Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/01/2001 RFebruary t, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 1, 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 Russell A. Priddy Joyceanna J. Rautio Dwight Richardson Lora Jean Young NOT PRESENT: Michael Pedone Sam Saadeh ALSO PRESENT: Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Mar]orie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page AGENDA CLERK TO THE BOARD MAUREEN KENYON COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2001 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. V-2000-32, Stanley Whittemore, representing Ferdinand and Catherine Fountain, requesting a 5 foot variance from the required 30 foot rear yard setback to 25 feet for property located at 355 Kings Way, further described as Lot 8, Block G, Foxfire Unit 3, in Section 6, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) Bo 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 the "Ragge" PUD for a mixture of commercial and office uses on property located at the northwest comer 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 from 1/18) (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) Co PUD-86-22(2), William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., representing Peter and Mark Longo, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as the Pine Ridge Center PUD having the effect of revising the PUD Master Plan to show a reverse frontage, re-label part of Area "B" between Pine Ridge Road and the reverse frontage road as Area "C", and revising the PUD document to correct the project acreage from 8.79 acres, change the address of the landowner's, and add additional permitted and accessory uses similar to the C-3 Zoning District, for property located on the south side of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896) approximately 660 ft. west of Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PUD-88-11(2) (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) Do PUD-88-11(2), William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., representing Anthony F. Jancigar, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as the Pine Ridge Center West PUD having the effect of revising the PUD Master Plan to show a cross-access road and re-label part of Area "B" between Pine Ridge Road and the reverse frontage road as Area "C", and revising the PUD document to show the neighboring landowner's current address, re-label existing exhibits and add exhibits "D", "E", and "F", add Section 3.4L pertaining to architectural standards, add parking and loading standards, and add additional permitted and accessory uses similar to the C-3 Zoning District, for property located on the south side of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896) approximately 660 ft. west of Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PUD-86-22(2) (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) Eo CU-2000-17, Herb Ressing of VoiceStream Wireless, requesting a Conditional Use in the "E" Estates zoning district for a communications tower for essential services per Section 2.6.35.6.3. for property located at 13240 Immokalee Road (C.R. 846), in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2.3_+ acres. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) CU-2000-20, Jeff L. Davidson, P.E., of Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing B.C. Excavating of Naples, Inc., requesting Conditional Use "1" of the "A" zoning district for earthmining, for property located North of Immokalee Road on the East side of Friendship Lane, in Section 24, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 4.4 + acres. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 02/01101 CCPC AGEND/RN/im February 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let's call to order the meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission for Thursday, February 1st. And we'll start by calling the roll call. Russell Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Present. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage is present. Commissioner Saadeh is excused. Still out of the country, I believe. Commissioner Budd is absent. Commissioner Pedone, I'm told, had quadruple bypass last week. MR. NINO: Last week. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Obviously, probably will not be here today, and our prayers and concerns go out to him and his family. And Commissioner Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any addenda to the agenda? Hearing none. I had no minutes in my packet. We'll move to planning commission absences. Hearing none. I expect everybody will be here. BB, excuse me, BCC report, Ron. MR. NINO: The -- most of all the items were continued, but the Sabitino petition was denied. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The which? MR. NINO: Sabitino. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, yeah. MR. NINO: Side yard variances. And there are appeals pending on the -- the docks, that Vanderbilt lagoon area, and those will be heard at the next meeting of the board of commissioners. No other report. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm not sure from which this comes, but in front of me is -- is a memo from Sabitino. Anybody that's interested in reading it, I will have it after the meeting. I haven't read it. I don't know what's in it. I have no report with that. We'll go right into the advertised public hearing. The first one being V-2000-32, Stanley Whittemore. Page 2 February 1, 2001 All those wishing to give testimony on this please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Fred. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners, Fred Reischl, Planning Services. This is a request for a five-foot variance from the required 30-foot rear yard setback in Foxfire, and on the visualizer you can see the location. It's at the north portion of Foxfire. You see Radio Road and Kings Way. That's the subject property abutting a stormwater lake. The petitioner wants to enclose a screen patio, and basically move it out a little farther to make a Florida room. And, again, on the visualizer you can see the -- the house itself. In yellow is the existing screened patio and the green is the extent of the proposed Florida room, photo of the -- a photo of the rear of the house. You can see the slab that the Florida room will go over. As I said, there is a -- a stormwater lake at the rear of the property and a 20-foot lake maintenance easement around that. Basically, this encroachment is still going to be approximately 40 to 50 feet from the water's edge; however, there is no land related hardship. So staff was constrained from recommending approval. I did receive a letter from the homeowners' association expressing no objection, and no phone calls or letters from the public. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Any questions of staff, and let the record show that Commissioner Budd has arrived? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes, I have a couple of questions. In the handwritten information the petitioner provided to us, the petitioner makes several statements about -- that they want additional room for a third bedroom, much needed for their family. They talk about a glassed in, screened area, living area for apparently a lot of other houses. And it does say here on page six of eight that others have been granted variances. How many variances have been granted? How many people have glassed in? Do you have any feel for this, because it looks like we're going to probably have just a whole load of these coming in? MR. REISCHL: There were several, however, it was an unusual circumstance. Apparently, something -- because the Page 3 February 1, 2001 Foxfire PUD was an older PUD. There was another method of approving this called a master plan amendment, and there was a big file full of this, MP type of file, and it was done through a different process, not through the variance process. So, yes, they were granted, but not technically through a variance process, which now that process -- through an amendment in the PUD is changed, and the petitioner has to seek a variance. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And one other question. It did state that building code changes in the past two years require you to make your lanai, if you glass it in, meet the new wind load codes for habitable structures, something or other, creates a setback problem. So we're talking about new building codes that are forcing this, in addition to a master plan procedure that used to be in effect? Are we talking about two things here? MR. REISCHL: I think it's two different things, because the -- the building code may have changed to allow stricter wind code requirements; however, once you glass -- a screened patio is an accessory structure, and can meet the accessory setback. Once you make it a more solid structure, at least according to planning, it becomes part of the principal structure and has to meet that setback. Mr. Whittemore has photos of the proposed structure so you can see a Florida room basically, a lot of windows, and minimal amount of concrete block. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: The presentation was pretty clear in most cases; however, it looks like we're going to set a ma]or precedent here if there are, say, 20, 30 other houses that want to do something different than they have right now, either glass in or put a Florida room, we're going to be swamped with variances and as you know, and the public knows, I'm not a great proponent of variances. Is there a potential for a great many variances to come? MR. REISCHL: There's always that potential, and, again, there were several that were granted through that MP process. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And it did not come before the planning commission? MR. REISCHL: It was very hard to tell from our records. Page 4 February 1, 2001 They -- it was -- it looked like a -- an executive summary type of packet, but there was no record that I could find in the -- in our records. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: busy, isn't he? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: The hearing officer is going to be I think the hearing officer is going to be overwhelmed from Foxfire. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Is that a new pad that we're looking at? MR. REISCHL: I believe that's the existing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I mean, it was already -- it almost looks like it was brand new. The pad that's out from the screen. MR. REISCHL: It's been existing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Fred, the patio there, is there any restrictions on how far a patio can come out from a structure? MR. REISCHL: Ten feet from the property line. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So that could come out quite a ways further. MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So in the next case that we have that has -- has a pad already out, that's where they'll want to put their Florida room? MR. REISCHL: That's a possibility. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Fred, I'd just like to renew my request administratively here that would somehow line up the numbers and the letters from the two. MR. REISCHL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It just seems like it's a little more difficult to try and track this. MR. REISCHL: Sorry. I inherited this project from another planner. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Would the petitioner like to address the Commission? MR. WHITTEMORE: Good morning. My name is Stanley Whittemore. Just a little background of myself. Before I retired and moved to lovely Naples, I was in the building business for all my life. In the last 20 years I was Director of Code Enforcement Page 5 February 1, 2001 for the City of Nor (sic) where I was in charge of building and zoning and conservation and have done many of these. What we're asking for today as Mr. Reischl mentioned is a five foot variance of the 30 foot yard setback. I have another photo of a side view of Mr. Fountain's house. And that's what it looks like now. And we want to glass that all in, and I heard one of the questions about the building code and what's going on now. If we wanted to take that screened lanai now and put windows in it, we couldn't do it like they used to be able to do it like this photo. Now this one happens to be a 10-foot variance that was granted and it was allowed to do it all with metal and windows. And we can't do that type now, because the building code is changed. Now, if you want to do an addition, you have to make it comply with the wind loads and the hurricane loads that they have now. So consequently it has to come out looking like -- like that. That is -- that is a -- that is when it was done three years ago. And that was a screened lanai like Mr. Fountain had and that's what the new one is proposed to look like. That's one view of it and here's the side view of it, of the same thing. And so it will conform with the house and aesthetically look good. Now, the other thing that I did on that map that he showed you of the lake, there's 38 parcels on the lake, and of the 38 parcels, there is 12 swimming pool cages that go within 10 feet of the property line. And over here, this is the lake. And there is -- there's 12 of those. There are also eight that have what they call a permanent roof over a screened area, which is 10 or 12 feet into the encroachment, which is like this. And this part out here is a permanent roof over a screened lanai, which encroaches in, and what we're asking for is just a minimal of five feet, and we put on there for the third bedroom. What has happened since Mr. and Mrs. Fountain retired and bought this house, her mother might have to come to live with them. So they're looking to -- they need a third bedroom, and if you know these houses, they are very -- very small rooms and so on, and so is the screened lanai, they want to -- want to make part of the air-conditioning of the house. This is a photo of the lake and of some of the places that Page 6 February 1, 2001 have the bigger lanai in, but there is still a lot of land room around there. We have one that was granted, which I don't know how it was ever granted, but it was, of 12 to 14 feet, across the street, and that was granted in '86 or '87. That's a 12-foot variance into the setback. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Excuse me, who was that granted by? Who granted -- who had the authority to grant that? MR. WHITTEMORE: We -- we looked up in the records for it. We know it was done, because I got signed -- I got a notice when I bought my house in '86 that -- it was going to do it. Mr. Duff was the one that applied for the variance and got it and it was granted. And this was done sometime in the late '80's, and we looked up all the different variances as you'll have on your sheet there, the ones that we could find and find portions of, and on the map that shows the variances, there's a V in the box where there is a variance granted and some of them we saw the V, and we saw the work was done, but we couldn't find the records of it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So it would be records of the County? MR. WHITTEMORE: In the County, I did that with Don Murray before he resigned from the County. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. WHITTEMORE: Oh, I also, we have an architectural review committee in Foxfire, which you have a copy of the letter of -- we went before them, and they had no problem with us doing what we're doing, because it would be in conformance with the rest of the single-family houses. I might add right here that in Foxfire it's very unique, we have 230 single-family homes. We have 94 of these smaller type, they call them detached villas, and I would say over 50 percent of them have done something similar to this on their house with closing in the lanai within the setback or -- or put big swimming pool cages, whatever, but it would'ye still kept in conformity with everybody else around, and that -- but that board has given us approval, and of all the neighbors that are around that have come over and asked about it, we had no, no complaints of anyone on this. I thank you for your time. Page 7 February t, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of the petitioner? Just one final question, Fred, you told me there was no objections to this? No one -- MR. REISCHL: None that I received, no. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Reischl, just for my education, could you explain to me what the term constrained means in your recommendation of that? MR. REISCHL: Well, we -- part of the land development regulations for variances, one of the criteria that you look at is the fact that the encroachment could be ameliorated. We feel that it is by the large lake maintenance easement and the fact that it is adjacent to a lake, however, there is no land related hardship, and due to your and the board's direction, we're looking at that criterion as, you know, a very strict one right now, and so that's what we use as the dominant factor, the dominant criteria. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. Does the 30 foot rear yard setback, does that come from the PUD? MR. REISCHL: That's in the PUD, which is unusually large for a rear yard. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So actually the setback is quite a ways from the lake? MR. REISCHL: Correct, it's -- that makes the house 50 feet from the edge of the water. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? Anyone from the public wish to address this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward Petition V-2000-32 to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Budd. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No. I don't want to set the precedent. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, we will move to Petition PUD-006, which is the Ragge PUD. All those wishing to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. Page 8 February 1, 2001 (The speakers were sworn.) MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, I just need to remind you sometime before the public speaks that -- or right now, you need to make your -- any disclosures that you have on ex parte communications. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I've reminded this Board of that many times, and they haven't been bashful about speaking up on other issues. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, I was -- was called by Mr. Frank Craparo, I may not be pronouncing that name right, C-A -- C-R-A-P-A-R-O, who is a neighbor in the area. COMMISSIONER ABERNATH¥: That's the next two. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The next two, okay. So I'm early. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' That's a change. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Having heard all of that. Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, commissioners, before I get started I have a handout, I have two additional transportation stipulations that came in yesterday. For the record, Ray Bellows, the petitioner is Bill Hoover, and he's requesting to rezone the subject property from estates to planned unit development to be known as Ragge PUD. As you can see on the location map, the subject site is located on the north side of Pine Ridge Road and west of 1-75. The subject site is in between two existing commercial PUD's, the Angileri PUD to the east and the Naples Gateway PUD to the west. And to the south is the Sutherland PUD, and the petitions that will be heard next Pine Ridge Center and Pine Ridge Center West. The petitioner is proposing a commercial PUD, that allows for a mix of commercial and office uses, hotels, motels, restaurants, banks are some of the typical uses permitted. To be noted, that the uses in this PUD document are basically the same uses as all the other commercial PUD's in this northwest quadrant of this activity center. As you can see on the master plan, there is an existing ingress, egress that serves the Race Trac service station that was just recently completed to the east. There's also a right-of-way dedicated. The master plan shows three commercial -- three tracts, Tract A is a water management and landscape buffer tract. It's designed to enhance the buffer between the estates dwellings to the north, provide a water Page 9 February 1, 2001 management area. Tract B is for the moderate intensity uses, and the more intense uses would be required to be placed in Tract C close -- that fronts Pine Ridge Road. As you can see on the future land use map, the subject site is located within activity center number 10. It's an Interchange Activity Center. This particular Interchange Activity Center does not allow for industrial uses. It's solely a commercial-retail that services the traveling public. The gateway into the county. So the petitioner's agreed to provide architectural standards that meet the county code and also landscaping features in the back to help provide buffer. And I'll get into that as we go along. The project is consistent with the future land use map and the issues regarding permitted uses. Due to the small size of the site and since the site has been previously cleared or -- and contains no wetlands, no environmental impact statement was required and this petition did not go to the EAC. The Transportation Department has some additional stipulations that I handed out. And as noted in that handout, there is a requirement to, or request that Whippoorwill Lane be expanded, and if you see on the vicinity map, Whippoorwill Lane would come up -- there's already an existing traffic light there. The roadway comes up and services the existing Race Trac. The proposal would have it all the way up the east side of the property line and connect to Livingston Woods Lane, which is the estates, residential, local street. The purpose of that is to create a grid system so residents within that subdivision could access this commercial project without having to travel on Livingston Wood -- or Livingston -- future Livingston Road and onto Pine Ridge Road, servicing the commercial areas that way. There is also a requirement on the other stipulation to eliminate the access point here. That should be noted, there is an existing one serving Race Trac here, but we want this one eliminated, and they would gain access through this east/west collector road -- or connection road. In the compatibility of adjacent properties, as I previously mentioned, this PUD has been designed to replicate the other existing PUDs that were approved. Most of the language is basically the same. The uses are nearly the same. The development standards are about the same. As you can see, here's the pictures of the Race Trac, which Page 10 February 1, 2001 is in the Angileri PUD. This PUD does not allow service stations, but it will allow for car dealers and things of that nature. The maximum height is limited to three stories, 35 feet. The setbacks are the same as the adjacent PUDs on both sides. Staff has not received any correspondence for or against this petition, and is recommending that the Planning Commission forward this to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Questions of the staff? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bellows, I'm concerned about several things that I read in this report. Some inconsistencies, but my main concern is your comments that Pine Ridge Road is operating at level of service F. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Which means it's a failure, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. It's currently being improved to a six-lane facility. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I understand that, you said that. Can we be assured that this project won't start until that improvement has occurred? MR. BELLOWS: I think the applicant should probably address when they're planning -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No. your -- what the staff's view on that is? MR. NINO: What was the question? I want to know what I couldn't even hear it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm sorry. My voice is -- I'm just concerned about us approving projects where the level of service is at F, and we have -- I'm trying to get an understanding as to if we do -- or if the process approves this PUD can he -- he can start construction immediately, and we still have a failed road. That's my concern. MR. NINO.' You can answer that question. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The roadway is being improved, and under our concurrency management, as long as it's a funded road improvement, there is no concurrency to prevent issuing of building permits. The County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners can make a stipulation to prohibit construction until completion of Pine Ridge Road. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's certainly my thinking Page 11 February 1, 2001 on this. Over on your -- you have underlined under the evaluation page three, that the Whippoorwill Lane be extended, and this extension will allow residents to have access to the commercial property without having to use Pine Ridge Road. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And back in the commitment section on 4.7 you say that the internal roadway design shall prohibit traffic from -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The applicant is not agreeing to that connection, and that's one thing that we'll get into. The applicant does not want the -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So you're approving it with him not-- MR. BELLOWS: We're recommending, staff is recommending that the interconnection be made. The applicant, based on previous board action, feels that this would be an impact to the residents in the estates. Previous board action, there was -- for the other commercial PUDs, they did not want any driveway connection or roadway connection to Livingston Woods Lane. They wanted it to be kept and remain a private, residential type street; however, as -- and we have Donna Wolff here to explain in more detail the purpose of this interconnection, basically, it is to allow the residents within that subdivision to access this commercial property without having to go on the arterial road, which is heavily traveled. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: All right. I'm just confused about the process. You're saying in your evaluation that it should be connected, and didn't you also create these commitments? MR. BELLOWS: No. These commitments are a combination of staff recommendations, and the petitioner prepares that document and submits it to us. If they do not wish to put those in and they want to contest those conditions, they have the right to, and I think that's what they're here to do today. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the applicant creates this portion of the planning report? MR. BELLOWS: The PUD document attached at the end, yes, which you're looking at, the development commitments that's in the PUD document is prepared by the applicant. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So we should be extra Page 12 February t, 200t careful, because I thought you guys prepared these. MR. BELLOWS: No, they prepare that. MR. NINO: But, nevertheless, we review them, and they're probably one of the more important sections of the Code that we review and we ensure that they are consistent with the comments that we've been -- and recommendations that we get back from reviewing staff that have to do with environmental, engineering, transportation and what's happened here, quite frankly, is that our transportation folks have made a recommendation that Whippoorwill Road be extended through to Livingston Woods Lane and several of you have been on this commission, were here at the time when all of the other petitions came in in that area, and there was a loud cry and opposition from the folks on Livingston Woods Lane to have any interconnection, or for that matter, any significant view of the commercial developments that would be across the road from them. Quite frankly, in all honesty, folks, this is a departure from that policy; however, if staff -- staff is of the opinion that -- that the recommendation is a sound recommendation and we are now making it a part of our recommendation to you, and I wanted you to have that background. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, it's not included in what the applicant had agreed to. MR. NINO.' Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And that was not pointed out to us. I guess I have concern that you're saying something, you know, this would be hidden if I hadn't read it very carefully. MR. BELLOWS: No. The applicant is here to discuss those. I handed out the handout this morning, has those stipulations and that's -- the petitioner is here to discuss those. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Mr. Chairman, if I may-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let me just finish up with staff right quick. MR. NINO.' Quite frankly, I misspoke myself. We don't know if the applicant is opposed to that. MR. HOOVER: Thank you. Thank you. MR. NINO.' We haven't heard from him yet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Well, let me ask a question, then. The PUD master plan seems to extend Whippoorwill Lane north only roughly halfway into their property, is that -- that's Page 13 February 1,200t consistent with their view of how far it should go? MR. NINO: Up until this -- up until this meeting. Since -- since the PUD was presented to us, we've had the recommendation that, indeed, Whippoorwill Lane be extended all the way through the project, a stipulation to that effect, to supplement our staff report, has been added to you. We don't know if the petitioner is acquiescent to that or not, and we need to hear from them. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I do have one question, please. Would you clarify for me, is it not the policy of the Board of County Commissioners to try to provide as many interconnects as possible so that, indeed, we keep people off our main arterials? Am I in the right ballpark here? MR. NINO: No. You're in the right ballpark. We'd like to think so. We'd like to think so. Although, the proof is not yet in the pudding because there have been instances when that policy has not been carried forward. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Because I think that's important to what we're doing here from a policy standpoint. So if the transportation wants to add to that, please do. MS. WOLFF: Good morning. For the record, my name is Dawn Wolff, I'm the Transportation Planning Department Director. The county's growth management plan provides a policy which encourages the interconnection between properties such as to provide access via local streets for local trips to keep them off the major arterials. This is a prime candidate location. The Board of County Commissioners has committed to actually improving Whippoorwill Lane in providing an east/west connection from Livingston Road up to Pine Ridge Road, to provide a collector level road to help alleviate some of those local trips of them having to use Livingston and Pine Ridge Road. This would be a logical extension of that to the north side of Pine Ridge Road, allowing access from that residential area north of these commercial areas to Pine Ridge Road, such as to limit the length they have to travel, in order to, say, come out to the interstate. At this point in time, under the current access conditions and the planned improvements to Livingston Road, they would have to travel within that estate area up to a single point on Livingston Road, then come south on Livingston and across Pine Ridge to the east in order to make any trips towards Page 14 February 1, 2001 the east. With this type of an interconnection we would eliminate a lot of those trips that would have to go to Livingston and then Pine Ridge before being able to travel east. So it's a logical interconnection to try and shorten trip lengths, and eliminate a number of trips on several of our arterial segments. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. I'm sure the applicant will have something to say. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But at this point the transportation department can only encourage, only the Board of County Commissioners can demand; is that right? MS. WOLFF: Correct. The growth management plan specifically states, encourage. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MS. WOLFF: And we are supporting that recommendation here along with the -- some policy issues that are coming before the board. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Any further questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: One last area. Mr. Bellows, in the 80 feet that it's set back, and I think it's important, because that puts those structures further towards the road. You have a buffering requirement of type D, that takes care of the first 20 feet, and I understand there's going to be a wall, masonry wall, and I understand from the picture that it's going to have a sidewalk all along there, and I'm wondering if that sidewalk's going to have connections through that wall. Has Would that be reviewed as you go through that been specified? this process? MR. BELLOWS: pedestrian gates. No. It's my understanding there is no COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Oh, no, wait. It shows it very clearly on your handout, that it's there. So I'm taking that as a fact. Now, on the inside, the 80 feet, you got 20 foot for the scheduled type D buffer. Just, can you give me an idea of what the water management area -- will it have any kind of vegetation on it, or any buffering, or is it just going to collect water, or what MR. BELLOWS: Well, at the time of site development plan Page t5 February 1, 2001 we'll get into the actual landscaping plans. The conceptual plan presented by the applicant basically just shows the buffer area requirement, the width and the area -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right. MR. BELLOWS: -- where the lake would go for water management purposes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. It's going to be a lake, then, that's -- MR. BELLOWS: At the time of site development plan, the engineering will be completed, and -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What are our rules about water management areas? Are they for lakes or can there be vegetation there, or you said there's not any -- that this is a cleared lot. MR. BELLOWS: There's a landscape buffer where water management really can't encroach into. That's a separate buffer requirement. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's the 20 feet? MR. BELLOWS: No -- yeah -- no, around the water management areas, the petitioner is free to develop that any way, landscaping-wise, as they deem -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then I should picture a lake in my mind, then? MR. BELLOWS: More than likely, or a dry lake. MR. NINO: Let me give you some history. They're -- let me, again, give you some history, there is a proposed -- there is not a proposed. There is a landscape plan that includes the wall that has been master planned for the entire length of the south side of Livingston Woods Lane, that wall requires -- will require vegetation on either side of it, that wall, based on this master plan, which is really an in-house plan, that we've developed with the consent of all of the property owners on Livingston Woods Lane, varies five feet in certain -- it juts out five feet here and there, so it doesn't have the monotonous effect of a solid wall, and landscaping is provided on either side of it. When these folks come in with their site development plan, we will make sure that they are consistent with that in-house overall master plan that we have for the wall and for the landscaping of properties along the south side of Livingston Woods Lane. There are no other openings, and none would be allowed Page 16 February 1, 2001 because the folks on Livingston Woods Lane made it unequivocally clear that they didn't want pedestrian access to any of those properties, nor vehicular access, obviously. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ron, that wall is described somewhere in here as an opaque masonry wall. How do you make a masonry wall opaque? MR. NINO: I don't know, and the word "opaque" shouldn't be in there. It's a wall with landscaping on either side of it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think they forgot to take out the word "opaque." COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So you put the master plan together, then? MR. NINO: Yeah. Our office did that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So I should be questioning you folks. MR. NINO: And we probably should have sent it to you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then that -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, I have a copy here of the master plan for the landscaping wall where we have the 10-foot setback requirement and a five-foot setback at 10, but the setback requirement which is the Ragge subject site, and the Angileri has a five foot, so as you go down the line. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's an eight-foot wall, right? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And you say there'll be no breaks in it, but there's got to be breaks in there for the roads, right? MR. NINO: Well, in this -- with -- if you approve this petition, it will have a road in it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. MR. NINO: That we hadn't intended previously, but we think it's a very sound recommendation. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: That's not exactly so, either, is it, we can approve this without a road in it? MR. NINO: If that's your wish, and you need to hear from -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We can recommend -- MR. NINO: -- the petitioners as to whether or not they're objecting to the road. MR. BELLOWS: And then it's up to the Board of County Page t7 February 1, 2001 Commissioners, they make the final decision whether this interconnection should be made versus residents' concerns about traffic in their neighborhood and such issues that will be brought up. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. With that, Mr. Yovanovich, I will allow you an opportunity of rebuttal of your colleague as to your status in the -- in your firm, if you would like. He referred to himself as being the first team when he was here previously. MR. YOVANOVICH: I recall that and we have -- we have -- that's a private matter that we've -- that we've addressed. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning, commissioners, for the record, Rich Yovanovich. I'm working with Bill Hoover in representing Mr. Ragge. I don't believe that there's any planning related issues related to this PUD. I think everybody would agree, it's compatible, but if you do have any questions for Mr. Hoover regarding that. I want to address my -- my comments primarily to this road issue. And some comments that Commissioner Richardson made. First of all, when we submitted our PUD document, we submitted it based upon what the residents in that area had said regarding the access road for Whippoorwill Lane. So our document was prepared to be consistent with all the other PUDs in the area, which prohibited access to Livingston Woods Lane; is that -- MR. NINO: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- Livingston Woods Lane. So that is why there is a difference between the document and staff's request that the road be extended through. We do not have a position on extending that road through. We simply prepared the document to be consistent with the neighborhood and what the neighborhood wanted. Frankly, I met with staff after the condition, and I told them, if you want to punch the road through, that's fine, but, you know, be prepared for the neighborhood to come out and be upset by that requirement, and Ms. Wolff and I have worked through those issues and she says she's willing to address that policy decision both to you and the Board of County Commissioners. If the Planning Commission insists that the road be -- that Whippoorwill Lane be extended all the way through, and the Board of County Page 18 February 1, 2001 Commissioners, you know, insists that the board -- that be extended all the way through, I don't see that the petitioner has much choice. It's a condition that is going to be imposed upon us and we would not object to that condition based on the stipulations that both Ms. Wolff and I have worked out. And those stipulations have been modified briefly. We will deal with access to the front parcel, if you will, off of the north/south segment at site planning, instead of here, and we'll remove the arrows that show on the master plan right now. So we'll deal with that issue at site planning. And Ms. Wolff and I have agreed that the county would purchase the right-of-way from us since it's a -- it's an exaction that benefits the public, and it's not a site related exaction. So with those two caveats, we will agree to the condition if it is imposed upon us. We have not objected to it. We have not requested it. We are simply willing to work with staff, if that's what their policy decision's going to be. We simply designed our project to be consistent with what the neighborhood has directed and this board has directed in the past. So if that policy change is going to be made, it's going to be made by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners and staff, and we will not -- we will not hinder that change in policy. I would like to make another comment, is we do not prepare your staff report. We prepare our PUD based upon comments we receive from staff, and where there is a disagreement, we will address those issues here. So we are not the author of your staff report. I think the staff report was generated prior to finalizing some stipulations from your transportation department. So that's why there's some inconsistencies between the staff report and why we're here today. So I don't want us to be characterized as disagreeing with staff in this petition. We are working with staff, and whatever the Planning Commission decides on the extension of Whippoorwill Lane and the Board of County Commissioners, we will -- we will go with either alternative. The sidewalk, Mr. Richardson, is outside of the wall. It's not within -- within our wall, and I believe if that gets constructed, it's someone -- I guess, the neighborhood's responsibility and not Page 19 February 1, 2001 ours. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, question, isn't that part of your property? MR. YOVANOVICH'- What's that? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Isn't that part of your property? MR. YOVANOVICH: It is, but we agreed to dedicate it to the public basically by putting a wall there and working with the neighborhood, but I don't believe -- we agreed to construct the wall, but I don't believe -- and landscape both sides of the wall, but I don't believe we agreed to build a sidewalk. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: There's been a title change, then there will be a title change to the county? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. It will just be on our site plan. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm not sure I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: There will not be -- we will not, basically, give you the property. We will construct on our property a wall that is internal to our property. It will remain in our ownership, but it will be, basically, there for the public to walk on. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, the picture shows that you're going to build a sidewalk. I was just curious as to what the dimensions of that are? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. The picture shows a sidewalk. It doesn't show that we're going to build it. And I just want to clarify that for the record, that we don't have an obligation to build it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's part of the commitment document that you've submitted. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where does it say we're going to build a sidewalk? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, it refers to this as an example of what you're going to do, that's the wall, it's eight-foot high, and it obviously has a sidewalk. It's got people walking there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Exhibit C. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I would check with Mr. Nino, but I don't believe that that's a requirement. We're required to build the wall and landscape it, but I don't believe we're required to build the sidewalk. Page 20 February 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I'm being misled by the staff report then. MR. BELLOWS: The staff report doesn't reference a sidewalk. The PUD document has an attachment provided by the applicant based on general design philosophy of what the area's going to look like. The actual wall may not look like this at all. This is just a conceptual type of plan to show what the buffering wall with landscaping would look like. The county may in the future build a sidewalk on the right-of-way portion of this, but it's not guaranteed, and it was never promised to the residents of Livingston Woods Lane subdivision that there would be a sidewalk. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me -- let me -- let me -- let's just -- I don't believe that this is really a big issue, if everybody else along that area pays for the sidewalk, we'll pay for the sidewalk, okay. We just want to be treated consistently with everybody else, and I believe that's what the document says, similar to the other PUDs, so. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I was just going to say just as an observation, Exhibit C, which, I think, is what we're looking at, without any other wording on it, would imply to a reasonable person that this may be what's going to be there. So you might want to be more careful in the future to, you know, say conceptual or something, because I can understand where Mr. Richardson, being somewhat new at this, would assume that, and he couldn't find sidewalks in the document, and, of course, you know how we love docks -- we love sidewalks on this board, SO. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're not saying you can't have a sidewalk, just whatever you do to everybody else along that wall, do to us. Okay. And a final point, regarding a stipulation that we cannot begin construction until Pine Ridge Road is completed, I don't believe you can include that stipulation. Your comprehensive plan specifically addresses those issues regarding roadways and a level of service, and we're totally, 100 percent with your comprehensive plan. So you cannot legally, and I'll let your lawyer address that, require that we not go forward with our -- our site development plan. I can tell you at this point, we don't have a site Page 2t February 1, 2001 development plan in for review. So it may be a moot point, you're talking about probably a six-month process at best if we got it in today, and I think that road is moving along a lot faster than that. With that, I think -- if we needed to respond to anybody in the public we would -- we would request that we'd be allowed to do that. If you have any specific questions for me, I'm happy to answer them, if you have any questions for Mr. Hoover. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just have one quick question. Could you clarify how long ago it was that the residents strongly objected to having any interconnects, because I'm not that familiar with this? MR. YOVANOVICH: Bill -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Frequently, I can tell you from being here for the last seven and a half years. MR. Yovanovich: Every PUD that has come through, they have strenuously said, please, no connection. And, frankly, that's one of the reasons of the -- of the reverse frontage road that goes east/west, is to keep traffic off of that -- of that other road. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: times. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: clarify that. We've had the road built many Thank you. I just wanted to CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And any further questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could I -- Mr. Chairman, could I-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- go back to staff for a moment and perhaps to the traffic -- or the applicant is saying, and I'm not familiar with your road schedule there, saying that his project undoubtedly won't get underway until after this is six lanes. Can you assure me that that's the case? MS. WOLFF: I can assure you that as of this point in time we are actively under construction on the widening of Pine Ridge Road from Airport to Logan Boulevard. That is a 30 month project. We are well into that project, but we are probably looking at at least a year and a half before we actually complete it, if not, you know, 24 months before it's actually completed and open to traffic. I believe we're still in the utility relocation stage of it and the prep. work to actually start building those extra Page 22 February 1, 2001 lanes, that's what -- when people really see the road widening occurring out there. Although, I do believe that Mr. Yovanovich is absolutely correct in terms of there is provisions within the comprehensive plan, and adequate public facilities that permits that if there is a funded construction project, and in this case this project is actually under construction, that that capacity is considered to be in hand and, therefore, the existing conditions of level of service F do not necessarily apply, because it's an imminent increase in capacity available. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. But I understand imminent means 24 months in your words and six months in his terms. So we're going to have 18 months of worse than level F service. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Richardson, if I may, I never said that the road was going to be done in six months. What I said is COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Your project's going to start in six months. MR. YOVANOVICH: I never said that. I said my project doesn't even have an SDP. I said if we started today in the SDP process, at best it's a six-month process. I never committed to a construction schedule or told you what the construction schedule would be. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So you're suggesting it might be longer than 24 months? MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, whatever -- whatever the market dictates. What I'm suggesting to you is you cannot under your comprehensive plan tell my property owner that he can't go forward. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, your attempt at intimidation is -- is not successful. I feel I have a responsibility to represent the public in this process, and the level of service, you know, go on any road in Collier County, and we've got some serious problems here, and I -- I don't want to be one to participate in adding to that problem if there's a way we can work it out. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Richardson, if I might -- Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney, for the record. State law that our comp. plan is modeled after, whether you feel it's right or wrong, the law is that there's a three-year window allowed and Ms. Wolff Page 23 February 1, 2001 is correct in her assessment of the law. And I would say that you would be constrained from denying the project on the basis of concurrency, because of the three-year window that exists in state law, that gives the local government time to fund a road, get it under construction, and that's specifically written into the concurrency rules. So I just have to put that on the record. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of staff. If -- if there is no interconnect, which means that wall becomes a solid wall, and someone builds a sidewalk all along there, who's going to use that sidewalk? There's no houses on that side of the road. It would dead-end into -- deadend into the interstate on one end and into -- into a road on the other end. So is there anyone that might use that sidewalk, if someone built it? MR. NINO: This thing -- let me answer that. This exhibit is unfortunate. I mean, this was artistic license, nothing more than that. It was not meant to construe that there was going to be a sidewalk on the south side of Livingston Woods Lane, and since this caused so much controversy, I suggest to you -- you pull this exhibit or modify it. MR. HOOVER: That exhibit came clear back from the first PUD in there called the Race Trac that some artist up in Atlanta, Georgia drew to portray to the public what the wall might look like back there. MR. NINO: However, Commissioner Richardson wasn't on the commission at that point in time, and these things bother him and we -- and he's technically correct, you show it, build it or change it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I support that concept. You might want to get rid of Exhibit C when you get to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The only -- the only objection I have to that, and we have seen a lot of conceptual conceptions, and I --- I personally can tell a difference between what's going to be and what we think it's going to be. And -- and I think most of the folks on the commission understand that, because we've seen a lot of those posted up there, that this is kind of what it's going to look like, but we realize that's not a guarantee, and I -- I don't have a problem with it. Page 24 February 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I accept the exhibit then. MR. HOOVER: If the Planning Commission would include in their recommendation whether they want the exhibit maintained or not or you don't care, then we'll just use our best judgment. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Because we constantly hear from the public what's this thing going to look like. And we're not in site development plan at this point, where you're going to find out what it's going to look like. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, and quite often what we find is that the market dictates that it looks better than what was on the plan that was brought to us. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And I certainly understand that. But having said all of that, back to the petitioner. MR. NINO: You have two speakers. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. But-- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have any further questions or comments. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anyone from the public wish to address this issue? MR. NINO: Linda Falls and Don Falls. MR. FALLS: I think it was Mr. Richardson that said -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Could you give your name for the court reporter, please? MR. FALLS: Don Falls. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. FALLS: I believe Mr. Richardson said that the planners are encouragers, or the proponents or whatever, of ideas and that the commissioners were the demanders of whatever is passed. Well, last time when we met the commissioners demanded that the wall be put up and separate the community from the high density commercial development, and now they're talking about, well, we're just going to punch this road through, and I say, what road? You talk about a road, there is no road. It's just woods that you people decide, in your wisdom, we're going to put a road right here. Well, when I was putting my house here, and I just decided I wanted some peace and quiet, I wanted to live on Livingston Woods Lane, and at that time Pine Ridge Road was just a dirt road. Now, all of a sudden you're going to put a road right in front of my house, and that's going to be the gateway to Naples. Page 25 February 1, 2001 MR. MR. MR. MR. there. And you talk about, well, we need more flow of traffic. Well, yeah, fine, but they have egress and ingress at one location now. When they put the new road in, we're going to have two egress and ingress roads. Now you want three. Why? So all of the people come off 1-75, the first light they come to, well, they're going to start going through our community, and do the people want it, no. Nobody wants it. They all voted to keep it separated, and that's what the commissioners decided. They wanted to separate our property from the high density properties, and they put this wall up with the sidewalk, and incidentally the people thought, well, there's a sidewalk, it looked nice, they thought they were getting one, but they were more concerned with just the separation of the community from the high density. And now all of a sudden this -- this road's going to come through. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY'- What's -- where's this -- excuse me, sir. Sir, where is the western terminus of Livingston Woods Lane? Does it go through to Airport Road? MR. FALLS: The western terminus of what? COMMISSIONER ABERNATH¥: Your street, Livingston Woods Lane, where if you go west on it, where do you end up? MR. FALLS: If you go west, you go to Livingston Road. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, that's east. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That's west. MR. NINO: That's west. Commissioner, it goes to the freeway and then parallel to the freeway. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That's going east. MR. NINO: That's going east, correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Livingston Road is west. MR. NINO: No, Livingston Woods-- MR. FALLS: Livingston Woods Lane runs east and west. NINO: - is east and west off of Livingston Road. BELLOWS: This is Livingston Road -- FALLS: Perpendicular, which goes north and south. BELLOWS: Livingston Woods Lane is a dead end right COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So people could use that as a cut-through to avoid the intersection of-- of Pine Ridge and Livingston. MR. NINO: That's possible. Page 26 February 1, 2001 MR. FALLS: But then you'd have all these people coming into our neighborhood and there's no place to go. All you've got is a residential area. It's not like there are commercial places there. And they already have -- they'll have two entrances and exits. And everyone before has all signed the petition saying they don't want this road. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question of Mr. Falls. Where actually do you live on Livingston Road? How close are you to this particular project we're discussing today? MR. FALLS: It would come out right in front of me, like 300 feet. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: MR. FALLS: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Three hundred feet. And you've been there for how long? MR. FALLS: I've there for like 30 years. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Wow. MR. FALLS: And they said there'd be a road. There was never a road. They talk about a road like it's there. There's no road. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? If not, thank you, sir. Next speaker. MR. NINO: Linda. MRS. FALLS: Hello, my name is Linda Falls. I'm not going to repeat what my husband just said, but I'm going to emphasize a few of his points. And one is the fact that the entrance to Livingston Woods community and I am -- we are here representing our community, will be the same with the new development, without Whippoorwill opening up as it has been since the conception (sic} of this community; that is, that everyone on each street goes west onto the existing Livingston Road to exit and then makes a left-hand turn on Livingston Road and gets onto Pine Ridge Road. The new road will allow us to make a right-hand turn going north on the new Livingston Road. It is not -- we do not have and will not have a better flow of traffic in our community because of Whippoorwill and it's ironic that this particular site is being used to open into our community because the Race Trac site was the very reason that the wall was mandated. The Race Trac grass -- gas station was the Page 27 February 1, 2001 whole purpose and initiated that eight-foot wall that runs along Livingston Woods Lane. And now there is a proposal to open right at the very point that we objected so strongly about. And so we are here to appeal to your -- indulge in your kindness and your thoughts on this and not allow this to happen or not recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that this be opened, because, apparently, the Board of County Commissioners is wanting to access these roads for the benefit of the people in the community, and I'm here to tell you today that the people in the community do not want this road opened. That we will be -- we are satisfied with the way we are accessing Livingston Road as it exists today, and we will continue to be satisfied with that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: About how many people are in your particular community? MRS. FALLS: What would you say? MR. FALLS: Two hundred and fifty. MRS. FALLS: Yeah, about two, 250 people. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And you're here representing that group of people? MRS. FALLS: Yes. We are going to have petitions signed so that you will not go by our word, but that you will have people's signatures and objections to this for the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? If not, thank yOU, MRS. FALLS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further comments from the petitioner? MR. YOVANOVICH: If I may, I want to point out a very important point in this -- the objections you've heard all relate to traffic, not to any of the uses. So I think that I'd like to keep those issues separate, and I believe that there is no objection to the uses, so. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anyone else from the public? If not, any further questions from the commissioners? If not, I'll close the public meeting and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we forward this petition recommending approval. To Page 28 February 1, 2001 me there's a certain inconsistency, the staff recommends that we forward it recommending approval, and if we do that as it's written, that doesn't include punching through the road. So on the one hand they have said we want to punch the road -- our transportation people want to punch the road through, and on the other hand, they're recommending that we forward petition PUD 00. -- -6 with the recommendation of approval and that petition does not include the northward extension, so. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So what you're saying, your motion does not include the addition we got -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's right. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And I would second that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Moved by Commissioner Abernathy, seconded by Commissioner Priddy. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Does that include then the -- oh, that's right. I think you discussed the east/west acc -- crossroad, that the north access, the first point of access, you're going to take care of that in the site plan, right? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's where it should be, I think. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Rather than here. Okay. So we don't want any part of this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Seeing no further discussion, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm opposed, with explanation. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I really am concerned about the direction that we're going by putting more and more traffic on roads that are failed. And without any linkage by -- to benefit everyone, to try and link these things together to make this concurrency happen. I think it's just really improper for us to continue to pour more traffic onto roadways that are not ready yet. We've got a plan. Why can't these things be developed -- why can't these developments be timed to work and come out at the right end so it benefits everyone? So I'm willing to risk the legal concern that the attorney has raised. I would strongly vote, no. Page 29 February 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So noted. I, you know -- and when I first got on the commission I had the same thoughts you did. I would suggest you get with -- with the transportation department or probably Marjorie, and have her go over that. It might -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, what she's going to tell me is the law says we can't have an opinion on this matter, and I'm going to have an opinion. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, I didn't say that. I'm just saying what -- where it puts the county's position in terms of the legal position. MS. STUDENT: It's just -- I think the predicate for the law is it takes awhile to get developments done and it takes awhile to get roads done. So if the road is being worked on, and the development is coming in, this is just a reason it's not getting building permits or anything, that they both take time, and I think that's the predicate for the reason. And I think, I mean, I don't want to go into a lengthy discussion of concurrency and everything here, but it is in the state law that there is a three-year window for roadway. And a lesser one for parks and rec. facilities. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just would like to make the observation that in a sense we could be destroying a neighborhood, so we have to pay attention to that concept also, and it does get very difficult to balance the interconnects and the ability to travel around various parts of our county, which I do support, but you also have to balance that with the major impact on a neighborhood, and I think this neighborhood is going to be very organized to explain what their impact is, and how they perceive it. So that is another very serious concern that we have to look at. And that's why I could vote, yes, not to have that road there. MS. STUDENT: And I might add that we have a process for this. We don't do it really case by case, unless there's an issue with the five percent rule under policy 5.1 of the transportation element where reasons are looked at and assessed, and if there's a certain level of impact. We do this through a process of the annual update and inventory report, and areas of significant influence, and it's something that the Board of County Commissioners has to do to establish the areas of significant influence, and then look at, you know, deferral of development at Page 30 February 1, 2001 that time. So it's not something that's done case by case either. And there is a process that we have in our adequate public facilities ordinance that addresses it. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'd just like to point out to our -- the rest of the planning commissioners, and I've sat here for seven and a half out of the last eight and a half years, I'd like to make rules up as we go, and I'd like to have the final vote, and our job is to work within the law, within the envelope. We don't have the wide-open world. Our job is not to look at everything. Our job is to make recommendations based on inside the lines, and those lines are drawn before we come to meetings. And it's hard for the public to understand sometimes, that we just can't sit up here and -- and have it our way. But we've got to go by our land development code, the future land use map, and the other laws and ordinances that are in place, and, you know, we're not sitting here making judgments and making decisions, having the freedom to do what we might really want to do, but make recommendations based, you know, within those guidelines. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And enough sermons. Let's go on to the next -- petition PUD 86-22 (2). Is the staff's recommendation that we hear the next two together, and vote separately? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MR. CRAPARO: I'd like to hear them separately, because I have different issues on each one of them. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Well, we're going to hear on -- on both of them, but we're going to hear them together. We will vote separately at the end. So we're going to hear petition PUD 86-22 (2), and we're also going to hear PUD 88-11 (2), Pine Ridge Center, and with that -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Are we going to waive disclosure? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I have received communication from, I believe, one of the objectors here or concerned citizens of Mr. Craparo, I think that it's perhaps the same one. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: That's also my disclosure. Just put that on the record. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' I had the same. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Me too. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Obviously, they didn't care to talk to Page 31 February 1, 2001 us. Okay. With that, Ray. All those that wish to give testimony on this, please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. The petitioner is requesting to amend the currently approved Pine Ridge Center PUD and the Pine Ridge Center West PUD. Basically, they're going to add an east/west collector road, and add some additional, or additional uses as noted in the staff report, basically to serve an end user, like a contractor's office. As you can see on the location map, the subject site is located on the south side of Pine Ridge Road and approximately 660 feet west of 1-75. It's adjacent to the approved Pine Ridge -- or Pine View PUD, which also has -- which was approved with this east/west interconnect frontage road, and to the west is vacant agricultural land. As you can see on the master plan, it's designed similar to the Ragge PUD, and the other PUDs in this quadrant. It has three tracts, tract A, which abuts agricultural land to the south, as the water management area and a buffer. The Pine Ridge Center PUD's to the east. The Pine Ridge Center West is on the other side of this little cul-de-sac that accesses off of Pine Ridge Road. This is the currently approved PUD document or master plan with the addition of an east/west road or interconnect road, which creates then tract C up front. And that's the difference between the currently approved PUD versus what's being proposed now with this amendment. The subject site's located within the interchange activity center, which permits these types of uses. So, therefore, it is consistent with the future land use map. The environmental staff has recommended approval of this project. There are no wetland concerns on this site. It did not have to go to the EAC. So there is no recommendation from the EAC. I have received two letters this morning requesting that this project be -- or having concerns with this project. Basically, they're concerned about traffic in the area, but this is an existing approved project. They can build without the approval today of this amendment. Compatibility analysis of the existing PUDs Page 32 February 1, 2001 versus this PUD is that they're very similar in nature, in the uses. The east/west road was designed to connect up with the one that was approved for the Pine View Center PUD to the east, that would allow for a frontage road to relieve traffic off of Pine Ridge Road. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Staff is recommending that we approve these -- this PUD amendment. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: These limited changes that we're talking about today give rise to traffic concerns? MR. BELLOWS: The letters that were given to me, and I seem to have misplaced them. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry. No comments from the audience. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And maybe it has to do with the median cuts for Pine Ridge Road. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, the primary change to these PUDs is internal traffic; is that right, and access to adjoining parcels? MR. BELLOWS: The PUD was currently approved with the median as shown. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. NINO: The change in the mix of land uses -- Ron Nino -- has significant no change to traffic generation patterns, as a matter of fact, some of them -- some of them are even less. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any further questions? MR. NINO: It's important, you know, I think -- I think it's important for you to recognize that there is an approved development order here. They can go forward and impact Pine Ridge Road currently. So the issue that bothered you in the last petition really should not apply to this one. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Bellows, just to follow up on that point, though, I see in there, the stipulations that is, the development commitments, and I presume -- I don't know who created this this time, did you guys or did you guys? MR. BELLOWS: The development commitments back -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Nonetheless, it says the road improvement required for the project, both site specific and system capacity, shall be in place prior to the issuance of any CO. How am I to read that relative to Pine Ridge Road? MR. BELLOWS: I believe that is -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's on 4.8, item G. Is this Page 33 February 1, 2001 our opportunity? MR. BELLOWS: That is something that the petitioner has agreed to in the PUD document. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then I'm satisfied. MR. HOOVER: That's relating to like arterial level street lighting. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Excuse me, can we finish with staff, please, not to interrupt you? And if -- any further questions of staff, and then we can hear from the petitioner, sorry. MR. HOOVER: Oh, my apology. William Hoover, Hoover Planning, representing the petitioners. We actually volunteered on the -- when we submitted this to the county. The Pine View PUD -- let me put this on the overhead. The Pine View PUD came in since this petition was last heard, and they've went ahead and shown a cross access road to line up with Dudley Drive. Can you show Dudley Drive on there, Ray? So that's the one that's basically a reverse frontage road behind the, I think it's the Summerlin PUD. So the Pine View PUD, they've carried that cross access road, conceptually across to their west property and given us a cross access. And we further carried this across to the property that's west of our two PUDs that's owned by Mr. Craparo and the fire station was carved out of that larger 16 or 18 acres. So what we're doing is allowing, and I think Mr. Craparo qualifies for commercial under the office infill commercial district. And the Johnny Ebert's driving range is further to the west, and it's under a comprehensive plan amendment to allow commercial there. So what we have here, I think is going to be one of the better, if we're going to distribute some traffic and things, we've got one of the better things going in this case, because everybody's working together to have a reverse frontage road all the way from Whippoorwill Lane, all the way, hopefully, to Livingston Road. But, anyway, we're doing our part to link those two up. And the uses we're adding here are primarily C-3 land uses, except for the contractor's office that would be in the middle, the area B, and those have strict architectural guidelines, as well as limitations on the size of vehicles and things like that. So it's been very carefully monitored or put in so that it would have a Iow impact. Page 34 February 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Questions of staff -- or excuse me, any questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. Mr. Hoover, the -- you've made a right-of-way donation, then, for the expansion of Pine Ridge Road? MR. HOOVER: Yes. That's already been accomplished. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? If not, can we hear from the public? Ron. MR. NINO: Mr. Craparo. MR. CRAPARO: Well, I'll probably refer to some of these things. My name is Frank Craparo, C-R-A-P-A-R-O. And I hate to say, there wasn't any right-of-way donation. I have the deed here, where they got paid 87,000 for -- for the road. And -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: He said it was donated. MR. CRAPARO: Not according -- it's donated in one section, then they've got warrants for 83,000, which I was (sic) heard was checks, which the proof of it will be in here. I'm going to give you these packets. And if anyone doesn't know, they proposed a median cut there to replace mine, which has been there since the road has been concepted. It was a settlement. There's a copy of the settlement. Let me give you -- give you these packets so you can follow along. There's not one for everybody, so if you can share two here, I'd appreciate it. Because they just got finished at 8:30 this morning. Sorry. Well, gentlemen and ladies, and fellow citizens, I have a deep conviction that every property owner, has the right to equal protection under the government. Today you are the government. My intent here is to hold up my constitutional right and everyone's constitutional right to equal protection under the law, irregardless of special interests or big money or politics or whatever. There's another median cut planned besides this that you probably have -- are not aware of, at the golf driving range. The deal has been worked out and they're not telling you this. My median cut is halfway between Livingston and Pine Ridge. It's been there. There's been no accidents. When they come to condemn my property they told me they were going to take it because it was unsafe, which there's never been an accident there. I told them if they would need lights I would contribute to Page 35 February 1, 2001 it, as well as any developer would, and under these situations here, Pine Ridge Center West is abutting what could possibly be residential property. They have a 10-foot setback on their side yard, which abuts my house. That's not vacant agricultural land, like they tell you. It's a house and a plant nursery. Well, you can see where my property is, 13 opens up to show you the lay of the land where my property's kind of right in the middle between Livingston and Pine Ridge. And number two gives you the court ordered stipulations, the approval by the county government, and in number six -- page six tells you that I have a median cut with no qualifications, that they can take it away without compensating me for it. And Heidi Ashton, the County Attorney, assured me last year, we'll compensate you for it, but they've never made any attempt to do so. And I think we're -- we're falling for, more or less, a trick here because there's deeds here, number 20 shows a warranty deed by Tony Jansinger and the same one was presented by Mr. Longo on the 8th of March, 2000 and then evidently their lawyers probably didn't like that agreement, because it didn't give them a written right to the median cut, and maybe even only a verbal right, and another purchase agreement was executed several weeks after it, March 29th, including this median cut, as one of their rights, in the purchase agreement, and they have already, according to the courthouse records, issued a warranty deed on the 8th. So I don't know -- I'm not represented by anybody but myself. My lawyer recused himself because the Ball Ridge Company, I think, made offers on my property, and in their offers, they said they get rights to the median cut and my lawyer didn't want that median cut bought out, since it's an expensive part of the deal. So now I have no lawyer to represent me under the comp -- under condemnation. And as far as the county record, they didn't donate anything. They were paid 87,000 apiece, 83 or 84, a little bit of difference in square foot. According to the county records, is all I can go by. They may have given it back to the county for signalization or whatever, but there's a lot of discrepancies in what's going on, and all I can tell you, that median cut, if they take it, it's going to cost the county quite a bit of money. And I'd like to settle. I just want to get my -- keep my median cut and keep my drainage rights that I got under my original agreement. That's all I want to do. I'm not out to hold the county up, but as Page 36 February 1, 2001 it is now, I'm residentially, you know, it has a house on it and nursery, agricultural, the side yard setback cannot be 10 feet on Pine Ridge west towards my properties. In Livingston Woods, they want as much as 90 feet, and I think it should be at least a 50-foot setback. There's people from East Coast Developments who say, well, we'll see you Monday, and maybe buy my property from -- they have an option on Tony's. I don't know what's going on, but no one's stealing my property. And I'm going to stick up for the constitution. I have rights like anyone else, and it's going to be a hard job to kick me out of there. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any questions of this petitioner? MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, Ms. Ashton is here, I know that she was quoted by the gentleman, and she has a meeting to go to. So if you have any questions about the history of this project and the median, she's our condemnation attorney and she's here for a very limited time. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I have a question, if I may. This does seem to be a bit of a conflict here in terms of what appears to be something that is granted to him by a consent decree or whatever the right language is and yet in the development commitment under traffic, it says that the county reserves the right to change their mind anytime they want to on median cuts. And that's -- well, I paraphrased, but I could read it specifically. It reserves the right to restrict and/or modify a location use of median elements on Pine Ridge Road. So that tells me that the county can do whatever it feels is appropriate in terms of larger public interest. Yet Mr. Craparo says that -- has records that I think you're probably familiar with, that says he's guaranteed a median cut where it is. MR. CRAPARO: Well, that was entered into in '82. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a minute. He's directed a question to the attorney. Let her answer, please. MS. ASHTON: Okay. For the record, I'm Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney. I need to preface my statements with, I don't know anything about what this matter is before you. I just got back from a meeting and I was called down here. So I need to preface that with I don't know what you're rezoning or whatever is -- is before you today. But I can tell you that the county acquired property from Mr. Craparo as part of the Pine Page 37 February 1, 2001 Ridge Road project. The issue of final compensation has not been resolved with Mr. Craparo. I'm limited in what I can say today, because it is a pending case. But I can tell you that the county can go forward with closing the median cut, but I really can't get into the specifics of the case at this time. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Ms. Ashton's being here, but I don't think anything she has to say is germane to any issue that's in front of us. We're here talking about a couple of PUDs and modifications to them, and we don't have jurisdiction over median cuts. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: My -- I'm glad you brought that up. My point exactly. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' We have listened to this gentleman, but I'm not sure -- MR. CRAPARO: Well, there's going to be two. If you approve this one, there'll be two, because the golf driving range is in the process -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And that's fine. And that's not even within our -- today. Okay. That's not what we're looking at today. Okay. I really appreciate your testimony, but I'm going to have to say that I think it's borderline irrelevant to us in what we have to look at. Okay. And I do thank you for your testimony. MR. CRAPARO: Well, we need the side yard setback addressed, because we cannot have a 10-foot side yard setback, when on Livingston Woods, these people required them to have a 90-foot setback behind their house. And I have -- my house is there and if we do make a residential development, it hasn't been sold yet. So I want my options open. It's bad enough I have a fire station that makes a lot of noise. I would -- I would extremely doubt it'll be residential, but until it's zoned, it is a residential piece, or potential residential piece, and this side yard setback is not flying. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I appreciate that. But we do need to move on. And I've allowed you a certain amount of latitude and time. Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. BELLOWS: The PUD document lists-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And I thank the County Attorney's Office, too. Page 38 February 1, 2001 MR. BELLOWS: -- yeah, the side yard setback in the PUD document, external to the PUD boundary is 15 feet, not 10. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Okay. Anyone else from the public wish to address this issue? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question of staff. What's the setback -- his property is agricultural, right now? MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: What's the setback to agriculture for this PUD -- MR. BELLOWS: This PUD -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- in the code? MR. BELLOWS: -- for building setbacks aren't based on adjacent zoning. It's the zoning district setbacks that apply. This PUD was approved with 15-foot setbacks from the property line on the side from the PUD. Now, if they subdivide this into other kinds of tracts or their buildings may have an internal lot line, then that would be 10 feet internally to the PUD. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Another question for staff, the traffic person. When this commitment was put in here, I just want to -- I don't want to misrepresent it. In the development commitments, where it says, the road improvements for the project, both within the site and for the system capacity, which I take to mean all of the traffic around there, it shall be in place prior to the issuance of the CO. You support that point and is that accurately stated here? MS. WOLFF: I would actually ask Ms. Student if she could give some clarification on that. I have an interpretation of it, but I believe it would be more of a legal interpretation. MS. STUDENT: Would you please read the language again? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. Road improvements required for this project, both site specific and system capacity shall be in place prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the development. And I'm very comforted by those words, but I want to make sure that I understand them the way you understand them. MS. WOLFF: The way that you are reading it, system improvements, could be referring to the Pine Ridge Road widening improvements, which under concurrency, would need Page 39 February 1, 2001 to be in place or under construction within a five-year period, and as the language stipulates that they be in place -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Before a CO? MS. WOLFF: -- before a CO, that's why I -- I'm asking Ms. Student's -- MS. STUDENT: Well, one of the problems is I did not draft this language, and so lawyers are constrained by what the intent is, and what the meaning -- at first blush it certainly looks like it would be both site related, and further than that, would be required before any, you know, issue -- rather, before the CO is issued. However, these stips, come from transportation folks, and I know Ms. Wolff probably was not here when -- I don't know if these stips, were changed from the prior PUD or not? MR. HOOVER: I don't believe so. MS. STUDENT: Ms. Wolff was not here at the time, and they probably would'ye come from other transportation staff, but it was -- I think you could make the argument that system capacity could mean, you know, a lot larger than what's related to the site or anything internal to the site. So I would have to defer -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm satisfied to the stipulation. I will press that point no further. Let me ask this question, if I may. The applicant has said he made a right-of-way donation, and then I heard the other opponent, if you will, or concerned citizen, indicate that he'd been paid for it. Which is it? Did he make a right-of-way donation or did he get paid for it? MS. WOLFF: I'm not exactly sure if they -- their donation, if it was an actual donation, or if there was a -- a payment on that. I don't have that specific information. I do -- do believe we are either in the process of having -- are in the process of either condemnation or have the right-of-way in hand for the entire Pine Ridge Road project, which we're required to, in order to proceed with the construction. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then I'll accept his evidence, then, that he did make the donation. So we can settle -- that's all right. That's fine. I just wanted to clear that up in my mind. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I heard something a little bit different. The question that was presented to Mr. Hoover was sort of on the lines of had you stopped beating your wife yet; in other words, it was no good answer. You asked him if it was Page 40 February 1,200t donated. He said, the matter has been resolved. I don't think he said it was donated, and the bottom line is, for the items in front of us, we don't care. It's not relevant to the petition in front of US, COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's one of the stipulations. COMMISSIONER BUDD'- It's been resolved. MR. HOOVER: I just wanted to clarify that. I understood, apparently, I misinterpreted your question, Commissioner Richardson. I thought your question was have we ended up taking care of that issue, and, yes, we didn't fight the county, take it to court, all that kind of stuff. The county offered to purchase the land. The two petitioners did end up selling the land to the county. Yes, it was not donated. So that was not my intention to say that it was donated, but that the issue had been resolved. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'll try to make my questions more clear next time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any -- okay. Any further question of staff? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question of Mr. Hoover. Mr. Hoover, if you did not come here this morning and had gone to Horseshoe Drive and pulled permits, what could you do -- what could you go get permits for without asking us any questions, for this property? MR. HOOVER: Well, we could pull permits to put up commercial structures. Now - now one issue that Mr. Craparo is saying, I think he's -- we did not change the access where it was shown. So there's a median opening shown out there. We did not change that on the PUD master plan; however, when we went ahead and applied for a site development plan to put up a commercial structure, the engineer would apply for a right-of-way permit through the county transportation department, and at that time they, based on the language in the PUD document, they always have the ability, they can cut that median off, or we can even build it later on based on the PUD document three years later, maybe there's not a safe way to make a left-hand turn into the project. The county transportation department could cut -- cut our left turn into the project. So that's -- the PUD master plan is intended to be conceptual in nature, and when the project comes in, and you Page 41 February 1, 2001 show all of the engineering details, that's when the county issues the right-of-way permit and tells you exactly what type of access you're going to get. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: My real point is, if you pull the permits today, build something in six months -- MR. NINO: May I answer that question? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- can you move into it? Can you occupy it, or do you have to wait for Pine Ridge Road to be completely widened to six lanes and the pretty flowers planted and all that? MR. HOOVER: Well, we can occupy it as soon as we get -- MR. NINO: May I answer that question? That decision is going to be up to our office, quite frankly. And I wasn't aware of that item G, and the way I read item G, they're not going to get a building permit until Pine Ridge Road is completed. Now, if they don't mean that, they better change item G. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You said building permit? MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Didn't you mean -- MR. NINO: Correct. No, the certificate of occupancy. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Certificate of occupancy, big difference. MR. NINO: They'd be awfully foolish, yeah, -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Big difference. MR. NINO.' They'd be awfully foolish to get a building permit when a certificate of occupancy is 18 months away with the completion of Pine Ridge Road. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, they could get a slow contractor. It would work out. MR. NINO: If you don't believe, I mean, I interpret item G to mean that Pine Ridge Road widening has to be completed before you can get any certificate of occupancy. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I certainly would not want to be the lender on that project. If you're going to build it -- MR. HOOVER: I don't -- based on what we've heard earlier from Rich Yovanovich and the county attorney, I think we can request that system capacity -- the sentence -- the part where it says both site specific, that can be required, but and system capacity, I don't think the county can require that to be done. So we would like to request that that be taken out. Page 42 February 1, 2001 MR. NINO: I don't think you have to do it. I agree. And I suspect that this language got in here about four years ago, and the board at that time expressed that concern, and that's why it got added. I don't remember the history, but I suspect -- I suspect that's the way it came about, but we're now in a different environment, and you're correct, legally you don't have to do this under our growth management plan, but -- and you should ask to have it taken out. MS. STUDENT: And Ron -- Ron's correct, and when people come in, and the PUD document is developed -- and just explain this for the new members on the board, yes, the petitioner always brings in a PUD document that's -- that's like their first draft and stuff they'd like to see. Our office reviews it. Staff reviews it and things get changed around based on legal requirements and so on. It looks as though a PUD, the court's have ruled, are consensual really in nature, between the applicant and the government. So if they agree to do something that's more restrictive than the law, that's okay. If it comes down to an argument over it and can we make them do it, then that's a different story. And I would look at that as something that had been previously, you know, agreed to. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: A procedure question, I'm not sure who's supposed to answer this. But I think I'm looking at a document that was filed, previously. Are we looking at a new PUD document? Is that what we're talking about, or was this incorporated once before? In the interchange here, you've confused me a little bit. MR. BELLOWS: These are amended PUD documents. Basically, the language that's carried over from the original approval, with whatever modifications are being proposed and discussed today. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So it's fair to say that, and system capacity was included in the original PUD document. MR. BELLOWS: May have definitely been. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Therefore, in the procedural logic that I'm following here, we're making a bunch of changes and this is going to be one more we're going to add here to pull out that specific, and system capacity, from this document? MR. HOOVER: I did not support that. Page 43 February 1, 2001 MR. NINO: If that's what you decide to do. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: If-- now it's not an if yet. It's -- I'm trying to find the procedure. MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Because -- MR. NINO: That would be the procedure. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So in our motion we would need to say, we'd need to change item G on page 15. I just want to be clear on this, whether I agree or don't agree with it. MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Further questions? Let's close the public meeting. And remind -- before I ask for a motion, we have two items, we need to have a motion on each separately and vote separately, and with that I'd entertain a motion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion to approve the PUD 86-22 (2}, on our agenda item C, to forward it to the -- where did it go, Board of County Commissioners for their final approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made, is there a second? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Richardson, seconded by Commissioner Young, any further discussion. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Point of clarification. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: As we have discussion, I would like to have the language cleaned up so that it does not stimulate or cause a lawsuit to the county or with Pine Ridge Road being completed. I think the law's clear, or the intent there, so I'd like to see that portion of this cleaned up. MS. STUDENT: Is that item G, you mean? MR. NINO: So why not -- so why not offer a motion, an amended motion, and under parliamentary procedures, the amendment gets voted on first, so you can get a second there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We have a motion and a second on the floor right now. We have to ask the motion person -- MR. NINO: No, no, no, no. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I would simply offer an amended motion -- MR. NINO: You can put a -- you could pull -- you can put a Page 44 February 1, 2001 motion to amend up, and if you can get a second then you vote on the amendment first. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Then -- then I would propose that we clean up the language in item G to not require the completion of the road work on Pine Ridge before CO. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I second it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So moved by-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Question on that motion, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let me -- let me -- let me get the document A part of it first, because there's been a motion made -- an amendment motion made by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Rautio, that item G be, basically, resolved, is that -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Only the portion of the system capacity issue. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. So noted. Okay. Discussion on the amendment? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Discussion on the amendment. I would remind the commissioners that this is not a brand new PUD. This is one that has -- that this applicant, through this process, has approved this -- has approved, agreed to this stipulation many years ago, and as the -- our attorney has suggested to us, an applicant can agree to something that's more restrictive than what our code calls for. I feel he has done that and this has been carried, and I object, therefore, to having it amended to now give him a -- a new lease on life, that he already has given us by allowing that capacity to be in place. That's my logic. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Where I'm sympathetic with that statement, Commissioner Richardson, I feel that I would not want to be in a position to have a real legal issue argued here, such as Commissioner Priddy had brought up, that's why I seconded his motion. And I would like to see it out of whatever we do with this project. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Reality is also that by the time they get -- get something constructed, the timing is going to be real, real close, anyway. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But I asked that question to staff, and they were -- there was an 18-month discrepancy to Page 45 February 1,200t what their answer -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATH¥: Technically, in this PUD to PUD process, we're not amending the old PUD. We're just making a modification to the current PUD. MS. STUDENT: That's -- that's not really what -- you're readopting the whole document again. If we did it by way of strike through and underline language, where just the specific piece that was taken out was stricken through and underlined, so what you're really doing is modifying the PUD document, and really readopting it, because I don't have the language of the ordinance right in front of me, but I believe there's repealing language for the prior PUD. So that would mean you're adopting this new one, as -- which contains a lot of the old stuff, but also with the changes, and that's what -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought that's what I just said? MS. STUDENT: Well -- MR. NINO: Well, you know, may I offer something for the record? And I really don't want to get -- well, let me offer something for the record. You just passed the petition for a PUD on the north side, which doesn't have that stipulation, you know, which -- which is not constrained from going forward immediately. And isn't there an issue of fairness here, I mean, you're going to let the guy across the street, who's coming in the door at the last minute, get building permits, and go forward, but somebody across the street not go. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Nino, I'm sympathetic to that, but this applicant has provided this language, and has supported it throughout perhaps several years. I don't know the history of this PUD. And so why give it up? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I think we heard the petitioner ask us to remove it, if possible. MR. HOOVER: Could I make a statement on -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Actually, we're out of the public hearing. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, let's call the question and get it over with. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have one more comment and point of clarification, just so it's on the record. The ordinance Page 46 February 1, 2001 that I have in front of me, under section two, definitely says that the ordinance number 98-32 known as the Pine Ridge West PUD, adopted April 28, 1998, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, is hereby repealed in its entirety. So it's in there to repeal. MS. STUDENT: I can -- I can explain it later. It's a -- it's a way to -- instead of doing a line-by-line strike through and underlining, we make the changes in the new PUD document, repeal the old one. So you're really readopting the whole thing again, even as it existed before with the changes and it's different than an amendment, because the amendment -- the old thing stays and all your changing is the stricken through and underlining part. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We all agree to that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Which we agree to that, and that's why I'm going to stick with my position that we pull out the terms that we discussed before in G, and system capacity, comma. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, all those in favor of the amendment to the motion, signify -- in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Opposed. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Two nos. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Now we need to vote on the motion. MR. NINO: As amended. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: As amended. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I withdraw my motion. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward PUD-90-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Wait a minute, don't we have to withdraw the second on that also? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Oh, in that case I do too, yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward PUD-86-22 (2) to the Board of County Commissioners Page 47 February 1, 2001 with a recommendation of approval, with the change in language in item G. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a point of clarification, because we have a new motion, the amendment is moot and gone, right? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Right. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. The motion was made by Commissioner Priddy and seconded by Commissioner Abernathy, any discussion on that motion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It does include the removal of the system capacity issue? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All in figure -- all in favor of that motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Opposed. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Six to one. Okay. I would hope we have some consistency and we have a motion on the second half of this -- of the PUD that we're talking about today. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I make a recommendation that we forward petition PUD 88-11 (2) with a recommendation for approval, with the same item G modification. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Rautio. Any discussion? All those in favor of that motion signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Opposed. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Same. Anybody need a quick break? Let's just take a couple of minutes. (A short break was taken.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Let's reconvene the meeting. And we're going right to, what seems to be the Hoover show this morning, to, whoops, wrong one. We got rid of that one. Thank you. Moving on to CU-2000-17, VoiceStream Wireless. All of those who wish to give testimony on this, please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) Page 48 February 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners, Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a conditional use for a communication tower for Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control District. They need a tower for the communication system, and this tower is going to be 198 feet high. Our code requires that when building a tower, to make space available for other users so we do not end up having one communication tower every few thousand feet; therefore, they are making space available on this tower. In addition to their own use, and possible county or other emergency and public safety users for some cellular phone companies, which is a required condition of the land development code. Staff reviewed this. It complies with section 2.6.35.6.3 of the land development code for essential services. And staff recommends approval of this conditional use. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Questions of staff? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. We -- we require them to make space available, but what has taken place in the past, and I don't know if we've tightened up on it, you know, we don't actually make the next guy who comes along go there. How are we working -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, when there's no space available, we do really allow them to build another tower. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' First they have to go and make sure that there is no space available on this tower before we allow them to build another one, and they are making space available for other cell phone users. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' I just wanted to make sure we had gotten to the point that -- because we have had some in the past that were, you know, constructed fairly close together -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are tightening the system. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- that turned out to be more of an ego thing on the engineer's part for the new company, as opposed to the existing. MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' These towers are not cheap to build, if they can pay rent and be on somebody else's tower, they will do it, and the tower owner makes money by allowing somebody else to move to that tower. Page 49 February 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Question of staff. Have you received any objections to this? MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' No, I have not. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. With that, can we hear from the petitioner?. MR. RESSING: I believe he said it all. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: In other words, you have no further comment? MR. RESSING: Not at all. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of the petitioner? If not, members of the public wish to speak on this issue? I saw some people stand up, now's your chance. If not, I'll close the public hearing. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we forward petition CU-2000-17 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Rautio, any discussion? If not, all those in favor of this motion, signify by saying aye? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. Please fill out your conditional use petition and pass it down to the vice president, as our secretary seems to be still out of -- out of the country. And with that, we'll move on to CU-2000-20. All those who wish to give testimony on this please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe the applicant is outside. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: He was not sworn in. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Somebody will get them while you start your testimony. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a conditional use for earth mining to be located on Friendship Lane, approximately a quarter mile north of Immokalee Road. The site consists of 4.4 acres. And they are Page 50 February 1, 2001 planning on excavating 1.8 acres. And they are leaving enough room for a house on the site. This is within the NRPA area, and within the final order of governor and cabinet area; however, that order exempts earth mining. So earth mining would be a permitted use under that order. Staff reviewed this petition. This is one of those small lots in an area that does subdividing into five-acre lots, and there are people living in the area. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to all of the staff conditions, which are included in the resolution of approval. I should add that I have received several telephone calls and people that came to development services to object to this petition. MR. NINO: Chahram, are you -- are you sure this is in NRPA? MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' I'm sorry. That's not in a NRPA area. I'm sorry. It's not in a NRPA area. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Chahram, you said they're going to dig out 1.8 acres. They're going to leave .4 for a home site, the balance of that land is buffer area or setback? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The balance of that is basically the buffer area, allowing the center line -- allowing this Friendship Lane to have a 60-foot buffer, and other sites they have a 20 to 30 foot buffer. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a bit of a concern, and I'm -- I'm probably, with at least one little modification, going to go along with this today. But I have a big concern in that area of the county that -- that everybody that's got a five acre lot is going to want to do this, and I would suggest to staff that we take a look at amending our land development code that would not allow a small parcel to, you know, dig out, sell the dirt and build a house, and I don't know what that threshold ought to be, whether it ought to be 10, 15, 20, or whatever, but I would ask staff to look at that and maybe get that in the cycle. MR. NINO: We are in the process of doing that, actually. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. MR. NINO: And we have a joint meeting with the county commissioners to discuss the whole issue of excavations, particularly their impact in the estates area. But we're also looking at excavations in terms of the agricultural area. That is underway. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Could you shed some light -- Page 51 February 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a second. I'm sorry. I forgot what I was going to say. I've got a comment, but go ahead. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You can go first, you're the chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, I'm the one that's been bending some commissioners' ears about this, and one thing that has come to mind, and I'm sure it'll be discussed, is those folks that say, I own five acres and I just want to dig a lake, and one way of getting rid of the dirt, obviously, and paying for it, and I certainly have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with the five acre here, there, everywhere, that I can foresee someday the county or somebody who buys the tax certificate owning with weeds and rocks. We've had that discussion before. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, we had -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sure that's going to be addressed. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We've had this discussion before. That's why we're requiring that they leave enough land for a house. So the county doesn't end up owning a lake with all of the liabilities-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: MR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Right. -- and with no value. Commissioner Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Could anybody shed any light on why this Friendship Lane area seems to be so popular to dig these out. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There's good sand there, I believe. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Good sand? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good sand, and, yes, they are -- that's what they are trying to excavate. This Flat Road and Red -- what's that name, Red Deer Road, Friendship Lane and Lilac Road, that's where all the good sand is -- is located, and people, they are just buying five acres to excavate and sell the sand. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And when you say, good, is there some criteria that you're talking about, being a contractor who would buy sand, I mean, I'm just curious? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's suitable dirt, it's -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Suitable dirt. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Good fill dirt. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- good fill or good quality dirt. I don't Page 52 February 1, 2001 know what -- MR. NINO: We can get the engineer to address that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The engineer can address that. There's a reason everybody wants to excavate in this area, and up on the east Trail, let's say. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. I'll -- we'll ask when the petitioners get up here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, if I may, can you -- are you suggesting that it's good fill all around here? Are there other excavation sites that we should be aware of in here? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: But there are -- there are two on Lilac Road, which is further to the west. There is one on Flat Road, which is -- this is Friendship Lane, somewhere -- somewhere in here, and there's one on Red Deer Road and there's a very large one in here, that it's called something -- MR. NINO: Song Lakes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The one on Red Deer Road, how does -- how do those excavation trucks get out? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I couldn't find any conditional use for that. I don't know when that thing happened, but they are basically using several routes to get out and Friendship Lane, I believe, is one of them. And -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Because I notice one of the recommendations here is to, or agreements is to pave, you know, a small portion of Friendship Lane just to serve this site, and I'd be concerned if there's other excavation trucks using this same road, that we should have some general improvement on that entire road. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct, but for that Red Deer Lane (sic) I couldn't find any conditional use. I don't know if that pit is a legal one. And the other ones that we have approved in the past, we always had these conditions and I'm going to ask the code enforcement to look into that. stipulations for the Lilac Road ones, COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: tract. And we had these similar and -- I don't see Lilac Road on the MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' Lilac Road is further to the west, I believe, it's outside of this map. It's basically parallel to -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. Page 53 February 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions of staff. If not, we can hear from the petitioner, please. MR. DAVIDSON'. I apologize, but we stepped out -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Would you step up to the -- step up to the mike and we'll have you sworn in. MR. DAVIDSON: We weren't -- we weren't sworn in yet this morning. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We will take care of that. Okay. Let's start from scratch, those who want to give testimony on this please raise (sic) and raise your -- that haven't previously been sworn in, okay, raise your right hand and be sworn in by court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. DAVIDSON: For the record, I'm Jeff Davidson, the engineer for the applicant, and I'm familiar with Red Bird -- the excavation on Red Bird, I was involved in getting that -- the conditional use and the permitting of that, as well, that's -- they do use that -- the same road that we're -- we're proposing to use. They actually use a lot more of it, because they're further to the north. They probably use -- probably three quarters of a mile of Friendship Lane. And it's all -- it's a larger excavation, and it's completed. I spoke to the owner a few days ago, and that's a completed excavation, that it was legal. They haven't done their final report yet, which is due soon. So they can get their bond released, but they do use the same -- same road. And one thing I want to say about the one that's before you today is we're concerned about the stipulation for the turn lane, and the main reason for that is because this excavation is so small, I mean, it's only a little over two acres, and it's -- the duration of this excavation will probably be about six months, to -- we're limited to 18 months by the stipulation, but I -- we think -- the owner happens to be the excavator, as well. He thinks he can have this completed within six months. And the number of trips, if I could, I'd like to read a section out of the staff report. This is a section in the staff report that -- that relates to traffic and we agree with this, but I'd like to just reiterate it if I could. It says, the ITE trip generation manual indicates that this site will generate 10 to 20 trips on a weekday. Based on this data, the site generated traffic will not exceed the significant test Page 54 February 1, 2001 standard, five percent of the level of service C design volume on any county road. In addition, the site generated trips will not lower the level of service between the adopted level of service D standard for any segment within the project's radius of development. And based on that, we would like to have the stipulation for the turn lane removed, because requiring the turn lane in this conditional use is -- is the same as denial of this project. If there's any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Question for counsel. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If you don't mind. You say about -- can you give me a -- I can't work the math, 20 trips a day, that'd be 20 truckloads of dirt, and all over a six-month period, on a five or six day operation. Would you be able to excavate the size hole you want there? MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, sir. And I ran it this morning to -- so I could answer that question, and if you use a typical 250 day work -- year, 250 day year, those are workdays in the year, for this volume, we have 56,000 cubic yards. It comes out to 12 trips per day, and that's only for workdays. So if you go to six months, or, you know, less than a year, you're probably looking at 20. So that's why there's a range there between 20 and 10. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? Do you have a comment, Ron? MR. NINO: If that's the case, we have to put a six-month time limit on it. MR. DAVIDSON: We may be able to do it in six months, and -- but we can't guarantee six months. The excavation, just like everything else, other construction, is market. It's controlled by the market, and it could take more than six months, but we think -- weather, things like that, so we'd like to have a longer required period than six months, and we've stipulated now to 18 months. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So -- but you'd go for seven or something. MR. DAVIDSON: Somewhere in there. I mean, we'll do what it takes to not have the turn -- turn lane included in the stipulations. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, you're talking about the owner being the excavator, could somebody just sort of let me Page 55 February 1, 2001 know how many years of experience he's had, and what he's going to do? What kind of equipment are you going to use to dig this hole in six months? MR. BARRY: Good morning. My name is John Barry. I am one of the owners of the excavation company. I have a dump truck business in town, Barry Land Development. It is a service that we haul to many developers here in town for sand, aggregate, fill dirt for the home builders. I do have contracts with a handful of them. Mainly the fill dirt will be excavated out of there with the sand -- excuse me, to support home building in Collier County. I'd like to get it out of there as soon as possible, that is the objective, but, you know, like Jeff Davidson had said, that there's -- it will be a problem with weather, inclementing (sic) rain. Rain is hard to excavate dirt, when it -- when it rains. The lake would fill up. It's impossible to dig out dirt in the rainy season, or it at least slows it down. The other stipulation would be that -- that would slow it down, would be the factor of, you know, the market going a little bit to the south, that would require, you know, nobody wanting the dirt at that particular time. I mean, if -- if the -- if the building market slows down and nobody's building houses, then the dirt's not going anywhere, but, you know, as of right now, you know, I'd like to get it out of there in six months. The sooner the better for me, anyway. But I've been doing this for about six years, to answer your question. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. I apologize. What was your name? MR. BARRY: John Barry. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: John Barry, and -- MR. BARRY: That's correct COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I mean, this is a technical thing, but it shows here that BC Excavating of Naples, Inc., percentage of stockholders, there's no percentage, it only says Brian Carey owns it. MR. BARRY: Yes, ma'am. It's a 50 -- 50/50 percent ownership between that company. BC Excavating is owned by me and Brian Carey, that's correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. Well, then that's an error in the document we have. MR. BARRY: That is correct, yes. Page 56 February 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. Clear that up for the record. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let me -- let me finish that, because I was looking at the same thing. So there's a 50/50 ownership of B & C Excavating between John Barry and your yourself; is that right? MR. BARRY: No -- no, sir. Between Brian Carey. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Brian Carey. MR. BARRY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry. Okay. Believe it or not, that is important to us, and it's important to the board to know in order that there's no conflict. MR. BARRY: I understand. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That should be fixed by the time this petition -- my recommendation to staff is to get this fixed when it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The application just gave one name for the owner of the company. The application just gave one name for the owner of the company, not two names as -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That is correct, but it's obviously -- when it says percentage of stock, percentage of stock is not represented by the words Brian Carey, so that was an immediate flag for me. It was incorrectly done. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Barry, you can probably live with a half acre home site left as opposed to .4, that -- MR. BARRY: I'm not following you, you say make it a home site area larger than what's recommended? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Right. MR. BARRY: The lake was already brought down in scale, only because of the setback on the -- I believe it would be the south side of the road. There's a big easement there that -- that is -- is already brought the lake -- the lake was originally proposed at over two acres, to get the maximum amount of dirt out of there and still leave sufficient room for a home site. I was already increased because of that -- I'm not even familiar with the term for it, but there's a larger easement there on the south -- on the south side of that property that made that home site actually bigger than what it's originally supposed to be. Page 57 February 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: My concern is this home site, the smaller the home site, the smaller the home, and, you know, we're going to attract something different there than that we might if we had a larger home site. What I see in this project is an estate home site when you're done. MR. BARRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: A bigger home, a nicer piece of property. Not an 800 square foot build it yourself, concrete block home, put in there after you've, you know, gotten the money out. MR. BARRY: Yes, I understand. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So I'm going to attempt anyway to make that home site slightly bigger for you. Can you live with working from seven in the morning to five at night? MR. BARRY: I'd like to be able to start a little bit earlier. I can live with the five o'clock at night, but the seven in the morning is too late. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: 6:30 in the morning, which is the ordinance, I believe. MR. BARRY: 6:30 I believe is the ordinance. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: 6:30 to five, and you don't need to work on Saturdays or Sundays? MR. BARRY: Half a day on Saturday, no Sundays, no holidays. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I -- okay. I'm going to attempt to make that five days a week, and extend it to a year's time period for you. MR. BARRY: Can I -- can I -- can we negotiate in between there, too, I'm thinking maybe we could -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'm just one of the players. MR. BARRY: I'm just thinking that maybe if it was a situation of no Saturdays, being able to haul out of there, but if we are allowed to excavate dirt and bring it up to its surface. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I think that's more of a nuisance to the neighbors than the actual loading of the trucks, the loading of the trucks probably isn't quite as bad as the beep, beep, beep on Saturday mornings when they're wanting to sleep. And I say this, because I have several friends that live in that area, and we just had a petition here about a month ago, wanting to expand, and that was one of the big problems was the hours of operation, and the nuisance of, you know, of the noise Page 58 February 1, 2001 there, so. MR. BARRY: I understand that. But it just -- it seems kind of hard for me to get this out that quickly, if you've got -- if I have a time restriction on it, and then you're also restricting me on the time I can excavate. I'm trying to work in between two hard --- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, your engineer just assured us through his calculations this morning, that that amount of cubic feet could be hauled out of there in a year, with a five-day workweek. Did I understand that correctly? Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just one final question, and then -- I'm not going to be allowed to make the motion, but I'm going to throw this out. You're talking about a half an acre, 12 months, 6:30 to five, possibly, in exchange for all of that for the recommendation on the turn lane? MR. BARRY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Is that what you're asking? MR. BARRY: That's exactly what I'm asking for. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I can't make the motion, because I'm the chairman, but there's some -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, just a follow up of that point with staff, do you have a view as to changing your recommendation? MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' We already have a recommendation from seven a.m. to six p.m., Monday through Saturday. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The turning lane, if it's a workless period, can you live without the turning lane. MS. WOLFF: The issue of the turning lane is -- is not duration. It's due to the fact that we're -- Immokalee Road in that area is a two-lane roadway. There -- it is already identified as a roadway with safety problems it on, high level of accidents, you're talking about having heavy dump truck vehicles having to stop, perhaps, and wait to make a left-hand turn onto Friendship Lane. That is why the requirement was for a left-turn lane to remove those heavy vehicles from the through lane of traffic, to prevent one, the impediments from them being stopped, but secondly, from a safety situation of the large vehicles stopping there and trying to make the turn onto Friendship Lane. So it's not really an issue of whether one would offset the other or not, those vehicles would still be out there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. Thank you. Page 59 February 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions from the petitioner? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I need some help here, is there on that road, didn't we ask for a school bus shelter once before, when we are talking about Friendship Lane? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: South side of the road. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: South side. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That was on Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions for petitioner? One last comment, petitioner. MR. BARRY: One last comment, please. I did, before I looked into purchasing this land, to do this excavation, I did have a premeeting, and we did discuss a turn lane. I told them the amount of volume at that premeeting, for the trucks that would be in and out of there, and that was a concern at that time, because at a larger -- and for a longer duration, they were expecting a turn lane to be put in. After Jeff Davidson, the engineer, had -- had -- had -- or shown the size of the pit excavation, and the volume of trucks going out of there, it was a non-issue any more. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY'- I would have, you know, one other thought here, because the cost of a turn lane, and I don't know, I'm going to throw out a figure of in excess of probably $40,000 to put it in. And that seems pretty unfair for, you know, one person to bear that. And I certainly understand the need of it. Would transportation g along with some contribution towards a turn lane? Where would we -- MS. WOLFF: That's something I would have to take back to our division administrator of operations. We already have a very large plate of commitment in our current budget. And so I cannot make any commitment that we would be moving anything else purely for the ability to put a turn lane in for an intensification of use. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: What -- what I'm getting at is let's say you-all don't do that, because monies aren't available, and I'm not trying to, you know, getr yOU to commit to that. But this would be not unlike a traffic signal where people pay their fair share when it comes about, I mean, could we not get some happy medium in there of a contribution towards the future turn lane? Page 60 February 1, 2001 MS. WOLFF: Well, this appears to be an immediate issue, and this immediate issue is more for this project and specifically coming on board at that point in time. I can't see it as -- if I had, you know, five other developments coming on line here, of making a requirement that all parties come in and do this. This is the only application that's before us at this time. If there was going to be a delay in startup, you know, it would be -- frankly, he's the only one here whose proportion of the share would be 100 percent at this time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Further questions of petitioner, staff, if not -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Final question of staff. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: On the conditions of approval I see this mystery missing B and J, are there some things there that I should be aware of? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. I'm sorry, it's just a number and I missed B and J. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, if we can hear from members of the public, Ron. MR. NINO: Zoona Doughman, James Askey. MS. DOUGHMAN: Good morning. I'm Zoona Doughman. I own property on Friendship Lane and Red Bird Road, and I oppose this because I thought it was going to be a nice place to retire and have horses and everything and the birds was beautiful around there. Last night I didn't see one bird. I didn't hear any woodpeckers, nothing. And with so much traffic, the road is really like this, it's hard to get in and hard to get out of. And somebody has taken all of the sand that I had on the corner of my road and put it up on the middle of Red Bird Road, so they can get in and out better with the trucks. And I think we need, with the children and everything, we need a turn lane. Because if we don't, the kids getting on the buses and everything, there's more accidents, more people getting killed and everything. And I think that the bus shelter, we need something hard, something that'll stop a dump truck if a tire blows out or something, that it could not go into the cage and kill the kids. And I just can't see a community that was not supposed to have pits and everything next to a bird sanctuary. All of a Page 61 February 1, 2001 sudden so many of them flurry up and half of them are not, to my knowledge, have even went through and had permits or anything, because I was never informed or anything, and by owning a part almost back to that, I should think that I should'ye been informed that it is there. And I would like to see the turn lane in. When I came in, I came in on Everglades Boulevard, and if hadn't of throwed (sic) the vehicle in reverse gear and backed up, the tractor would'ye tooken (sic) the front nose off of my vehicle, but the minute I seen it, he was that close to me. I throwed it in reverse and backed up about 15 feet. So I'm really opposed to this. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Question, could you tell us where you live in relationship to this site? MS. DOUGHMAN: The site will probably be 300 feet from my property. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Which direction? MS. DOUGHMAN: I live farther and it'll be back. And that's why -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: She must live north if she's on Red Deer-- Red Deer. MS. DOUGHMAN: Northeast -- northeast. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is it Red Deer or Red Bird? I'm hearing two different things. MS. DOUGHMAN: I'm not sure. They called it Red Bird one time, now they call it Red Deer. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That doesn't make any difference. I just want to make sure we're looking at the right place. MS. DOUGHMAN: And that's another reason, with the -- all the dust and everything, I think the road should be paved. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MS. DOUGHMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Next speaker. MR. ASKEY: James Askey. I live on Friendship Lane. I take my grandkids out to the school bus, and many a time I have seen trucks, in fact, a few out there, you can see tire marks where trucks jam on their brakes, and if the truck comes by there and gets a blowout, they're going to kill a whole bunch of kids, because they're out there early in the morning. And the dust is something terrible? I take my kids out there and these trucks Page 62 February 1, 2001 come flying in there, and they get to choking. I have one grandson that has asthma real bad, and they had to take him out of school for that reason. And I think it (sic) should be something done, a turning lane should be there. It's just got to be. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any questions? If not, thank you, sir. MR. NINO: Danny Samohovetz and Patricia Reeves, Roger Sharpe and Ronald Dupree. MR. SAMOHOVETZ: CHAIRMAN WRAGE: reporter, please? MR. SAMOHOVETZ: CHAIRMAN WRAGE: MR. SAMOHOVETZ: This is the most -- Would you give your name for the court My name is Dan Samohovetz. Spell that, please? S-A-M-O-H-O-V-E-T-Z. At 846 is a very dangerous road. It's probably the most dangerous road in Collier County or that's what they say, because of all of the accidents and there's a large rock pit now, that was going to be -- start out as this one is starting out, as an earth mining, now it's a rock pit across the street. There is a lot of dump truck traffic on the road, and it makes it very difficult to turn into that road, because of all of the dump trucks coming and they all come from the rock pit going west, and it makes it very much more accident prone, that corner, and there's a lot of kids. Everybody that lives out there are working class people, and they all have kids. And so it makes it a really dangerous corner. So a turn lane would be quite helpful, but the people that have already had their pits out there, that they're not -- they're -- they've -- the engineer said that they've stopped, but they haven't stopped, because they're taking dirt back there now. They're taking debris or whatever it is back to that pit, and no one is monitoring it. How do -- who monitors this stuff after they're done with it? Who -- who takes care of this hole that they've dug? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. And we'll ask that question of staff when you get done, okay? MR. SAMOHOVETZ: It's a dangerous situation and you're just making it worse. This is an agricultural area, and now you're trying to put little holes all over the place. It's just -- it's like a mine field. It's like World War II with all of the little bomb craters all over the place, that can't be monitored and that water is what we depend on. We have to use that water and a lot of the people Page 63 February 1, 2001 out there have small agricultural things like groves and small farms, and we depend on the water, and these people, they don't live here. They come out here, dig the hole, and say, oh, well, now we're done, now we'll go someplace else. They don't live there. They don't care. They just want to make the money on it, and we have to live with what they've left. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And my only response to that, I'm sure you heard, myself in particular, and some other members have voiced that concern, and I believe that's being addressed, and hopefully in the next land development cycle, we will be addressing some of those issues that you've just brought up. MR. SAMOHOVETZ: Well, I hope somebody thinks about that. So far it's only just for the developer, because everything is just automatically, well, we're going to pass this, you know, we're going to give this guy this, and there's a lot of people out that want to dig holes out there, because there is good sand out there. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. We thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question, sir, before you go, sir. I have a question. Did you say you lived on Friendship Lane, or was -- MR. SAMOHOVETZ: I live on Sanctuary Road. I use Friendship Lane, that's -- that's the only way we have to get back there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. Now, what's your opinion of the condition of Friendship Lane right now? What does it look like to you, is it dust free? MR. SAMOHOVETZ'- Oh, no. It's not dust free. It'll never be dust free unless they pave it. Now, there's going to be dust, and the more traffic there is the more dust there's going to be. They can put lime rock on the road, but every time someone goes down that road there's dust that goes into the air, and the lime rock goes into the adjoining pieces of property. It just blows away, the lime rock essentially just blows away. And the people that have the 10 acre pit that's back there, the one that's on Red Bird Lane, it'd be north and east of that site, the site that they want to put in. Those people are supposed to maintain the road, but now that they've quit digging fill dirt out, and they're just taking debris back there, now these people are taking trash or debris back there now, and they're not maintaining the road. Page 64 February 1, 2001 They say, oh, yeah, we're done. We don't have to do it any more. Well, they've got big dump trucks going down the road, when the people that live there, we might have trucks, we have pickup trucks and stuff like that, because we live there, but not dump trucks. These other people have dump trucks, the people that don't live there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Excuse me, that was the other concern I had. You said they're actually hauling stuff in, and dumping it into a pit. I think that's something you should report to our code enforcement, because -- MR. SAMOHOVETZ: Yeah, but that doesn't do any good when you do that. They have too many other things to do. They don't -- they can't monitor it. How do they monitor it? You can't have someone out there 24 hours a day. These guys go in when they feel like it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, there's a property owner that's got a responsibility to not have trash dumped on his -- in his pit, and if he's asking for it to be done, code enforcement can take care of that. MR. SAMOHOVETZ: Okay. We'll have to address that, I guess, but they do take it back there. They go back with fill with full trucks. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker? MS. REEVES: My name is Patricia Reeves. I live at 7855 Friendship Lane. If you don't mind, I'd like to read this. I'm not very good at ad-libbing. I strongly object to any more earth mining or quarrying in the Corkscrew Island community. We already have four permitted earth mining sites in the immediate area, plus at least three unpermitted sites generated by the opening of the area for excavating. We also have Big Island Pit on Immokalee Road, whom I understand has applied for a permit to blast and dig deeper and wider. I heard they were granted that permit. Although I'm not sure. I feel there are enough holes in the ground in an area that was meant to have water flow over it, not to stand and collect in big lakes. Also these parcels are now unfit for agricultural use. And if the petitioners build single-family homes, it will more than likely Page 65 February 1, 2001 attract people who want the charm of the country without the realities. People who may not be sympathetic toward normal farming practices; for example, fertilizer spread on our neighbor's 25 acres of tomatoes, it smells. We don't care. But people that aren't sympathetic toward farming practices are going to be bothered by this. I'm concerned about losing my well, or having it contaminated with diesel or hydraulic fluid. I'm extremely concerned for the children who wait for the school bus on the corner. I'm worried that my property value will decline if the whole area starts to look like an industrial site, like Alico Road, for instance, at exit 20. I've been putting all my money and effort into restoring an old house for the past six years and I was hoping to have something for my retirement, but I won't if my equity goes down. I read B & C Excavating's application and I want to point out that not everyone thinks a lake will enhance the aesthetics in the area. Some would rather see a field of tomatoes or grazing cattle or horses. Aesthetics are a matter of opinion, not a matter of black and white. If their permit is granted, I feel strongly that we need some conditions imposed. We need fencing around the whole site to keep children out and ATVs. We need weekly grading, including adding lime rock when necessary and definitely grading and filling in potholes after the excavating is finished. Daily watering of road and roadside foliage. Also our intersection is very dangerous, because when everyone traveling eastbound on Immokalee Road comes off of the curve at Sanctuary Road, they all start passing each other between Sanctuary Road and Friendship Lane, they pass like maniacs. This is -- this is eastbound on Immokalee Road. I feel we need a left-hand and right-turn lane from Immokalee Road into Friendship Lane, especially since we understand there is another site on Friendship Lane south, we're north. Immokalee -- Friendship Lane goes both ways across Immokalee Road. The intersection will be crawling with dump trucks, plus the ones going to Big Island Pit. That's only a half of a mile east of the intersection of Friendship Lane and Immokalee Road. Our children have no place to stand out of the way of the dump trucks. I'd like to see the hours of operation fall between Page 66 February 1, 2001 when the last child gets on the school bus and the first one gets dropped off, or build a shelter for them that won't be crushed by an out of control dump truck. I also would like to suggest that the remote areas of the estates may be better, as far as property values are concerned for earth mining, since many people who buy there want only to live in a country setting and more than likely -- more than likely, be thrilled to have a two and a half acre lake on a five acre parcel. I would ask the board to please spare our dwindling agricultural areas. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want you to confirm that Friendship Lane is not in very good condition at this point also, right? MS. REEVES: Well, it's in -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: They're obviously not -- the previous pit people apparently didn't take care -- MS. REEVES: The previous pit people left it a mess. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And that's part of the type of thing that you should be talking to code enforcement, because we're looking at another petition to allow this person that says, he's going to leave it dust free during the duration of the mining operations, and I'm having difficulty from what that lane looks like, that this gentleman's going to be able to live up to a dust-free Friendship Lane, and it's already not a very easily traveled road. MS. REEVES: It's very bumpy, yes. We've -- the neighbors and myself-- all the neighbors, we've put quite a bit of money in lime rock and grading that road. Since '95 when we had the bad storm, when we were declared a disaster area. We finally got it livable, and now all this, you know, dump truck business is going on. Did I misunderstood your question? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No. I just want to make sure you confirm that the road is not in very good condition? MS. REEVES: No, the road, it doesn't stay in very good condition for very long. We have to continually maintain this road to keep it up. Also, with the board's permission, Mr. Gary Becker, who is Page 67 February 1, 2001 an immediate neighbor of this site, was concerned. He faxed a letter to Mr. Badamtchian, and he wanted me to read it. It's very brief. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Very briefly, please. MS. REEVES: Dear Planner, I called and left four messages regarding the BC Excavating project on Friendship Lane. I strongly object to the above request for conditional use by petitioner. This environmentally sensitive area is zoned for agricultural and is located next to my property. I bought this property, developed a tree and fruit farm with a purpose of building a home in a park like setting. I chose the setting because of the nature and its wildlife. Earth mining would jeopardize my plans to preserve the environment. Gary Becker. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to address this issue? MR. SHARPE: Good morning. My name's Roger Sharpe. My family's been in the excavating business in Collier County for probably about 60 years off and on. And I live on Friendship Lane. I have been in the dump truck business. We're in the excavating business, and Friendship Lane is a very narrow road. I'm the person that takes both of my kids to the bus stop in the morning. We have to park in the swale that has been wallowed in to try to get enough parking space for all of the people to sit at the bus stop in the morning. You've got a deep swale on one side, you've got a chain-link fence on the other. There's no other place to go to sit in the dark in the morning. 6:30 is -- there's no way that you can possibly put dump trucks in there at 6:30 in the morning, maybe eight o'clock. I put kids on the bus at 6:30. I put kids on the bus at 7:30. And there's no place to park that you can wait for your kids to get on and off the bus. And this area has more or less become a free for all, for anybody that wants to go out and buy a tractor and buy five acres, they have now become in the fill pit business. Roughly because 56,000 cubic yards of fill will generate $140,000 in revenue. And the reason that everyone's moving to that area to dig is because the fill in that area, you have perc sand that goes for about $300 a load. The top two foot or three foot of the fill out there is per¢ sand, certified sand for drainfields. Okay. Once you go below that, you can go about 25 to 28 feet in depth before you hit cap rock. It's one of the unique areas in Collier County. For instance, Page 68 February 1, 2001 up by 1-75 the cap rock is on top of the ground. When you build a yard in Willoughby Acres, you haul fill in and cover the cap rock up. The other pits that have come out there, it doesn't matter what they tell you when they come in there, they don't ever do -- they've never put a water truck on the road. All they have ever did on Red Deer Lane, and this is the second time they've been out there, they've got a 10-acre parcel that they've dug up. There's no fence to keep the kids out. The kids ride through there on ATV's. They've got one gate on 10 acres, that's open farm land all the way around. You've got -- their last pit was not even permitted. You've got that pit that's still in operation. They may not be digging, but they have several thousand yards of fill piled up and they're still hauling it out of there right now. So you've got this one. You've got the other pit, that they just finished up, this Triple T Company that was in there. You've got another pit on Sid Walker's property, which is just northeast of maybe a five-acre tract, from where this gentleman would like to dig. And you've got Big Island Excavating digging up directly across the street from this. Yeah, we moved out there to get away from all that kind of stuff. I mean, we pay a high price for the traveling in the time and everything to be out there and that area, and, you know, you can make a lot of money in the fill business. I've got 10 acres down there, and we've never dug up our property. It's your home front. You don't want to destroy that area. It's -- there's not another place in Collier County like it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Quick question, have you called code enforcement to -- what have they said about -- what you've called an illegal operation, that's the one that I'm interested in? MR. SHARPE: Well, that part of it I didn't know until it was about over with. I kept -- I kept hearing from the different neighbors and all that, yes, they had permission on that piece of property, which is Mr. Dupree's road, and then the second parcel, you know, we kind of thought it was over -- what I'm getting at is we've dealt with dump trucks on a daily basis out there on our road for at least the last three years every day, and I'm just tired of it, you know. Everybody's got to make a living, and unfortunately to dig fill in Collier County you have to move to the east to be able to afford enough property that you can actually dig, that you can justify the excavating of it. Page 69 February 1, 2001 So that's where all of the fill pits have moved to, but anyway, the road where Mr. Carey wants to dig at, I used to have to sit there in the mornings and wait for my neighbors to pull them through -- that road, we finally got enough people out there, Ms. Reeves got everyone together out there and pooled our money and had the county come in there and finally fix that road. I used to have the only four-wheel drive vehicle on the road, and my neighbors would sit there -- at the very northwest corner of his property is a flag pond. It's a natural Iow area, and I used to have to -- my neighbors would sit there in the mornings and wait for me to come through there, because I had the only vehicle that would make it through there, I would chain each one of them and drag them through here. And the only thing you can see out of a full size car out there in the dry season, if you met them, was half the windshield and the top of the car. I've got friends in South America, he says we don't have roads like that down there. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any questions of this speaker? We appreciate that. Thank you. MR. DUPREE: My name is Ronald Dupree. I live at 19435 Immokalee Road, and this is about the first I've heard about all this going on. I've got a pit behind my house I dug strictly for fill on the property I built my house on. As far as building a pit, I'm -- I don't know, it's getting like they say, every time you turn around they're digging another pit somewhere. They're hauling in on our road, road's never been real good, but now it's getting worse and worse. I take my baby, my youngest son to the babysitter down the road down there. I've got a pickup and I'm beating the heck out of it. It's tearing all of the pieces on me, because of the road. I live right across from the land he's got. I live basically west of it, and the front part gets torn up. The back part on down is even worse. So, you know, and I'm like this with children, I know my child will be going to school pretty soon out there and I want my child to have a safe place to go. And if they put it in here without turn lanes, what's my child going to do? Where's he going to stand out of the weather or where's he going to stand away from the big trucks coming in and out? Now, I'm not against the man making money, because that's what life's all about, making money, you got to make a living to Page 70 February 1, 2001 live, to survive in this world, and if you don't, well, you'll be on food stamps or welfare and I can't afford that either way, so. But the turn lanes, it's a definite to me, as far as I'm concerned. And a shelter, and I didn't even know about the one they're going to talk about building on the south side over there until now. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Did you say talking about building the one on the south side? It's not there? MR. DUPREE: I heard they're being permitted for the one on the south side of Friendship Lane, too, on the south side of 846. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: How long does it take to get the shelter put -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, the people that we required that of have never started that project, is why that's not been -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That hasn't been that long ago. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: No. And I don't think they are going to start that project, because of the conditions that was put on it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Any one else from the public wish to address this issue? Petitioner, want to make any last comments? You'll have to ask us, and we'll ask the questions, okay. MR. DUPREE: He said he's going to go down 20 feet on the permit, is that as deep as he's going to go, I mean, is he going to bust through cap rock where our water is going to go down through the hard pan, because the hard pan in some places out there is 20 to 22 feet? Some places is 16. I hit cap rock at 12 and a half feet, 16 feet when I was digging my fill. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We'll ask that question. MR. DUPREE: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. And with that, that particular -- MR. BARRY: Are you -- would you like me to answer that, yes? No, I will not dig through the cap rock. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any other comments while you are up here, because I -- I have some questions of staff. MR. BARRY: Okay. I think my engineer has a couple of comments. MR. DAVIDSON: Jeff Davidson, for the record. We would like to do something about the dust on the road, and I agree with Page 71 February 1, 2001 the gentleman that got up and said the road is dusty, there's really, you know, you can water the road, and it'll only last a few hours, and then it'll be dusty again. One thing that we can do is there's a product called 57 stone and the county considers it a dust free gravel, same type of gravel used in septic system drainfields. And it's a uniform size. It's washed and graded and that's about the only thing I can think of besides paving the road to make it relatively dust free. And we would agree to do that from Immokalee Road to the project entrance. That would help that, and the ground water, I've done several of these excavations and one of the concerns is ground water, and in my experience for an excavation like this, there's no dewatering required, in fact, we would waive the right to dewater the site, and really the only way you could -- the only way that you could really affect the ground water in that area is to dewater for an excavation, and we don't intend to do that. MR. NINO: Would you -- I think, because it would be helpful, would you explain the rehabilitation requirements, because I'm concerned about the record that says people are using them as refuse dumps afterwards, I mean, the amount of investment that's made in contouring and everything that we require in our rehab, which I'd like you to speak to. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Before he answers that, as part of that question, Ron, is that a code -- who goes out and closes these pits, is that code enforcement or the planning department? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: When they say they're closed to get their bond back, who actually is responsible to go out and say, yeah, everything is the way it's supposed to be? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Well, the engineering inspectors of planning services, they go there and they inspect, make sure that everything is according to the plans and according to the code. Then we release the bond. After that, we do not go back to check on the lake every year, or ever. CHAIRMAN WRAGE'- Okay. Thank you. MR. DAVIDSON: That was also one of the reasons to have a home site on the -- on the -- I think we talked about that earlier, because we've planned to put a home on this site in the future, and then they would maintain the lake in good condition, at least that's the theory behind it. Page 72 February 1, 2001 And there is a bond that would be put in place to guarantee that the lake would be shaped according to the plan like Chahram said, and that there's a slope requirement, specific slope requirement, a littoral planning zone requirement for seeding purposes and a depth requirement. All those things need to be in place before the excavator can get their bond back. MR. NINO: And as I understand that that has to stay with it for the rest of its life, I mean, you can't use it as a refuse pit. MR. DAVIDSON: Yeah, that's illegal any way you look at it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. Did you say, we plan on putting a house on here? Are you -- are you stating -- MR. DAVIDSON.' No. I'm speaking for my -- my client. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Me, excuse me, your client intends to build a house on here and is that going to be something he's going to own? MR. BARRY: That's to be determined. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. So we don't want to be assuming that we're doing something really wonderful here by only digging a part lake, and have the assumption that this particular owner or the other owner of the company is going to actually put a house here, and then he's going to watch and maintain it, because I had that feeling earlier, and I want to make sure that that's on the record, that that's not part of the plan, and that it's not that dedication to, wow, this is a great five acres, and we're only going to dig up two and a half of it or so, and then we're going to have a house on it. I don't want that to even exist in anybody's mind. MR. DAVIDSON: The only thing we can say now is that we're leaving a place for a house, for a house pad in the future. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You're leaving a place -- MR. DAVIDSON: We're leaving a house pad for the future. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Mr. Davidson, did I understand you to say that the left-turn lane proposal is a killer of the project? MR. DAVIDSON: Because of the cost. I estimate, we just did a set of turn lanes for an excavation on Oil Well Road, and it was 90 -- that was a full set, it didn't -- this doesn't specifically require a right-in turn lane, without the right-in turn lane, a Page 73 February 1, 2001 left-turn lane is about $70,000, and that's not --just not feasible for a small -- if this was a 100 acre excavation, or even a 50 acre excavation, that would be feasible, but not for an excavation this small. But what Mr. PRIDDY, I think he brought up the idea of cost sharing or, you know, the county pitching in, or something like that, that's -- that's the only way that -- these people, it sounds like they need a turn lane at that location. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'd say a lot of these things are inconvenience issues and sort of quality of life issues, but this one is the one that's really compelling to me. MR. DAVIDSON.' I agree with that, but if we look at the number of trips that we generate based on the overall trips and, you know, the background traffic and the trips in the area, I don't think we -- and in most cases for, you know, for a development this -- for a development like this, we're not pushing it over the edge in my opinion, to have to require the turn lanes just because of this small excavation. I mean, there's other excavations in the area. There's Corkscrew Sanctuary. I don't think they have a set of turn lanes at Sanctuary Road for, you know, for Corkscrew Sanctuary. I'm not saying it's not required, but, I mean, we would be the only ones in the area with a turn lane. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And since you're talking about money and cost here, we're talking about doing radius turns at 50 feet, and proper drainage and culverts will be installed, with the work that you're doing to pave Friendship Lane here, and that's going to be done before the excavation starts, how much is that going to cost you-all? MR. DAVIDSON: That would probably cost in the range of five to $7,000. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. And then with the addition of taking the adequate number of loads of 57 rock on that -- on the rest of the area? MR. DAVIDSON'- That's probably two or $3,000 to do that. So that's expensive. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yeah. expensive. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: question of -- bonding, I'm just not familiar. does the project require? Fifty-seven is definitely Mr. Chairman, just one last What size of bond Page 74 February 1, 2001 MR. DAVIDSON: I don't recall what size this particular -- that comes up during the excavation permitting process, is the reason I can't directly answer your question. But I know it's sufficient for the county to hire an excavator to go in and shape the lake or to bring it to some order of semblance. So it's, you know, a nice looking excavation. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any final questions petitioner, staff? If not, close -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I just have a comment. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Let's close the public meeting. Let's have a motion -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can I make a comment before the motion, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm looking at the finding of fact as a guide to how I should respond to this, and under the finding of facts, I see consistent with land development code and the growth management plan, and that appears to be the case, we can do that, but the other three, and I realize we're supposed to put wadings on these for our judgment. But it seems it fails on all the rest of the three, is what I've heard. Can you give me any reason to say that this should be approved, if we've got three out of four findings of fact that they fail on? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Ingress and egress is one of the criterion that we have a problem with, and therefore we're asking for that left-turn lane. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. So the question is, if we -- you're making your recommendation based on all these conditions of approval being in the mix. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So in my mind, we've got a choice of either killing the project with conditions, or killing it by the finding of fact. That's just an observation. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And if you're ready for a motion, I guess I'll kill it with -- or attempt to kill it with the first one. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Let's entertain a motion. We'll have some more discussion, I'm sure. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I move that we forward petition CU-2000-20 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. Page 75 February 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Rautio. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I -- I could forward it recommending approval, if they were willing to adhere to all of the conditions. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I could too -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, then -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- with the exception of the mitigation of the relation to the neighbors, if they put in a turn lane, I could cross that off. I have checked two things on here, two out of the four, rather than three out of the four that Commissioner Richardson did, but -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So you're taking him at his word that he can't do the left-turn lane? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'm quite sure he can't do the left-turn lane. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. Pass your finding of fact down to Commissioner Rautio. Any old business? Someone got -- put something in front of me that says, old business. I can't read it. Preliminary report on missing minutes. Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Oh, yes, the committee of one. I've had a couple of discussions with the Clerk of Courts on the contract, and I unfortunately have not had an opportunity to discuss the aspects of the county manager's office and how planning is involved in this. So I'm going to take a little more time and get some information to us for the next meeting, and I would like to say that it did not impress me that we had no minutes in this packet. So my full report will be ready, I believe, if I can get some phone calls made, by our next meeting. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the effectiveness of your actions so far has been noted on today's document. Page 76 February 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It was absolutely real apparent that it was not effective. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any other old business? If not, under new business, I will personally purchase a card for Commissioner Pedone, and -- and in like, by putting your names on it, that it be from us, wishing his speedy return. Any public comments on any item? If not, we stand adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:30 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GARY WRAGE, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY DAWN S. MCCONNELL, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 77