CCPC Minutes 04/05/2001 RApril 5, 2001
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, April 5, 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 8:33 a.m. in REGULAR
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
VICE CHAIRMAN:
Joyceanna J. Rautio
Russell Budd
Ken Abernathy
Michael Pedone
Russell A. Priddy
Dwight Richardson
Lora Jean Young
NOT PRESENT: Gary Wrage
ALSO PRESENT:
Robert Mulhere, Planning Services
Director
Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County
Attorney
Page I
AGENDA
CLERK TO THE BOARD
MAUREEN KENYON
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 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 ALLOTIED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITI'EN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A
MINIMUM OF l0 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN
ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE
CCPC SHALL BE 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. ROLLCALL BY CLERK
2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 15, 2001 & MARCH I, 2001
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. BCC REPORT: RECAP FEBRUARY 27, 2001
6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
V-2000-37, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., John R. Wood, requesting a
variance of 9.8 feet from the required 15 foot setback from an off-site parking lot to 5.2 feet, for property located
at 1115 Airport Road, further described as Lots 4-7, Block D, Naples Villas, in Section l, Township 50 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Continued from 3/15) (Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
V-2000-40, On The Level Builders, representing John and Genevieve Lentovich, requesting a 5.5-foot variance
from the required 30-foot setback for property boundary lines to 24.5 feet for property located at 5278 Treetops
Drive, further described as Unit 101, Building I, Woodgate at Naples, in Section 32, Township 50 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Continued from 3/15) (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian)
Co
PUD-99-10, Karen K. Bishop of PMS, Inc. of Naples, representing T.O.S. Development, LLC, requesting a
rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural with "ST" overlays to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as the
Mirasol PUD for a mixed residential development consisting of not more than 799 dwelling units on property
lying north of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and west of a northerly extension of C.R. 951 in Sections 10, 15 and
22, Township 48, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1,527_+ acres. (Continued from 3/15)
(Coordinator: Ron Nino)
PUD-97-13(1), Bill Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., and Andrew I. Solis of Price, Siket
& Solis, LLP, representing The Centre at Veterans Park, LLC, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development known as the Veterans Park Center PUD having the effect of removing Tract A and
reducing the acreage from 8.76+ acres to 6.94+ acres, for property located on the south side of Immokalee Road
(C.R. 846), approximately 258 ft. west of Veterans Park Drive, in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Horida. (Continued from 3/15) (Companion to PUD-96-01 (2)) (Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
PUD-96-01 (2), Bill Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., and Andrew I. Solis of Price, Siket
& Solis, LLP, representing The Centre at Veterans Park, LLC, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development having the effect of changing the PUD name from Veterans Park Medical to Veterans
Park Commons, increasing the project acreage to 5.02+ acres, and eliminating the language that limits the amount
of general office uses, for property located on the south side of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846), approximately 258 ft.
west of Veterans Park Drive, in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Continued from 3/15) (Companion to PUD-97-13(1)) (Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
Fo
CU-2000-19, Gerald L. Knight, Esq., of Holland & Knight, LLP, representing Lodestar Tower, Inc., requesting
Conditional Use for a communications tower for essential services in the "E" zoning district per Section
2.6.35.6.3, for property located at the northwest corner of Everglades Boulevard and 1-75 at mile marker 92.5, in
Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of .08+ acres. (Continued
from 3/15) (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian)
Go
CU-2000-21, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., representing Dr. Loren L.
Hoffman of Rising Stars Preschool, Inc., requesting Conditional Use "4" of the "C-5" zoning district for Child
Day Care Services per 2.2.15 ½.3 for property located on the west side of Naples Boulevard, approximately 1000
feet north of Pine Ridge Road, in Section l l, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Continued from 3/15) (Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
H°
BD-2000-39, Miles L. Scofield of Tun'ell & Associates, Inc., representing Ahmed and Kathleen AI-Khatib,
requesting a 145-foot extension to construct a boat dock facility protruding a total of 165 feet into the waterway
for property located on Keewaydin Island, Parcel F a.k.a. Government Lot 2, in Section 14, Township 51 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
8. OLD BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS: WORKSHOP FOR TRAINING/PLANNING & LEGAL ISSUES
10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
l 1. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
12. ADJOURN
04/5/01 CCPC AGEND/RN/im
2
April 5, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call
this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission for
Thursday, April 5th to order.
First item on the agenda is roll call. Mr. Priddy?
MR. PRIDDY: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Miss Young?
MS. YOUNG: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy?
MR. ABERNATHY: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wrage. Absent, excused.
Ms. Rautio, present.
Mr. Budd.
MR. BUDD: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Pedone?
MR. PEDONE: Here.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We do have a quorum.
Mr. Mulhere, do we have addenda to the agenda?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, Madam Chairman. I'd like to -- with the
pleasure of the Planning Commission, I'd like to move Item H to
first on the agenda. That's really the only petition that Ross
Gochenaur. And he can get back to work if we hear that one
first. Some of the other petitions, I think, will be a little bit more
lengthy. 7-H.
MR. BUDD: So moved.
MR. ABERNATHY: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd
and a second, I believe, by Mr. Abernathy to move Item H to Item
A under public hearings.
All in favor?
Page 2
April 5, 2001
(Unanimous response.)
Opposed, same sign.
Motion carries.
Approval of the minutes.
We do have two sets of the
minutes: the February 15th and March 1st. We did not have a
quorum to approve the February 15th minutes. I'll entertain a
motion for either one or both sets. MS. YOUNG: I so move.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Move -- do we have a second?
MR. RICHARDSON: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by
Commissioner Young, second by Commissioner Richardson to
accept both sets of minutes. All in favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
Opposed, same sign.
Motion carries.
Do we have any Planning Commission absences?
MR. ABERNATHY: First meeting in May I will not be here.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other Planning Commission
absences? We do --
MS. YOUNG: We have -- I think I -- yes, I will not be here.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. young, you will not be here --
MS. YOUNG: I'll be in Paris.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: In Paris. Okay. We have two that
will be absent on the first meeting in May.
And I do have a letter of resignation from one member which
we will cover under new business.
The Board of County Commissioners' report, Item No. 5, we
do have a recap that's now so graciously provided in our packet.
This recap was from the 27th of February.
Mr. Mulhere, do you have any comments on this?
MR. MULHERE: Two things: One, we will routinely provide
Page 3
April 5, 2001
you with the recap. And also, I believe Susan Murray was
prepared to give you any type of verbal comments or answer any
questions that you might have with respect to the board's action
on particular items. Particularly focusing on the ones that you
deal with, but also if you have some questions on other actions
by the board, I think we would be prepared to do that as well.
There really were no -- the board really didn't take any
action contrary to what the Planning Commission
recommendation was here on the -- February 27th. So I don't
really have anything further to state on the recap. But I just -- I
recognize that you have expressed as collectively as a -- as a
group a desire to be brought up to date on a routine basis on the
actions of the board, and we'll strive to do a better ]ob with that.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. And we do definitely
appreciate the recap information. Okay.
MR. RICHARDSON: Madam Chair--
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. Mr. Richardson.
MR. RICHARDSON: -- Chairman, may I ask a question on the
-- perhaps, Bob, just curiosity, this -- I see an item that says
approve a bare license agreement between Collier County and
WCI Communities for use of vacant county-owned property with
an annual rent. I've got no idea what that refers to. Do you
know? Maybe that's --
MR. MULHERE: No, I don't, but I can find out for you.
MR. RICHARDSON: Just curious how -- under what
circumstances the county has land that it rents out to private
parties.
MR. MULHERE:
you a report on that.
that, but I'll -- I'll make a note.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
Yeah. I -- I -- I'd have to come back and give
Actually, of course, it will be Susan doing
comments from the board?
Okay. Any other further
Page 4
April 5, 2001
We are on Item 7 of advertised public hearings. The first
item is a variance, varian -- excuse me. V-2000-37. All persons -- MR. ABERNATHY: Wait a minute. You might have moved
too fast.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Whoops.
MR. RICHARDSON: We did H. Let's move to H.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We're going to move to H.
Excuse me, Mr. Scofield.
The first item on the agenda under the amended agenda is
BD-2000-39. Your turn.
That's right. We're going to swear everybody in. I'm sort of
filling in today. All those wishing to give testimony, please stand
and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All witnesses were administered the oath by the court
reporter.)
MR. SCOFIELD: I'm in trouble.
MR. ABERNATHY: Supposed to have been testimony on this
item, I think.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I hope that you-all stood for the
boat-dock extension. And if you have not filled out a speaker
slip, please do so and give it to Mr. Mulhere up here. Okay. Now we're ready to go.
MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services.
The petitioner is requesting a 145-foot extension to create a
docking facility protruding a total of 165 feet into the waterway.
The project is located on Keewaydin Island and contains about
100 feet of water frontage. The project consists of a 6-foot wide
walkway narrowing to 5 feet beyond the mangrove line and
accessing three boat slips. The measurement of -- of the facility
is taken from the most restrictive point, which is the property
line. If measured from the mangrove line, the actual dock would
Page 5
April 5, 2001
protrude 75 feet into the waterway. According to the petitioners,
similar docks in the area extend from 45 to 70 feet beyond the
mangrove shoreline.
No objections to this project have been received. It meets
all criteria, and staff recommends approval.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of
staff?
MR. RICHARDSON: If l may?
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Mr. Richardson.
MR. RICHARDSON: So this will be the longest dock that's
there. It will set a new standard for how long they can go?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Not necessarily. Some of these docks
were constructed quite some time ago to the point where I really
can't say that this is, in fact, going to be the longest dock there.
MR. RICHARDSON: So there are some there that are
grandfathered in before we had rules?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, there are. And I don't know the
exact length of those docks. This is comparable with other
docks in the area.
MR. RICHARDSON:
feet.
feet.
Comparable but longer by quite a few
MR. GOCHENAUR: According to the petitioner, by about 5
There are docks up to 70 feet beyond the mangrove
shoreline, and this one would go about 75 feet.
MR. RICHARDSON: Have we received any objections to
this?
MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No other questions? Mr. Scofield.
MR. SCOFIELD: Hi. Rocky Scofield representing the
petitioner. Just to clarify a couple of things there for you. This --
the dock is only out 55 feet from the shoreline. There's a lot of
docks out to 80 and 90 feet in -- in the -- on Key Island in this
Page 6
April 5, 2001
area down -- down the southern end of Key Island.
The -- there's mooring pilings 20 feet out from the end of the
dock to safely moor the boat when it's tied up in front because
the boat traffic down there, it's not a no-wake zone, and that's
the extra distance out. But there are a lot of docks in the area.
Why it seems so long is that we're 90 feet from the shoreline into
the mangroves before we get to the upland, and that whole
distance has to be taken into consideration for the boat-dock
extension.
A couple of things there that we were limited to. We were
only limited to two slips by the DEP, and the entire walkway has
to be 4 feet wide from the dock all the way to the upland, so
there's been some reductions on this from the county from what
was proposed at the county level. So if you have any other
questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
MR. ABERNATHY: Rocky, are there any exotic vegetation in
the mangrove forest?
MR. SCOFIELD: Not in -- not in the mangrove forest. On the
upland there is.
MR. ABERNATHY: Okay.
MR. SCOFIELD: And -- and we're -- we're -- we're in the
process -- in a couple of weeks we're going to be going in to the
uplands there and removing all the exotics.
MR. ABERNATHY: I thought it would be a heck of a job to
get them out of the mangroves, if there were any in there.
MR. SCOFIELD: Right. They -- they don't seem to be growing
in the -- in -- in that -- in the mangrove area and the -- and the
wetland areas. It's just the three types of mangroves. MR. ABERNATHY: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Scofield, you did say that
there are only two slips now, not three?
MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct.
Page 7
April 5, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions
of Mr. Scofield? I do believe -- those who have registered to
speak, Mr. Mulhere?
MR. MULHERE: No. I have no registered speakers.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We had a number--
MR. MULHERE: On the boat dock?
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: On this boat dock.
MR. MULHERE: They were confused. I have no registered
speakers.
MR. ABERNATHY: You didn't limit the oath-taking to people
on this item, so some of them stood for subsequent items, I
think.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Sorry for that confusion. So we
have no registered speakers. We can close the public hearing.
MR. PRIDDY: Madam Chairman, I move that we forward
Petition BD-2000-39 or that we approve BD-2000-39. MR. BUDD: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion by Mr. Priddy, second by
Mr. Budd for approval of the petition. Do we have any
discussion?
Hearing no discussion, call the question.
aye.
All in favor say
(Unanimous response.)
Those opposed, same sign.
The motion carries. Thank you.
MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now, we will consider the first
variance, Variance 2000-37. All those wishing to speak on this
item, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the
court reporter.
(All witnesses were administered the oath by the court
reporter.)
Page 8
April 5, 2001
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning.
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a
request for a variance from the separation requirement between
a commercial building and a residential property with a parking
exemption. On the visualizer you can see the location, Airport
Road running north and south, Estey Avenue running east and
west. And this property is a combination of four lots at the
corner of Airport and Hibiscus.
MR. RICHARDSON: Madam Chairman, before we go any
further, we should have a disclosure on this. I have had
discussions with Mr. Wood on this project.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You have had discussions --
MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Wood.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wood. Okay. Are there any
other disclosures? Hearing none?
MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Reischl.
MR. REISCHL: Okay, and, again, on this survey you can see
Airport Road, north and south; Hibiscus, east and west. You see
the lot configuration of the four lots. Three of the lots run east
and west, which are the commercially zoned lots, and this lot
running north and south is the residential lot with a parking
exemption.
And, again, to try to clarify things, this is the proposed site
plan, again, oriented the same way, Airport Road on your left.
This is the existing building. This is the proposed expansion to
the building, and this is the proposed improvement to the off-site
parking on the residentially zoned lot. What the code requires is
that from the property line of the residential lot to the edge of the
building there be a 15-foot separation. The petitioner is asking
for a reduction in that 15-foot separation. Staff has agreed with
Page 9
April 5, 2001
this and recommended approval because, even though it's not
technically in line with the code, the effect is the same because
this parking, the off-site parking requirement, will be required
parking for a building of that size. Therefore, if you remove that
parking and build a house on that residential lot, the building
could not function. You would have to -- the commercial building
would not function. You would have to remove at least a portion
of the commercial building. And, therefore, you would regain
that 15-foot separation anyway.
So staff considered this and determined that even though it
did not meet the letter of the code, it met the spirit of the code
because the parking would not exist on that residential lot if-- if -
- if the parking did not exist on that residential lot, then the
commercial building as it is proposed would not be able to exist
either, and I have received no objections, no phone calls, or
letters at all.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Any questions of staff?
MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, I have a couple. The resolution
approving this speaks in terms of Exhibit A, the attached plot
plan. I can't find anything like that in my packet. This diagram
you have on the visualizer is not in our packet. Is that -- is that
it?
MR. REISCHL: That's Exhibit A. I apologize. It was probably
because of the lack of meeting last week. We had to assemble
everything again and -- I apologize. That was probably my fault
of not reputting it in the new packet.
MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Abernathy, it came out in the original
packet, and the supplanted packet didn't include the exhibit.
MR. ABERNATHY: Oh, okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: If you would -- I have my old
packet, if you would like to review it briefly.
MR. ABERNATHY: I can see it here.
Page10
April 5, 2001
What is in this area south of the -- of the pink building? Is
that --
MR.
MR.
MR.
which is
MR.
MR.
MR.
REISCHL: Right now?
ABERNATHY: Yeah.
REISCHL: It used to be the old Dots & Ice Sub Shop
now gone. It's an empty lot.
ABERNATHY: Empty lot.
PEDONE: And then next to that is the 7-Eleven.
REISCHL: 7-Eleven, correct.
MR. ABERNATHY: Okay. I've got it. Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of staff? Mr.
Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: Hi. I'm Wayne Arnold representing Mr. Wood.
We also have David Humphrey, the architect on the project, with
us here this morning if you have any specific architectural
questions.
I think Fred summarized our request very nicely, and I think
one of the things that I would point out, the advantage to
allowing us to encroach into this required setback from an off-
site parking lot is simply one that it gives us the ability to create
a more functional building. We get to go in a building that, by
today's standards, it's a little bit substandard with respect to its
size and dimension for leasing it for commercial tenants. We can
basically come in and make it economically viable by making the
expansion to the building. We can also then give it the
architectural treatments that are required under our code. It
would be brought up to code with respect to current parking
requirements and paving, landscaping, etc. So there are
significant site improvements that accrue from allowing us to go
ahead and -- and have the 9.2-foot variance from the off-site
parking lot.
And I guess one of the other things that Fred didn't point out
Page 11
April 5, 2001
is that the off-site parking agreement has been in effect since
1980. And right now that parking lot is essentially unimproved.
There is some asphalt back there. There's some lime rock. And,
again, this allows us to go ahead and bring the site up to code
with respect to the landscaping, water management, etc.
One thing that's not in your record that I do have that I'd like
to give to Mr. Reischl for inclusion are letters of no objection
from the two property owners that abut us to the east. Mr. Wood
personally went out and met with them, spoke with them
regarding the variance, and I would like to enter those into the
record, ill could.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Do we have
questions of Mr. Arnold?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, a question for Mr. Arnold. I -- I
suppose this is rather routine now, but do you have sewer
connection at this property?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, we do. It's currently connected to the
sewer system.
MR. RICHARDSON: And, Mr. Reischl, I want to compliment
you on getting the numbers correct on -- at least lined up
between analysis and submission. That helps -- very helpful.
MR. REISCHL: Thank you.
MR. RICHARDSON: I appreciate it.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any registered
speakers?
MR. MUI. HERE: I'm sorry. Yes, there are. John Wood.
MR. WOOD: Yeah. I don't have anything to say unless
somebody has a question.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All right. Seeing no registered
speakers, we will close the public hearing.
MR. BUDD: I'd like to make a motion that we forward
Petition V-2000-37 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a
Page 12
April 5, 2001
recommendation for approval. MR. PEDONE.' Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by
Commissioner Budd, a second by Commissioner Pedone for
approval of the petition. Is there any further discussion?
Hearing no further discussion, I call the question. All those in
favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
Those opposed, same sign.
The motion carries.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Moving right along to public
hearing on Variance 2000-40, all those wishing to give testimony,
please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court
reporter for this item.
(All witnesses were administered the oath by the court
reporter.)
MR. BADAMTCHIAN'- Good morning, Commissioners.
Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Mr. and Mrs.
Lato -- Latovich (phonetic) re -- requesting a 5.5-foot variance
from the required 30-foot setback from the property boundaries
to 24.5. They are planning enclosing their lanai, and --
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. Chahram, before you
go any further, I would like to disclose that I had a discussion
with Mrs. Lentovich last meeting while we were waiting to
determine if we had a quorum. We did discuss this, so I want to
put that on the record. Thank you.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Thank you. As you can see, the
building is sitting at an angle. And of 117 square feet of lanai,
only 15.12 square feet of it will be within the required setback.
Staff has received a petition with 13 or 14 names all
supporting this variance, and I believe some of the neighbors are
Page 13
April 5, 2001
here today in support of it. And all the applicant is asking is to
put screened enclosure on his lanai so she can use it.
Staff recommends approval of this variance. It's a real
minor variance. Everybody else has the same type lanai with the
enclosure with the exception of Mrs. Lentovich. Staff
recommends that the CCPC forward this to the PCA with their
recommendation for approval.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Why does everyone else have the
same type of lanai and she needs the variance?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Because of the way the building sits.
As you can see, everybody else has the required setback --
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- and she has the end unit. And her
unit is 24.6 feet from the property line, and the required setback
is 30.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay.
MR. ABERNATHY: They just poured the thing in the wrong
place, it looks like. They could have poured it inward a little
further.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They -- they -- they could have, yes.
That's an older building that's probably 15 years old. I don't
know the age of it, but it's an older building, and probably they
poured it in the wrong place.
MR. ABERNATHY: From what I see of this diagram that's
enclosed, it's a little more than you have said it is. It's a two-
story proposition, isn't it?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The building itself is a two-story
proposition, yes.
MR. ABERNATHY: Well, they're putting a -- a second -- it's
not just putting a -- screening in a lanai. There's going to be a
second floor to it. Is that not right?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: What they are asking -- I believe Mr.
Page 14
April 5, 2001
Lentovich lives on the first floor. MS. LENTOVICH.' Yes.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And the variance is to enclose the
lanai. If they want to do it, the --
MR. ABERNATHY: The second story doesn't make any
difference.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's not a part of the application.
MR. ABERNATHY: Okay. My other question is, and maybe
this is to you, Marjorie. These people don't own the land that
they're asking for the variance on. This is a condominium. I
assume that's a limited common element. Don't we need some
formality from -- we've got a handwritten letter, accordingly from
the president, but don't we need some sort of a resolution from
the board of the condominium before --
MS. STUDENT: Chahram --
MR. ABERNATHY: -- we start granting variances?
MS. STUDENT: I'm not sure about that. Chahram, how is
that -- we've had other cases in the county -- and maybe Mr.
Mulhere could address it -- where we've had condos come in and
ask for variances for things like covered parking structures. And
what has been the policy of the county?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Well, we always ask the association to
send us a letter of no objection. I mean, the slab is already
there, so I don't believe the slab is going to be a problem. They --
all they want to do is to basically enclose it. And I have a letter.
Yes, it's a handwritten letter from the association, but -- MR. MULHERE: Is that a letter of no objection?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yeah. They said they have -- they are
not objecting to them to enclose the lanai.
MR. MULHERE: Well, the only thing that I could add is that
prior to issuance of a building permit, if it is commonly owned
property, which this is, I believe, then prior to the issuance of a
Page 15
April 5, 2001
building permit, accompanying the building permit will have to be
also a letter authorizing them to pull the permit.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would someone summarize what
you just said? Because I'm not sure that ownership -- there's no
problem with the ownership?
MR. PRIDDY: We -- we can approve this, and -- and if the
owner doesn't want them to do it, they're not going to get a
permit to do it.
MS. STUDENT: I think, too, it might be something that we
could go ahead and -- utilizing the criteria in the code for the
variance, go ahead and approve that and maybe before the Board
of County Commissioners sort out the other issue.
MR. ABERNATHY: It seems to me the owner of a piece of
property ought to be asking for variances to that property.
MS. STUDENT: No, I under -- I understand. It could be
owner or the agent, of the way the code is written, for a land
development approval. I don't believe we've ever required the
formality of a resolution. Being this is a seasonal area, we could
perhaps run into difficulties doing that, if everybody's gone in the
summer and there's some emergent situation, so I could
understand that. But we can sort it through, and by the time it
gets to the BZA, we'll have it resolved. Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Lentovich, would you care to
address us?
MS. LENTOVICH: Well, all I can say is that we would like to
have the lanai.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Does anyone have any questions?
Are there any registered speakers for this particular item?
MR. MULHERE: No. Other than Mrs. Lentovich, no.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no -- seeing no other
speakers, close the public hearing.
MR. BUDD: Madam Chairman --
Page 16
April 5, 2001
Go ahead, Russell. You're on.
MR. PRIDDY-' Madam Chairman, I move that we forward
Petition V-2000-40 to the board of zoning appeals with a
recommendation of approval. MR. BUDD: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by
Commissioner Priddy and second by Commissioner Budd for
approval. All those in fay -- any further discussion? All those in
favor state aye.
(Unanimous response.)
Those opposed, same sign.
The motion carries. Thank you.
Moving right along, Item PUD 99-10. All those wishing to
give testimony on this item, please stand, raise your right hand,
and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All witnesses were administered the oath by the court
reporter.)
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Before proceeding I'd like to ask
for any disclosures. I have a disclosure for having a con --
telephone conversation this week with Karen Bishop
representing the petitioner.
MR. ABERNATHY: I've spoken with Miss Bishop too.
MR. PRIDDY: I have spoken with Ms. Bishop.
MR. RICHARDSON: I have spoken with Miss Bishop.
MR. BUDD: And I have also.
MR. RICHARDSON: Miss Bishop has spoken to me.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do believe we have all had our
discussions.
MR. BISHOP: He spoke back.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You spoke back. Okay. Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: For the record, Ron Nino, planning services. The
petition you have before you is a petition to rezone agriculturally
Page 17
April 5, 2001
zoned land, both in the urban designated district and in the rural
designation -- designated district to a PUD classification.
In relationship to Collier Boulevard, this property lies west of
Collier Boulevard in this extended alignment. It is bound on the
south by the Richland PUD or the Pebblebrooke development;
Laurel Woods, which is currently under development; and Ibis
Cove that will be shortly under development. So there is a -- an
extensive amount of urban development underway immediately
and across the street from the Mirasol PUD. To the west of the
Mirasol PUD lies the Olde Cypress Golf and Country Club which is
a PUD that was approved for about a thousand dwelling units.
This section up in here is currently under review as a PUD
and will come to you shortly. The Parklands PUD is in this
quadrant (indicating), this section here (indicating), and that is
now under the ownership of the Ronto organization. And they
will shortly be proceeding with development of the Parklands.
To the east we have an application in-house under a DRI for
the Heritage Bay development that -- that project, of course, is
awaiting the completion of the rural assessment study in terms
of what will be the final product on that project. And, of course,
to the north is Lee County. However, even in Lee County there's
active proposals for development of a section that lies
immediately to the north of the Mirasol.
Mirasol makes up 1558, plus or minus, acres. The number of
dwelling units that is requested with this application is 799
dwelling units. That equates with a density of 0.51 dwelling
units per acre.
In terms of the project's consistency with elements of the
growth management plan, this zoning is consistent with the
future --
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. In deference to the
court reporter, would you please take the conversation out in the
Page 18
April 5, 2001
hall --
MR. BUDD: Chahram.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- Chahram? Thank you.
MR. NINO: This petition is consistent with the future land
use element in the context that it is located within the urban
designated area and the development that is proposed on the
agriculturally designated area is consistent with the FLUE, and
moreover, is made consistent by the fact that it was submitted
prior to June the 22nd of 1999.
In terms of -- in terms of density, this petition as structured
is also consistent with the density requirements of the density
rating system and the future land use element because the
number of units that are limited to the agriculturally designated
portion are consistent with the 1-unit-per-5-acre rule. They will --
of the 799 units, no more than 241 units, which is consistent with
that I per 5, can be allowed on the agriculturally designated
portion until such time as the rural fringe study is completed, and
should the rural flood -- fringe study acknowledge cjustering at
greater density on agricultural land, then that -- that permission
will be automatically granted to the petitioner. But until that
action occurs, and if it doesn't occur, then the agriculturally
designated portion is designated -- is limited to the 241 units or,
i.e., I unit per 5 acres.
There are no dwelling units proposed for the most northerly
portion of the PUD. You will see the master plan that the
petitioner will represent. So we have consistency on the future
land use and consistency on the -- on the density. We have -- in
terms of the open-space requirements of the Land Development
Code, this project will designate far in excess of the 60 percent
that is otherwise required by the -- by the open-space element.
In terms of the conservation and coastal management
element, this project will preserve far more than the 25 percent
Page 19
April 5, 2001
of the lively functioning native vegetation on the site. If you go
to the environmental section of the -- of my -- my report, you'll
note that -- that there's a loss of 582 acres of wetlands while
preserving 729 acres of wetlands.
Staff reminds you that -- that policies in the growth
management plan speak to -- speak to the ability to, in fact,
mitigate the wetlands, the jurisdictional agencies, including the
corps of engineers, all acknowledge that you can mitigate the
loss of wetlands. This petitioner has done that and will give you
a very extensive presentation on how it is accomplishing that in -
- and the -- and the positive aspect of this plan in terms of the
regional flow-way system that they will create and participate in
at great expense to this developer.
In the opinion of staff, this petition is consistent with the
coastal management element. However, I would advise you that
the Environmental Advisory Council did not see it that way, and I
wanted you to be knowledgeable about the full content of their
considerations, so we provided you with a full transcript of the
Environmental Advisory Council's meeting.
The other element that there's -- there's the traffic element.
We had indicated -- I believe this petition is consistent with the
traffic element. However, our staff report acknowledges the
level of service on Collier Boulevard as level of service C, and I
was advised at the outset of this meeting that it ought to be
level -- level of service D. I don't believe that that makes the
project inconsistent. But Dawn Wolfe of our transportation staff
is here to discuss any concerns that you might want to raise
relative to that assurance of that consistency relationship.
In terms of the sewer and water element, this PUD as
structured is not consistent with the sewer and water element
because it makes provision for the extension of sewer and water
facilities into the agricultural portion, or failing that, makes
Page 20
April 5, 2001
provision for -- for a temporary treatment plant, a treatment
package plant. That, the -- the preponderance of opinion by staff,
including legal staff, is that those tolerances are not permitted in
the sewer and water element. You cannot extend the county
sewer and water system into the agricultural area, and you
cannot have package treatment plants.
The petitioner has crafted in their PUD a credible response
to all of those issues, and that issue will lie with this planning
commission. But from the point of view of staff, we have to
advise you that the PUD as structured is inconsistent. To be
consistent it would have to remove any discussion of temporary
treatment plants or the extension of sewer and water facilities
into the agricultural area. So with that one exception, we do
have an inconsistency issue.
In terms of planning philosophy and theory, in terms of the
use -- issue of compatibility, I've discussed with you all of the
surrounding conditions. Obviously the surrounding conditions
are significantly more urbanized than -- than this project intends
to be, largely a golf course. The density is far lower than the
density of the surrounding properties. We -- we have to tell you
that, in our professional judgment, the rezoning of this land is
timely, and it is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
There is an extensive presentation, I believe, that's going to
take up more than three-quarters of an hour. Then I would defer
to the -- to the petitioner, but I'd be happy to answer any
questions.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Mulhere is getting my
attention.
MR. MULHERE: I -- I did want to add -- and, thanks. For the
record, Bob Mulhere, planning services director. I did want to
add that we are looking -- the rural fringe assessment process
and the rural fringe committee, oversight committee and staff,
Page 21
April 5, 2001
we are looking at incorporating certain development standards
through that process that would allow this property owner to
develop in a fashion similar to that which they are requesting.
And by tho -- in those standards, a couple of those standards
would be, No. 1, cjustering. And -- and cjustering would be
permitted in the rural area, as well as in the urban area. And, in
addition to cjustering, also something that has been called
density blending, which would be a process that would allow a
property owner to utilize all of their density anywhere within their
property, whether it's rural or urban, if the property extends over
the -- the -- the urban boundary. Probably, though, the focus of
that allowance will be to protect the most valuable natural
resource areas. So, I mean, there will be some conditions, I
think, as we move forward with that. I'm not suggesting this
application doesn't achieve that. I'm just indicating that these
are things that this rural assessment committee is looking at as
we move forward with the final-order requirements.
And the last thing that -- that I want to mention is that -- and
I've spoken to Karen Bishop several times with respect to this,
and that is that we also -- in order to maximize the benefits of
cjustering and of this ability to blend your density, and in
identifying those lands that are most valuable environmentally
sensitive lands within the fringe, we also have an obligation to
identify lands that are most appropriate for development. And in
doing so, we are going to look at the advisability of extending
county sewer lines and waterlines in those -- to those areas that
we identify as being most appropriate for development. And
likely that would be some portion of the Immokalee Road corridor
and also somewhere along east US 41 where the lines already
exist out to Collier Seminole State Park.
Now, I'm giving you this information only to indicate that one
possible remedy for the issue relative to sewer and water would
Page 22
April 5, 2001
be to condition the PUD such that at this point it's not consistent
with the comprehensive plan but that they will also enjoin any of
the rights post assessment comp. Plan amendments that are
developed through that process. So I think if we recognize that
within the PUD, then -- and -- and the expected time frame for
that would be probably a transmittal in -- in October and adoption
sometime in January of 2002. So we're talking about, really, less
than a year before that process is expected to be completed in
the rural fringe.
MR. NINO: May I add -- add to my record? I neglected to --
to discuss the reservations that this plan makes for the
extension of Collier Boulevard. This plan allows the county two
opportunities in terms of the alignment and preserves 200 feet of
right-of-way for the extension of CR 951. Should the -- should the
preferred route end up being straight north, the PUD has made
arrangements for the reservation of a hundred feet of right-of-
way on its boundary. And, of course, the other side would
contribute the other 200. But it also makes -- makes it possible
for us to acquire 200 feet of right-of-way through the project
should this be the alignment which is currently the alignment
that is identified on the trafficways maps. So this petition gives
us that ability to place 951 in two corridors and provides us with
assurance that right-of-way will be made available for that.
MR. NINO: There is also a piece of land-locked property up
here. We understand that property does not currently have -- is
not part of a system of easements that gets it up to a public
right -- public right-of-way. But, nonetheless, we felt it was
important that this property be assured that should they be able
to -- that -- that they -- that they be able to negotiate a -- an
easement or some acquisition or utilization of property through
Mirasol at a time when 951 is extended, be it in that direction
(indicating) or in that direction (indicating) and the PUD -- Karen
Page 23
April 5, 2001
did acknowledge that in -- in the PUD, and provision is made or
guaranteeing these people opportunity to acquire a fair market
value the right to use property in Mirasol to access 951 in
whatever alignment it occurs.
MR. RICHARDSON: Madam Chairman.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes.
MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Nino, in view of the latest
information you have about the sewer not being permitted in the -
- as it's now being discussed, does that not change your
recommendation, then --
MR. NINO: Recommendation would be a recommendation of
approval with the exception that no provision be made for
temporary treatment plants or the extension of county water and
sewer into the agricultural area.
MR. RICHARDSON: So that would limit the amount -- the
placement of dwelling units on this PUD.
MR. NINO: Well, it's already limited. But the -- should the
applicant decide to build the 241 units on the agricultural area,
they can do so with septic tanks and wells. That is permitted in
the growth management plan. It's only --
MR. RICHARDSON: With or without cjustering?
MR. NINO: With or without cjustering, correct.
MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. So it's I per 5 acres, but it
doesn't mean that it's I per 5 acres. It's I per --
MR. NINO: No. The land -- the -- 241 units may be cjustered
in the agricultural area. That decision was made a long time
ago. You cannot serve that cjustered development with sewer
and water facilities that are extensions of the county system.
However -- or develop a package treatment plant within that
agricultural area serving those 241 cjustered lots. They can only
be serviced by private wells and septic tanks.
MR. RICHARDSON: So septic tanks or package system are
Page 24
April 5, 2001
considered the same. MR. NINO: No.
MR. MULHERE: No.
MR. RICHARDSON: In the sense of what you were able to
approve.
MR. MULHERE: No.
MR. NINO: You --you can approve --
MR. RICHARDSON: I heard you say that they could have
their own septic well for each house --
MR. NINO: Each house, correct, and well --
MR. RICHARDSON: -- on each of 5 acres. Okay.
MR. NINO: And a well and a septic tank on each lot within
the agricultural area, be it cjustered or on 5-acre plots is
immaterial. They cannot extend a municipal public water system
or sewer system or develop a private package treatment plant.
So your -- our recommendation is that we approve the Mirasol
PUD with provision that there be no extension of sewer and
water into the agricultural area and there -- and we will not allow
any package treatment plants.
MR. RICHARDSON: That doesn't seem to square with what
Mr. Mulhere said.
MR. MULHERE: For the record again, Bob Mulhere. No.
That is -- that is square. What I said was -- the best I can say
now is that I feel fully confident that at the end of the rural fringe
assessment process in order to fully maximize the benefits of
natural resource protection through cjustering and transfer
development rights and other tools. Both package treatment
plants on an interim basis and extension of county water and
sewer will occur in some locations, those locations being the
ones primarily identified as appropriate for development. And --
so, you know, again, these -- these amendments to the growth
management plan haven't even been written yet, you know. And
Page 25
April 5, 2001
in about a year we expect that process to be completed. But --
so there remains to be significant policy discussion on those
issues, but, again, I feel confident that these issues will be
addressed through that process and -- and I just think it's
important to -- to probably recognize it in the PUD, you know, that
any subsequent amendments generated through the -- through
the assessment process would -- would be applicable to this
property. And I don't know that that has to be written into the
PUD. I just wanted you to be aware of it.
MR. RICHARDSON: Well, we've had, you know, over the
history of Collier County a lot of trouble with package plants.
You know, they've been put in and then -- then they're turned
over to the residents, and then the residents, you know, can't
deal with it and the county's had to go in and bail them out. And
I'm just wondering as we set this up with allowing package
plants -- maybe the policy that's already been determined. But
you said on an interim basis -- MR. MULHERE: Correct.
MR. RICHARDSON: -- which tells me that county's going to
have to come along and bail it out.
MR. MULHERE: Well, it's not a question of bailing it out. The
county wants it to be an interim basis because the county will
want to serve those customers eventually.
MR. RICHARDSON: Even if they're in the rural area?
MR. MULHERE: Correct. Well, if we extend the lines, yes.
See, the thing --
MR. RICHARDSON: A circle then.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
MR. RICHARDSON: I can't break this circle because you're
saying the rural assessment hasn't been completed. So we don't
know what the answer to that will be.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct. That's correct.
Page 26
April 5, 2001
MR. RICHARDSON: Yet in this case you're saying we should
permit.
MR. MULHERE: No. We're not saying -- we're saying you
should not permit. We're saying that the only option in the rural
lands is well and septic, period.
MR. RICHARDSON: Which is -- which is a package plant.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No, no.
MR. PEDONE: Septic tank is you dig a hole and you --
MR. RICHARDSON: Well, that's what I thought. And then
you -- then I heard you say "or a package system." . MR. MULHERE: No.
MR. RICHARDSON: Well, let me correct the record -- let you
correct the record for my ears then.
MR. NINO: I said that the only way that residences can be
served in the agricultural portion is with private septic system
and a private well for each and every resident. MR. RICHARDSON: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And those private septic tanks
and wells if, indeed, the county chooses to extend lines at some
point to that point would be turned over into a central sewer
system. You'd actually have to lay the lines and take that out to
get them into a central sewer system. Now, one thing you have
not mentioned here is -- you mentioned it was timely to have this
process go forward for this particular property, but we have not
talked about capacity of the North Naples treatment plant.
Would you care to comment on that?
MR. NINO: Yes. I would -- I would be --
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
here --
MR. NINO: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
MR. NINO:
I know there's several people
-- interested commissioners.
That -- now, this --we have not been advised that
Page 27
April 5, 2001
there is a deficient level of service with respect to sanitary
sewer systems. There is -- I think you have to appreciate that an
approval -- a rezoning action does not guarantee development in
an age of concurrency. And I suggest to you that far too much
importance is placed on the zoning action because it does not
confer a development right in an age of concurrency. The county
at any time, should any level of service be deficient within the
district in which that land is zoned, has the ability to impose a
moratorium. And that's the process that's laid out in the growth
management plan. That process protects -- you can -- you can
rezone all the land you want, and it doesn't necessarily follow in
an era of concurrency that that land can be developed. And I
think you have to focus your mind on that fact and that
relationship. Therefore, the fact that there's a current problem
out there with the septic, that problem is obviously going away.
While everything you read -- and currently we don't even know at
this point if there is a problem, but it's going -- you know, it's
going away and certainly will be gone by the time this
development comes on board. However, you know, you can't put
your head in the sand. And if you feel that -- if you feel that --
that -- that there's some advantage or something to be gained by
the Planning Commission acknowledging that there is a problem
out there, you have the ability to say in this PUD, yes, we approve
it. However, you can't be getting any development until there is
assurance that the north treatment plant is operating with
sufficient capacity.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Nino, I would hope that you'd
not -- did not state that you think there might be a problem, that
there's possibly not a problem at our North Naples treatment
plant.
MR. NINO: I'm saying there is a problem and it's getting
resolved.
Page 28
April 5, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Now, I would agree with
that and that it is going for expansion. And this project, I
believe, probably won't go anywhere for 18 months, 16 months,
so that they're part of the process. But we have a responsibility
to the public who is very concerned about 13 sewage spills at
our North Naples treatment plant on a -- an expansion that has
been delayed. So we can't not at least ask the question and
make sure that it's clear. And I would hope that you did not
really meant -- mean to imply -- MR. NINO: No.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- that there was not a problem
with sewage at that treatment plant.
MR. MULHERE: But may I add, if I could -- Bob Mulhere --
while the problem is being resolved, the real safeguard, the real
measure of the county's ability to not issue connections, is the
concurrency management process and a certificate of adequate
public facilities. And even with a certificate of adequate public
facilities which comes at a time that a final local development
order is issued, even with that, the county still can withhold or
deny hookup if there is a capacity issue. Even a certificate of
adequate public facility does not guarantee that there will be
capacity. So there are basically several other safeguards in
place. The -- you know, frankly, the -- the long-range capital
improvements and the short-term fixes that have been the part of
the consent order with the DEP will resolve these issues. But
you're correct to think 16 months from now when we're -- or a
year from now when this project, you know, goes through the
final local development order, whenever that time frame is
processed for one portion of it or another, that's when the -- the
utilities department will review their capacity and ensure that
there is capacity and either approve or not approve, you know,
the hookups for this project. So -- I mean, I think it's a legitimate
Page 29
April 5, 2001
question, and it's probably one that's going to be raised on every
single rezone that comes up. But the process is designed not to -
- that issue is not addressed at the rezone stage; it's addressed
at the final local development -- development order stage.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Then from a public relations
standpoint for our responsibility to the taxpayers in this county, I
feel that it's necessary to be there, but they also do have a
opportunity, by what's on the record, to understand that --
MR. MULHERE: No. I think it's a legitimate question, yeah.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- safeguard are being taken.
Measures are being put into place to make sure the expansion is
there so that not only this project but the other projects will
actually have an ability to flush their toliets, Because that's
really on the mind of a lot of people.
I believe Mr. Abernathy has been waiting patiently to
comment and Commissioner Young.
MR. ABERNATHY: I wanted to cite a sentence to you, Ron.
The more I hear, the less I understand this agricultural portion of
the land. On page 7 of your report you say, "This fact is
academic, in any event" -- excuse me -- "because the area of
housing, for all practical purposes, is limited to the urban
designated area unless the density is less than otherwise
allowed." do we have an indication from the developer of what
portion, if any, of the 242 ag-attributable units are going to be
built north of the line?
MR. NINO: I think -- I think they have a fairly detailed master
plan.
MR. ABERNATHY: You're saying that essentially none are
going to be built north. MS. BISHOP: No.
MR. NINO: No. I didn't -- I didn't intend to say that. I
intended to --
Page 30
April 5, 2001
MR. ABERNATHY: Because the area of housing, for all
practical purposes, is limited to the urban designated area.
MR. NINO: I did -- I did -- what I was intending to say, there
wouldn't be more than 241 units in the small acreage that is
within the agricultural area, in any event.
MR. ABERNATHY: Where does that line run across there?
MR. NINO: Well, I --
MR. ABERNATHY: You've got the golf -- north golf course up
there. You've got the flow-way, and now where's the cutoff?
Where down there?
MR. NINO: Somewhere in here (indicating). So you basically
have that much land (indicating) from the agricultural. MR. ABERNATHY: That's in the ag. Okay. I see.
My other question is, you have provided us with a copy of
the EAC minutes that dealt with this issue. Would you refresh my
memory on just exactly what the relationship between the EAC
and the Collier County Planning Commission is? On the face of it,
we both seem to be advisory to the Board of County
Commissioners. Does the EAC also act in an advisory role to us?
Are we bound to give some deference to their opinions on natural
resource issues or just take them for whatever we think they're
worth?
MR. NINO: The latter, I think, is -- is the appropriate
response.
MR. ABERNATHY: Well, we -- we are entitled to consider
them.
MR. NINO: Certainly.
MR. ABERNATHY: Are we bound to consider them?
MR. NINO: I would say not. However, I would defer to
counsel.
You are the local planning agency. You are the official
planning body that makes recommendations to the county board
Page 31
April 5, 2001
of commissioners. The EAC is a -- while it is an advisory body to
the county board of commissioners, it is not one that is statutory
provided in the con -- in the sense that you folks are. MR. ABERNATHY: That's what I thought.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Young.
MS. YOUNG: Actually, this petition wouldn't even have been
before us if it hadn't gotten in before June 22nd, right, because
they are not working -- MR. NINO: Well--
MS. YOUNG: -- on the growth management plan.
MR. NINO: In -- in part it could have come before you.
MS. YOUNG: In part. Which part?
MR. MULHERE: Why don't you explain.
MR. NINO: Only the part that's in the urban area, the 600.
MR. MULHERE: I think--
MR. NINO: The 640 -- the portion that's in this section
(indicating), that's currently in the urban designated area, and
that could have been -- that could come to you today. But any
land in these two sections (indicating) after June the 22nd could
not have been considered for any rezoning act.
MR. MULHERE: I think it's maybe important that I explain
that. Again, Bob Mulhere for the record. The final order
exempted any petition that was in the process that had been
applied for prior to that date, June 22nd, 1999. Anything that had
not been applied for, obviously, was subject to the moratorium or
the prohibition on certain uses out there; I think it's probably a
better term than moratorium because some uses are still
permitted in the rural area. But it is clear that legally, without
question, they are not subject to the final order, and I -- I think
that needs to be stated.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All right.
MR. MULHERE: I wanted to show you on the map here, I
Page 32
April 5, 2001
don't -- for some reason the -- the color doesn't seem to come up
too much on the yellow on what's urban.
MR. ABERNATHY: Can you draw a line around it?
MR. MULHERE: We're -- we're actually talking about --
MR. NINO: Right there (indicating).
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, this -- this urban section.
MR. NINO: You can't see the yellow.
MR. MULHERE: Just west of 951, which is right in here, and
then approximately two sections north of that. Those two
sections north of that, the urban boundary, basically, is I mile
east of 951, right here (indicating), but north of Immokalee Road
the urban boundary moves west. So these two sections here
(indicating) are slightly more than two sections, but these two
sections that are in the project are in the rural area. Maybe this
would work a little better.
MR. NINO: There, there.
MR. MULHERE: Not very much.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Perhaps, Mr. Nino --
MS. BISHOP: No, that's not right.
MR. NINO: 9517
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions
along this line?
Mr. Nino, are you through with your presentation then?
MR. NINO: Yes, I am. Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do believe -- Commissioner
Young.
MS. YOUNG: Well, I just wondered if you could indicate the
entire flow as envisioned, you know, by the environmentalist as
the water flow from Lake Okeechobee south, because this -- the
flow-way as opposed to --
MR. NINO: I think you need to listen to the presentation. It
covers that entire issue.
Page 33
April 5, 2001
MS. BISHOP: Good morning. Karen Bishop, agent for the
owner.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Miss Bishop.
MR. RICHARDSON: Excuse me. Are we through asking
questions of staff, or can we come back? May we come back?
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We can come back and ask
questions of staff, correct.
MS. BISHOP: I'm going to get to some of the issues on the
sewer because what was intended by our document was to allow
us flexibility. We clearly know we cannot extend county utilities
over the urban services line. At some point what we allowed was
language to allow that at some point when the comprehensive
plan allowed it that we would be allowed to do that. In the
interim, we believe that we are allowed to have other facilities
besides septic and wells. But at the worst case, we knew we
can -- we can, in fact, serve our two hundred -- our units in the
rural area with wells and septics. But being that they're next to
an environmental flow-way and -- and reserve area, we feel that
that's probably not the most appropriate way to handle that, that
area. But to -- we'll get into that last.
What I'd like to do now is we have this flow-way issue which
is a very unusual part of this project. We have our engineer, Rick
Barber, who's going to discuss what the reasoning of this flow-
way is with the -- about the land, the size of it, what the purpose
of this regional flow-way is all about. They'll have Todd Turrell
and Tim Hall from -- which are biologists discussing the habitat
and vegetation. Rick?
MR. BARBER: Why don't you talk about the project for a
minute, Karen, while I set this up.
MS. BISHOP: While nick's getting his stuff together, I
wanted to talk about -- I guess we can get back to the sewer and
water stuff. If you -- the comprehensive plan, we've been
Page 34
April 5, 2001
working with the staff for a couple of years now trying to get
interpretations of the flexibility allowed in there. We believe that
the flexibility is there to allow these package plants. The
document is not absolutely clear in certain areas, so it does lead
you to believe that there is this flexibility. We understand that
keeping the rural stuff away from the urban stuff is something at
this point that's very important so that we don't see this blending
and this moving of density across to the rural areas, so we've
made provisions in our document that only the density on the
rural area will be within the rural area. The density on the urban
area will stay within the urban area. And there is a provision at
the time that the comprehensive allows any kind of density
blending; then we can take advantage of that. But until then, we
will not take advantage of that. And it is anticipated that we will
build all the units in the rural area that were allowed, so that is
something we are anticipating, as well as the golf course that we
need.
At the EAC there were some issues brought up on -- on
impacts and stuff. And after we reviewed the slide shows and
the elements for you to review, we'll go over their concerns, and
I will discuss our answers to their concerns.
Done yet, Rick?
MR. BARBER: Sure.
MR. MULHERE: I did want to mention for the Planning
Commission that Stan Chrzanowski is also here on behalf of the
staff. So after the presentation or during the presentation, if you
do have questions with respect to the -- the -- the water
management issues, he is also available to answer questions.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are you ready, Mr. Barber?
MR. BARBER: Yes, I am. Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You have the floor.
MR. BARBER: Thank you. What I wanted to talk to you to --
Page 35
April 5, 2001
about today was the restoration of the Cocohatchee flow-way.
And in order to understand that, I really need to give you a sort of
a regional overview of why it's important, and it's going to take a
few minutes to go through that. So I'd appreciate your patience,
and if you have questions along the way, please interrupt me,
and -- and I'll try and make things as -- as plain as I can.
MR. ABERNATHY: Sir.
MR. BARBER: Yes, sir.
MR. ABERNATHY: I'm going to turn my back to you so I can
watch this so I need for you to speak up just a little bit.
MR. BARBER: Okay. What we're going to do is give you a
regional perspective of -- of the watershed itself, an overview of
the watershed, talk about the historical adverse conditions, then
talk about recent area improvements. And most of those have
occurred in Lee County, okay. This is the first time that Collier
County has an opportunity to participate in this. Then we'll get
specific and talk about the Cocohatchee flow-way project itself,
and I'll give you an overview of that, what our site assessment --
assessment process was, and talk about the existing conditions
that are there now and then the restoration ob -- objectives that
are associated with the flow-way.
If you remember back in '95, we had a bit of a -- a storm,
and -- and I think it was 65 inches of rain from July 15th to
October 15th, which is more than the annual rainfall that we get
in Collier County. What happened was about 1700 people in -- in
Lee County and north Collier County were displaced for 8 weeks.
There was 8 to 10 million dollars worth of damage, depending on
who you listen to. The agricultural community experienced
about 22 million dollars worth of damage, and it was one of the
longest disasters that -- that FEMA had on record.
What we found -- and we were asked -- when I say "we," I'm
talking about Agnoli, Barber and Brundage and -- and Johnson
Page 36
April 5, 2001
Engineering. We were asked to do an assessment immediately
after that flood and were hired by the water management district
to go out and shoot levels, water levels, of different areas so we
would have that kind of information available to us later. But
the -- the first thing we noticed was there was a lot more water
coming into the area than we ever expected. We had previously
defined watersheds by the USGS 5-foot contour maps, the quad
maps. And that was the only information available in this flood
area.
So one of the first things we did after we were hired by the
district was go out and -- and shoot topo -- topographic
information out in the Corkscrew Swamp and -- and what we
found by that cork -- that information is the actual watershed
that -- that affects everything from the Estero River in north -- in
middle Lee County all the way down to the Cocohatchee and
Corkscrew canal and Camp Key strand -- and I'll identify all those
places for you in a minute -- are all affected by the -- the same
watershed. And it's about 315 square miles. And what we
quickly realized, that -- that any reduction in capacity of any of
the outfalls associated with the watershed is -- affects the next
outfall or affects lands near it.
The -- the first serious thing that we found was that when 1-
75 was constructed, especially in -- in the area of the Estero
River and Halfway Creek in Lee County, they put the right-sized
openings underneath the road, but they failed to connect the
upstream waters to the downstream waters. They -- they
stopped their improvements at the right-of-way. And the
landowners that were faced with all of a sudden a bridge where
there used to be 2 miles of sheet flow, maybe 3 or 4 inches deep,
were now faced with a -- with a -- with a focused, if you will,
discharge if the water could get to it. So a lot of places berms
were thrown up and that sort of thing, the normal reaction a
Page 37
April 5, 2001
landowner would have to a change in drainage pattern.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me, Mr. Barber.
MR. BARBER: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would you say that one more
time? You're -- you're stating that it was sheet flow before and
now it's a point-source discharge.
MR. BARBER: Well, because of the construction of 1-75, 1-75,
because of its elevation, created a dike. So where there was
sheet flow before now had to be focused through the openings
at -- underneath 1-75.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And --
MR. BARBER: And that -- that kind of improvement was not
made. They didn't put collector swales and/or distribution
swales on the other side.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. That's why I wanted
you to clarify that. It was really collector swales and that type of
a thing that you need -- that would have been reasonable to have
installed at the time that 1-75 went in -- was constructed; right?
MR. BARBER: Yes, ma'am.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is that fair to say?
MR. BARBER: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you.
MR. BARBER: These are the -- the outfalls that we defined
that affect this 315-square-mile watershed. We've got the Estero
River the north branch, the south branch, Halfway Creek,
several -- several tributaries in Imperial -- on the Imperial River in
Bonita Springs. And the headwaters to that are the Kiehl canal.
Then as we move west, we see the beginning of the Cocohatchee
flow-way that flows down into Collier County. This thing has a
mind of its own sometimes.
Out in western Collier County we have Camp Key Strand
which flows south from Lake Trafford down to the Fakahatchee.
Page 38
April 5, 2001
It crosses 846 and -- and Oil Well Grade. Then moving west, we
have Corkscrew Canal and then, as I was saying, both branches
of the Cocohatchee. And, as I said, that when we find that these
have been closed off by permits that really didn't have the -- the
benefit of a regional perspective, we -- we found that the removal
rate off the watershed was -- was seri -- was seriously impaired.
It takes about 9,000 CFS, 9,000 cubic feet per second -- that's a
block a water a foot by a foot by a foot -- moving through an area
that in one second takes 9,000 of those to get I inch per day off
this watershed. So if we've got a couple feet of flooding, you can
see the amount of time that it would take to reduce the -- the
water levels.
In the '95 flood, we estimate we had less than 4,000 CFS
being able to be passed into the -- into the -- out to tide.
I'm just going to run through quickly the adverse conditions
that were experienced in '95. This is a project called
Worthington. It's in Lee County. This is a project called -- or a
migrant camp called Manna Christian I'm sure you've heard
about, and this is Bonita Beach Road (indicating). This was
Bonita Beach Road. You can see 1-75 in the background so that
the main evacuation route out of Bonita Springs was closed.
This is just a -- a road that runs from Bonita Beach Road out
through the river just to show you the depth that was going on.
And the reason why the Imperial River basin was -- was so
inundated, it tends to be one of the lowest points, along with the
Cocohatchee, in the whole watershed. So water that would have
gone out the Estero River and Halfway Creek but was precluded
by the -- by the dike -- 1-75 dike, had to flow south into Bonita
Springs.
This is the 1-foot contour map, one of the products of the
study that we did for the water -- water management district.
And this allowed us to create a computer model -- a Sheet 2-D
Page 39
April 5, 2001
model they call it -- where we're able to take the topographic
information and produce a 2-dimensional computer model,
hydraulic model, that will -- that we then compared to the water
levels that we experienced in '95, introduced the '95 rainfall, and
calibrated the model so we had it running exactly to produce
the -- the same results as we experienced in '95. Why we
created the model is after -- after we came up with alternatives
for improvements, we could evaluate those improvements by
putting them into the model and seeing what effect it had on
water levels.
This is just an example of what that model looked like. The
darker areas are what we call MBR basins. They have point
discharges into the -- into the watershed.
That's another example. This was a '95 calibration peak
that we compared to the water levels that were measured.
Again, the -- the basin runs all the way from the Estero River in
Lee County all the way up to State Road 82 which goes from
Lehigh to Immokalee all the way up to Hendry County. And part
of it is up in Hendry County north of Immokalee, out east to
Immokalee, includes Lake Trafford, south then into Collier
County, and the limits of the study area -- they called it the south
Lee study, so we were sort of limited to -- to -- or focused in -- in
Lee County itself. But we found outfalls, of course, that went
into Collier County, so we -- we were allowed to expand our
scope and look at those areas too.
The recent area improvements, here's a -- a slide of the
Estero River before it was cleaned and snagged. This is beautiful
to -- to folks when they're canoeing and that sort of thing, but if
this has to function as a piece of infrastructure, if you will, take
floodwaters off, that kind of vegetation will collect debris and
really reduce the capacity of a river. So that kind of vegetation
was cleaned out.
Page 40
April 5, 2001
This was a crossing underneath Corkscrew Road in one of
those four lanes. We got the water management district in Lee
County to expand the opening to this big (indicating), three-box
culverts.
We -- and we is Agnoli, Barber and Brundage -- were able to
help The Brooks project go through the permitting process. And
one of the things the water management district had us look at
was the restoration of Halfway Creek. The DOT when they
designed U.S. 41 in front of The Brooks said that they thought
900 and some CFS could flow out of Halfway Creek. And what
we measured in -- in '95 was somewhere around 40 CFS.
So what had happened was the -- the land area was sort of
cut off from the opening under 1-75. Ephemeral ponds were filled
in to make pasture and really reduce the capacity. So they -- the
water management district said it would be very useful to hook
that back up again, and that was one of the things we did when
we permitted The Brooks project. The piece of the flow-way you
can see here is adjacent to a wetland strand.
Another impediment of flow on Halfway Creek was a bridge
that Florida Power & Light had. Florida Power & Light was
convinced that they could live without the bridge, so they took it
out.
This was the crossing underneath the railroad tracks at the -
- at The Brooks project, and that's how it looks today. This was
done with south Florida money.
And this was the cleaning and snagging of the Imperial River
up in Bonita Springs.
This was a bridge that was replaced -- this -- the bridge on --
in the existing condition in '95 was about 40 feet; the upstream
bridge at 1-75 was 300 feet. So you can see that couldn't work.
So the -- the bridge was upped to about 90, 92 feet, I believe.
These are all improvements that have taken place since -- since
Page 41
April 5, 2001
'95.
Another program that -- that's going on now is houses that
were in the flood plane that continually flooded were being
removed. This was one of them. The goat standing in the
window sill is supposed to show you how deep the water got in
'95.
Another recent area improvement was the construction of a
weir on the Kiehl Canal with three gates so we can draw down
the watershed prior to a storm. That will also hold the water
table up in the dry season. An improvement in Collier County
that Ed Carlson made was there were four 36-inch pipes on a
tram road that feeds into the -- the swamp next to -- next to his
sanctuary, and he increased the size of those pipes to 72 inches.
He got all the permits that we required to do that, but that now
lets more water down into -- into the Cocohatchee area.
Camp Key Strand, you can see Lake Trafford in the -- up here
in the -- in the top. We found an old road that connected Big
Corkscrew Island to Immokalee. It was the -- the original
Immokalee Road, if you will. That's been out of service for a long
time, and the culverts have filled in and -- and that sort of thing.
So it holds the water in Lake Trafford about a foot, foot and a half
higher than it needs to and also precludes water from getting
down into the Fakahatchee Strand.
So one of the things we're working with the district is -- is to
-- a mitigation opportunity for the landowner to remove sections
of the road to have more flow south into -- into the Camp Key
Strand.
The district's also spending money on satellite monitoring
stations so we'll be able to tell how high the water is out in the
swamp. It takes about three days if there's a rainstorm north of
Lake Trafford to show up at Bonita Springs or the -- or the
Cocohatchee River. So it's good to have that kind of information.
Page 42
April 5, 2001
Another program that's going on that's a positive is -- is the
CREW trust purchase of preservation lands within the swamp.
Two sections of this project were shown on the -- on the
acquisition area for -- for CREW. And what their focus really was
was the -- the flow-way that we're proposing to restore.
Recent restoration successes, I've told you The Brooks that
ephemeral ponds had been filled to make pasture, and that was
one of the problems with Halfway Creek. That's how it looked in
'97. Here's how it looks today.
Another restoration success as far as wetland plannings,
this is the Cocohatchee Strand, Pelican Marsh. We did not
participate in this. This was an example of what we want the
vegetation to look like.
Now to get into specifics about the Cocohatchee flow-way --
and I appreciate your patience -- the restoration objectives there
were to restore and create wetlands to approximate historic
conditions and functions. And what I mean by that is that this
area has become a flow-way sort of by default. It -- it wasn't
really a flow-way. It just had sheet flow over it during certain
times. But since the water's sort of been funneled to it -- and it's
the only area left for the Cocohatchee west -- the flow-down
water levels have gotten much deeper over the years.
We also want to improve the conveyance to alleviate the
flooding. We have to improve the conveyance because the cross-
section area has been reduced -- and I'll show you what that
entails -- and improve the wildlife habitat.
As they've -- they've located the project for you, so I don't
need to go through this.
This was an exercise we did with Big Cypress Basin to make
sure that the flows that were being request -- requested for a
project to produce would match with Big Cypress Basin
capacities, so we -- we did check with that.
Page 43
April 5, 2001
The sections we're talking about in the flow-way are mainly
Section 11, which is being acquired by CREW, and there's some
private property. Sections 10, 15, and 22 are in the Mirasol
project. Another portion of the flow-way is in Section 16, which
is a project called Terafina. They are a willing participant in the
flow-way. And Section 21, which is the Olde Cypress project
that -- that's been constructed, is also a willing participant in this
project.
And it's been fun trying to get all the landowners to hold
hands, but we -- we're finally successful in doing that.
The site assessment that we talked about was -- we
identified the habitat types, what the hydrology was on the land,
the vegetation composition, the wildlife utilization, and adjacent
uses. And one component of the south Lee study that I needed --
just need to explain to you was that there was a biological
component to that model. We had Rayanne Boylan (phonetic), a
biologist from Lee County, go out and field truth and identify all
the vegetation in that 315-square-mile area. She did it with
satellite maps and wetland inventories and that sort of thing that
were available from the federal government and the state
government. But she went out and field truthed those. So then
as we made changes to water levels or modeled changes in
water levels, she could tell us what the changes, benefits or
impacts, would be on the vegetation.
This is the mapping that she had available for her use. And
that's the kind of detail she went to. It's -- there's nothing here
to read, but it's just an example of the detail that she went to.
Now, we'll sort of focus on the Cocohatchee flow-way. In
nineteen -- about 1940, we think this is the width of the sheet
flow that would come down into Collier County. In 1995 this is
the -- what was left of that sheet-flow area. It included the -- the
Mirasol land and the land to the -- to the west that had not been
Page 44
April 5, 2001
developed yet. It would intersect with Immokalee Road canal. It
doesn't go south, as this shows, but it would intersect with the
Immokalee Road canal which is right next to the Mule Pen quarry
here.
Today that's how it looks (indicating) due to the
construction of -- of the Olde Cypress project. The berm that Big
Cypress Basin threw up on the north side of the canal has limited
us down to a thousand feet on the canal. But due to other
impacts that I'll show you that we're down to 270 feet where we
had probably 15 miles before.
And as I said, this is what we found over and over again
during the south Lee study.
One of the consequences of -- of that narrowing of the flow-
way was that we've got a 1985 map here that the water
management district produced based on aerials. They thought
there was about 507 acres of wetlands on the site back in '85.
And today in '99 or -- or last year in '99, two years ago -- I've been
having a lot more fun than I can remember -- there's now 1,317
acres of wetlands on the site.
Because the -- the area floods to a depth of -- of a foot and a
half or 2 feet in the summer -- in the summertime and then dries
out to 6 feet below the -- the ground surface in the wintertime,
it's encouraged the infes -- infestation of melaleuca. The dark
red is over 75 percent on this map. Todd Turrell is going to go
through this in -- in more detail.
This is a map of the -- of the area; the farmlands are in Lee
County. This is the flow ways as it flows through the Mirasol
project and down into Olde Cypress to the present outfall
location as -- as proposed by Big Cypress Basin.
In '99 we had a 6-inch rainstorm, and this was at the end of
their berm just -- just in front of their control structure, and we
had that much overland flow that it eroded the land service --
Page 45
April 5, 2001
surface out into the canal. Probably folks that rode up and down
the road noticed this. But that gives you an idea how much
water is directed to this area now.
So if we had a 1995 rainstorm today, we'd be in much worse
shape than we were in '95.
I'll just quickly go through these slides. They're what the
berm looks like on the north side of the canal which would
preclude overland flow into the canal except in the -- in the
outfall that the Big Cypress has improved.
MR. RICHARDSON: Excuse me, Mr. Barber.
MR. BARBER: Yes.
MR. RICHARDSON: Might I ask you a question? In the 1995 -
- that sheet flow that you talked about with us, that situation
now, if we had that same amount of rainfall, that we'd be worse
off, but yet you talked about all the ameliorating things that had
been done since that last time.
MR. BARBER: In Lee County. In Lee County there's been a
lot of improvements made.
Collier County we did have the -- the Co¢ohatchee canal
along Immokalee Road improved, but part of that construction
they -- they threw up a berm on the north side of the canal which
limited the area that could take overland flow. In other words,
water behind that berm has to go down to the -- the improved
condition, which is only about -- about a thousand feet on the
canal. But it's even limited more than that because of other
conditions that I'll show you.
MR. RICHARDSON: So even though Lee County made
improvements, we should have siphoned off a lot of that sheet
flow, I would have thought. We're still in worse shape than we
were back before we understood this problem? MR. BARBER: In this area, yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But didn't you say it was 65
Page 46
April 5, 2001
inches of rain?
MR. BARBER: Yes.
MR. RICHARDSON: Yeah, I know. I was there.
MS. YOUNG: How would you categorize the '95 flow? Was it
at 25, 50, or a hundred year?
MR. BARBER: We've been asked that question a lot. The
highest event in that was about a 18-year storm. But the
statistics that we look at for rainfall records don't look at two
months of rainfall. They're all 24-hour rainfalls and that sort of
thing. So we don't really have a good answer for that. I don't
think it -- well, going out on a limb, I would say it was near a
hundred-year occurence, but it's very difficult to say because
we've got maybe 60 years of record, 55 years of record, and
we're trying to make predictions of hundred-year storms. So I'm
not real confident in -- in those kinds of recurrence.
But we are confident in lower storms like 25-year and 10-
year and that sort of thing.
Let me just go back for a minute and show you. This is a --
the area of focus down here (indicating). This is also the Olde
Cypress project, used to be known as Woodlands, and there's
been an apartment complex constructed here on Immokalee
Road. And a blowup of that is that up just north of that there's
about 58 feet left of the flow-way and south of that, and here's
the outfall down here (indicating) into the canal. We're down to
270 feet across here where the water has to -- has to go.
What we're proposing in the -- in the Mirasol project is to set
aside consider -- a considerable amount of land and also
construct a 4-foot deep swale and three con -- control structures
to provide for a regional benefit. This is the -- the 4-foot deep
section runs through Olde Cypress all the way up into the Mirasol
project. This is land that the Terafina project has set aside for
the flow-way.
Page 47
April 5, 2001
In the Mirasol project itself, we're still considering a chain of
lakes connected with a 4-foot-deep swale. And all the land in
between the chain of lakes will be eventually dedicated to CREW.
The -- the vegetation will be restored, all the exotics removed,
and that will be dedicated to CREW.
What we expect to accomplish with this is improved
hydration for the wetlands that are left, higher quality
conservation up in the area that CREW will eventually end up
with, enhance habitats. Right now, as I say, it's a -- what we call
a dog hair melaleuca forest where nothing can get through it and
nothing can utilize it, and enhance habitats and -- and promotes
natural vegetation.
Todd Turrell is going to talk about this. You're looking at
your watch.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Uh-huh.
MR. BARBER: I'll be done here in a minute.
These are the proposed weir locations. And the purpose of
the weirs is so that we don't dewater the area during times of
Iow flow. We hold the water table up as high as we can to
ground surface. And all of the conveyance system that -- that
we're constructing here does is take the peaks off the storms.
This will allow the -- the flow-way to pass about 3 three times
what it did in '95. We think it was about 200 CFS in '95, and we'll
have somewhere near 600. And it will be seven-tenths of a foot
lower with that higher flow.
This here is a slide, just shows the benefits in the different
flows and how much we save in elevation.
And this series of -- of slides just shows that we hold the
water table up earlier and longer than the proposed conditions
with the control structures.
If you'd like to hear about the -- the vegetation on site and
the -- the wildlife and vegetation part of the flow-way restoration,
Page 48
April 5, 2001
Todd Turrell's got a shorter, much shorter PowerPoint
presentation that he can go through with you if that would be of
interest to you.
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. Mr. Barber, may I ask the question?
MR. BARBER: Yes.
MR. RICHARDSON: Has this been reviewed with South
Florida Manage -- Water Management?
MR. BARBER: Yes, sir. It was partly their idea.
MR. RICHARDSON: And they have, therefore, given you a
permit for this?
MR. BARBER: No, sir, not yet. We're still in the permitting
process.
MR. RICHARDSON: Would that be -- would you have that
prior to the time this application is processed then?
MR. BARBER: We'd have to have the permits from water
management district to construct anything, either the Mirasol
project or the flow-way.
MR. RICHARDSON: So that would argue, then, that this is
area of regional impact involving more than just your property.
MR. BARBER: Yes, sir.
MR. RICHARDSON: And as Miss Bishop has indicated, you
had discussions. I don't know if you have actual agreements
with the other property owners.
MR. BARBER: Yes, sir, we do.
MR. RICHARDSON: Do you have those in hand then today as
part of your presentation?
MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop for the agent/owner. There have
been some revisions going back and forth, but we just got the
revisions from the owners to the west. We are incorporating
those revisions to get them back for them to sign. We tried to
come here with them signed today. But instead of signing them,
he marked it up again. So we anticipate to have that in the next
Page 49
April 5, 2001
couple of days.
MR. RICHARDSON: How about the properties to the north in
Lee County and that? How does that all tie into this?
MR. BARBER: Well, those properties will mainly be owned
by CREW. The properties that -- that this would affect, you know,
except that the residential properties within Bonita Springs will
feel the benefit of this, along with the properties in North Collier.
MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: Madam -- Madam Chair, you have a
registered speaker, George Hermanson, who represents Terafina
and Olde Cypress if -- since you're asking that question, if it
would be beneficial for you to hear from Mr. Hermanson.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Hermanson, do you care to
enlighten us, please?
MR. HERMANSON: Sure. I'm George Hermanson with Hole,
Montes. We represent the other two property owners, Olde
Cypress, which is already constructed, and Terafina, which is in
the zoning process, just a little bit behind Mirasol. That will be
coming to you within probably the next two months. Anyways, I
mentioned we represent the other two property owners. We did
the engineering on Olde Cypress, and we are doing the permitting
and zoning work on Terafina. Both of these other owners are on
board. There is a written agreement. It has been forwarded to
the South Florida Water Management District for their counsel's
approval. So legally there's maybe some I's and T's to be
crossed and dotted.
In terms of the technical part of the plan, we're all preparing
our plans with the flow-way components on our plans for the
water management district approval. Terafina is in the
permitting process, as is Mirasol. We have not gotten our
permits yet, but we're -- we think we're getting pretty close. The
flow-way is part of our permits, so technically and legally I think
Page 50
April 5, 2001
we're hopefully on the home stretch on that.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are there any significant issues
outstanding?
MR. HERMANSON: The only -- the only issue I can think of,
which I don't think it's a -- I don't think it's a problem, but the --
the water management district has been very insistent that there
be a -- that these -- that this agreement be in place, that there be
a legal entity responsible for maintenance of the facilities after
they're done, and I believe it's being handled through the various
property owners' associations. Each proper -- each piece of
property that has flow-way components on it will be maintained
by the var -- the respective property owners' association.
MR. RICHARDSON: Madam Chairman, I see --
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yeah.
MR. RICHARDSON: -- Mr. Barber suggested this would be --
go to CREW. I'm not -- that don't match -- doesn't match with the
property owner's assocation.
MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop for the owner. It's a CDD. We
are putting together a CDD. The district wanted one entity to
deal with, not all these associations specifically. So they asked
us to provide an entity, which was in this case a CDD which will
be constructing it and managing it. And, yes, the CREW lands
are -- after we're finishing the monitoring and the restoration of
those lands, it is our intent to give those to them if they want
them', otherwise we will maintain them as a part of CDD.
MR. BARBER: But there has to be an entity in place to take
care of the conveyance system itself and the control structures.
CREW might not want those, but we feel sure they'll want the
land, the restored land.
MR. RICHARDSON: Excuse me. What is CDD?
MR. BARBER: Community development district.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Community development district,
Page 51
April 5, 2001
and that process is how close to being a real entity ?
MS. BISHOP: The CDD is right now in the process of being
formed. We're putting the numbers together. We, in fact, are
working with Clarence Tiers (phonetic), who would be the
ultimate entity to take over the control of the flow-way itself, so
we are working with him and with -- with him being that ultimate
entity of control.
MS. YOUNG: What -- how did the EAC react to the Terafina
development? They disapproved it, did they not?
MR. HERMANSON: Yes. There -- there are reservations
expressed, I think because of the flow-way. There were a couple
of representatives from the water management district at that
meeting. And I think their remarks may have been a little bit
unnecessarily pessimistic. That's their nature. Until they issue a
permit, there is no agreement. But I can tell you from my
experience that the -- the issues that are left are rel -- relatively
minor. All the -- the point is, the -- the components of the flow-
way have been agreed on, and the property owners are willing to
participate. I mean, I don't know what else is more important
than that really.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: George, are you talking about the
unnecessarily pessimistic -- about cooperation or technical
aspects?
MR. HERMANSON: Both, both.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Really.
MR. HERMANSON: And, in fact, we were all there
representing the owners saying we're agreeing to it. And they
said they're having trouble getting the property owners together.
I don't believe that's ever been the case, Rick. MR. BARBER: No.
MR. HERMANSON: And we have a written agreement
prepared already. The technical -- the technical parts, there may
Page 52
April 5, 2001
be some dimensions on the cross-sections of lakes that don't
agree. That's just numbers on a drawing really. I don't think
that's an issue. But in terms of the cooperation, the cooperation
is there. I think their counsel will have to review the final
agreement, and that's -- that's really about it. But all the owners
want this done, and all the owners' cooperation is necessary to --
to make the flow-way a reality.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And it looks like it's in an
approach from a regional aspect rather than you haven't chunked
anything at all.
MR. HERMANSON: Right. That's correct. Even Olde
Cypress, which has already been constructed, is going back and
allowing this to take place on their property.
MS. YOUNG: How does this, the entire water management
program, fit in with the Everglades 2000 plan, or is it Everglades
20017
MR. BARBER: I have no idea. No. I -- I don't think the --
MS. BISHOP: Someone can answer it.
MR. WALKER: I'm Steve Walker with Lewis, Hallman, and
Walker (phonetic) representing the applicant. And this area is
outside of the Everglades construction project entirely. There is
a southwest feasibility study that's part of that federal law that
we'll be looking at similar kinds of things in this area, but this is
not part of the original Everglades construction.
MR. BARBER: And the South Lee water management study
was incorporated into that feasibility study, so it -- I was being
facetious. It really is part of it, but -- but, you know, there's
volumes of paper this thick on -- on the feasibility study already,
so it's sort of difficult to -- to see where it's going to end up. But
we know this project is certainly a regional benefit. It's needed.
We've got all the landowners cooperating, which is -- which is
unique. And I feel very excited that Collier County can finally
Page 53
April 5, 2001
participate in an improvement.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions?
MR. BARBER: This is the -- the final slide is a cross-section
of what we proposed the -- the swale area to look like. You
know, we -- we make drawings of canals that -- exaggerated
scales, but this is at the right scale. It shows a little berm along
the side of the bank which is a idea of the -- of Turrell and
Associates that allows the accumulation of food fish for the
wood stork during the time when the -- when the canals dry up
and concentrates a food source for the wood stork, part of the
mitigation process.
I think I've already really summarized it. If you'd like to hear
from Mr. Turrell about the -- the critters on site and -- and the
melaleuca infestation --
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I would -- I would like to hear a
little bit to get it on the record, but how long is your
presentation? Can you --
MR. BARBER: I would say Mr. Turrell's is maybe 5 minutes.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Pleasure of the board? I think we
should hear it, put it on the record.
MR. PRIDDY: A quick 5 minutes.
MR. BARBER: Thank you -- thank you for your patience.
MR. ABERNATHY: I had one question for you.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Before we go any further, does
the court reporter need a break yet?
THE COURT REPORTER: I can go 5 minutes, a short 5
minutes.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We will go 5 minutes, and then
we will take a break in deference to our court reporter's fingers.
MR. ABERNATHY: I'm sorry. I had one question.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Barber?
MR. BARBER: Yes.
Page 54
April 5, 2001
MR. ABERNATHY: You said you thought it was admirable or
whatever word for Collier County to be participating in this
effort?
MR. BARBER: Yes, sir.
MR. ABERNATHY: What is the county's participation as a
governmental body? Is there any? You mean people in Collier
County, I take it rather than --
MR. BARBER: Well, I mean the -- the political subdivisions of
Collier County I guess you would say. You are Collier County, in -
- in my eyes. And allowing this to go ahead would be --
MR. ABERNATHY: Allowing it to go ahead is the extent of
the participation. There's no monetary -- MR. BARBER: No, sir.
MR. RICHARDSON: One last question of Mr. Barber.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Please. A number of people.
Yes, Mr. -- Mr. Richardson.
MR. RICHARDSON: You said that -- 1370 acres of wetlands.
This flow-way that's being proposed cons -- and the saving
wetlands constitutes what portion of that 13707 MR. BARBER: More than half.
MR. RICHARDSON: So -- but there is a number, I suppose.
MS. BISHOP: 660 acres worth of preserve, 580 acres worth
of impact out of the thirteen hundred --
MR. RICHARDSON: So there will be 588 acres of lost
wetlands.
MS. BISHOP: Of impacted wetlands.
MR. RICHARDSON: Lost wetlands.
MS. BISHOP: Well, it's all based on the grade -- I mean the
term "lost," if -- if you looked at the rapin analysis (phonetic), we
won't -- you know, there is no net loss we will be mitigating.
MR. RICHARDSON: After you finish this project, there will be
588 acres of wetlands that will no longer exist on this project.
Page 55
April 5, 2001
MS. BISHOP: Technically. I guess you could look at it, the
map, that way. But when you look at the rapin analysis of the
value of these -- of melaleuca-infestated wetlands, you come up
with different numbers. And the mitigation numbers then are
utilized in banks or in restoration, which is what we're doing
here. We're going to be doing a lot of restoration which, in fact,
brings the quality of what we have to an incredible level from
where it is now. I mean it's --
MR. RICHARDSON: I appreciate the sales pitch, but I'm just
looking at the facts. So the 588 acres are going to be mitigated.
MS. BISHOP: Mitigated, yes, sir.
MR. RICHARDSON: Is that going to off-site?
MS. BISHOP: A combination of both, on-site and off-site. We
-- we are looking at lands adjacent and CREW lands to buy them
up for CREW, clean them up and then turn them over.
MR. RICHARDSON: This -- what ratio are you planning ?
MS. BISHOP: Well, we're not finished through with the
permitting process yet, sir, so the district and the corps are the
ones who will be deterimine -- be determining that, but I can
assure you they certainly don't let you off very lightly.
MR. RICHARDSON: Should we know that before we rezone
this?
MS. BISHOP: No, sir. That's a part of the permitting process
and not the zoning process. And because I meet all of the
standards of open space and the other standards for
development, then this is not -- that is not necessary at this
point. But for me to do any development of any kind, I will have
to have those permits in place, and that mitigation will have to
be determined and approved by both state and federal agencies.
MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you.
MR. PRIDDY: I -- I have a question or a couple of questions:
You pointed out a 1995 map that only showed five or six hundred
Page 56
April 5, 2001
acres of wetlands on this property.
MR. BARBER: '85 map. It's -- it's up on the wall there.
MR. PRIDDY: The '85 map which only showed five or six
hundred acres of wetlands. That land -- those wetlands came
about over this 15-year period from circumstances that were
created by your neighbors -- MS. BISHOP: Correct.
MR. PRIDDY: -- with cutting -- with cutting off sheet flow.
Do you get credit at this point -- MS. BISHOP: No, sir.
MR. PRIDDY: -- for having --
MS. BISHOP: No, sir.
MR. PRIDDY: -- wetlands for the last 15 years on your
property that was not of your --
MS. BISHOP: No. And they didn't ask us either. But,
unfortunately, that really doesn't matter anymore. The fact is I
do have it. I mean, from our perspective we are the direct result
of cumulative and secondary impacts of the permitting and work
done upstream and around us. And in theory they should have
mitigated for their impacts which means I should be kind of
impact free.
MR. PRIDDY: Well, you're being punished today for not
having developed this 10 or 15 years ago.
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
MR. PRIDDY: Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Did that take up the 5 minutes?
Do you want a break?
THE COURT REPORTER: That's fine. Go ahead.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay.
MR. TURRELL: Okay. Yeah. And I'll -- I'll be real quick.
MR. MULHERE: Just one -- I'm sorry.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Mulhere.
Page 57
April 5, 2001
MR. MULHERE: Just one real quick item. I -- I did want to
indicate also that if any of the Planning Commission members
have any questions relative to the -- I think you got a verbatim
copy of the minutes of the EAC. If you have any questions,
Barbara Burgeson is also available to address this.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you.
MR. TURRELL: Okay. My name's Todd Turrell. Like I said,
I'll be real brief. My firm -- as far as cooperation of the neighbors,
we've been retained not only by Mirasol but also by Wildwood,
Terafina, and Olde Cypress. So they've got one environmental
consultant working on the whole thing, so there's definite
cooperation between -- there's -- there's no question about that.
You know, my presentation, I'm just going to be real, real
brief with it. The gist of what I want to say kind of -- kind of goes
along with what Mr. Priddy was saying. This property -- and if you
look at the map over there on the wall -- was the brown being
uplands and the green being wetlands. You can see the change
that has occurred out there. And I wish I could take everybody in
the field to see this because there's areas out there that are
palmetto areas that, as we all know, palmettos historically are
uplands. Well, there's areas out there where all the palmettos
are dead. They've drowned. And as far as the current
jurisdictional map, they're considered wetlands.
Now, the reason that's happened, of course, is because of
all the additional water. And I think I can get to -- I'm just going
to fast forward right to -- that right there is a picture of what used
to be a palmetto prairie, and it's now a melaleuca wetland. So,
you know, I think it's important for people to realize when they
hear hundreds of acres of wetland impacts, well, it's stuff, some
of it at least, wasn't wetlands, you know, if you went back 10 or
15 years ago. So we have been trying to get every environmental
group we can out onto the property, because I think once people
Page 58
April 5, 2001
see stuff like this -- we had The Conservancy and The Audubon
Society out there a couple days ago -- it starts changing the
impression about wetland impacts, okay.
Once again, that's the map of the change that's occurred out
there, the -- the brown being what was uplands and now is
wetlands.
Here's another area that is -- is what used to be a palmetto
prarie is now a melaleuca wetland. So I don't know. I don't
know how to really emphasize more than pictures of -- of what
these wetlands are. But if you go out there -- and I think I've got
the melaleuca map right here. Everything you see in red is 50
percent or greater melaleuca. Most of it's 75 percent or greater
melaleuca. So the only good areas of wetlands truly from a good
functional standpoint are the green areas that you see on the
right of that. Those are two cypress heads that are relatively
free of exotics. Those are preserved within the flow-way. The
rest of the red that you see is the wetlands. But, once again, it's
50 percent or greater melaleuca. A lot of it's 75 percent or
greater so -- I -- we -- we have, you know, wildlife parts of our
presentation, everything else, but it sounds like you-all are pretty
much through that. Unless you have any specific questions, I'll
just leave it at that.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The board? Okay.
Thank you very much.
MR. PRIDDY: The break you promised us.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do believe we are going to take
a break. How about 5 to 7 minutes? We'll reconvene.
(A break was held from 10:24 a.m. To 10:37 a.m.)
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think we're back. Is the
equipment functioning properly?
MR. MULHERE: It's turned on. Yes, it -- yeah.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We'd like to continue with
Page 59
April 5, 2001
this public hearing. We have a moment of a -- of a conference
over here.
MS. BISHOP: I'm sorry.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's all right. I think we're -- do
you have some more presentations to make --
MS. BISHOP: Actually, Tim -- I just wanted to have him make
a little statement. And then Dawn wants to speak for
transportation because there are some changes that she would
like to see in the document. We have no problem with that. But,
yes, Tim I wanted him to just take a moment and say a couple of
things.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you.
MR. TURRELL: I just wanted to read --
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Please state your name.
MR. HALL: I'm sorry. My name is Tim Hall with Turrell and
Associates.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you.
MR. HALL: I wanted to read something out of the growth
management plan here. Objective 6.2, I know that basically this
applies to some of the questions that have been asked earlier
about the number of wetland impacts. And we realize that those
are high, but objective 6.2 says there shall be no unacceptable
net loss of viable naturally functioning marine or freshwater
wetlands excluding transitional -- excluding transitionals zone
wetlands, which are addressed in objective 6.3. And then if you
go down to Policy 6.2.3, it says altered or disturbed wetlands are
considered to be not viable, not naturally functioning, degraded
wetland ecosystems.
And what we have tried to show you guys is that because of
the -- the changes in the hydrology of the site and the increase in
the melaleuca, the degradation of the natural systems out there,
that a large portion of that property currently the way that your
Page 60
April 5, 2001
policies are written would be considered to be not viable. Part of
the mitigation for those wetlands -- they're still wetlands, but
they're not considered viable, as if they were in pristine
condition.
So part of our mitigation is to take all of the lands that aren't
being developed and restore them to the natural -- restore the
natural hydrology, restore the natural eco, the natural vegetation,
and improve the wildlife values and get more animals into that
area using those, like what happened before it became degraded.
So I just wanted to point that out, that in your policy, you know,
we are trying to follow -- follow the rules.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you.
MS. BISHOP: Okay. At this point I think that we've given
you a comprehensive overview of the flow-way, as well as the
aspects of the wildlife and the vegetation. If there's any
questions that you may have on the project itself, the project
itself is a pretty typical residential project with a golf course
community and the typical things that you would find there.
Dawn, though, did want to --
MR. RICHARDSON: On the project itself, though, before we
get to the other details.
MS. BISHOP: Dawn did want to speak to the transportation.
MR. RICHARDSON: Traffic. And I want to hear that too, but
just while you're still there -- . MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
MR. RICHARDSON: -- what kind of a project is this? Can you
describe it? Is it a golf course commun --
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. Upscale golf course community.
Mostly, I would say, would be single family would be our
emphasis at this point. Obviously if the market changes, we
would be looking to maybe utilize multifamily in the urban area.
We will keep the densities for each of these areas respectively
Page 61
April 5, 2001
the densities that go in the urban area will stay in the urban area.
The densities that fall over the rural area will stay cjustered in
the rural area so we will not have any of that blending. But this
will have the normal uses: Two -- two golf course; one right now
we propose on the north end that through permitting processes
may be moved to the south. You know, during this permitting
process you're really not sure what you're going to end up with,
so at this point this is what we're proposesing is two separate
golf courses. The one on the north side has no residential at all,
just a clubhouse and facility. The golf course to the south is with
residential elements around it.
MR. RICHARDSON: Is this intended to be a gated
community?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. However, we do provide in our
document several things. One is an interconnection to the
commercial next door so that our residents do not have to go out
on Immokalee Road to get to the commercial activity center on
the corner. And we also are providing a pedestrian pathway
which would be the extension of that pathway that starts on the
east side -- or the west side of
1-75 on the north side of the canal so that we can connect the
commercial facility on the east side with residential to the west.
MR. RICHARDSON: What percentage of the units are you
allocating to affordable housing?
MS. BISHOP: None of these are affordable housing. We
have none allocated for affordable housing.
MR. PRIDDY: I have one -- one question for Miss Bishop.
You said this was a typical golf course community. Do you have
any reason to believe that out of the 799 units that you're asking
for that the same thing will happen to some of those that has
happened to your neighbors and that that's the market's going to
dictate that you build less?
Page 62
April 5, 2001
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. My guess is -- well, most of the
projects that I've worked on in -- in -- in the extent of my career
has -- the PUDs, in fact, have built at a lot less based on the
market. Right now single family seems to be the strongest
element of that market. And based on utilizing single family in
your project, your density will, in fact, lower tremendously. We're
not trying to build -- density is important for the market. But if
we're able to do less density and get more for the product, then,
in fact, you have the same end result.
MR. ABERNATHY: I hope you don't have to use those 5-foot
side-yard setbacks.
MS. BISHOP: No, sir. This is not one of those kinds of type
communities. These are larger lots. We're going -- I would say
this will be more like the Collier's Reserve type of lots where we
save vegetation in the back where we can. Obviously we have a
lot of melaleuca, but we're going to go through great pains to try
to hand clear certain areas and try to save as many of the mixed
pines that are in there. They're pretty spindly~ but we'll do our
best to do that.
MR. RICHARDSON: Madam Chairman, one final comment.
Looking at the overall project here, you know, the
presentation by staff said that you're really entitled to, in quotes,
some larger number, based on the 4 units per acre and the one
for 5. And you've come in with a much smaller number with your
PUD. I think it's important for the commission to start
considering the -- this density issue because what we have here
is a real-life case of, you know, some 1500 acres, 1370 acres,
that are indicated as wetlands and are, in effect, mostly not
buildable. They've -- by their own definition of the project,
they've taken out a good hunk of that for the flow-way, and
they're going to mitigate for -- for that and for the other -- other
portion, the 588 that are otherwise lost. And it seems to me that
Page 63
April 5, 2001
instead of the .52 dwelling acres per -- that their rating shows
that they're getting from the 799, they're really -- by taking out
the unbuildable land before they get to density, they're really
getting what is appropriate for this land, considering it's uplands
versus the wetlands and the project that you've got. And I think
that's a principle that Collier County needs to address more
directly. And instead of just providing a cookie cutter that all
property, whether it's underwater or not, gets exactly the same
density, whether it's in the urban area or outside, is -- is in my
mind not appropriate. And I think this project proves that
responsible developers will come in and come out with a number
that's very close to what you'd get if you subtracted out all of the
wetlands.
MS. BISHOP: Well, one of the things that you might not be
aware about of this property is that Section 10 has 47 parcels in
it. Section 15 has 50 parcels in it. The section of 22 that we
have has 18 different parcels in it. Now, each of those parcels
and the owners of those respective parcels would have some
belief that they could utilize their land in some way. And so what
happens -- the good news, what happens here is that when
someone comes in and collects all of these, which is well over a
hundred parcels, and puts them together, then you have the
ability to create a project like this, because otherwise each of
these people that come in here should have some expectation
that they have the use of their land. And that would mean
access to their land and actually living on their land which then,
of course, means -- and, actually, before we had this application
in, there was a rural subdivision in for the two sections outside of
the urban area, the rural area, and those were 5-foot tracts which
was a rural subdivision in 5-foot tracts that had roadway
accesses to them. And all of the facilities were well and septic
tank, which, of course, leaves no utilization for cjustering to
Page 64
April 5, 2001
allow you to save any amount of anything.
And so even though I agree that we should be targeting
properties that we want to buy, I find it -- I think that we need to
make sure that if we are going to move in that direction where
we see that land has problems with water coming over it or, in
some cases, which you and I are aware of, there's other cases
where lakes are counted as water as well as water is counted as
density also, that we have the check to write to these people to
buy their land so that we're not being arbitrary and saying, okay,
you can build on your land but this guy here because of he has
water, he can't build on his property so --
MR. RICHARDSON: It's not entirely clear to me -- and this is
more philosophical, and we'll get off of it -- but it's not clear to
me that density ratings for land that's underwater is -- is
appropriate. The expectation of the water that's un -- the land
that's underwater should be the land that's underwater.
MR. PRIDDY: It's -- you know, we're -- we're back to the
same thing, Mr. Richardson. Let's -- let's deal with the Land
Development Code and -- and make our decisions based on what
is the law today, not what you and I might think the law ought to
be next week, because otherwise we're going to stay here all day
on -- on theory about something that -- that's out of our control.
MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I appreciate the admonition, but
nonetheless, I do feel that we need to start pushing on the
boundaries a bit rather than staying completely inside the box
that you've drawn. But I relent.
MS. BISHOP: Any other questions? Can I help anybody with
-- well, actually Dawn, I think, wants to make a statement.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We need to let transportation
make a quick statement.
MS. WOLFE: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Dawn Wolfe, transportation planning department director. We've
Page 65
April 5, 2001
requested the addition of one stipulation and the modification of
a -- another stipulation regards to a more detailed evaluation of
the site access point.
We're requesting the addition of a stipulation that would
require prior to a preliminary plat or -- or site development plan
approval the applicant would have to provide a detailed analysis
from the access point all the way to Logan and then back to 951
to determine the applicant's impacts on the direct access as well
as the Immokalee Road area, and that there should be defined
deficiencies, operational or safety problems, that they would be
either limited in the amount of development prior to the
mitigation of those or that they would be required to provide a
level of mitigation for those necessary improvements.
The modification under Section 6.7, transportation,
Condition F regarding access to Brickenback (phonetic) Road,
rather than having the words "shall be encouraged," we're
recommending that the language be modified to read, "shall be
provided at such time that County Road 951 may be extended or
required to mitigate development impacts to Immokalee Road.".
We've had a brief discussion with Miss Bishop on behalf of
her client, and they do not seem to have any problem with that.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Margorie.
MS. STUDENT: Madam Chair, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney for the record. I received the revised PUD
document just two days ago, and I've gone through it and have
some things marked up, mostly for clarification purposes and
different stipulations and so on, and the petitioner's agent, Miss
Bishop's, aware of that, and we're going to work together on
that, and I just wanted that for your information so --
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That would include this detailed
analysis of--
MS. STUDENT: Yes. I would --
Page 66
April 5, 2001
MS. BISHOP: Yes, it would.
MS. STUDENT: Transportation stips because they seem
rather vague, and there weren't some time lines when some
things were being reserved and set forth so that type of thing.
MR. RICHARDSON: Madam Chairman.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. Chairman is fine with me;
no problem with that.
MR. RICHARDSON: Could you tell me what the level of
service on Immokalee Road is right now?
MS. WOLFE: On Immokalee Road prior to the improvements,
we are looking at a Level of Service E and F conditions; however,
we are under construction right now for the four-laning from 1-75
to 951 and will be getting underway for the section east of 951 in
the near future to take that from two to four lanes as well.
Therefore, they are able under our comprehensive plan and Land
Development Code to consider those improvements as
committed because they are in our work program today.
So we are looking at at least level of service D or better
conditions for the impacts of this development on Immokalee
Road.
MR. RICHARDSON: I thought I -- I, perhaps, didn't
understand your stipulations as you read them, you know, as well
as I should have, but it seemed to say that there were certain
things you required before they could go along, and if they didn't
do that, they would have to help out or they would have to slow
down to wait.
MS. WOLFE: That's correct, because the level of detailed
analysis was more on a link-by-link basis. It didn't look at how
the project traffic would actually mix with the Immokalee Road
traffic at their -- the point that they would access Immokalee
Road or how, because the majority of their traffic will, you know,
immediately intersect with the future of Logan intersection
Page 67
April 5, 2001
which is Olde Cypress or with 951 where we have high volumes
that we want to make sure that any of their impacts which may
cause deficiencies or operational problems, that they would be
required to mitigate those. And this level of detail now analysis
as they come closer to their time of development will provide
both them and the county the opportunity to look at it in more
realistic detail than just on a link-by-link basis.
MR. RICHARDSON: Then could I translate that to my
thinking at least? That would say that if they come on line and
that road is still in field condition, that they would not be
permitted to have C.O.s.
MS. WOLFE: They would be limited in the amount of
development that they could have, yes.
MR. RICHARDSON: Will that stipulation say that, that they
will not have that C.O.s, if that's a failed road condition ?
MS. WOLFE: That is what is meant by either they would
have to mitigate or that they would be limited in the amount of
development that they could have. That --
MR. RICHARDSON: That -- that's a little too broad. I'd rather
make it more specific if it's possible.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Marjorie Student, did you catch
that?
MR. PRIDDY: We -- we can only make it what concurrency
says what it is.
MR. RICHARDSON: No. Wait. I'm not making an ar--
concurrency argument, per se, document. I'm trying to
understand what her stipulations are to the project. And it
sounded to me like they'd have to do something if we had a failed
road condition. That's what I want to find out.
MS. WOLFE: Yes. It would, A, either require them to fix
what fails or to not be able to develop to the extent that they
would create a failure.
Page 68
April 5, 2001
MR. RICHARDSON: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So they would put money out to
fix something or they would hold up on their development until
the area road --
MS. WOLFE: The conditions improved to acceptable levels,
and that's also consistent with adequate public facilities in our
Land Development Code which they're required as they move
forward to meet those requirements, which is our concurrency
system.
MR. RICHARDSON: So that sounds like they would be
required to have -- that our road system would have to be at least
at Level C for them to pull a C.O. On this project.
MS. WOLFE: Actually, the adopted standard is D.
MR. RICHARDSON: Well, okay.
MR. ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, sir.
MR. ABERNATHY: It seems to me that this discussion that
we've had for the last 5 minutes is largely due to the fact that
transportation routinely comes in here at the eleventh hour and
gives us their material orally. We went through this same thing
with the extension of Whipporwill Lane north of Pine Ridge Road,
and the changes, they weren't in the staff analysis.
MS. BISHOP: And -- and just so that you know that we
understand that transportation has a lot of work and that they
have new employees. A lot of times they have been overloaded.
And in this case the stipulations that she's asking for are pretty
typical, and I don't really have a problem with them. I do want to
point out, though, that if that road fails because of somebody
else, I will not be obligated to mitigate for that. I'm only
obligated to mitigate for my causing of the failure, as a part of
concurrency.
MR. ABERNATHY: Well, if she's gotten to the point where
Page 69
April 5, 2001
she can read them to us, then --
MS. BISHOP: She doesn't -- she did --
MR. ABERNATHY: -- reduced to writing, then they could be
handed to us, at least.
MS. BISHOP: And we could probably make a Xerox of those,
but she did -- she does have it handwritten there. MR. ABERNATHY: Too late now.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: However, I -- Mr. Abernathy, I
certainly agree with you that I've stated numerous times that I
would appreciate it if staff could at least hand us something that
we can read rather than have it read to us and that it needs to be
included earlier. This is a PUD '99, so this PUD has been around
for quite sometime, and I know it has changed. However, as the
acting chairman, I really do want to stress again to staff, all staff,
that we want to see something in our packet or get it to us so
that we can look at it.
MS. BISHOP: Anything else?
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are there any other questions
about the transportation part?
MS. YOUNG: So road impact at the beginning would be
below D, am I correct, as it stands now ?
MS. WOLFE: If they were -- if they were to actually have
homes that were built and occupied today, they would be
entering onto a roadway that is operating at unacceptable
conditions. But because of state statute and our comprehensive
plan, we're required to acknowledged committed construction
improvements within a three-year window. So even though you
may not even see construction occurring today and have Level of
Service E and F conditions which are unacceptable by our
standards, we have to -- to acknowledge committed
improvements by the county as being good faith capacity
improvements in that the available roadway level of service and
Page 70
April 5, 2001
the capacity will be out there at such time as their impacts hit it.
And that is something that is -- comes down from the state
statutes, not necessarily what the local jurisdictions would
necessarily perceive as being -- having the road capacity there
exactly at the time of the improvement that the impacts hit it.
So it's -- today, right here, right now, yes, it's a failed roadway.
But we acknowledge the fact that we are under construction in
putting capacity improvements in, and we have to allow them to
take advantage of the fact that there will be improved conditions
out there in the near future.
MS. YOUNG: And we would give them a three-year leeway?
MS. WOLFE: We -- we look at what we have committed for
construction improvements in a three year -- and that's
established under state statute.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I believe we've heard from
staff and the petitioner. Now, do we have any registered
speakers?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. You have one registered speaker.
Frank Terlizzi.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: If you would come forward and
state your name clearly, and you might want to spell it for the
court reporter.
MR. TERLIZZI: Thank you, Board. My name is Frank Terlizzi.
I'm the owner of that property, the little box up there. And I just
want to put it on the record that when the easement is -- is
granted and what the course of the easement expenses I want to
know is a fair value today, who makes a determination of the fair
value? We're willing to pay for it, but we want to know when the
fair value will be? Who makes that determination?
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Mar]orie Student again,
assistant county attorney. I believe that that's between you and
the developer. The county would not be regulating that. We
Page 71
April 5, 2001
have constitutional prohibitions on the government's interference
with private contracts between individuals or individuals and
entities. That would be entirely between you and the developer.
MR. TERLIZZI: Well, what if she comes out with a fantastic
figure? Is that right to me too? Is it fair to me that she comes up
with a figure that's crazy?
MS. STUDENT: Sir, that's a private matter between you and
the developer, and the county does not regulate those types of
contracts. We have constitutional prohibitions on so doing.
MR. RICHARDSON: Miss Student, it would seem that if
you're landlocking property, doesn't the county have some
responsibility to providing access to all properties?
MS. STUDENT: Yes. Well, there's a process in state law
where there's a situation with landlocked property, and I can't
recant the process. It's been a number of years, quite frankly,
since I reviewed that provision in the Florida Statutes. But
where there is a landlocked property owner or a series of them,
they can come to the local government by petition, ask the
government to address the issue, and do something about it. The
particulars, again, I don't have before me, never been through
that process here. But what I'm comfortable with is that there is
a provision in our -- the PUD document, and I've reworded it a
little bit, but it provides for the provision of the access to the
landlocked property owner. I believe, as I stated earlier, there
are constitutional prohibitions about impairment of contracts
between private individuals. And Mr. Weigel may wish to address
this as well, but I don't believe it's the county's place to tell a
person what they are entitled to sell it for or what somebody has
to pay them for it. That's a matter that's negotiated between the
private individuals. Now, if you disagree with that, Mr. Weigel, I
would appreciate --
MR. ABERNATHY: I didn't know--
Page 72
April 5, 2001
MR. TERLIZZI: May I interject?
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Unless Mr. Weigel wants to
speak, Mr. Nino, you have the floor.
MR. NINO: This might give Mr. Weigel an opportunity to
address my -- my issue. Since the -- since the stipulation is
included in the PUD document, I suggest here that -- that it is on
the table for you to discuss. And what this gentleman is asking,
as I talked to him at the break, he's basically asking that the
stipulation be crafted so that the fair market value is based as of
today.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is that something that we have
the latitude to work with?
MS. STUDENT: Well, I reworded it to remove that. We put
the fair market value language in when a developer is supposed
to convey something to the county because that's between the
developer and the county relating to the development approval.
This is an item that the county is indirectly involved in because,
yes, there's landlocked property here, and we're approving a
development that is a combination of several lots or parcels
that's now going to be one big development. But I have a
concern about establishing a -- the government coming in and
telling private individuals what the price should be. And when
you -- we've heard fair market value, then I -- this goes very
much towards, you know, setting a price. And I have a concern
about that when the county's not really involved in this. It's
between the developer and the individual property owner. Now,
if they wish, perhaps, to agree and they're happy with putting it
in -- I -- I just have a real concern about the government stepping
in and setting prices among pri -- private individuals.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And he's asking that the
price be today. We don't have any information on that. So that's
not even before us.
Page 73
April 5, 2001
MS. BISHOP: And I might suggest also that, you know, it can
be years and years and years before that access is determined or
where he was and the value of that land, in fact, would change or
could change. You know, that would not be too equitable. But I
can assure you that I -- we have no reason to -- to ask anything
outrageous for a man accessing his property. I mean, we're
willing to give him -- he doesn't have access now over easements
from public to his property. We're willing to do that at the fair
market value at that time. But we don't even know the alignment
of that easement until 951 corridor has been determined. We
don't know anything at this point. We don't know if it goes
through the golf course. We won't know -- you know, which we
have a golf course up there around there. So I think that would
be a little -- a little tough for me to say, yes, that I would agree to
that. I can't do that.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I just want to clarify. How
many acres is this parcel ?
MS. BISHOP: I think his parcel's 20.
MR. TERLIZZI: Twenty.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Twenty acres? Thank you.
Any other question in reference to this particular item ?
MR. RICHARDSON: Well, it sounds -- it sounds like what
Marjorie -- Marjorie said, if I understand the process, is that the
first -- his first recourse is with the developer. The second
recourse, if he can't get satisfaction, is to come to the county.
MS. BISHOP: Okay.
MR. RICHARDSON: And the county has the process to deal
with it.
MS. STUDENT: If it's mandated by state law.
MS. BISHOP: The courts also are another way to --
MS. STUDENT: Yeah. That's also--
MS. BISHOP: Right. He -- he will get access through the
Page 74
April 5, 2001
courts.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Any other registered
speakers?
MR. MULHERE: No, ma'am.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We actually are going to be able
to close this public hearing. I close the public hearing.
MR. PRIDDY: Madam Chairman, I recommend that we
forward PUD-99-10 to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval. MR. PEDONE: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The motion was made by
Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Pedone. And I
think that there are a few items that we had to include in that
motion if somebody has the list.
MR. NINO.' We need -- we need to require the PUD to
address the fact that the sewer -- private wells and septic tanks
will only be provided in the agricultural area; and, two, the PUD
be amended to reflect the condition that Dawn Wolfe has
identified.
MR. PRIDDY: Okay. I -- I will accept both of those, and I'd
also like to stipulate that when the rural fringe oversight
committee and that process becomes incorporated in our Land
Development Code that this PUD be entitled to the results of -- of
that study and those Land Development Code changes.
MR. MULHERE: I want to make a suggestion. I think we
could just by simply saying that septic and -- private septic and
well is -- that the development in the rural lands is limited to
private septic and well. However, this project may utilize other
services at such time that they are made permissible in the
growth management plan.
MR. PRIDDY: That would be fine. I don't want to limit their
entitlement to just the well and sewer. If there are some other
Page 75
April 5, 2001
benefits to the public that could take place through, you know,
cjustering --
MR. MULHERE: Right.
MR. PRIDDY: -- or the saving of more valuable habitat -- and
that's -- that's my intent, is to --
MR. MULHERE: Good point.
MR. PRIDDY: -- you know, so that -- that the public has the
benefit of -- of the planning process that comes out of the rural
fringe work.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So you stated that you want to
incorporate or allow them to at least incorporate what comes out
of rural fringe assessment study.
MR. PRIDDY: Yes. That ends up in our Land Development
Code.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
Now, the second, Mr. Pedone?
In the land development code.
MR. PEDONE:
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
outlined --
MR. PEDONE: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
MR. PEDONE: Yes.
Yes. I agree with it.
All those items as Mr. Nino
-- and Mr. Priddy did.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We have a motion and a
second -- whoops. Yes. We do have -- legal counsel wishes to
speak.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. David Weigel, county attorney.
And I'll jump in now briefly. That is, please keep in mind as you
include in a motion for approval here that we have thought -- staff
has provided you thoughts of where these -- the rural fringe
assessment committee may be going, but we don't know where
they're going to be. And so to include in a motion we had -- that
we adopt whatever -- and we really don't know -- what is going to
Page 76
April 5, 2001
be what comes from their committees and ultimately then
implemented and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
potentially. I -- I think that you're spreading yourself thin and
putting some conjecture in your motion here which doesn't
necessarily assist the project and the agents for the project that
are before you today either.
So I would suggest that you can lawd what you think the
committee -- these committees are going to do and ostensibly
the record you created advise -- now advise the world, as well as
this agent, the petitioner, that they have the opportunity to come
back and kind of review that you'd provide later. But I really
have some concern about you essentially kind of giving them the
keys to whatever may come out of that committee and may or
may not be implemented in lock step by the Board of County
Commissioners later on.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you for your statement.
However, excuse me, Commissioner Priddy, I don't think the way
I heard it that we're actually saying that anything is going to be
placed in this PUD that isn't in our Land Development Code.
We're not -- we're not talking about specifics. We're talking
about what occurs, so I'm not sure I'm clear. Mr. Priddy, do you
want to elaborate?
MR. PRIDDY: Yeah. And--and I --
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You want to give them the option
rather than be very specific.
MR. PRIDDY: Well, not only -- not necessarily give them the
option but give the community the benefit of being able to take
the good out of -- out of what comes out of that study and have it
apply to them. I mean, if through this process they're allowed to
hook up to sewer, I think that's a benefit to the community not to
have 243 septic tanks and separate wells out there. And rather
than have them go do that on their own, I would -- would like to
Page 77
April 5, 2001
see that, you know, we encourage them or force them in some
way to have the -- the better of the two scenarios.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Then I think we probably need a
restatement of that part of the motion so it's clear for the record.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think I understand what Mr. Priddy has
said right now. It sounds like he is clarifying or providing
additional explanation obviously that I needed concerning his
motion. And, therefore, what I see, then, is that if and when the
ability to utilize permanent water and sewer hookups there or
hookup to a county system becomes available, they should not
be denied that opportunity at that time, but they cannot do -- they
cannot put in a package plant now.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That sounds reasonable to me.
MR. PRIDDY: Exactly.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Does everyone understand what
WE--
MR. RICHARDSON: Discussion -- in point of fact, what --
whatever is available in the Land Development Code at the time
they go to pull a permit is what's available. I mean, they have to
follow it.
MR. PRIDDY: Huh-uh.
MR. RICHARDSON: So if there are some new things that are
in there at the time, they're going to have to follow that. This
doesn't preclude that process, does it?
MR. MULHERE: Unless -- unless you put that stipulation in
there, it does preclude the process. Because if you have a
stipulation that says they're limited to sewer and water, then it
doesn't matter if the Land Development Code is amended. The
PUD is the Land Development Code for this property, and they
will be limited to sewer and water.
So, yes, in fact, you need to provide for that degree of
specificity within the PUD document; otherwise they would have
Page 78
April 5, 2001
to come back and amend their PUD at that time.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
Are we clear with legal?
on the floor.
Right.
So we have a motion and a second
MR. RICHARDSON: And, Madam Chairman, before you call, I
would like to offer a motion to table. This PUD has a lot of
problems with it. As yet we don't have a clean PUD. You know,
we get stuff at the eleventh hour that Mr. Abernathy has talked
about. And the most -- and while we're -- we're able to deal with
that in part because we have a lot of that sort of thing, the one
thing that I do think is critical is to get that written agreement
amongst the property owners on this flow-way. I hear all kinds of
good things that say this is going to happen, but I don't have any
indication -- don't have the real document in front of me. And I
would rather have this be a neater package before we pass it up
to the Board of County Commissioners. So I would offer that
motion and encourage a second.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And the reason that you're
stating is that is we do not have the documentation on the flow-
way at this point? Is that your principal reason for the motion to
table?
MR. RICHARDSON: In the intervening time they could
certainly clean up the document so we have the actual item
document to submit.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Motion to table takes
precedence. Do we have a second?
MR. PRIDDY: You -- you -- these folks can't go build their
projects without that flow-way because they're not going to get
permits for it, so I -- I don't see the need -- I don't see --
MR. RICHARDSON: I don't know that -- that -- that's not clear
to me.
MR. PRIDDY: Well, it is to me.
Page 79
April 5, 2001
MR. RICHARDSON: That's not been represented by staff.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe the issue at the moment
is do we have a second?
The motion to table fails for a lack of a second.
MR. RICHARDSON: All right.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And we have a motion and a
second on the floor to approve the project with the items that
have been outlined and clarified. If there's no further discussion,
I call the question. All in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed, same sign.
MR. RICHARDSON: Aye.
MS. YOUNG: Nay.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have two against, 5-4. Motion
carries.
MS. BISHOP: Thank you.
MR. ABERNATHY: Do we have the six people?
MR. PRIDDY: Yeah, you do.
MR. ABERNATHY: I'm sorry.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I counted seven. Somebody is
hiding up here. Okay. The motion carries 5 to 2.
While we're clearing the room, our next item on the agenda
is D -- it's PUD 97-13 (1). And I believe we have a companion
which is PUD 96-1 (2). I believe we will take these together.
However, we will vote on them individually.
MR. PRIDDY: Madam Chairman, I need to disclose that I am
not going to be able to participate in the vote on either one of
these due to the fact that my wife is employed by Mr. Solis who
is an agent for the -- for these two projects, so I can't participate
in the discussion.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any other
disclosures? Okay. All those wishing to provide testimony on
these two items, D and E, please stand, raise your right hand,
Page 80
April 5, 2001
and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The witnesses were administered the oath by the court
reporter.)
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows
presenting pending items for the Veteran Park's common PUD
and the Veterans Park Center PUD.
As you can see on the location map, the subject site is
located on the south side of Immokalee Road and on the west
side of Veteran's Park Community Drive. There are two PUDs
involved in this presentation. One is -- I'll show you better on this
larger map. The Veteran Park Center PUDs, existing PUD,
stretching from Immokalee Road down to the North Naples
Community Park, and then the -- there's the existing Veteran's
Park Medical PUD shown in yellow fronts on Immokalee and on
Veteran's Park Community Drive.
The requested change is to add Tract A, which is generally
this area (indicating) and incorporate it into this PUD. So the
new boundaries would look like this (indicating). The intent is to
allow for a medical office and medical -- a commercial type of
uses in the PUD fronting on Immokalee Road. The remainder of
the Veteran's Park Center PUD is the fire station training center
that's developed. So there will be no changes in the uses to this
PUD.
This PUD, the Veteran's Park Medical will change its name
to Veteran's Park Commons PUD. They will also add some
additional medical-related office-type uses, some that are found
in the (C)(2) zoning district.
This is a copy of the future land use element. The subject
site is not located within an activity center. It's located
approximately right in this area (indicating). That's urban
residential. Therefore, to qualify for this C-1 type of commercial
Page 81
April 5, 2001
office, medical office uses, it has to be found consistent with the
office and in-fill criteria. And in the staff report I go over the
criteria.
There are a number of items, criteria that have to be found
consistent with in order to be found consistent with the office
and in-fill criteria of the future land use element. One is the side
box collector arterial road. Immokalee Road is an arterial road.
The site must be less than 12 acres in size. It's
approximately 5.2 acres. The site abuts commercial zoning on
one or two sides. The BCC previously determined that the
adjacent Surrey Place PUD -- and I have a zoning map here. This
is the Surrey Place PUD. It was previously found by the Board of
County Commissioners to be consistent with the old commercial
under criteria and allows for a medical office type of uses and
some office uses. You know, it's stretching from this area and
around. There's an assisting -- assisted living facility on the main
part.
The site is also not created to take advantage of the office
and in-fill parcels. These PUDs have -- were previously rezoned
back in '97, '96 and '97, and were found consistent with the off--
commercial undercriteria at that time by the Board of County
Commissioners. And this is an amendment to that PUD and now
has to be found consistent with the office and in-fill criteria. The
site is served by public water and sewer. The site is within the
Collier County water/sewer district, and these facilities are
available in the area.
In regards to North Naples wastewater treatment problems,
this project was already zoned and found consistent at that time.
And this amendment won't change any impacts that they already
have zoned for.
There are two items that basically need Board of County
Commission determination. One is the depth of the proposed site
Page 82
April 5, 2001
does not exceed the depth of abutting commercial parcels.
This PUD has (indicating) -- has a zoning boundary line that's
not a rectangular line. It kind of meanders down across here. So
it is staff's recommendation to take the average depth of this
project and the average depth of this project, and then -- then
this project could be found consistent with that criteria.
The other criteria -- there should be some interpretation or
determination made as the project uses are limited to office, Iow
intensity commercial uses. Since this project technically abuts
commercial on one side, if the board determines that the Surrey
Place PUD is still commercial, then this project can be found
consistent with those uses as proposed in the PUD document.
I also have Dave Weeks here, if he has -- with the
comprehensive planning department if he has additional
concerns or information presented to that. He's here if you have
questions. He'll be happy to answer those.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But you did say on one side is
commercial and one side might not be considered commercial?
MR. BELLOWS: On the other side is the Veteran's Park
Center PUD, and that's medical office uses.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Medical office uses. Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: The transportation department has
commented that the project is currently a four-lane road. It's
operating at level of service D. It's currently being improved to
six lanes by 2002. So, therefore, this project is consistent with
the transportation element, growth management plan.
The project has no wetlands. So, therefore, it's not required
to go to the EAC. There is a stipulation from environmental staff
that a -- a tortoise -- gopher tortoise relocation management plan
be prepared, and that's part of the PUD document now.
On the master plan for this project with the new -- new
boundaries, it is found compatible with adjacent uses.
Page 83
April 5, 2001
Surrounding uses are basically medical office related. It also
serves the North Naples Community Hospital off Immokalee Road
on the north side of Immokalee Road. The proposed project is
compatible with the existing and adjacent land uses, and it has a
type D buffer along Immokalee Road and along Veteran's Park
Drive. There's a -- Cocohatchee Creek is along the south
perimeter separating the projects. Staff has not received any
correspondence for or against this petition and is recommending
that the Planning Commission forward this petition to the Board
of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
And I'll be happy to answer any questions.
MR. RICHARDSON: Madam Chairman.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Commissioner Richardson.
MR. RICHARDSON: If you have no comments from the
public, how was this -- how was the public notified of this
project?
MR. BELLOWS: Like all petitions, the county sends out
letters to adjacent property owners within 300 feet. We also post
signs on the property and advertise in the newspaper. MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Any other questions?
MR. RICHARDSON: I didn't see any sign on that property.
That's why I was -- but I may have missed it.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We can hear from the
petitioner.
MR. SOLIS:
the petitioners.
Good morning. Andrew Solis on behalf of the --
Really what we're doing is -- since the petitioner
owns the property in both PUDs, really what we're trying to do is
just merge the two so that there's -- the same development
standards apply to both of the PUDs and make it just easier to
develop. I think Mr. Bellows has pretty much explained all of the
issues. And if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer it for
Page 84
April 5, 2001
the petitioner.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions?
MR. RICHARDSON: I have a question, if I may.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes.
MR. RICHARDSON: This property is currently owned by the
Naples fire district.
MR. SOLIS: Which property?
MR. RICHARDSON: The one that you're trying to take over,
move over.
MR. SOLIS: No. Absolutely not. The -- the fire district owns
the property south of the creek.
MR. RICHARDSON: Well -- okay. I'm wondering how -- I
guess I'm really wondering how the fire department lost that
property or what -- what was the process? Was this an arms-
length transition (sic) or what --
MR. SOLIS: That occurred, I think, way prior to at least my
client's --
MR. RICHARDSON: Well, according to this document, it says
subject owner -- property is owned by the North Naples Fire and
Rescue District. That's what my document says.
MR. SOLIS: Well, if we can just clarify, in -- if you look at the
Veteran's Park Center PUD -- MR. RICHARDSON: Yes.
MR. SOLIS: -- the -- everything south, that is parcel B of that
PUD.
MR. RICHARDSON: Right.
MR. SOUS: All of Parcel B of that PUD is owned by the fire
district.
MR. RICHARDSON: Okay.
MR. SOLIS: The north part of -- what's north of the creek
was never owned by the fire district.
Page 85
April 5, 2001
MR. RICHARDSON: I see.
MR. SOLIS: Okay. That was an arms-length transaction that
occurred, I believe, many years ago.
MR. RICHARDSON: With a different property owner?
MR. SOLIS: Yes.
MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. So the fire district doesn't have
anything to do with this then?
MR. SOLIS: No, they don't.
MR. RICHARDSON: I'm wondering why it was even put -- I'm
confused as to why --
MR. BELLOWS: There's still part of the PUD that's being
amended, so they have to be listed as an owner.
MR. SOLIS: So I can clarify it, we're leaving the fire district
property in the PUD, and it's remaining exactly the same.
There's -- no change is going to be created to the development
standards that the fire district is under, and that property is
completely built out at this time anyway.
MR. RICHARDSON: Just for my education, you can have
PUDs with multiple ownerships then. MR. SOLIS: That's correct.
MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. Joel Whittenhall's bank owns the
section that's in question?
MR. SOLIS: Yes, sir. Well, they own the very corner piece in
the northeast portion of the -- no, no, that's a control structure.
It's that corner along -- at the corner of Immokalee Road and
Veteran's Park Drive. That is owned by Southern Community
Bank, and they have -- they have no objection to the -- to the
amendment. And so you know, this -- the entire parcel is -- or
both parcels are subject to a commercial condominium, and
that's the way it's going to be developed. So we're just trying to
put the two together to make things easier.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions? Do we
Page 86
April 5, 2001
have any registered speaker or even anybody over there to tell
me?
MR. BELLOWS: I'll be filling in for Bob Mulhere.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, thank you. He deserted us.
Item 7-T or 7-F -- they're all 7-Fs.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All 7-Fs, okay. So we have no D
or E-7s. Okay. Since there are no persons from the public to
speak, I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the
board ?
MR. RICHARDSON: Madam Chairwoman, I'd like to be on the
positive side of something today and recommend that -- approval
of this PUD, 97-13, and forward to the Collier County Planning
Commission.
MR. BUDD.' I'll second that if we forward it to the Board of
County Commissioners.
MR. RICHARDSON: That -- I accept that correction.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by
Commissioner Richardson and a second by Commissioner Budd
to forward PUD 97-13 (1) to the Board of County Commissioners
with approval.
Any discussion?
Hearing no discussion, all those in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
Motion carries.
We need a motion for PUD 96-1(2 ).
MR. RICHARDSON: I would be pleased to offer a motion to
recommend this to the Collier County -- to the Board of County
Commissioners, PUD 96-1 for their consideration with our
recommendation for approval.
MR. BUDD: Second.
Page 87
April 5, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by
Commissioner Richardson and a second by Commissioner Budd
for approval. Any discussion?
Hearing no discussion, all those in favor of the petition
signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
Motion carries.
Moving right along.
MR. PRIDDY: Let the record reflect that I did not vote on
either one of those motions.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Correct. Thank you,
Commissioner Priddy.
Okay. Moving right along to 7-F, it's a conditional use, CU
2000-19.
All those wishing to provide testimony today, please stand,
raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The witnesses were administered the oath by the court
reporter.}
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you, Chahram.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Chahram Badamtchian
from planning services staff. The second additional use for a
communications tower for the Florida Department of
Transportation. This tower was approved by you and the board
under different format. Last year we amended the Land
Development Code to allow for these towers. They will have four
towers along 1-75 between Naples and Broward County. This is
the first of the four.
The -- if you -- the key is planning to have what they call
intelligent transportation system program which will provide
signs on the side of the road which with changeable message
that they can change it from wherever and some other
Page 88
April 5, 2001
improvements. And for this they need towers to communicate
with those signs and other equipments.
And this one will be the Mile Marker 92, which is 8 miles
from the toll booth. The height of the tower will be 265 feet. And
as I said, the Land Development Code was amended to allow for
this tower and that even the location was specified in the Land
Development Code. Therefore, they are in full compliance with
the requirements of the Land Development Code and the growth
management plan, and staff recommends approval of this
petition.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Priddy.
MR. PRIDDY: Chahram, will they be required also in the
future to allow shared access if anyone else needs tower space?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, sir, they will be. That's one of the
requirements of the Land Development Code.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions?
Would the petitioner care to speak?
MR. GUSTAFSON: Madam Chairman, my name is Joel
Gustafson. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Holland and
Knight. And I represent the applicant. And this will have been
the third time this particular board has heard this item. So what I
might do in light of the hour, I'll be happy to answer any
questions if there are any.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy?
MR. ABERNATHY: No.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No questions? Are there any
registered speakers from the public?
MR. GUSTAFSON: I believe the two other registered
speakers are here on behalf of the applicant, so I'm sure they'll
waive their time. They're here to answer questions also.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So, Mr. Bellows, there are no
speakers?
Page 89
April 5, 2001
MR. BELLOWS: No. Speaker, Joel Gustafson.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Waive it?
MR. BELLOWS: Scott Gustafson and Steven Sirighano.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You've both waived your right to
speak.
Okay. Since there are no public -- additional public
speakers, I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the
board?
MR. PRIDDY: Madam Chairman, I move that we move
forward with Petition CU-2000-19 to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. MR. BUDD: Second.
MS. STUDENT: Just for clarification, it's the BZA,
conditional uses.
MR. PRIDDY: I note that in the staff recommendation they
need to correct the BCC to BZA.
MS. STUDENT: Yes. The board is sending appeals to you,
conditional uses.
MR. PRIDDY: And I will -- will correct my -- my motion. And I
made that motion having completed my finding of fact sheet.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Priddy has moved,
and Commissioner Budd has seconded the motion. Is there any
further discussion? Hearing no further discussion, all those in
favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.).
Those opposed, same sign.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Motion passes.
Please send down your conditional use papers signed. I'll collect
them.
Okay. Moving right along, we have CU 2000-21. Mr. Hoover,
another conditional use. All those -- all those wishing to present
testimony today, please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn
Page 90
April 5, 2001
in by the court reporter.
(The witnesses were administered the oath by the court
reporter.)
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services again. This is
a conditional use for a preschool in C-5 zoning district. The
reason that this is a conditional use in C-5 is the opposite of the
reason for most conditional uses. This is to protect the kids from
other uses in C-5 which may be considered noxious uses. One of
the requirements for the petitioner was to check the surrounding
area for any listed hazardous or noxious uses in the area. Mr.
Hoover did that, and none were found. Staff has received no
comments to the contrary.
This is in the existing Edgemont Office Park, which is on
Naples Boulevard, which is in the northwest quadrant of Airport
and Pine Ridge. Home Depot is in this location. The Naples
Community Hospital office space is in that area. The Edgemont
Office Park is an existing office park, and I had the parking in
yellow, the existing buildings in pink. And this is the building in
green (indicating) where the childcare is proposed to go. I
received two phone calls asking -- I believe they were from
construction companies that identified themselves asking for the
petitioner's name so they could put a bid on the contract. I told
them it was an existing office park, and they had no objections,
and staff recommends approval.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Hoover?
MR. ABERNATHY: Is it occupied at all, that Edgemont?
MR. REISCHL: When I made my site visit, I didn't see
anything open. There may be by now. I -- we -- the petitioner
submitted in December, so I'm not sure if anybody's occupied
between then and now.
MR. ABERNATHY-' I just wonder if there's any mechanism
for monitoring who does move in there.
Page 91
April 5, 2001
MR. REISCHL: Yes. We have the zoning certificate process.
There's a mix of medical and office allowed in there. According
to their parking, the childcare should fit in well with that parking
mix. It would take more of the medical space away, but they're
free to lease to other nonmedical office.
MR. ABERNATHY: There are no outdoor swimming pools or
other attractive nuisances like that, are there?
MR. REISCHL: We haven't had a site plan yet, but I don't
think there's too much room for an outdoor swimming pool in
there.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Hoover.
MR. HOOVER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Bill Hoover of Hoover Planning representing the
petitioner. I think it's been pretty thoroughly described already.
I don't think there's any issues that I very thoroughly checked
the neighborhood out and actually spoke to a police officer that
lives on the hospital's grounds there. And one of my concerns
was was there liquid oxygen or anything like that stored on
there. And he assured me that there is nothing absolutely
flammable or corrosive that's stored on the premises.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of Mr.
Hoover? Do we have any registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No registered speakers, I close
the public --
MR. PEDONE: I have one question.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Question. Thank you.
MR. PEDONE: Mr. Hoover, I don't know exactly where it was
or if they've cleaned it up, but isn't there in back of that
somewhere some sort of a pile of debris that was supposed to be
for recycling?
MR. REISCHL: That is over more towards this way
Page 92
April 5, 2001
(indicating) in the industrial park.
MR. PEDONE: Oh, okay. I --
MR. REISCHL: It was.
MR. PEDONE.' I -- of course, I figured if there was a lot of
debris there's usually rats.
MR. REISCHL: I was -- yes. It was ostensibly a recycling
operation, but code enforcement worked with them to clean it up
MR. PRIDDY: Madam Chairman, having completed my
finding of fact, I'm drawn to the conclusion that we should
forward CU-2000-21 to the board of zoning appeals with a
recommendation of approval.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But I didn't close the public
hearing, so I'll close the public hearing, and then --
MR. PRIDDY: You did close the public hearing.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I was interrupted.
MR. PEDONE: No. I -- I interrupted her.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, he interrupted me. So I
closed the public hearing, and Mr. Priddy has made a motion, and
the second was --
MR. ABERNATHY: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh. The second made by
Commissioner Abernathy. We have a motion and a second before
us. Any further discussion? No further discussion? I call the
question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. The
motion carries.
Now, please fill out your findings of fact, sign them, and
pass them down.
The agenda, I don't believe we have any old business, but
we do have an item of new business. As the acting chair, I
Page 93
April 5, 2001
received a letter from Sam Saadeh addressed to Commissioner
Wrage resigning from the Planning Commission effective --
immediately? Yes. His workload is such that he cannot attend
and be effective in his opinion; therefore, he is resigning. I guess
we have to accept the resignation. Is there a motion to do so?
MR. PRIDDY: So moved.
MR. BUDD: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by
Commissioner Priddy and a second by Commissioner Budd to
accept the resignation of Sam Saadeh. He is also the secretary
of our August board. Therefore, I believe I could appoint, but I
think we could elect another secretary to fill his unexpired term.
MR. PRIDDY: Madam Chairman, I would nominate
Commissioner Pedone.
MR. PEDONE: I would refuse it. Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We--
MR. PEDONE: I've been that already.
MR. RICHARDSON: Madam Chairwoman, why don't you
appoint?
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do I have a volunteer? If not, I'll
appoint Lora Jean Young.
MS. YOUNG: What do I have to do?
MR. PRIDDY: Come early and stay late, twice the pay.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You get twice the pay. You have
to move down here to the Chairman's left. And you accept these
various pieces of paper that come in, make sure that they're
signed, and you give them to staff. And you also collect any
exhibits, make sure the exhibits that are presented to us during
the presentations are collected and given to staff and once in a
while sign something, I think.
MR. RICHARDSON: Madam Chairman, before we collapse
and retire, according to press reports, I understand that Ron Nino
Page 94
April 5, 2001
will not be as frequently in front of us as he has been in the past.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. We have -- we're still
on the issue of secretary.
MR. RICHARDSON: Go ahead.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: She didn't accept.
MS. YOUNG: I accept this honor with pleasure.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. We now have a new
secretary. Welcome. Congratulations.
Okay. Under new business, we do have the workshop
training, planning, legal issues. Did you care to say something
about Mr. Nino at this point?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, if I may.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. RICHARDSON: To continue my soliloquy for a very short
time, I think it would be appropriate certainly for -- for my part to
express my appreciation for the work Ron has done and the help
he has given to me and, I think, to this commission and would
like offer a resolution to that effect and ask others to loin. MS. YOUNG: I second the motion.
MR. PRIDDY: I certainly -- certainly would do that. Ron has
been a very valuable part of the planning staff, and I think we're
going to miss him very much in -- in that capacity, and I am
certainly sorry that -- that the events have -- have led to that.
MR. RICHARDSON: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we have a motion on the floor
to have a resolution of condemna -- excuse me. We are going to
commend --
MR. RICHARDSON: Right.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- Ron Nino for his great service
to the Planning Commission. It was seconded by our new
secretary, Commissioner Young. All those in favor?
(Unanimous response.)
Page 95
April 5, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign.
MR. PRIDDY: Madam Chairman.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Nino, who is no longer in the
room --
MR. BELLOWS: Wherever you are.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- wherever you are, we
appreciate the effort that you give us.
MR. PRIDDY: When he reviews this on television tonight.
MR. BELLOWS: I'll pass the message on.
MR. PRIDDY: I have an irreconcilable conflict and will be
leaving.
MR. RICHARDSON: It's -- it's the second room down on the
left.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Priddy has departed~ and we
are now at the workshop.
MR. RICHARDSON: We had an -- an aborted attempt, I guess,
earlier. Are we going to reschedule? Is that the point? Is that
the question, or this is -- this is a workshop?
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think we're rescheduling the
Planning Commission -- excuse me, the planning staff portion of
it, but we do have legal here to provide some great information
for us, and I must say that we do need a motion to adjourn at
some point so I need to still have a quorum.
MR. PEDONE: I make a motion to adjourn.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We haven't finished the agenda
yet .
MR. BUDD: We're ready to quit.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion to adjourn. I
guess I have to ask for a second. We can't do that yet.
MS. STUDENT: I thought we were under new business, that
being the workshop, and adjourning was Item 12. So I don't think
we can adjourn --
Page 96
April 5, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We can't adjourn yet, so you're
out of order.
MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members
of the commission. Obviously, it's your pleasure. I mean, I -- I
can come back on another occasion if you've gone a long time
this morning. It's up to you, whatever you prefer.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Did you identify yourself?
MR. MANALICH: Yeah. Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant
county attorney.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. How long is your
presentation, and what areas did you want to cover because I'm
interested and we have us here for the moment ?
MR. MANALICH:
probably a half hour.
than that.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
This is the ethics presentation. It's
Now, if we have questions, it can go longer
PEDONE: I'm going to have to take off.
BUDD: I need-- .
PEDONE: I can't stay.
BUDD.' We would rather postpone.
PEDONE: We would rather postpone.
MANALICH: If it's better another occasion, that's fine
too.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
MR. RICHARDSON: Ouch.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO:
What's the pleasure of the board
Ouch is not on the record.
What's the pleasure of the board?
MR.
material
MR.
MR.
MR. MANALICH: Yes.
today if you would like.
RICHARDSON: Postpone's fine. Is there some written
that --
MANALICH: Yes, there is.
RICHARDSON: -- some of us newer members -- And you can take those with you
Page 97
April 5, 2001
MR. RICHARDSON: I would appreciate having --
MR. MANALICH: This is a Powerpoint presentation. We
would actually need, like, a five-minute break to even set up. So
that may also factor into your considerations.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Why don't we take the handouts
for now and reschedule this. And if you have any additional
handouts for the next portion of your presentation, which I think
is ex parte communications --
MR. MANALICH.' Right. I think somebody else will be doing
that from my office.
MS. STUDENT: Yes, I -- I talked to you, especially the
members of you on the board, longer about this. My presentation
isn't that long, and I think you've probably seen the material, a
lot of it already. But it's not available today.
MR. MANALICH: Yeah. Also, there's -- I think connected
with that would be sunshine law and public records. So that one
is probably, by itself, half hour to 45 minutes.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So we have people
captured here. When would we like to do this again? When is
our next opportunity?
MR. PEDONE.' Well, if we're going to do it on a meeting day, I
think it should be one with a light agenda so that we're not here
all day.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And in deference to staff, this
would have been light. However, we had no quorum last time.
So all eight items from the last meeting got transferred over to
this meeting.
MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding the next Planning
Commission meeting may also be somewhat light also. MS. YOUNG: Oh, really.
MR. MANALICH: Do you have a date for that?
MS. YOUNG: I won't be here on May 5th.
Page 98
April 5, 2001
MS. STUDENT: Well, yeah, the next one --
MR. ABERNATHY: The next meeting is mid-April.
MS. STUDENT: Mid-April.
MS. YOUNG: I can do that. Sorry.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The next meeting is, right, the
19th of April.
MR. MANALICH: Yeah, we have a conflict in the office;
that's the local government law seminar up in Orlando, which is a
big one for local government attorneys. Now, if you want to have
a special workshop, that's fine too, because whatever you prefer.
Just that one particular date is difficult because of that seminar
for the office.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So that's not good for the -
- the legal department. And the 3rd you will be absent. MR. ABERNATHY: I will be absent.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Young and
Commissioner Abernathy. So the next option is the 17th of May.
MS. STUDENT: Mr. Ramiro (sic), would you mind, because
an issue came up, just for five minutes or less, about some type
of disclosure that the Planning Commission has to do by May, I
think?
MR. MANALICH: Okay. Yeah, you are reporting individuals,
so you do have a financial disclosure requirement.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I don't believe I've received
those documents this time around.
MS. YOUNG: I have not gotten any.
MR. MANALICH: We have the forms in the book. But my
interpretation is that as reporting individuals, as defined in the
statute, because you are a board of land planning -- VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right.
MR. MANALICH: -- zoning responsibilities, that I do think you
have to have that disclosure.
Page 99
April 5, 2001
MS. STUDENT: Does that have to be in by May 1st, or is it
the end of May ?
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: July 1st, I believe. And it's Form
I or Form 6, whichever is the least -- .
MR. MANALICH: I think it's Form 1.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- largest disclosure. And usually
that comes directly from the supervisor of elections or through
Sue Filson --
MR. MANALICH: Right.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- provides the names to -- or we
get those in the mail. I believe it's July 1st.
MS. STUDENT: It's hanging out there, and I wanted to
addressed it before May 1st got here so -- to protect you guys so.
is May 3rd -- excuse me.
pleasure of the board?
MR. RICHARDSON:
MR. MANALICH: Let me just grab my material on it.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But we still haven't resolved if it
May 17th would be -- is that the
That's fine.
MR. ABERNATHY: Good with me.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All staff, please, legal and
planning, do note that our workshop will be on the 17th of May.
And if you have anything to give us in advance, we would greatly
appreciate reading it before we get to the meeting. Thank you.
Mr. Manalich, the issue of disclosure.
MR. MANALICH: It's -- July 1st is your -- your date.
MS. STUDENT: There's nothing.
MR. MANALICH: And it is Form 1.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Form 1.
MR. MANALICH: Right. And you have that -- we have a
sample of that in the packages that you can take with you today.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. And that does come
Page 100
April 5, 2001
directly to us in the mail. I believe Mr. Budd and Mr. Priddy have
been on here long enough that it's automatic to them.
MR. MANALICH: Right. Yeah. I'm comforted to hear that
they've received it.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I just realized I haven't.
MR. MANALICH: One clarification, Madam Chairman. The
meeting of the 17th, will that -- what topics do you want us to
discuss with you? Is it just the ethics, or do you want us to have
it longer and have the other topics, too, which are sunshine law,
public records, and ex parte?
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Bellows, do you think
that meeting --
MR. BELLOWS: That's too far in advance to tell.
MR. PEDONE: Can we keep it light?
MR. BELLOWS: I'll pass that on to Susan, and we'll try to
keep it light.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We'll try to keep the meeting light
so that we can cover those three. Now, are they each half-hour
presentations?
MR. MANALICH: I think you need to plan with questions and
the subject matter that are involved here probably an hour and a
half total out of your schedule.
MR. PEDONE: That's not bad.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. That's fair. Thank you.
MR. MANALICH: All right. Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we're postponed to -- the
presentation to the 17th of May.
MR. MANALICH: Very good.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It doesn't look like -- thank you --
there is any public comment, since there's no public left. There's
no discussion of addenda. We need to adjourn.
MR. PEDONE: I make a motion we adjourn.
Page 101
April 5, 2001
MS. YOUNG: I second the motion.
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Pedone has moved we
adjourn, second by Commissioner Young. All in favor?
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Opposed, same sign. Thank you
very much.
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at
11:45 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO, VICE CHAIRMAN
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING, INC., BY BARARA A. DONOVAN, CMR, CRR
Page 102
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
May 7,2001
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FL 34104
Mr. Miles L. Scofield
Turrell & Associates, Inc.
3584-B Exchange Avenue
Naples, FL 34104
REFERENCE: BD-2000-39, Ahmed & Kathleen AI-Khatib
Dear Mr. Scofield:
On Thursday, April 5, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved
Petition No. BD-2000-39.
A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 01-07 is enclosed approving this use.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400.
Sincerely,
Ross Gochenaur
Planner II
g/admin/BD-2000-39/RG/cw
Enclosure
C:
Ahmed & Kathleen AI-Khatib
P. O. Box 443
Glasgow, KY 42142-0443
Customer Service
Addressing (Peggy Jarrell)
Land Dept. Property Appraiser
M. Ocheltree, Graphics
Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI)
File
PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier, fl.us
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 01- 07
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-39 FOR
AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such
business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance
91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County,
among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted
Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said
regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 145-foot extension of a boat
dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 165-foot boat dock facility in an A-ST zone for the
property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in
accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this
Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of
Collier County, Florida, that:
The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield of Turrell & Associates, Inc., representing Ahmed and
Kathleen A1-Khatib, with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
(See Exhibit A)
be and the same is hereby approved for a 145-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to
allow for a 165-foot boat docking facility in the A-ST zoning district wherein said property is located,
subject to the following conditions:
All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless
of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed
at the outermost end on both sides.
In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall
be posted during construction.
Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building
permit.
o
All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall
be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-39 be
recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this O~ day of /5~tt [ ,2001.
I
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
j~}~M ~D~
E~cutiv; SecretaryCK' III
Community Development and Environmental
Services Interim Administrator
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency:
Marj or/JM. Student
Assistant County Attorney
g:/admin/BD-2000-39/RG/im
EORGE P. LANGFOKD
Attorney at Law
3357 Tamiami Trail North
Naples, Florida 34103
(941) 262-2011
WARRANTY DEED
THIS INDENTURE, made this day of May, 2000, between BONNI~
JEAN FUCHS, Individually and as Trustee of The Bonnie Jean Fuchs Living Trust
dated March 26, 1992, joined by her husband, WALTER W. FUCHS, whose post oflice
address is: 321 Forest Aveuue, Wheaton, Illinois 60187, GILA_NTOR, and KATH. LEEN
AL-KHATIB, a Married Person, whose Social Security Number is: , whose
post office address is: P.O. Box 1838, Glasgow, KY 42142-1838, GILA.NTEE,
WITNESSETH,
That said GRANTOR for and in consideration of the Siam ofTen and No/100
Dollars ($10.00), and other good and valuable consideration to said Grantor in hand
paid by said Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted,
bargained and sold to the said Grantee, and Grantee's heirs and assigns forever, the
following described land, situate, lying and being in Collier County, Florida, to-wit:
;
The South 100 feet of the North 1,171.57 feet of Government Lot
2, in Section 14, Township 51 South, Range 25 East; being a strip
of land 100 feet wide extending from the Gulf of Mexico to the
bay of inland water,ray, Collier County, Florida; together with
all riparian rights appurtenant thereto; subject however to the
right-of-way for a proposed public road 60 feet wide the center
line of which road is located as follows:
Frown tile Collier County mo.u,nent near tile Bay on the South
line of Section 14 which monument is 98 feet west of the
unsurveyed S.E. corner of said section run westerly along said
south line of 240 feet to the point of beginning of said center line.
From said point of begia,,iag ru, qorthwesterly at an angle of
113° 23' e;~st to ,ortl,~vcst, with said section line for 530 feet to a
point of curve thence ruu uortbwesterly on an arc ora curve to
the left of radius 13,222.09 feet and central angle 18° 30; for
4,269.23 feet to a poiut of tangency; thence continue along said
taugent to the north line of said Section 14.
Subject to easements and restrictions common to the subdivision; oil, gas and mineral
interests of record if any; zoning and use restrictions imposed by governmental
authority; taxes for the curreut year.
~¢';¢'ai~'The sublect property ia not the hnmestead or adjacent to the homestead of the Grantor,
who resides at 321 Forest Avenue, Wheaton, Illinois 60187.
Property I.D. Numi,~r: 00720280003
EXHIBIT "~"
Propert~ I.D. Numl, er: 00720280003
and said GRANTOR does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the
: ~ .... . same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has hereunto set Grantor's hand and
seal the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in our presence:
GRANTOR,
ALgm
(Printed Name of 1~Ttne~)
BONNIE JE~ FUCHS, Individually,
and as Trustee of The Bonnie Jean
Fuchs Living Trust dated March 26,
1992
WALTER W. FUCHS
(SEAL)
:~ .....ABHI MOHAN
I'~TARY PUBLIC: --
(Printed N~c of No~ Public)
STATE OF I L.
COUNTY IDoPo
The foregoing instrument ~vas acknowledged before me this of May,
2000 by BONNIE JEAN FUCHS, Individually and as Trustee of The Bonnie Jean Fuchs
Living Trust dated March 26, L992 and WALTER W. FUCHS, who are personally
known.to me or produced I'~¥1~Yr~. i iC~ as identification.