimited. I will give you one minute, ma'am. MS. THOMAS: I just wanted to ask again if there is any county standards as far as the relationship of a power pole to a paved road. Should there be a distance between a power pole and the edge of the pavement of a road? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We'll ask that question. MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe for the record again. Yes, there are normal safety standards. Once again, this is an issue of a private road for which the county had no participation in the Page 46 January 18, 2001 paving of it, paving asphalt up to it. There are general standards for clear recovery zones. If you don't have a curb and gutter section, you should have between -- you know, at least a 10-foot recovery zone area before you hit an obstacle or a non curb and gutter section, as is the case here. You know, I guess the -- I do not know the process by which the road was paved, how it was permitted, should be paved. There are, you know, other requirements beyond that of the county in regards to this. You have other issues when you go from a shell road condition to an impermeable surface, such as an asphalt overlay that requires other -- I'm not familiar with how that came about or how it came about that it was paved up to these actual power poles. But there can also be an understanding, though, that these power poles were probably in existence prior to that paving, so they were always adjacent to the travel way. That is purely an assumption based on what has been stated here today. I do not have knowledge of what the preexisting conditions were, other than the fact that had previously been a shell road which the property owner seeking the conditional use had gone out and paved that road. That's the only information that I know of in regards to this private road and its paving and how it came about. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, the owner confirmed that the poles were there at the same location. Nobody moved the power poles or the road, they just paved over the lime rock road, so they were already there. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Badamtchian, just to push the envelope a little bit further, what is the distance that would have to be paved to get access to Collier Boulevard? MR. NINO: It's one mile, isn't it? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, two miles. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's only about an inch on my map. MR. CUYLER: Again, I'm assuming that those have been vacated, so that doesn't exist. But the owner tells me it's about one and a half miles, and there's wetlands between the paved portion and Collier. Page 47 January 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the applicant does not view this to be a part of the solution to the issue here of traffic? MR. CUYLER: No, the petitioner does not view that as part of the solution. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then how about further improvement on Benfield Drive, since that's such a narrow parkway? MR. CUYLER: In terms of what? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Make it wider. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson, I think he has to acquire land. And I'm not sure that the people on Benfield would really be willing to give up some of that land for a wider road for his purpose. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Maybe I didn't understand the nature of this private roadway. There's no easements involved at all then? MR. CUYLER.' There are easements. I think what the owner did was to take the existing roadway, which was as wide or as narrow as before as it is now, and -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And lined the way it was. And I'm just saying, in terms of -- this is our only chance to work on this problem. MR. CUYLER: Right. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And what we've had brought to us by the public is that this is kind of a meandering 16-foot wide roadway that's been paved at the applicant's expense to I'm sure help himself out as well as the other property owners. And that it's -- it has some obstructions on one side with the power poles. I'm wondering in terms of trying to address this entire problem at this time if we couldn't somehow get that roadway to be a little wider, put in some speed controls, and is this not a possibility that the applicant would consider? MR. NINO: Don't you think, though, that in the interest of fairness, when you're talking about major improvements to a private road that's going to benefit all the property owners along that road, that there be some that -- that the action address the need for cost sharing? I mean, this land is in the -- in an area that may very well some day be urbanized, and every one of those five-acre parcels are going to enjoy the opportunity to Page 48 January 18, 2001 re-subdivide their property and they'd be on a road that's now up to county standards at somebody else's expense. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have a question of Mr. Nino. Is there a swale on one side of the road? MR. NINO: I don't know. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I think it's going to be tough for this commission to impose any kind of stipulation on the petitioner that's before us today on someone else's land on which they have their own rights. That certainly is not within the realm of this commission, or even within the Board -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- of Zoning Appeals. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- I'd just like to hear the response on that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, I don't have a problem with that, but you're asking him to do some things that I'm not sure is within his power. Now, he can go to the neighbors and certainly ask. But for to us make that a stipulation I think would be beyond our ability. MR. NINO: Well, Mr. Chairman, except that the easement is certainly wider than 16 feet. You know, traditional easements tend to be at least 30 feet; if they're for road purposes, at least 30 feet. So I suspect that there is at least a 30-foot easement in there. So it really is not going to be a case of trespass or having to go to each property. If they enjoy an easement across that property, then by the same token, they enjoy the opportunity to make improvements to the entire width of that easement. The question is fairness here. Is it reasonable to ask a person on the end of the road to bring a road up to county standards, which is what I hear you suggesting for a use that is basically permitted by law. MS. STUDENT: Well, what I have to interject here is we have to be concerned, there are constitutional limits on what you can require of a property owner. And we have the Nolan and the Dolen cases that tell us you cannot over exact beyond the impacts of the development. And we cannot do that. If the petitioner agrees to do some things over and above that, that's fine. But for us as a government to impose that, we have to be mindful of the constitution and the protection of property. Page 49 January 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Did I say I was going to make that a stipulation? I did not. I just asked whether the applicant was amenable to helping solve this problem, so -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Why don't we have the fact about how wide this Benfield Road is. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: 16 feet. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, I mean, it's wide, but if there's an easement that's 30. Who would come up with that fact? Would you have that on behalf of your client? MR. CUYLER: The easements are at least 30 feet. The owner tells me -- the petitioner tells me that the road is 18 feet wide, not 16 feet wide. We would not be willing on our own to do that. I mean, we'll be happy to talk to the other residents, but I think Mr. Nino really hit the nail on the head and that is we're at the end of the road, and 90 percent of our use is absolutely legal. We're talking about a small incremental amount for something that I think we, with your good judgment, should be entitled to. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, for the record, Mr. Chair, I don't like to be discouraged from trying to help solve problems for the public. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm not trying to discourage you. I'm just trying to make a point that I wasn't sure that we could do what you were asking we could do. And that's just my disagreement was all. And Ron cleared that up for me. Any further questions? MR. NINO: I liked the suggestion that Dawn made of -- what do they call those, rumble? MS. WOLFE: They're referred to as rumble strips. They're not the exceedingly large speed bumps. What they are is they're a staggered, slightly raised portion strip of an asphalt type material that as you go over it, it rumbles. Therefore, the -- and it gives you -- brings your attention to the fact that either you're coming up to slow down or that the speed is being reduced. It's trying to bring your attention to something occurring. A lot of times you'll see it on -- adjacent to the major interstate facilities, that should you run off the edge and into the emergency lane, you'll hear that rumble. It can also be a matter of basically sawing into and creating a difference in the texture, and that's what creates this rumble. Page 50 January 18, 2001 And it's more of making one aware. It doesn't necessarily physically force you to slow the vehicle down, but it brings it to your attention. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, what that rumble strip is going to do is annoy the neighbors, because they're trying to take naps and put their kids to sleep, when people run over them, they're going to disturb them. I think what we need to look at is, if anything, a speed bump or two. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, let me -- being we've discussed this issue, I live in a neighborhood that put in speed bumps, and I can assure you, those that were speeding before have figured out what the actual maximum speed is that they can go over those without tearing their car up. Although it does slow down those of us that are law abiding citizens to start with. But anyway, having said all that -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' If you'll close the public hearing -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, I'm working on that. Any further questions? Does anybody else from the public wish to address this? If not, I close the public hearing, and I will entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward Petition CU-2000-18 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, with a -- the stipulation of a maximum of 10 horses for hire and that the necessary speed bumps be put in place by the neighbors. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's been moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Budd. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Any question of signage on that? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: No, I'm not going to put signage in there, because I think it's a wasted expense, because the people that are going to speed are going to speed, irregardless of the signs. But if you all want to put up signs, there's certainly their right. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Again, living on a private road, the only thing that will slow them down is the presence of a cop car, which normally don't show up unless you ask them. So I agree with Mr. Priddy, people -- I don't know whether you have a community watch that stand out and take their license plate, Page 51 January 18, 2001 send them nasty letters. That's about all you can do. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, there are two staff conditions. I assume -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes, I was including the staff stipulations. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: He entered those. Any further discussions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, this is perhaps not appropriate to the motion, but I'd like to have the sense of the board go forward that we'd like to encourage the property owners in the are to get together and make some improvement on Benfield Drive to improve the safety conditions which have been brought before us. I don't know what the proper forum for that is, but I'd certainly encourage the applicant and the property owners to get together and see if you can get another couple of three feet. I mean, it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. He spent $100,000 on it already, and it seems like it would help everybody that he would be able to get the cartway a little further away from those poles, which are so dangerous. Again, I don't know what the proper forum of that is, but I'd like that to be on the record in some fashion to -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The stipulation was to add speed bumps. Do you have any numbers that you would like to see, how many speed bumps? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I think that ought to be left up to the neighbors. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I would agree with that. Also -- okay, calling for the question, all in favor of this vote, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That was -- Page 52 January 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: On the Item B, I'm not convinced about the traffic and the convenience part, so I'd have to say no. I don't feel like that's quite been addressed. And I do believe the Board of County Commissioners has to discuss this. They would discuss it anyway, because we have a number of neighbors who would like to present their information, their testimony, to the County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I believe that was 8-1, right? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: 7-1. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: 7-1. Thank you. Just a few minute break for our court reporter. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let's call the meeting back to order. The next item on the agenda is Item F, the Activity Center No. 9. Marjorie, is this -- MS. STUDENT: It's legislative. You don't have to swear. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: As soon as I get order on the commissioners, I'll ask the question again. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'd like to make a motion to approve. MS. STUDENT: No swearing, and no disclosures on this. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Legislative, no swearing of -- okay, with that, Amy? MS. TAYLOR: Yes. Good morning, Planning Commission. My name is Amy Taylor, for the record. I'm with the comprehensive planning section. I will be happy to be brief and give more time for WilsonMiller, our consultants in developing the interchange master plan, more time to provide you details, and we'll both be available to answer your questions. Very briefly, as a background, the interchange master plan for Activity Center No. 9, the concepts and the idea were developed back in '95 and '96. As the evaluation and appraisal report for the entire comprehensive plan was being accomplished, the Board of County Commissioners determined and directed that language text changes to the Future Land Use Element be made and a map change be made to include another piece of property, this property right here, into the active center boundary. The -- as I said, in 1997 it was adopted by the board and transmitted to the state. Page 53 January 18, 2001 The delay in developing the interchange master plan was as a result of our being found -- the plan being found not in compliance with DCA. So finally in May of 2000, our plan, which included the language directing the property owners and county staff to develop an interchange master plan, was finally found in compliance, and we moved forward with that. The language in the Growth Management Plan provides that staff and property owners work together in coordination. That was accomplished. July 11th, the property owners met and we prepared a vision statement which was taken to the Board of County Commissioners on August 1st and approved. This vision statement provided a guideline and -- the consultants and staff and property owners, in developing the interchange master plan. October, the property owners met again and reviewed the results of the WilsonMiller's efforts in developing the interchange master plan. And there were -- there was consensus and agreement on the interchange master plan by the property owners and their representatives that were in attendance. The basis for developing an interchange master plan in the first place are -- there's multiple reasons, and I'll go into them briefly. Land use and transportation issues within that area. Transportation access management within that area has become more and more important as it develops out. The aesthetic value as an enhanced gateway was considered very, very important to the Board of County Commissioners, as it is accessed to -- from 1-75 to residents and visitors alike to various parts of Collier County. It provides the first impression of Collier County and an entrance to -- via 951 and State Road 84 to Golden Gate, Marco Island and the Naples downtown area. The land use issues in particular were to -- as it developed out, that there would be a 55 percent cap on any additional commercial. This was essentially because there was a concern about traffic movement within that area. So there can be a full array of commercial uses with a 55 percent cap and residential, and encouragement for mixed uses. There are already properties that are industrial, commercial and residential within Activity Center No. 9. The study parameters also included architectural design Page 54 January 18, 2001 guidelines, common architectural design, as properties are improved, redeveloped or as new developments come in. And common landscape material would be encouraged to be used as well. Common signage and gateway features. And where the signage and gateway features and some of the landscape issues come in are also in the public realm. It will be recognized it will be the responsibility of the county, as road improvements are brought in line, that various landscape improvements and signage improvements will be made to be consistent with the direction of the IMP. There are various -- also, there are various grants that would be available to offset the cost -- any additional cost of those improvements. There's been a real high level extensive coordination coming out of WilsonMiller through staff to property owners that -- and actually the property owners participated in great numbers. I believe we had most properties represented there by either the owner themselves or their representatives. Also, extensive coordination with FDOT in its future plans to improve State Road 84 and the interchange access. And this has been ongoing, you know, really for about -- prior to May, 2000 when the language was finally found in compliance. Also, extensive coordination with our architectural and landscape design staff, and our previous transportation department and our current transportation division. With that, I would like to move forward, if you don't have any questions, and allow WilsonMiller to present the particulars of the project. MS. JENKINS: Good morning. I'm Anita Jenkins, with WilsonMiller, the project planner on this particular master plan. Do you all have a copy of the book? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes. MS. JENKINS: I'm going to briefly just highlight each section for you, so if you have any questions on those particular sections, feel free to make those comments as we go through the section. But I will keep it brief, believing that you've had an opportunity to review this plan already. Beginning with section one, this is just really the Page 55 January t8, 2001 introduction, and it gives a lot of the background information, as Amy has already highlighted in her review of it. The BCC has directed this master plan through the comprehensive plan amendment back in 1997. The BCC also set forth the study parameters. They directed us to exactly what was going to be studied in this master plan. Those parameters are of course listed in the introduction as well. And Amy did hit on them before: Land use, transportation and access, landscaping and buffering, signage, architecture and various maps. The purpose of this study, as directed by the board, is to create a gateway for Collier County, coming off 1-75 and 951. So the idea is to have a comprehensive plan that will be complimentary to the area and create this gateway for Collier County. As Amy had mentioned, the property owners were very involved with this process. And beginning back in July, we had the first visioning meeting with the -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Have you gone past step one then? MS. JENKINS: Yes, I'm at envisioning on step two. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could I ask a question about MS. JENKINS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I notice in the background statement it says the entire interchange activity center is eligible for up to 100 percent of the entire acreage to be developed. How am I to understand that relative to open space? MS. JENKINS: The open space criteria will still be applied. This 100 percent is in regards to the uses that are referenced above as far as industrial, commercial, residential. That statement says that you can develop 100 percent of the uses in residential, industrial, other appropriate uses; however, only 55 percent can be developed in commercial in this area. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: In terms of the definition of the area, the Activity Center 9, there seems to be some conflicts in the document about what describes the boundaries of that. MS. JENKINS: If I can refer you over here to the -- I believe this -- this graphic is also in your book. The boundaries of the Page 56 January 18, 2001 activity center -- and it looks like we've lost a line here. The boundaries of the activity center include Golden Gate Commerce Park, this PUD, this area zoned ag. This line should be coming straight down here. So it would be this quadrant. The activity center also includes this commercial portion of City Gate Park PUD. It includes White Lake Industrial Park, Tollgate, a small portion of the Forest Glen commercial area, the Westport Commerce Center PUD, this industrial area, and then the boundary for this quadrant is here. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That -- what's titled commercial tract is -- what did you call that? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Forest Glen. Forest Glen? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: undeveloped properties now? And these are all MS. JENKINS: No, sir. As you may be aware, and you might be able to see some of the development in the Tollgate Center PUD. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I knew that. But later on in the implementation, it says it's to only apply to all undeveloped properties. MS. JENKINS: Actually, the board's direction would be that this would apply to all undeveloped and developed properties, so that when property owners came back in to amend their PUD's or for redevelopment, they would have to be consistent with the IMP. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. So that's a correction that needs to be made in Section 5, when we get to that. Why did you not include anything further south of that, be it Naples Golf Estates? I mean, presumably in the future, that could change. MS. JENKINS: It could be -- the boundary of the activity center was set forth in the comprehensive plan amendment by the Board of County Commissioners. All activity centers were addressed during that plan amendment cycle. And that was the final boundary in the study area for this project. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So you had no input to the boundaries. That was a given? MS. JENKINS: That's correct. Page 57 January 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. MS. JENKINS: Beginning now in Section 2, as I had mentioned, we first met with the property owners on July 11th for the visioning meeting. The vision statement, as listed in Section 2 -- and this was come about through consensus with the property owners and the Collier County staff that all Collier County staff departments that this project would affect were invited to those meetings, and those that attended had input during that time with the property owners. The visioning statement addresses the items that are the parameters of this study. Again, it's land use, transportation, the design elements. And this schematic graphic is a representation of that vision that the property owners came up with. It's a vision of a more formal area with street trees, defined edges, architecture that is complimentary to the area. And we'll get into that architecture and signage in just a few minutes. It's a very highly defined landscaped area, with a concentrated gateway here at the intersection of 1-75, because you have a lot of available land for landscaping and focal points in this area. So this schematic again, it's just a culmination of what that vision would be to the property owners, and is representative of this master plan. Are there any questions on the vision statement in Section 2? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I must say that this is pretty dramatic. It's pretty aesthetically pleasing, at least the schematic you have. And that is -- was developed through the property owners input? MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Impressive. MS. JENKINS: That vision statement was also endorsed by the Board of County Commissioners on August 1st, so they have already seen the vision statement and endorsed that so we can move forward with the details of this master plan. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: They obviously envision a pedestrian traffic pattern in this intersection? MS. JENKINS: Yes. And the pedestrian sidewalks that are -- some of them are out there now. But understanding that this will change with the change of the state's interchange plans. So, you Page 58 January 18, 2001 know, this is as we know it now. Because the state has not come forward with the final design of this interchange area. So this is fluid. But yes, they do envision a pedestrian activity out there, because you have a lot of hotels, restaurants, convenience stations. And if you spend a little bit of time out there right now, you'll see people walking from the hotels down to the Burger King or the McDonald's to get something to eat, over to the Cracker Barrel. So there is quite a bit of pedestrian activity today. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I don't deny that. It's just that within each quadrant, and I've been there, I wouldn't risk my life trying to get across any of those roads. MS. JENKINS: But we hope -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Not an overpass or an underpass. And those are bad words in Collier County. MS. JENKINS: We have to try to improve that situation with further improvements to 951 and Davis Boulevard. And the defining of the edges and landscaping certainly will help that situation. Let me change this graphic one more time. Moving to Section 3 now is where we got into the details of the design, beginning with the architecture and signage. The signage will be complimentary to the architecture. The property owners decided that they would like three characters represented in this activity center. And the characters would be Everglades, rural and old Florida. Those are three architectural characters that are complimentary to one another, but allow the property owners flexibility in selecting the designs that are most appropriate for their land use and their buildings. Those are representative on this graphic. And with the architecture, we have also selected a color pallet to be complimentary to each architecture character that would be complimentary as a whole to the area. The idea is to be able to enter this activity center and be able to define the boundaries when you are in the activity center. So there again, this design sets forth the characters of the area, but it will not be until the next phase in the LDC amendments where you really get into the details of the architecture. As we have an architecture code now, one will be Page 59 January 18, 2001 developed for this area as well. But this is the basis for that. In the landscaping, there are two different buffers that were discussed. One landscape buffer and one landscape area will be within the public rights-of-way. And there again, that is for mostly the arterial roads, the public rights-of-way. That is along the streets edges and within the medians. The character in there again, it's formal and it's highly defined edges. This helps create a more pedestrian feeling. Because if you can imagine right now what 951 is just north of 75, it's wide open, it's undeveloped, and you have no sense of limits there. And it's not a very friendly area, but as it develops and encouraging these highly defined edges, it could be something as you see on the conceptual roadway section at the bottom of this graphic. We anticipate that those landscaping elements will come about with the improvements of the roadways and will be part of the county's program and responsibility for including those landscaped themes. The other buffer area will be the buffer areas that are surrounding properties, landscaped areas within properties. There again, where we're trying to give all the property owners a specific landscape pallet so all of the area within the activity center becomes unified and definable and complimentary. So the nonadjacent buffers or the perimeter buffers, the parking lots, things like that, may include the landscape pallet that you see within the plan here. And some of those are represented in this graphic as well, but it's much more extensive in your plan that you'll notice. Finally, the other things that will help define this area are boundary or gateway features. You'll recall on the last plan there where we showed the interchange of 1-75 and 951, there's a lot of land there with great landscape opportunities and focal points. That will be one of the focuses of the -- creating a gateway in this area. That will be the primary gateway. We would anticipate formalizing gateways at each entrance to the activity center, for instance, where the boundary begins on Davis Road, there will be some type of gateway or feature that would help you define that boundary. And as well as on 951 coming north and going south, there would be some type of feature that would help you define the boundary of that activity Page 60 January 18, 2001 center. And finally, on the arterial roadways, again, referring back to this graphic, we have some specifics here to define the elements of what those roadways should be. And again, we are trying to encourage a higher pedestrian level than what's out there now. Particularly in safety, and street trees for shade, and improving the intersections for pedestrians, and median plantings; those type of things we would hope to be incorporated into the arterial public roadways. We would also hope to see that there would be specialty lighting that would help this area, as represented in this graphic, as well as something to that effect to help you define the area. And then all directional signage that you would see in the area would be complimentary to the architecture and the private property signs as well. Those are the -- briefly the highlights of the design elements of the Activity Center No. 9 interchange master plan. And I'll be happy to answer any of your questions. If not, I'd like to introduce Jeff Perry. He's going to highlight the transportation elements land use. And then he'll reiterate the implementation process, what's next for the interchange master plan. MR. PERRY: Thank you, Anita. Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Jeff Perry with the firm of WilsonMiller. Land use and transportation are covered in Section 4 of your document. They are intimately linked together, and for the purposes of this study, we wanted to treat them as one, because when we're talking about transportation, we're talking about the land use in that particular area and how it impacts it. The section is laid out as basically as sort of an overview dealing with the commercial land use -- excuse me, with the master plan land use characteristics. Some technical analysis that was done projecting out into the future, the build-out of the activity center and what impact it would have on the transportation system. We've offered a number of recommendations and strategies, both in the area of land use decision making, because there are still a few parcels out there left to be zoned within the -- zoned something other than agricultural within the activity center Page 61 January 18, 2001 boundaries, although the bulk of it is already zoned one way or another for the uses permitted in the master plan. We've offered some transportation recommendations, and we've also included conceptual revisions to the activity center master plan access management plan. You presently have within your Land Development Code an adopted access management plan. What we're suggesting to you today are changes or revisions that would ultimately be brought forward to a Land Development Code amendment through a Land Development Code amendment process to amend the plan to incorporate some or all of the recommendations in the master plan. Just an overview on the existing land uses. As I said, most of it is presently zoned something other than agricultural, although there still are a few parcels left as an agricultural category. The land use plan that is being suggested to you today really is nothing more than taking into consideration the existing zoning, insuring that there's no deletion of anybody's rights that currently exist on the property, but we've also added some flexibility in the mixed use industrial and the mixed use commercial areas to insure that even those existing zoning projects might have some additional opportunity. Should they decide to redevelop or redesign their project, they would still be within the limits of the access mas -- the interchange master plan. The transportation overview really assumed a build-out when we looked at the land use characteristics that were approved and what would be expected under the comprehensive plan and under this master plan. We have a computer assimilation model. We actually developed a scenario of building all the land use out by the year 2025 -- actually, 2024 in this case -- and examined what sort of impact that would have on the transportation system. What I think has already been alluded to is the improvements that the Florida Department of Transportation is currently studying on the south half -- south side of the interstate, on the south half of our master plan area. And for that reason, we've sort of divided the study area into two chunks, north of the interstate and south of the interstate. Page 62 January 18, 2001 South of the interstate we're offering what we believe are -- what we're calling interim transportation improvements. Those recommendations that would be for at grade improvements prior to there ever being an expansion of the overpass or an additional overpass that might be developed at the intersection of 951 and State Road 54. We believe that while we would like to think there is money out there to make all of the necessary improvements, most of the time these things are done in stages. So we might see a widening, for instance, of State Road 84 to either four or six lanes at grade with improvements to the intersection at State Road 84 and Collier Boulevard. That might come within, let's say, in the next five or six years. The interchange, or the flyover, whatever you want to call it, whatever is finally decided there, may be another five or 10 years after that, depending on where and when the money is made available for the project. So in the interim period, while there is no flyover there and there is no yet FDOT approved plan, we wanted to have some sort of marching orders that developers and people could deal with in terms of half grade kind of improvement. So in the access management plan that I'll talk about in just a moment, they'll actually see some kinds of medians, some future widening of the road and where driveways would be and where interconnections would be. And while the recommendations in the plan deal in part with land use decision-making, the kinds of lands uses that might be appropriate, the things that should be encouraged as you review land use proposals, there are also some recommendations in there on transportation concerning future widenings and improvements that might help relieve some of the traffic congestion problems in that particular area. I'd like to focus -- if there's no specific questions, I'd like to focus a little bit on the activity center master plan -- the access management plan, and kind of go through what we're suggesting would be adopted formally as Land Development Code amendment. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I had one question, Jeff. I never use this interchange, I always use 16. This Davis Boulevard, if you extended it eastward, becomes old Alligator Page 63 January 18, 2001 Alley. Does that actually go right into 1-757 MR. PERRY: No, it does not. In fact, that's Beck Boulevard that is -- the road you were talking about in the previous -- access road that goes out to -- in your previous petition, that goes out to, what is it, Benfield or that road? Okay, that particular road, if I can show you -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I saw it referred to in here as an access road, but all the drawings seemed to show it connecting to -- at least I would interpret them as showing it connecting right into 1-75. MR. PERRY: Before State Road 84 or Alligator Alley became 1-75, it was a direct connection from that intersection, which is where Davis Boulevard comes in beyond Radio Road and ties into County Road 951. It was directly east of there and the tollbooth was right out here. This was when 1-75 was developed, it came down through here and connected with State Road 84 and State Road 84 was then widened, this was -- that old State Road 84, what is now called Beck Drive or Beck Boulevard actually just becomes an access road out to land to the north, which is actually in our activity center, which is the Tollgate commercial center, as well as the other land development further to the east, which is Benfield and some of the other roads that might be out there. So this is now more of a local collector that provides access to commercial and agricultural development. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So people who come out Davis have to turn north and then access it up there on the other side of Tollgate. MR, PERRY: That's correct. If you're going to 1-75, when you hit the intersection, either east or west on 1-75, you turn left at the traffic signal, when you hit 951 or Collier Boulevard. The eastbound off ramp -- excuse me, the eastbound on ramp to go to Fort Lauderdale is immediately to the north of there. To go west or north on 1-75, you go under the overpass and then hang a left and get on the ramps to take you up north on 1-75. Likewise, the off bound ramps of 1-75 comes directly down into the intersection of 951. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does it make any sense to connect this old Alligator Alley so you would have two accesses? MR. PERRY: In fact, there is one of the proposals that -- the Page 64 January 18, 2001 Florida Department of Transportation is currently underway to study this entire intersection because of the current congestion there, the future build-out of this particular area, as well as the build-out of the roadway system. They're looking at a number of different alternatives that would include overpasses at State Road 84 and Collier Boulevard, different connections to the interstate, one of which I've seen actually goes out through Beck Boulevard and connects up to 1-75. So there's a whole sort of litany of different options that they're looking at. As Anita had mentioned before that -- or perhaps Amy, they're not yet to a point where they're -- they have a firm plan. So our purpose today was to try to identify, absent that plan and absent some sort of major alterations, we wanted to have some at grade improvements in case there was a widening of Davis Boulevard that we would be able to accommodate with some median openings and driveway connection spacings and things like that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay, thank you. MR. PERRY: Let me focus a little bit -- again, a little bit on the south side of Interstate 75. That is the intersection of State Road 84 and 951. We're showing some medians in through here with access in driveways to existing and future roadway connections. We're looking at the first potential traffic signal being at the very edge of the activity center right there and interconnecting through some existing and future rezoning properties in order for access to be provided to all of this particular area on the north side of -- to that particular signal. There would be a continued unsignalized access controlled by median openings at those two existing driveways that are there nOW, We're also suggesting that the Burger King access would ultimately go away and they would obtain their access through the internal roadway network. That may or may not occur as part of the at grade improvements or the widening of Davis Boulevard; it may occur as part of the overpass or something else. But the logical connection for the Burger King would be as the McDonald's is, off of the internal side streets. The south side, we're talking about interconnection that would continue existing proposed loop road around through here Page 65 January 18, 2001 with interconnecting parcels here to encourage that there would be adequate spacing for driveways and not a continuous location of driveways for out parcels or parcels along -- they would all get their access off of this internal road system. On the north side of 1-75, there's basically with the exception of the White Lake Industrial Park, which is currently under development here, this is the access intersection right here that goes back to the county landfill. It is immediately north of the northbound off ramp of 1-75. We are suggesting that it would probably be appropriate to bring that off ramp under signal control at this point to provide adequate spacing to improve the intersection here by removing or deleting this particular section of the roadway here and putting the roadway back through here, allowing for an adequate throat distance from this intersection. Major improvements, and then interconnecting all of these parcels, so that you don't end up with access points all along 951. This parcel and all these parcels here would have access off the backage road that would prohibit additional access points from being in there. This is a limited access corridor here up to that signal, so that you couldn't have driveway connections there anyway. We are suggesting that a right-in access might be appropriate to this parcel here to help carry some of the traffic into that area before actually hitting this particular intersection. But this is an access road, public access road, that goes back through here, separating those two parcels. And we do have provisions for interconnections. They're actually already in this development approval here to interconnect to this road there so that there would actually be an interconnection between these two parcels. This is presently a mixed use zoning. This is an industrial and commercial zoned area, in fact, over in through here, even outside the activity center and of course the water plant facility back in through here. This access road goes all the way out through here out to the county landfill. So these are the kinds of interconnecting improvements that we believe would be beneficial long-term, as well as obviously being beneficial today, even though there's not a lot of development in this area. Most of the congestion that we have is Page 66 January 18, 2001 on the south -- current congestion is on the south side of the interstate. But in the future, as this area begins to develop, there's going to be a lot of congestion for land uses that are attracting traffic from the interstate or have residential components where they're actually generating traffic. We believe that encouraging mixed use development in these areas helps eliminate some of the traffic that would otherwise be hitting the roadway where they can find shopping or business opportunities close by, either at this site or this site, and this particular access management plan accommodates those kinds of benefits. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Jeff, what is the projection on when we're supposed to -- the state or feds are supposed to have that interchange improvements plan done? Do we have a time frame? MR. PERRY: We're very close to it. There may be -- I'm not sure if there's a public hearing set yet for the recommended alternative. Dawn, do you know if there's a hearing set for the recommended alternative yet? It was supposed to be in January, but it obviously hasn't been. MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe, for the record. I do not believe they have scheduled as of yet the public hearing, which is inclusive of the State Road 84 widening project. The current FDOT tentative work program does not identify beyond the design of the State Road 84 east-west improvements, although the Florida Department of Transportation, in continuing working towards funding the improvements in this area is looking at the potential resources just beyond the year 2010 for the actual implementation of the ultimate interchange improvements. They're continuing to work with us, as well as Mr. Perry, as he's part of the long-range transportation plan update process, in defining when we will be seeing those improvements out there. So we anticipate, if state and federal resources remain the same for interstate and interchange improvements, that just beyond the year 2010 we may start seeing activity from the Florida Department of Transportation on those ultimate improvements. But before that's decided, you will have a public hearing in regards to the concepts. Page 67 January 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY'. I'll quit looking then. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a quick question. Is there -- there's nothing -- I thought at one time there was something that tied up with Davis extending on east, going to 9517 MS. WOLFE: That was a corridor study that was conducted back in 1997, '98 by the Florida Department of Transportation. It was to evaluate the viability of alternative alignments versus using the existing State Road 84 alignment. The findings of that corridor study was that you did not receive any substantial benefit by relocating the alignment south to the direct east-west connection. There were not only environmental issues in regards to putting that alignment straight east; however, one thing that was very clear was it did not eliminate the intersection of existing State Road 84 with -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, I wasn't attempting to. I just -- the issue was with people coming north got to go all the way to that intersection to get on Davis, and all the people on Davis got to go south on 951, or Collier Road. You're telling me it's gone, in other words? MS. WOLFE: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Okay. That was my question. MS. WOLFE: There's development currently in the way now, SO w~ CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Too bad. MR. PERRY: Any other questions about the transportation section? I'd like to just briefly cover implementation, or reiterate what Amy has already told you. Implementation basically means that this is going to end up coming back before it really gets hammered down into final regulations or laws that somebody has to live with. We're suggesting that there be a zoning overlay that would sort of trigger the regulations that would ultimately be developed as part of the Land Development Code, which is the second part of the implementation strategy, so that you have a zoning map or zoning overlay that says if you have land within this activity center, there's a separate set of regulations that apply to you. So if you're outside of that black dotted line, you go with the standard zoning restrictions, standard Land Development Code regulations, if you're on the other side of that line, you're within Page 68 January 18, 2001 this particular zoning overlay, you now have to comply with a new set of -- a different set of Land Development Code regulations. The Land Development Code regulations, as you know, come back through every couple of times a year. The staff would be developing not only the zoning overlay language but the Land Development Code regulations, and property owners and the staff and everybody would get another chance at determining exactly the final fit of all these kinds of things that conceptually we're suggesting to you has a broad support from the landowners and generally from the county staff. But they like what they see here. It's really just a matter of getting it into final legislative restriction regulation format which comes with the Land Development Code, and any capital improvement element plans that would actually find the money to implement these things. That would be either in the county's capital improvement program or road construction, the state work program obviously for State Road 84/I-75 improvements, other kinds of improvements that might be available, other money that might be available, enhancement funds that might be actually programmed for this project to make some of these things actually happen. So it's kind of a three-pronged approach: Zoning overlay, the Land Development Code regulations, which is actually the meat of it all, and then the funding strategies and actually getting some of this work accomplished. And if there's no other questions about that -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, may I -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Either to you, Mr. Miller (sic) or perhaps Ms. Taylor, I understand that this overlay and the Land Development Code that will follow that will apply to both developed and undeveloped, or is it just undeveloped? MR. PERRY: The strategy would be to all lands within the activity center. Those that are already developed -- when you say developed, we have to think in terms of the subdivisions that are developed still have vacant parcels on them. Certainly when someone comes in for that particular area, they would be subject to the things that would be in the Land Development Code. But it would not be retroactive to the point of forcing Page 69 January 18, 2001 somebody to change the color of their building or tear down their building and build something new. But if there was redevelopment occurring, then they would be required to comply with the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So it would be more accurate then, this implementation strategy, to talk about it in terms of any impacted developed or undeveloped property. MS. TAYLOR: We can make that change, if that's in agreement. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Second question, if I may. And perhaps this is to you, Ron. I notice in the agenda item that we passed over today, which was the industrial park, which is in this zoning -- this overlay, that there -- part of what they came to us with was to change the nature of what that property is to be used for, from industrial to corporate. And I guess I'm concerned that we're trying to catch up with something here. Bryan Milk I see is part of the group that participated in this process. Now, next time they come to us and they're trying to make changes that are inconsistent with this, this has not been adopted, I'm concerned that we've got people out of sync again with what we're trying to do. MS. TAYLOR: I could address that a little bit. That particular project was reviewed, I believe, by our comprehensive planning staff. And we had encouraged and met with property owners as they're coming in with these to comply with the intent of the interchange master plan. Now, they're not required to until the Land Development Code amendments are made, but we are working with them in reviewing their plan. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is that one of the reasons it was held back, to make them comport? MR. NINO: No, it was held back for another reason. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman? I recently reviewed a revision to that plat, and I can state that there is language in there that I can't quote it to you exactly, but it does deal with this Activity Center No. 9 in the plan. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: My last question, you'll be happy to hear, is perhaps to staff. Is this the only entryway to Collier County that's being considered for this kind of treatment? I mean, I live up north on Exit 17, and I consider that the entry to Collier County as well. And I'm wondering why we're not Page 70 January 18, 2001 afforded the same grand -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Actually, that's the exit from Lee County. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I see. No, I would be interested in knowing what the future plans are. MS. WOLFE: Just coming off of some recent MPO discussions in regard to the Golden Gate Parkway interchange, which is upcoming, and the fact that the transportation division will be coming forward in March to do a workshop on the issues with board, we will also be coming forward with some policy and other implementation issues, including looking at an overlay district plan for the Golden Gate Parkway interchange area as well, so you'll see additional ones coming forward in the future. MS. JENKINS: And if I may add to that, when this came initially before the Board of County Commissioners and their encouragement to do this master plan, there was an idea from one of the commissioners that wouldn't it be wonderful to do this for all of the activity centers, particularly access management, architectural guidelines, creating a place there so it's all complementary, you can identify what the activity center is. So there was some thought at the Board of County Commissioners at that time to do an interchange master plan, particularly for the gateways along 1-75, but also addressing each of them as needed that had opportunities to do so. We had not received any future direction to do anything for any of the activity centers. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, anybody else? MR. NINO: Yes, you have speakers. Mr. Nadeau. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Here I was just about to say there was no dissension. MR. NADEAU: No dissension at all. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau, McAnley Engineering & Design. I represent three properties in the interchange: This 74-acre Golden Gate Commerce Park, this 37-acre PUD, it's called East Gateway, it's currently in process, as well as the Westport Commerce Center. Extensive time and study has been put into this interchange master plan. I commend staff, as well as WilsonMiller, with working with us, and the property owners in putting together this Page 71 January 18, 2001 plan. In reliance with the two drafts of this interchange master plan and the interconnectivity of the projects, we have designed and have marketed properties with consideration and reliance with the signalization and the access points that has been carried through the process. There has been some recent concern that there may be some changes, as maybe directed by staff, related to these interconnections, signalization, et cetera. I do not have personal knowledge, I got it from a reasonably reliable source. In -- I just want to put on the record that when this comes back in the form of a Land Development Code amendment, that it very closely represent, if not identically represent the transportation components that are included in Section 4 of the interchange master plan. To change any of those interconnections could affect the safety of the pedestrian movements, it could affect the circulation and interconnectivity, which is a policy of your planning staff, and with that, I support it. Please adopt it as is. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Anyone else? MR. NINO: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If not, we are to take a motion to approve this or forward it? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward Activity Center No. 9 interchange master plan to the Board of County Commissioners with our blessings. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's been moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Pedone. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just one comment. With suggestion on changing the language on the implementation that we pointed out, which was to include the developed property. That doesn't make any sense to do it just on undeveloped. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: They're all inside the dotted line, so it's -- I think it's, you know, somewhat redundant. But I mean, if it's inside the dotted lines, it's covered ultimately here anyway, but that's fine. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. With that, I'll ask for discussion. Hearing none, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 72 January 18, 2001 Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. No more old business? No more new business? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: In the packet we received -- these are addenda or-- MR. NINO: Those are the supplements to your land development code -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Which I don't have -- MR. NINO: -- which you don't have yet, but which are ordered. We don't have extra copies. We've ordered them. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. MR. NINO: So what you do is you paste those into your book into you get the regular supplement. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I'll take that under advisement. Anybody from the public wish to address any issue? If not, we are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:25 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GARY WRAGE, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ! as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE~ NOTARY PUBLIC Page 73 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION January 22, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-32, Elliot F. Brainard Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, January 18, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-32. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2001-03 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me. Ross Gochenaur Planner II g/admin/BD-2000-32/RG/im Enclosure c~ Elliot F. Brainard P O Box 461 Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier. fi.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- o3 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-32 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public heating after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 25-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 45-foot boat dock facility in a PUD zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Elliot F. Brainerd, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 9, Southport on the Bay Unit One, as described in Plat Book 15, Pages 51-53, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 25-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 45-foot boat docking facility in the PUD zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. In order to address the protection ofmanatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. _J 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-2000-32 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 18th day of January ,2001. ATTEST: DUNNUCK, III Execut~e Secretary COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER G Community Development and Environmental Services Interim Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Mar~ori~ M. Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-32/cw/RG 2