Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/02/2003 ROctober 2, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 2, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd Mark Strain Dwight Richardson Lindy Adelstein Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Kenneth Abemathy Robert Murray George Evans ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Comm. Development & Env. Services Ray Bellows, Planning Services Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services Fred Reischl, Planning Services Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2003, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR pRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NOTE: The public should be advised that two (2) members of the Collier County Planning Commission (Dwight Richardson and Bob Murray) are also members of the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee. In this regard, matters coming before the Collier County Planning Commission may come before the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee from time to time. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 4, 2003 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JUNE 24, 2003, SEPTEMBER 9-10, 2003, AND SEPTEMBER 10, 2003, 5:05 P.M MEETING. 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 13. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Ava Maria and Stewardship Receiving Area Workshop/Presentation - Alan Reynolds - WilsonMiller 10. 11. 12. 13. Bo BD.2003-AR-4392, Ben Nelson, of Nelson Marine Construction, representing Michael & Janine Knapp, requesting a 24-foot boat dock -extension from the maximum permitted 20 feet to allow for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 44 feet into the waterway. Property is located at 230 Barefoot Beach Boulevard, Bayfront Gardens Subdivision, Lot 5, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) PUDZ-2002-AR-3158, Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, of RWA Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette Coleman & Johnson, representing Eco Venture Wiggins Pass Ltd. requesting to rezone a 10.45 acre parcel from C-4 to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to allow for: a maximum of 112 residential units on +/- 9.65 acres of residential development area for a resulting density of 11.6 dwelling units per acre, specifically including a 102 unit tower at a building height not to exceed 21 stories over parking (maximum of 225 feet above the required Flood Elevation and in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.6.3.1 of the Collier County LDC), 10 town home units, and a marina basin with 52 boat slips and customary accessory uses, including a publicly accessible ship's store and marine fueling station of approximately 5000 square feet of commercial space; and, a +/- 0.80 acre Public Use tract providing for additional public vehicle and boat trailer parking to provide: support for Cocohatchee River Park, access to the marina ship's store, and egress to Vanderbilt Drive for park patrons to allow for safe egress via a protected northbound turning movement at existing traffic signal at Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) D. LDC Criteria for Boathouses - Discussion OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ADJOURN CCPC AGENDA/Io/I 0/02/03 2 e e October 2, 2003 Chairman Russell Budd called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM. Two new Commissioners were introduced; Mr. Bob Murray from District 1 and Mr. George Evans from District 3. Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Roll Call was taken and a quorum was established. Addenda to the Agenda - Item 8C - PUDZ 2002-AR-3158 is continued until the November 6th meeting due to a result of a flaw in the Growth Management Plan and will need to be analyzed. Mr. Strain moved to continue PUDZ 2002-AR-3158 to the November 6th meeting. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously 8-0. Approval of Minutes - September 4, 2003 - page 3 - Brad Schiffer referred to the 2nd Cycle, not 3rd Cycle. Mr. Adelstein moved to approve the minutes of September 4, 2003 as amended. Second by Mr. Midney. Carried 7-1. Mr. Strain abstained. Mr. Evans arrived at 8:37 AM. Planning Commission Absences - Mr. Abernathy will be absent on October 16th, 2003. BCC Report - Recaps - June 24, 2003, September 9-10, 2003, and September 10, 2003, 5:05 PM Meeting - Mr. Bellows noted the Earth Mining was approved by the BCC 5-0. Miller Square & Radio Square was approved on the summary agenda and the Wentworth Estates was approved 4-1. Chairman's Report - none. Advertised Public Hearings: Ave Maria and Stewardship Receiving Area Workshop/Presentation - Alan Reynolds - Wilson Miller - (This is a tutorial overview presentation of an update for the ongoing process). The Sending and Receiving area applications pending before the County will be discussed which includes approx. 5,000 acres of Sending areas and the Stewardship Receiving area for the town of Ave Maria. Mr. Reynolds reported they have filed the first applications under the Rural Land Stewardship overlay. They include the Sending and Receiving area applications. They will give an overview of the applications and talk about the design concepts along with the planning principles that were adopted as part of the overlay as they apply to the specific project. Several speakers will give presentations. Page 2 October 2, 2003 Power Point Presentation Highlights are as follows: (Attached) · Natural Resource Protection - key elements · Review formally January 2004 · RLSA (Rural Lands Stewardship Area) - Plan adopted by the County for the 200,000 acres. · SSA (Stewardship Sending Areas) Application filed in June · SRA (Stewardship Receiving Areas) · BCI-BCBP - the ownership of the lands - Barron Collier Companies New Town Development -joint venture entity that will be developing the University & the Town of Ave Maria. · Design Guidelines for the Rural Land Stewardship Overlays - Oct. · Aerial & Elevation views were shown. · Protects 5,286 acres of Natural Resources with no cost to Collier County Residents & protects agriculture activities. · Surrounding village will be compact & support faculty, students & residents. Diversifies rural economy · University planned for opening fall of 2006 · Infrastructure needs to be planned. · SRA - 960 acres - 1/3 University- 2/3 Town · Self-provided waste water treatment, public parks, landscaping, streetscaping, lighting, storm water management system to be put in place by developers. · Self-sustaining community- places for shopping, book stores, restaurants etc. need to be planned for - for faculty and students. · Community with character and accomplishes public good through the overlay system. · Tim Durum - Sending Areas 3 & 4 - Aerial Views · Four areas totaling 5,286 acres · Gave exhibits of elevations, soils, listed species, restoration potential, retained land uses and an index map as part of the presentation. · Credits discussed for first phase. · Total Stewardship Credits generated - 7,878 · Stewardship Receiving Area entitlement potential - 985 acres at 8 credits per acre. · All Sending Areas that are part of the application are under Barron Collier's ownership. · The Receiving Area land is under ownership of Barron Collier and the University as a joint venture. · Mr. Strain asked if they were taking advantage of an early entry Bonus program - the answer was "yes-early entry & restoration program". · Anita Jenkins - Stewardship Receiving Areas · Showed the map with open areas and overlay Page 3 October 2, 2003 · Many of the Suitability Factors were given. · Compact Development/Meets all criteria for a town · Master Plan shown - first phase 960 acres · University planning grid has been established · Grid measurements are 300 feet x 750 feet · Setbacks measured from the planning grid · Design Standards - Academic Buildings/Housing/Sports & Recreational Facilities · Artist Rendering of University Design Character concept of what it might look like was shown. · Frank Ricks - Looney Ricks Kiss - Memphis, TN -- Planning Principles · Unique opportunity for him - to be a place people want to be. · Town Design Standards - Streetscapes important · Focusing on Pedestrian and automobile - sidewalks & landscaping · Town Design Perspective shown · Transition of density in neighborhoods · Diagram shown of streetscapes/lighting/Parking etc. · Illustrative Plan shown - many issues will be addressed · Main roads shown with University in the center · Will be a Catholic University - not non-denominational · Working around Wetlands Questions were asked of the presenters after the presentation. Patrick White -Assistant County Attorney - stated there will be a workshop in January Quasi Judicial - and reminded the Commissioners to stick to generic principles so there are no predetermination of comments. Mr. Strain stated the presentation was excellent and felt a copy of the presentation would help in reading the Land Development Codes Amendments in applying them. It is public information and asked if they could receive a copy of it in the mail. Patrick White suggested they wait as his concern is the specific knowledge that pertains to the application package itself. Mentioned it is in a grey area, not to keep the information from them, but that the information is provided at the appropriate time for consideration. Such as having the information within so many weeks ahead of the applications for their consideration would be appropriate. To have them outside the timeline is in a grey zone. He stated there is a line that exists in pre-considering a matter that will come before them. Joe Schmitt explained Mr. Strain asked specifically for a copy of the presentation because they are going to deal with an application of the Land Development Codes for Cycle 3. Not in relationship to the application they will see in February, but the Cycle 3 LDC Amendments. This is public information and can be requested. Page 4 October 2, 2003 Mr. White stated they need to consider and be mindful of the issues he has raised and not form or develop any preconceived ideas based on comments or information provided. He wants to make sure there is open-minded, unbiased and non prejudice finder of fact. Mr. Budd asked Mr. Reynolds to have copies of the presentation distributed to the Commissioners and asked they not pre-judge the application. In answer to Mr. Murray's question of Utilities, Mr. Reynolds showed a site that will accommodate facilities for the town. All part of the infrastructure plan. They will comply with the new building standards to address storms etc. The Restoration applications, credits per acre of sending areas, indexing and public benefit uses were discussed. More detail will be provided in the workshop. Design guidelines have been put together and have been used for the Counties proposed guidelines and coordinated. Will be consistent with what the County adopts. Joe Schmitt mentioned there will be some significant differences from the urban areas and have been noted - setbacks/sign codes/landscaping etc. Discussion pursued concerning Mixed Uses being present in the Land Development Code and used in this project. Mr. Richardson's concern is how this project will fit into Collier County and requirement for services. (Benefit uses/impact fees/Ad Valorem taxes etc.) The economic benefits were discussed briefly on a generic level. Application meets all the requirement of the Counties overlay of Mixed Use, provision of services, sustainability, and economic impact. A Special District (Section 190) will go before the Board of County Commissioners and establish criteria for taxing assessments etc. Housing the students, dormitories and affordable housing was discussed. All the students will be able to live on the Campus or within the Village, and graduate students could live in the Town. 10:05 AM Break 10:20 AM Reconvened Be BD-2003-AR-4392 - Ben Nelson of Nelson Marine Construction representing Michael & Janine Knapp requesting a 24 foot boat dock extension form the maximum permitted 20 feet to allow for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 44 feet into the waterway. Property is located at 230 Barefoot Beach Blvd., Bayfront Gardens Subdivision, Collier County Florida. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Page 5 October 2, 2003 PETITIONER Ben Nelson, representing Mr. & Mrs. Knapp - requesting a 24 foot dock extension allowing a 44 foot protrusion into the waterway. Overhead map and diagram was shown. The width of the waterway is approx. 300 feet wide and consistent with the other structures in the Lely Barefoot area. Water depths were show on the diagram with discussion on the extra distance and measurements. STAFF Ross Gochenaur - Planning Services - there was one objection to the petition in which Ross prepared some information for him and was never picked up. Sixteen other docks in the immediate area with extensions ranging from 25' to 45' - approx, average are 35' depending upon the water depth. The petition meets all criteria and he recommends approval. Mr. Schiffer asked if a boathouse could be built on the dock - would it extend past 20' from the shore bank. Mr. Goehenaur answered that according to the Land Development Code no boathouse can protrude greater than 20' as measured from the most restrictive point. Mr. Sehiffer asked if it would have to come before the Board if they were to build a boathouse. Mr. Gochenaur stated if the property owner tried to put a boathouse that covered the innermost lift, a boathouse could protrude no more than 20' - if that is used - it is theoretically possible that a roof could be placed over almost all of the innermost lift. The support could not go further than 20' but the roof overhang could extend further. Mr. Richardson talked about secondary and primary criteria with impact on view with neighboring property owners. SPEAKERS Doug Fee - 921 Carrick Bend Circle - President of North Bay Civic Assn. - Lely Barefoot is part of North Bay. The Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan had language that the design criteria for the pass and should be 3 feet. As they look at the boat issues in the neighborhood and any of the estuaries - they should take into account how deep the boat draft is and an area of critical environmental concern. They are following the boat issue and stick to the design criteria and continue to study the design of the past. He is not sure a depth has been put into the LDC amendments. Joe Schmitt suggested Mr. Fee look at the Growth Management Plan and the Manatee Protection Plan that has been adopted. It clearly defines the criteria of Wiggins Pass is a 5' depth mean low water, and 4' depth at the dock. Average draft of 2' for the Manatee Protection criteria and the GMP has adopted that plan. This is not a marina sighting, but an issue in regards to a dock - not a marina. Hearing is closed for discussion and motion. Page 6 October 2, 2003 Mr. Abernathy moved to approve BD-2003-AR-4392 subject to staff recommendations. Second by Mr. Strain. Carried unanimously 9-0. C. LDC Criteria for Boathouses - Discussion - Joe Schmitt Mr. Schmitt sent the Commissioners a memorandum that defines the current Land Development Code that is applied to Boat docks and Boathouses. Commissioner Schiffer's proposal was also enclosed with a few changes. He asked where they wanted to go with it. The criteria for view are only applicable to the dock extension request. The view comes into play because it exceeds the design thresholds that are allowable in putting up a boat dock. View is not a criterion for boathouse; its view is encapsulated in the criteria of the setbacks for building a boathouse. It is controlled by height and distance from the shore and setbacks on each side - in which that protects view. Their concerns are if they apply the criteria of view in regards to boathouse as they do with boat dock extensions - there will be "Subjectivity" involved rather than "Objectivity". Will this complicate things in making a decision whether or not it can be approved? They think the way the LDC is written meets the needs of neighboring residents and also in applying the protection for the application of boat houses. He is afraid they will get into opinions rather than applying objective criteria. Mr. Strain asked if the Vanderbilt people were notified of the meeting. Mr. Schmitt responded it was advertised. Mr. Strain asked if the individuals involved with this issue were notified by telephone. He would like to hear their particular concerns. Mr. Schmitt did not personally make a telephone call to them. The Vanderbilt Bay and Beach Assn is looking at hiring a planner to do an overlay to eliminate boat houses in the Vanderbilt Beach & Bay area. The purpose was to get the Commissioners guidance and not the publics. Do they want an Amendment prepared and would then advertise as they do with an LDC Amendment? Mr. Schiffer mentioned that on May 8th they voted to have the Amendment as worded by himself be included in Cycle 2. Staff doesn't have to write it. There is a subjective view when reviewing a boat dock with a boat house; they are reviewing the boat house with view. Mr. Schmitt did not agree - the intent of the LDC would be only the criteria applicable to the dock itself. The issue is with the boat dock itself and not the boat house. Setbacks are a concern and the issues are with the wording plus the community not being represented at the workshop discussion. Discussion followed concerning the issue being discussed without the public input and being put into the 3rd cycle. Whatever the Commissioners direct Page 7 October 2, 2003 staff to do they will do. Staff has to develop objective criteria, not because they "feel", or "think" it has to be objective so they can say they have turned it down or not. Patrick White wanted to make sure they consider evidence of what is coming in as part of a boat dock or boat house application - and whatever the CCPC decision would be, if challenged, has to be supported by competent substantial evidence. The Courts look at lay or sworn testimony, but needs to have evidence to support the determination. Staff is saying - concerning regulation", they are looking at things that would be considered as evidence, objective and would meet the competent evidence test. Coming from the other end, the testimony from lay witnesses is given weight and credibility, but not of experts. There is a process and does it balance between subjectivity and objectivity? He felt that it does to some degree. Staff is saying they would like to move more towards objectivity and they believe it is being moved more towards subjectivity, and the Commissioners are free to make their determinations of what the appropriate balance is. Mr. Schmitt asked about the 7 criteria that need to be met or would it be 6 of the 7. Staff would have to say the applicants are at the mercy of the Planning Commission. Mr. Gochenaur is also concerned with meeting all of the 7 criteria or 6 of the 7 criterion be met before the petition is approved. The applicant will never know if he is wasting his money or not in meeting the criteria. He discussed the objectiveness and trying to keep it more objective. Whatever the Commissioners decide to do, they have to let staff know whether it will be all or nothing, or 6 of the 7 criteria in which they already know they will meet the criteria in building it that way. Mr. Abemathy expressed his opinion of the 4 out of 5, 5 out of 6, or 6 out of 7 criteria and felt it was a ridiculous thing. Discussion followed on the "neighboring" waterfront property owners and meeting all the criteria. Patrick White would have a real concern if the Planning Commission would reach a determination based upon "their" evaluation of what the impact of diminution of a certain neighbor. Not sure how they can objectively determine that opinion. He talked about the courts view and the analogy for the determination of a boat house extension. It seems to be problematic. Discussion followed on the Land Development Code Amendments as it relates to the boat house issues and how it is written. Page 8 October 2, 2003 Mr. Gochenaur explained there is only one area in the County that has a problem and they are trying to resolve it themselves. It has worked well for the rest of the County for the past twelve years and he did not see any reason to change it now. More discussion followed on the different criteria and how many need to be met. Mr. Midney felt there should be more public input on Mr. Schiffer's memo rather than debate it. Mr. Budd's summary - staff and county attorney are saying the Commissioners can do whatever they want but will have a difficult time defending and implementing it. They really can't ignore their remarks and opinions. Commissioners can expect something in the 3rd cycle and Mr. White volunteered to work with Mr. Schiffer on correct wording. Mr. Richardson agreed with Mr. Abernathy's view on the criteria's that need to be met. Mr. Budd stated there needs to be a more complete and thorough re- evaluation for staff to reliably interpret and provide a clear and concise recommendation that the Planning Commission can interrupt of a relevant criteria that the County Attorney can defend. Staff will address the Boat house criteria now and if they can address the entire section with the boat dock extension, so be it. Mr. Abernathy asked if an amendment can be brought forward that abolishes boat houses completely. It was noted that the City of Naples and Marco Island doesn't have them. It has been brought up at the BCC meeting by Commissioner Halas and it did not go anywhere. Mr. Richardson moved to make a recommendation for an amendment to go before the Board of County Commissioners that the Planning Commission wishes to have a different process for approving boat houses, and if not a choice of the BCC, the criteria will be presented to them. Second by Mr. Schiffer. Mr. Gochenaur asked if the Commissioners are asking that they would like to consider view as a criterion for boathouses - having it done by interjecting it as a 7th criterion - the pass/fail would all have to be approved or deleted. If so, that is doable. They can delete the statement that all 6 criteria need to be met, change it to 7 criteria and add view. Page 9 October 2, 2003 Mr. Gochenaur's statement was amended to be added as part of the above motion. Second by Mr. Schiller was in agreement. Carried unanimously 9-0. 9. Old Business- None 10. New Business - Date for new and old Commissioner training scheduled for Thursday the 23rd of October at 1:00 PM. Mr. Schiffer would appreciate a copy of the 24 x 36 maps in packets so they are more clearly read. 11. Public Comment Item - none 12. Discussion for Addenda - none There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:25 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Russell Budd Page 10 CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 03-_1.3 __ A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2003-4392 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 (LDC) (Ordinance 91-102, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and considered the advisability of a 24-foot extension for a boat dock from the 20-foot length allowed by LDC § 2.6.21. to authorize a 44-foot boat dock facility in a "PUD" Planned Unit Development zone for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 2.6.21 .; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has given all interested parties the opportunity to be heard, and considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida: that: Petition Number BD-2003-4392, filed on behalf of Michael E. and Janine A. Knapp by Nelson Marine Construction, for the property hereinafter described as: Lot 5, Bayfront Gardens, as described in Plat Book 14, Page 114-117, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, be, and the same is hereby approved for, a 24-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot lengtt otherwise allowed by LDC § 2.6.21., to authorize a 44-foot boat docking facility in the "PUD" Planned Uni Development zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. Corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be provided to Collier County prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be installed at the outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 3. At least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. -1- All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the LDC, must be removed from the subject property prior to issuance of the required Certificate of Completion and the property must be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2003-AR- 4392 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 __~.~~ ._,2003. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FL~RID,A BY :~~~i_i/A~RMAN ATTEST: ~~mDh i~ltrOaPt omrent and Envi-r°nmental d Legal Sufficiency: ~atrick G. White Assistant County Attorney BD_2003-AR-4392/RG/I° -2-