Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/03/2000 RFebruary 3, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: VICE CHAIRMAN: Michael Pedone Russell A. Priddy Kenneth C. Abernathy Karen Urbanik Gary Wrage Michael J. Bruet Sam M. Saadeh Joyceanna J. Rautio ALSO PRESENT: Ron Nino, Planning Services Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Page I AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2000 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADM/NISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINLYrES 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 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITtED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 6, 2000 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. R-99-I 1, Alan D. Reynolds, AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc., representing Long Bay Parmers, LLC, requesting a rezone from "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Livingston Road Country Club to "A" Rural Agricultural for property located on the south side of the Livingston Road east/west corridor, west ofi-75, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10± acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) PUD-99-16, Kevin McVicker, P.E., of Phoenix Planning and Engineenng, Inc., representing Gulf Sun Development Corporation, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Whippoorwill Pines PUD for a maximum of 210 residential units for property located on the south side of Night Hawk Drive between Whippoorwill Lane and Dog Ranch Road, tA mile south of Pine Ridge Road, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 29.54+ acres. (Continued from 1/20) (Coordinator: Don Murray) Go PUD-99-26, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole, Montes and Associates, Inc., representing H.B. Holdings, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as La Sienna Estates at Olde Cypress for a maximum of 61 residential dwelling units for property located north of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846), approximately 1.3 miles west of 1-75 and surrounded by the Olde Cypress PUD, in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 40.4:t: acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) CU-99-30, Karen Blackwell, representing Naples Equestrian Challenge Center, L.C., requesting Conditional Use "10", "19", and "24" of the "A" zoning district for a therapeutic equestrian riding facility on property less than 20 acres per Section 2.2.2.3 for property located on Ridge Drive, further described as Lot 21, Block 1, Pine Ridge, in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) CU-99-31, Jason Williams of Johnson Engineering, Inc., representing Cocohatchee Nature Center, requesting Conditional Use "23" of the "A-ST" zoning district for an ecotourism educational facility per section 2.2.2.3 for property located west of U.S. 41 North on the Cocohatchee River, in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2.19+ acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 1 I. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 2/3/00 AGEND/RN/im 2 February 3, 2000 VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I'd like to call to order the -- what's today's date -- the February 3rd -- 4th -- 3rd -- 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. I'll start with the roll call. Commissioner Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE.' Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Commissioner Urbanik. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Here. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Commissioner Pedone is here. Commissioner Budd is absent. Commissioner Wrage. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Here. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Commissioner Bruet. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Here. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Commissioner Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Commissioner Saadeh is absent. Here. I'll look for a motion to approve the minutes of January the 6th. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' So moved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any discussion? THE COURT REPORTER: Can I get the so moved and the second? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I made the motion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm the second. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: And any discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed, none, motion carries. Any planning commission absences? There being none, we'll move on to BCC report. MR. NINO: The last meeting of the Collier County commissioners Page 2 February 3, 2000 -- Ron Nino, for the record -- all petitions were approved, endorsed by the -- approved by the board in the manner consistent with your recommendations with the exception of one. You may recall the variance for the six houses that Mr. Sabatini (phonetic) wanted to construct with reduced side yards. The board denied that petition. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, it was withdrawn. MR. NINO: I'm sorry. Thank you. While he saw the handwriting on the wall, and he withdrew it. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay. Chairman's report; the chairman is absent today, so we have no report from the chairman, and we'll go on to advertised public hearings. Before we start, anyone wishing to speak, I'd like to let them know that they will be limited to five minutes on any item, and if they are representing a group, we will allow ten minutes. First case, R-99-11, Alan D. Reynolds. MR. NINO: Need to swear them in, Mike. (The speakers were sworn). MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. For the record, Ray Bellows with planning services staff. The petitioner is requesting to rezone the subject ten acre site from the Livingston Road Country Club PUD to agricultural. As you can see, it's located on the south side of the east-west Livingston Road right-of-way. It was part of the Livingston Road PUD that came up around this way, and that little parcel was on the south side of the east-west. When Livingston Road was incorporated to the Mediterra PUD, this parcel remained and is now pretty much not developable as the Livingston Road Country Club. So, therefore, the petitioner is going to rezone it to agricultural. There's no consistency problem with the growth management plan. No letters for or against this petition, therefore, staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? Page 3 February 3, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. On the first page of your report, you say that this remnant PUD parcel is not developable as currently zoned, and then on the second page, you say the approved PUD allows 120 multi-family dwelling units on the subject ten acre parcel. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the overall P -- the overall PUD allowed for, I think it's 790 some units, a density of a little over two units per acre. However, when the master plan is basically amended, when the rest of the PUD became part of the Mediterra PUD, there's no real master plan for this petition to work from. Also, the density at ten acres at -- those many units results at about 13 units per acre which is not consistent with the growth management plan. Therefore, they would have to amend the Livingston Road -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Okay. I got it, I got it. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Anyone for the petitioner? MR. NINO: Yes, there is a speaker. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE.' Name, for the record? MS. JENKINS: Anita Jenkins with Wilson, Miller representing Bonita Bay Properties. I'll be happy to answer any questions if you have any, but I don't intend to make a presentation. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? MR. NINO: If I might, for the record, this is not the first time this has happened. You might recall the Casa Del Sol PUD, subsequent to its approval was sold off in two different parcels, and the one became Naples Forest Golf and Country Club, and the effect of that action was to make the balance dysfunctional because it related to a master plan that no longer was applicable, and you have that same situation here. COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: Ron, what does this ten acres ultimately get used for? MR. NINO: They'll have to come back and rezone it to some urban classification for residential purposes. They will have to come back. COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: And there's -- there's access. Page 4 February 3, 2000 MR. NINO.' I take that back. They will have to come back if they intend to use it for some urban residential purpose. Otherwise, they could leave it agricultural and sell it for an agriculturally permitted use. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Anyone else? MR. NINO: Yes, I have a speaker. John Kane wishes to speak to this issue. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE.' Come on up, Mr. Kane, and were you sworn in? MR. KANE: No, I have not been. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: If you would swear in the -- (The speaker was sworn). MR. KANE.' Hi. My name is John Kane. I was given a notice on this issue because my property happens to back right up to that property that we are discussing today, those ten acres. I built a $400,000 home there a year ago, okay, and right exactly in that corner where they are going to be building behind me, you see where that cul-de-sac is right in front of there, my home is the one right exactly in the corner abutting that property. Now, I understand that there's growth in the area. There's been growth all over the county, and it's essential because there's no access to 75 or to that area from Imperial Golf Estates where I live. So, it's definitely needed. There's needed a road of access in there, and I have -- I'm not sitting here saying don't allow these people to build a community, because that's happening, but I will say this, that I've seen bobcats back there. I've seen all kinds of animals back in that area. This is last piece of woods that exist in that area. On the north side of this site where they are building that road right now, these people have come in and knocked down the complete tree line that borders our property, which is absolutely devaluating my property and my home. It was a nice secluded area which was bordered by trees which are now basically torn down on the north side. If they do this behind me, I'm going to be looking out in my backyard into a golf club, Page 5 February 3, 2000 which, you know -- I just would like you to consider the rezoning of this property, that they're going to build the whole area out and leave no woods down there. I just don't understand. COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: They're wanting to not build on it and leave it in agricultural, leave it in woods. MR. KANE: If that -- and like he said, if they have to come back in and request a rezone to build on that property -- COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: Well, the only way to not have them build on it at some point is for you to buy it. MR. KANE: Is to buy it. I didn't realize that -- you know, up until this point that that was -- I was told when I built this home that that property was not -- that it was protected land. I guess somebody had some idea that wasn't the truth~ but, you know, to rezone that whole area, I mean, you're not leaving anything there any longer. I mean, it's going to look like Cape Coral. You're knocking down all the woods and building in every square footage that you can, and I've got a problem with that, and I just thought that you folks would consider that before you start giving more variances and rezoning around that area. COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: Well, this is a variance to go to agriculture, not to build anything. MR. KANE: That's fine, okay. That, I did not understand. I wanted to make sure and come here to speak my piece, so -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: Very good. MR. KANE: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Anymore -- any other people wish to speak on the matter? If not, I'll close the public hearing. CHAIRPERSON BRUET.' Mr. Chairman, I recommend the planning commission forward Petition R-99-11 to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Second. May I, that's with staff recommendation? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion and a second. Page 6 February 3, 2000 Any discussion? Being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed; none, motion carries. PUD-99-16, anyone wishing to speak, please stand up and be sworn in. (The speakers were sworn). MR. MURRAY: Good morning. For the record, I'm Don Murray, principal planner with the planning services department. Before I get started, I wanted to just clarify that Mr. Mark Bates, president of Gulf Sun Corporation is the owner entirety of this property as clarified to me by the -- this PUD-99-16, Whippoorwill Pines PUD is located approximately a half mile south of Pine Ridge Road, and it's south of Night Hawk Drive and along Whippoorwill Lane. The subject property is about 29.54 acres in size and is surrounded mostly by undeveloped agricultural properties. There is a single family home to the east, and this PUD also is located within the mixed use urban residential subdistrict and the residential density band of the Pine Ridge Road 1-75 activity center, therefore, the allowable density would be four for the base density, four units per acre and an additional three units or up to three units per acre for a total of seven units per acre. This PUD is proposing six units per acre, which is also compatible with the proposed surrounding PUDs; Whippoorwill Lakes PUD on the north side and Whippoorwill Woods on the south side. If this PUD is approved, it will provide a lake, a preservation area, buffers, and it will have access onto Whippoorwill Lane which will provide access to Pine Ridge Road and also to the future Livingston Road to the south and to the west. It's also part of the Whippoorwill Lane study area which has been discussed before this commission and also before the Board of County Commissioners, and staff has made a recommendation as written in the staff report recommending approval of this PUD with the stipulations that address the Whippoorwill Lane issues. Are there any questions? Page 7 February 3, 2000 VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Does anyone have any questions? COMMISSIONER BRUET: The stipulations, Don, are consistent with the stipulations that we've seen in the past -- MR. MURRAY: Yes -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- for this specific golfing area? MR. MURRAY: Yes, they are. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Anyone else? Does the petitioner wish to say anything? MR. McVICKER.' For the record, Kevin McVicker, representing Gulf Sun Development. First, I'd like to begin by apologizing for being late last week or last meeting. Although my client has some concerns about some language and specifically Paragraphs 5 and 6 of their recommendations, he generally supports staff recommendations for Whippoorwill Pines. If you have any questions -- VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE.' Any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' I have one question. Your side yard setbacks for one story -- it's on Page 9 of your PUD. MR. McVICKER: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY-' You list them in terms of zero and 15 are both seven and a half feet. I take it you're going to build single family homes back to back or with a party wall? Is that the way that works? MR. McVICKER: That's the way that works. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: This ought to come out looking like duplexes then, don't they? Correct, it would be a villa. That's standard MR. McVICKER: language for a PUD -- VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE.' Anything else? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Would you please explain to me -- you said you had some concerns about Paragraphs 5 and 6. Are those in the staff recommendation? MR. McVICKER: Yeah, the concern being that if all the property owners don't agree, he gets this property rezoned, Page 8 February 3, 2000 closes it and there's one person holding out, he can't go forward and the project sits, but with meetings with the staff, his attorneys and -- feel comfortable that it all will work out. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, you're not concerned about the actual issues of drainage or the -- MR. McVICKER: No, no-- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- sanitary sewer collection? MR. McVICKER: No, no, no, no, it's just the open-endedness that could arise from having to get all the cooperation of all the property owners. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It seems to be something that everybody that owns property that's standing before us is concerned about. I don't see the -- MR. McVICKER: There are certain property owners that are already rezoned, and they don't have to technically follow that rule. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Would you clarify that for me? MR. MURRAY: The land development code in Section 2.2.23.7, all development is required to have a time certain date to meet the infrastructure and water and sewer utility amenities that may be required for approval are in the PUD document. It sounds, regardless of whether or not Whippoorwill Woods, which was approved, the first one approved in this area, whether or not they have that approval, it still will be mandatory for them to meet any requirements for additional water and sewer or for road right-of-way. Everybody has to do their fair share and meet the requirements of the county, especially to connect to county water and sewer lines. I don't know if that answers your questions directly, but it is mandatory pretty much in the land development code. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mandatory, thank you. MR. McVICKER: That's exactly why he developed some comfort level with it, but my client, after meeting with the county staff -- VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions for the petitioner? There being none, any -- anyone else from the public wish to Page 9 February 3, 2000 speak? I'll close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we forward for approval PUD 99-16 subject to staff's stipulations. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? There being none, call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE.' None. Motion carries. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE.' Oh, we did have one opposition. Motion carries. PUD-99-26, La Sienna Estates. Will anyone wishing to speak, please stand and be sworn in? (The speakers were sworn). MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The petitioner, Robert Duane is requesting to rezone the subject site from agriculture to PUD. As you can see, the subject site is located within the Olde Cypress PUD boundaries. Olde Cypress is a PUD that was formerly known as the Woodlands PUD. So, this is basically to fill in the hole within that PUD. The petitioner is requesting 61 dwelling units on the 40 acre site, results in a density of 1.5 units per acre, which is consistent with the growth management plan. As you can see on the master plan, the project is designed around four lakes and open space preserve areas along the perimeter of the site. The access to the site is from the internal PUD roads from Olde Cypress PUD. There is an existing access easement at the southwest side of the site. However, the petitioner is working out an access agreement with the developer of Olde Cypress to provide an access at the northeast corner to Olde Cypress Drive. Staff is recommending approval of this petition. It is Paget0 February 3, 2000 consistent with the traffic circulation element, and the growth management plan. Staff has not received any letters for or against this petition, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE-' Any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, I have one. Since this was advertised as La Sienna Estates, shouldn't there be something in the record explaining why it's now -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I'll be happy to. The County has an addressing department. When this petition was advertised and got to this point of public hearing, a new agreement with addressing, because they felt the name La Sienna was not acceptable. Therefore, the petitioner had to come up with a new name, and that was just approved prior to this hearing. So, we have a new PUD document, and I'm glad you pointed that out. I would like to make that part of the record. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Who was it that said the old name was not good? MR. BELLOWS: Our addressing department. They check for emergency services. I guess if the name is over used or used or reserved somewhere else, they can't use it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is that a part of the planning department or -- MR. BELLOWS: Building planning services department. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Petitioner. MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane from Hole, Montes & Associates. We're in agreement with the staff recommendation, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? Anyone else wish to speak on this item? There being none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I recommend we approve PUD-99-26 and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. Page 11 February 3, 2000 VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Motion carries. Next, CU-99-30, Naples Equestrian Challenge, anyone wishing to speak on this matter, please rise and be sworn in. (The speakers were sworn). MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a conditional use request for a therapeutic riding facility. It's located in the Pine Ridge subdivision. Here's Goodlette Road, Center Street and Ridge Drive, so it's got the three front yards, and this is the proposed conceptual site plan. This facility, except for the parking, is existing. It was used for this purpose for some time in the past. However, the use was discontinued. Therefore, a conditional use is required for the new owner to continue the same use. There are three conditional uses listed in the resolution. The first one is for a change in the code since this was first developed, and that requires 20 acres for this kind of a facility. They have 2.5 acres, and they are requesting that conditional use to allow the riding academy on -- riding facility on less than 20 acres. The second is for a sports instructional school which covers the students coming onto the campus and using this to learn to ride, I believe, as you have in your packet, it's mostly handicapped or children with disabilities, and the third conditional use is for a school. After discussions with the neighbors and the petitioner, we've agreed to remove the use as a school basically to safeguard any future use once the conditional use is granted. In conversations with the neighbors, they were afraid that some other kind of school would come along and be able to use this site for that type of conditional use. Staff was comfortable because the resolution does specifically state therapeutic riding academy, but we have no problem removing conditional use ten before it goes to the board, and the neighbors have also wished Page 12 February 3, 2000 to clarify use nineteen by having an additional stipulation saying it shall only be used for a therapeutic riding facility. Again, staff was happy that that was already in the resolution, but, again, no problem adding an additional clarification for it. I received the one letter in favor that you have from the neighbor to the south that most closely abuts the property not adjacent -- not across any roads, they are directly adjacent, and I had a couple of phone calls from neighbors who were concerned. They didn't necessarily have an objection -- or they did not have an objection to the facility, but they had concerns over people who currently park on the right-of-way. The petitioner has stated that with the new parking lot, they will encourage all the clients to definitely use the parking lot and not park on the right-of-way. We believe that's as far as you can go with parking on the right-of-way, providing parking for people to use, and staff recommends approval. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: Yeah. Fred, is Center Street open or is that one of the streets -- MR. REISCHL: Center Street is open, and that's the one that's used primarily -- should be used primarily as the access. That's -- of the two driveways that exist on the property, that's the one that's going to connect to the future parking lot. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO.' I do have a clarification question. On Page 4, you're talking about this riding facility will generate approximately 50 to 100 average trips weekday, and in a petition we're going to consider later that's right on 41, it says 50. I was just wondering if you can clarify why you have this information in here, because it seems to be not exactly accurate? MR. REISCHL: Well, it does seem excessive, and especially since the facility is basically used on Saturdays, but it's based on the standard trip generation manual. It's a standard number for a facility of that size. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I'd like to make a point of clarification. The ITE trip generation manual is kind of a generic type of calculation that are used, and that's not always the best Page 13 February 3, 2000 fit. We could have tailored it to be a little more site specific in this case, but we used -- generally, it's been staff policy to use the trip rates as it comes from the manual, and in worst case scenario, in a conditional use, if the site plan changed in the future, still, we would know that the traffic impacts would be covered. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Because I don't think this has a whole lot of impact at all, because it is such a limited use of the property -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- and has been for quite some time. MR. BELLOWS: And that's why a range is usually also given. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'll ask my same question of the next petition to get it on the record. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other question? We'll hear from the petitioner. MR. PICKWORTH: Good morning. My name is Don Pickworth. I'm representing Naples Equestrian Challenge. I just have a couple of comments, and then Karen Blackwell will kind of tell you a little bit about the history of this site and why we're here. In reference to the initial comments from Mr. Reischl, the resolution you've got there already says it's for a therapeutic equestrian riding facility. It seems like that's fairly plain. I'm not sure why we need to say it twice, but with regard to the conditional use ten, schools, I don't remember my mental analysis at the time we did the application, but for some reason, I was concerned that not putting that in might lead to -- we described what we wanted to do, and I was concerned that without that, we might not have it. I'll be happy to revisit that issue with the staff and the attorney's office afterwards. I have no problem taking it out. I mean, we have asked for a conditional use to do a certain thing, and we are not trying to, you know, by the back door try to do something else. We just want to make sure that we don't Page t4 February 3, 2000 create something where after we go out and go to the community to raise a lot of money for this program, that we are not exposed to someone coming in and saying you really don't have a conditional use to do that there. That's our concern from our end. We need the certainty we can do that. If we take out number ten, and we've still got that certainty, we'll do it. If it needs to stay in there -- I think we're protected anyway because the resolution granting the conditional use is pretty specific to what we get to operate, a therapeutic riding facility or what the words are here. So I just wanted to make that clear. With regard to the trip generation, yeah, the facility has operated there for a quite a while, so we, obviously, pretty well know what kind of traffic we have, and a weekday, a maximum of about ten trips a day. Saturday is when the program operates, and it's about 75 trips on that day, so, yeah, we have -- we've got an operating history here, so we know. With that, I'll be -- you know, I know there's some people here to speak. We've been -- and Ms. Blackwell will describe some of the contacts we've had with people in Pine Ridge. I'm sort of surprised that we, this morning, got some people who have some concerns, but we are certainly here to address them, and I would like to reserve the ability to talk about what these concerns are after we hear what they are. Anyway, I'll introduce Ms. Blackwell, and it won't be long. MS. BLACKWELL: Good morning. My name is Karen Blackwell. I've lived in Naples for about 28 years, and I've lived in Pine Ridge specifically since 1987. I became involved with therapeutic riding about ten years ago in the Fort Myers area and became a co-founder of the Naples Equestrian Challenge here in Naples in July of 1995. We began the program in Pine Ridge -- excuse me, on Pine Ridge Road in a center there called Naples Gymnastic. We quickly outgrew that facility, moved to Golden Gate and eventually in 1997, the opportunity came available to us to lease the barn at this property, at 206 Ridge Drive. We moved into the property at that time and operated the facility there until the Page 15 February 3, 2000 property owners -- the property went under foreclosure, and the bank, who is an out-of-state bank, asked us to leave the property in January of 1999. We left the property in January of 1999 temporarily while we put together an offer to purchase the property. We moved back into the property in March of '99 and then closed on the purchase in April of 1999. We've been operating there since then and have had no known objections to the operation of the property there. I did go and speak to the Pine Ridge Civic Association and I've also subsequently talked several times with the president of the Pine Ridge Civic Association. They have not taken a formal position on this item. He did indicate to me that he has not heard a formal objection to our operation there. I would also like to offer that I have been taking lessons and owned horses in the Pine Ridge area for 20 years, and I also have had the opportunity to speak with neighbors directly to the south of this property, Mr. and Mrs. Lenington. I think you have their letter in your package. The Leningtons have owned property there for about 30 years. They built a barn themselves on their property and operated it as a boarding stable for the time while they were raising their family, and the Leningtons told me that they, as well as having a boarding facility there, they also consider that their riding arena was the show grounds for Collier County back in the early days. They are very supportive of what we are doing. They encourage us to continue operation. I've also talked with the neighbors to the north. They are -- they are -- the people currently living in the property and have been living there for about a year are in 100 percent support of what we are doing. They are in the process of purchasing that property. Also, our volunteers, before we actually closed on the purchase of the property, went out into the neighborhood, because we were concerned that the neighbors -- we wanted to be certain that they felt comfortable with our operation, comfortable with what we were doing, and if they had any concerns, and I've handed there for you a package of consents that members of the neighborhood have signed to our conditional Page t6 February 3, 2000 use application. We've also had several residents write letters, about 14 letters there that you have indicating their support who are not able to be here today, and so I'm asking that you consider our petition, and I'll be available to answer any questions. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: One question, in this packet, how many supporting property owners do we have here in this huge packet? MS. BLACKWELL: In the packet itself, there are -- I know there are 128 consents. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. BLACKWELL: There are -- about five of those, I think, are duplicate, husband and wife signed, and there are 14 letters. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. BLACKWELL: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Who lives on the property? Does somebody live there? MS. BLACKWELL: Yes, our property manager lives on the property now. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' How many children do you serve -- it's the same ones every Saturday or do they come once a month or-- MS. BLACKWELL: The same children every Saturday, although the riders do vary with our season throughout the year. Right now we have 23 riders. We've had as many as 34 at our maximum time. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' So, there are 23 children being -- benefiting from the project -- from the program? MS. BLACKWELL: That's correct. We ride on an average of three to five children at a time per half hour. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions for the petitioner? Anyone else wish to speak? MR. NINO: Yes, I have a Nora Peek, Mimi Watson -- Mimi Watson, Nicole Marginian and John Cowan and Lynn Zachary. Page 17 February 3, 2000 MS. PEEK: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Nora Peek. I've lived at 90 East Avenue in Pine Ridge for 16 years. I've lived in Naples for 39 years. I'm a member of the Pine Ridge Civic Association. I would like to read a part of a resolution signed by the Pine Ridge Civic Association Board of Directors three years ago and still in effect today. Now, therefore, be it resolved that it is the policy of the board of directors to support the continuation of the single family residential character and usage of all those lots in the Pine Ridge subdivision that are not now zoned commercial or multi-family, and be it resolved that the board will not support efforts to make changes by modifying the zoning or the applicable declaration of covenants and restrictions unless it is shown by compelling circumstances that the continuation of residential usage is no longer feasible or that other uses are not injurious to adjoining property. I'll repeat the key words of that resolution. The Pine Ridge board will support only single family residential character of the lots, and they will not support efforts to make changes by modifying the zoning. Now, this resolution came about to help protect the parameter residential lots in Pine Ridge from becoming anything other than residential. The original Pine Ridge subdivision was platted 46 years ago. That was well before the planned unit development zoning was available. When the Pine Ridge master plan was created, specific uses were designated in specific areas. Over the years, there have been a number of requests for zoning changes to the parameter properties in Pine Ridge. You can imagine that perimeter lots, especially those along Pine Ridge Road and along Goodlette Road, look very inviting from the commercial point of view. If the planned unit development zoning had been available when Pine Ridge was built, we would not be having these zoning situations now. There are many parameter residential lots in planned unit developments that have no fear of requests of zoning changes. Why does Pine Ridge continuously have these Page 18 February 3, 2000 requests? Why do we have to continuously protect our fort from these changes? I ask the County to be sympathetic to our situation on this and on future zoning requests. Some years ago there was a zoning request to change one of our perimeter residential lots to permit a commercial office building. At that time, one of my neighbors told me that if it did go commercial, she and her husband were seriously thinking of converting their home to a bed and breakfast. So you see, even the slightest change in zoning or conditional uses can affect all the perimeter properties. Mrs. Blackwell's conditional use application states on Page 7 that this operation has not been the subject of any complaints, concerns or problems with neighboring properties. At the Pine Ridge Civic Association meeting in April, there were a number of concerns expressed to Ms. Blackwell about the use of this property. I don't want you to think that denying this application would put an end to the equestrian challenge project. It would not. When I spoke to Mrs. Blackwell last April, she assured me that even if they did not use this Pine Ridge property, the project would go on. I think at that time they were also using another property out in Golden Gate. You can be assured that I do not object to their work. My objection is a request for any changes to the zoning that might bring any residential lot closer to a commercial character. By allowing a riding facility to become the primary focus of a property, we no longer have a residential character. Take a look at the site plan, twenty parking spaces on a single residential lot. That's certainly not residential character. It may not be a giant step, but it's definitely a step toward becoming commercial. It sets a precedence. Then all of the Pine Ridge parameter properties are at risk. I respectfully request that you deny the petition to allow the conditional use to Lot 21, Block I in the Pine Ridge subdivision. I would like to add my thank you to the planning commission and the county staff for all your work and dedication to making Page 19 February 3, 2000 Collier County such a great place to live in. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: Not of her. Ron, if I buy this property in question and my two kids each have a horse and they each want to invite 12 of their friends over on Saturday morning to ride, is there anything to keep me from doing that? MR. NINO: No. COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: So, every Saturday morning if I own this single family home in this neighborhood, I could have 23 kids come over and ride horses for -- MR. NINO: That's possible. COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Next speaker? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, quick question for Ms. Peek. Were you talking on behalf of yourself or the entire civic association of Pine Ridge, ma'am? MS. PEEK: On behalf of myself. I have a copy of the resolution that was passed three years ago that's still in effect today. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. MS. WATSON: For the record, my name is Mimi Watson. I am a member of the board of directors of the Pine Ridge Civic Association, and as was stated, the Pine Ridge Civic Association board has not endorsed or rejected the petition. We do commend the activities of the equestrian challenge. We feel that they do a lot of good work. We are concerned about the recommendations listed, particularly item ten, which Fred addressed, that had been discussed with the petitioner that states schools, public and private, and we feel that that could open the door to something commercial. We also feel that number nineteen would cover that but should be specified for therapeutic riding lessons. We -- I object personally to the fact of the -- put up the site plan, please. On the site plan, you see the parking arrangement, and they have provided for five handicapped parking spaces which would have Page 20 February 3, 2000 to be paved. They have provided, I believe, a total of 20 spaces, and it being a residential agricultural area, I feel that the best use for appearances sake would be to have the rest of the spaces grass and not paved. Paved looks commercial. The -- we also would like to include in the petition that if the equestrian challenge moves out or closes their facility or the property changes hands -- I believe they own the property, but if the property changes hands, that this conditional use, if granted, should expire and not continue for the next owner. Thank you very much. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Next speaker? MR. NINO: Marginian. MS. MARGINIAN: Hi. I'm Nicole Marginian, and my firm, Quarles & Brady, represents Mr. and Mrs. Rufus Duff. They own property in Pine Ridge, Lot 1, Block H. It's on the northwest corner of Center and Goodlette, and they also have a -- they have a stable and a riding range on their property also, and they support the Blackwells in their petition today. Their only objection is to this entire process. They just wanted on the record that when the zoning was amended, they had no notice of it except for the newspaper, but now, when all these petitions are going through, they are getting letters, they're getting signs and everything, and they just -- they think the whole process has been unfair. They have been using this property for probably longer than I've been alive in this way, and now they've got to go through all these things. They have to expend thousands and thousands of dollars in engineering fees and legal fees just to continue a use that has been going on on this property for 20 years. I just wanted to note an objection to the process. Thanks. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have one question. Is that because the code was changed that you had to have 20 acres to have a riding stable? Is that what has prompted all this? MS. MARGINIAN: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: What prompted all this was the unfortunate situation beyond the control of this academy to have Page 21 February 3, 2000 to vacate the property for two months, not unlike the Naples Dinner Theater that had to stop use for a month or two because of different kind of health reasons -- MR. NINO: You have to establish -- you have to establish that you're a legal non-conforming use. The equestrian function, they were unable to satisfy us that they were a legal non-conforming use. The previous situation, I don't know. The fact it has been there for 20 years, then it would be a legal non-conforming use. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Next speaker. Anyone else to speak? MR. NINO: I'm sorry, Cowan. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: While he's coming up, Ron, to carry on from Mr. Priddy's comment, if I own this property with the proper permit, can I build 20 parking spaces on there myself as an individual for my friends? COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: Sure, you can pave it as much -- MR. NINO: Sure. Yeah. If it's for private use, you certainly can place impervious material on portions of your property. COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: Put a tennis net across it during the week and use it as a tennis court. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: That would be one big tennis court. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Would you identify yourself, please? MR. COWAN: I'm John L. Cowan, real estate investor, developer, broker; some 36 years of real estate in Naples. It's a pleasure to appear before you once again. I presume each time I appear, you hope it will be the last time, but I can't give you any assurances there. I've been involved with the Pine Ridge extensions, particularly the second extension, and I've owned property there for 30 some years. I still own it. I do not work for the equestrian challenge. I think you know that I mainly have one client, and that's Habitat for Humanity, but I am a friend and a neighbor and a supporter of the equestrian challenge. Page 22 February 3, 2000 I see no negative effects of having the continuation of the equestrian challenge in its location there. I don't see any diminution or any effect whatsoever. The impact on property values will be zero. I've been there many Saturdays to observe the traffic patterns, and they are not at all nauseous. That's not a negative. Quite frankly, I'd sell my properties in a minute if I thought there was anything negative about equestrian challenge in that area, but I continue to hold the properties on Tupelo and Hickory and so on. I don't see any downside to having these people continue. particularly if their usage terminates when they leave. On the other hand, of course, there are very, very considerable positive effects of having an equestrian challenge and having it in that area; some of them been referred to already. There are enormous benefits for these clients that benefit from the riding. There are also benefits for the volunteers that spend their time and get good exercise and good derivations from the activity. I would ask you, if the challenge goes away from this area, what will happen to it? Will there be another 15 C-3 come in? What kind of effect would that have, and that's one of the things that ought to be thought about as you consider all this. Questions? VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Next speaker. MR. NINO: Lynn Zachary. MS. ZACHARY: Hi. I'm Lynn Zachary. I've been a Naples resident over ten years, and that's when I discovered Pine Ridge. I bought property there two years ago, and my daughter and I, one Sunday morning, saw horses go by our house and ran out in our pajamas, and that's where we met Karen Blackwell, and she told us about the equestrian challenge, and I had never heard about that. So, the following Saturday, I went down as kind of skeptical, but I went to see. I have two healthy children, so I had never been exposed to what these families go through, and I was amazed that children who seem -- I'm not exactly sure how to describe it, but kind of out of it -- lit up when it was their turn to Page 23 February 3, 2000 ride, and after that, I became a volunteer -- I get emotional. I can't deal with this, but it's so important for these families to continue with this program, that it was the one bright light in their week, and to see little children and grown up children -- grownups look forward to this program, I find that if you discontinue or deny their petition, that it would be negative for Collier County, and I think if you have any objections, that we invite you to come and see for yourself like they invited me, and I think that at that point you would see what they are doing and agree that this should be passed. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE.' Any questions?Thank you. Next speaker. MR. NINO: John Kane. John Kane. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: No, that was last time. MR. NINO: Tom Peek. MR. PEEK: Good morning. I'm Tom Peek. My wife spoke earlier. I live at the same address at 90 East Avenue and have for 16 years. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: At least today you do. MR. PEEK: A couple of additional comments, first of all, I don't think any of us are opposed to the equestrian challenge operation that's going on there. The concerns that we have, as my wife addressed to you, are the future expansion of what might occur on that site if the provisional -- or conditional uses are approved and someone else comes in and converts them to something other than the equestrian challenge operation. In following up on Mr. Priddy's question earlier, it was my original question and discussion with Mr. Nino and Mr. Reischl, is why is a conditional use even required? The property owner by permitted use in the agricultural zone is permitted to have horses on this facility and ride those horses and have their invited guests come and ride horses on their property. Is that not what the equestrian challenge is doing? If so, why do they need a conditional use anyway, because that is a permitted use under number two in the agricultural zoning district? So, it's Page 24 February 3, 2000 still my contention that there is no additional conditional use required to carry on the operation that they are currently carrying on at this property. If that's the case, then that would remove all of the neighbors' concern that some other property owner in the future could convert the conditional use that's approved for this facility into some more intensive commercial use. So, I wanted to make that clarification to you, and further, to ask your consideration to ask those questions and see if you can determine that it is not a necessary requirement to have a conditional use at all. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I do have a question. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: We have a question for you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I mean, I truly wonder -- I wasn't around to know that having a stable like this and a facility, you had to have 20 acres. I wasn't aware of that change. Maybe there's logic behind requiring the 20, but then is Mr. Peek correct, what is the issue here? Do we really have to have a conditional use in an agricultural zoned area? MR. REISCHL: Staff-- MR. PEEK: Let me read -- excuse me. Let me read from the zoning ordinance for you, one line, if you would please, if you don't have it before you. Under Section 222.1, permitted uses under the agricultural district, item number one, it's single family residence. Item number two, permitted uses, it talks about agricultural activities. The last sentence says, this is not -- and the first sentence talks about requiring 20 acres. The second one says, this is not to preclude an individual property owner from the keeping of fowl or poultry not to exceed 25 in number and the keeping of horses and livestock, except for hogs, not to exceed two such animals per each acre, that's two horses per acre, so they could have five horses on this two and a half acres, and with not open feed lots for personal use and not in association with a commercial agricultural activity on parcels less than 20 acres. Page 25 February 3, 2000 So, you are permitted to have horses on your property less than 20 acres, not more than two per acre, and you can ride them and have your invited guests come and ride them, and as you asked a moment ago, could your two children have 23 of their friends come over every Saturday morning? The answer was yes. So I make my case. You don't need a conditional use. MR. NINO.' There is -- there is a -- and I defer to Ms. Student, but there is certainly a difference between you functioning as a private individual from your property and you have horses and now and again you invite your friends over to take advantage of those opportunities. That and a function run by a nonprofit organization, which is what you have here -- it's still commercial, but it's a nonprofit organization. There's a distinct legal difference I suggest to you between that and the occasional use for a private property -- extending the enjoyment of their property to their friends, there's a distinct difference between that and a nonprofit organization operating a riding school. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ron, why don't we address the other aspect of this that keeps seeming to crop up, does a conditional use run with the applicant or run with the property? MR. REISCHL.' With the property. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: With the property? MR. REISCHL: Staff feels that -- we feel comfortable that the safeguard is in there that this is for a therapeutic riding academy. We have no objection to the removal of number ten or the addition of another statement in the conditions stating that it shall only be used for a therapeutic riding academy. We feel it's redundant, but we have no problem with doing it. MR. NINO: Relative to that question, though, I understand that if the petitioner on the record agrees that the conditional use will not be inherited by a subsequent property owner, that that -- that that is possible. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I just have a clarification, a question. It was mentioned that if the conditional use is approved, one of the persons coming to the podium said that we might be changing the zoning. Is that, in effect, true? I thought that it would still be ag. but it would have a conditional use? Page 26 February 3, 2000 MR. REISCHL: That's true. It still remains as agricultural. The land use would get one more permitted use if the conditional use is approved. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: But we are not changing the zoning? MR. REISCHL: But the zoning, the underlying zone would still be agricultural. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Mr. Pickworth. MR. PICKWORTH: To address some of the comments; with regard to the grass parking, yes, we'll do that. It was always -- I guess we are required to pave the handicapped spots. It was always our intention to ask the staff at the construction stage to allow us to leave the other spaces in grass. Obviously, it saves us money, and given the extremely low use, it makes no sense to create more asphalt out there. So, we fully agree with that. We -- obviously, we would be reluctant to agree that if the Naples Equestrian Challenge ceases to operate this, the conditional use goes away because the conditional use limits it to this therapeutic riding academy. If it wasn't the Naples Equestrian Challenge, what if it's the Naples Equestrian Foundation or something, you're still -- you've still got the same thing, and I think that -- you know, certainly we've talked about that many times in here over the year that these uses follow the land. They limit the use of the land regardless of who owns it. So, it would not -- it would be very cumbersome to say that if the particular user there today were to not be there and someone else came in -- it probably could change hands for all kinds of reasons -- that you would have to go through all of this would not really be fair, and it certainly wouldn't be the way that normal conditional uses operate. A conditional use follows the land, and all the restrictions that go with that conditional use follow the land. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have one comment. I just looked at my notes again, and I realized that we didn't ask for disclosure when we started this discussion, and I'd like to Page 27 February 3, 2000 disclose that I've had a telephone conversation with Karen Blackwell. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Anybody else? Any other questions for Mr. Pickworth? Anyone else wish to speak on this matter? COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: If you-all will be brief, we'll take care of this. MR. GENDRON: Good morning. My name is Dr. Henry Gendron, and I live at 160 Eugenia Drive, which is in the Pine Ridge subdivision. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Excuse me, have you been sworn in? MR. GENDRON: No. (The speaker was sworn). MR. GENDRON: Do I need to repeat the -- MR. NINO: Do you need a spelling? VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: We need a spelling. MR. GENDRON: G-E-N-D-R-O-N. Sorry, I got in a little late. I was trying to attend to the practice, but I think this is important enough to me to take some time out of my practice to support this event, and I've been listening to a lot of the comments. The reason why my wife and two year old child have moved to Pine Ridge is because of the nature of the area. It's -- it has the horses, which is a very big plus, especially when you have small children. We walk quite frequently in the area, and it's a pleasure to see my daughter's eyes light up when she sees a horse and is able to even identify one. My wife lived here in the '60s and '70s and rode in Pine Ridge 35 years ago. She had to go way out into the country to ride, but this is 35 years ago that she was able to enjoy the horses in that area, and I don't see any reason why we need to negate that. I think in closing that the Naples Equestrian Challenge is a wonderful organization. When we drive by the barn on Saturday and the children are involved in therapeutic events, it just warms your heart, and I don't think there's anything, at least in my point of view, negative about it, and I would hope you would support it. Thank you. Page 28 February 3, 2000 VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Anyone else? Sir, have you been sworn in? MR. SLEETH: No, I haven't. (The speaker was sworn). MR. SLEETH: Good morning. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: State your name for the record. MR. SLEETH: My name, for the record, is Kenneth J. Sleeth. I'd like to address the commissioners or the members here this morning. I've been a part of this program now for several years. I was also part of a big program up in the Michigan/Detroit area. In fact, our horse farm we use for this program. You cannot realize just how important this is to some of these children. Example I might give of that is up in the program I was part of in Michigan, we had children coming from the church -- Baptist Children's Home and several other homes. These were children who, in turn, when they arrived at our place for starting this program were very introverted, were the kind of children who, in turn, had difficulty in dealing with. A particular case of that would be with a boy who's a Down's syndrome. I'm sure you're familiar with Down's syndrome. This boy, George, who, in turn, up until that time, had a very difficult problem in the Detroit Baptist Children's Home. He came out to our place. The first day he was out there, the first day he was out there, when it came time to go home, they couldn't find George, and they found him in one of the stalls, and he was -- we had some -- we were raising small pups, and this small pup about the size of your hand was barking at him, and George was sitting there. We rescued George, and over a period of six to eight months, this boy went from a very introverted child to a child who, in turn, looked forward to coming out. In fact, the first thing he would do after he arrived would be to take one of the ponies out and drag him over the fence and work back and forth. I've been involved with this program for many years, both in Michigan and down here, and you cannot realize just how important this is. I have four children -- four grandchildren in Oklahoma, and Page 29 February 3, 2000 they are, as far as I was concerned, they are what they call hell on wheels, but, in turn, working one week, one weekend over with the challenge, you go home and say how fortunate you are that you, in turn, have children that are hell on wheels, and this is the program where I've seen children out there who, in turn, went from unable to function themselves to be able to function and sit on the horse and, in turn, be able to hold on, and up until that time, they had to be held on the saddle. So, I would ask for your support in this program so, in turn, we can continue on this kind of work. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval of C-99-30. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: None. Motion carries. MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, can I get a clarification on the -- with number ten, with conditional use number ten in there for the school or-- MR. NINO: Did you want to eliminate condition number ten? COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: Yeah, I'll eliminate condition number ten. MR. NINO: That was my understanding. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And the grass parking, do you want to add that to the motion? MR. REISCHL: Grass parking, we don't believe is necessary to be included in there. It will be considered at the time of SDP. COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: I want to make it clear that the conditional use continues with the property, not with the current COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And with the second, if I'm Page 30 February 3, 2000 recorded as the second, I agree, we can take out the ten. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Next case, CU-99-31, Cocohatchee Nature Center. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter, stand and be sworn in.(The speakers were sworn). VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Mr. Reischl. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for two petitions, a conditional use and an S.T., a special treatment development permit. Basically the S.T. is because the zoning has the S.T. overlay on the ag. land. As you can see on the visualizer, the parcel is the western half of an island that is split by U.S. 41. The landmark that I'm sure you'll know on the eastern portion of the island is the Pewter Mug restaurant. This would be the western half of that island. It's about -- it's a little over two acres in size, and it is within the -- even though it's agriculturally zoned, it's within the urban area, so it is consistent with the final order. As we go from a county graphic to the petitioner's graphic here for the proposed site plan, you can see that the nature center consists of a small parking lot which is in -- mostly in the upland area, and then the nature center, the office and the amphitheater and docks for the boat tours, boardwalk through the mangrove area. This was approved unanimously by the Environmental Advisory Counsel. I received no objections. One person came and looked at the file, had no objection to it, and staff recommends approval of both petitions. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I do have one question, to put it on the record for this particular petition, why would this particular use only generate 50 trips weekday versus 50 to 100 that we just got through discussing? MR. REISCHL: It's based on the size of the land. I think that was, again, on the record because the trip generation manual, it's a standard formula that Mr. Bellow used to calculate that. As I understand it from the petitioner, a lot of this business will be generated by buses, by groups, so it will be significantly less than what the trip generation manual suggests. Page 31 February 3, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And they'd come on 41 and turn onto the property; is that the access? MR. REISCHL: I believe they have discussed this with FDOT, and they are either in the design phase or it has been approved. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I would like that clarification. MR. HAGAN: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, I'm Chris Hagan with Johnson Engineering representing the petitioner. We have met with FDOT. The parking configuration has been -- because of the environmental constraints, has been minimized as much as possible. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to get water management district, Corps or DEP permits. In doing that, we have placed the number of parking spaces at the minimum to accommodate the boat docks per the ITE. It is very minimal, but our wetland impacts -- we've submitted our district permit already, and their biggest concerns are how can we minimize the impacts further. So, right now we are wrestling with that. So, we've kind of got a little contradictory effort. We have met with FDOT. They are familiar with our plan. Could you go back to the other graphic, please, Fred? Thank you. The driveway that you see coming in is being reconfigured slightly. It was determined by FDOT we didn't have to have a deceleration lane and some other things, so we are going to be able to minimize the impacts further than that graphic shows, but, in essence, that is the site plan that we are proposing. COMMISSIONER BRUET: The owner of the property, Cocohatchee Nature Center, is that the Conservancy? MR. HAGAN: No. Doug Schroeder is here representing -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: The Conservancy owns a lot of the property up there, and -- MR. HAGAN: This is a not-for-profit organization. Doug is here representing -- Doug Schroeder is here representing them. He can give you all the details, but basically, it's a not-for-profit program to set up educational boat tours for school kids, et cetera. Also addressing parking, Mr. Schroeder has been negotiating with the Pewter Mug, FDOT and other adjoining property owners Page 32 February 3, 2000 to see about cross parking agreements and access. Obviously, the biggest concern with the Pewter Mug is crossing 41. We are talking to FDOT about putting a walkway underneath the new bridge crossing. So, we are looking at a bunch of different options right now to try to improve that issue, but right now, we are kind of stuck between environmental concerns on the one hand and parking requirements on the other. COMMISSIONER BRUET: So on one hand, you don't have enough parking here and very small traffic counts, and on the other hand, you're negotiating with property owners for cross parking easements? MR. HAGAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER BRUET: It's kind of hard to sort that out, isn't it? MR. HAGAN: It is -- on the one hand we meet the minimum criteria. We meet the minimum criteria based on the ITE, which are the only accepted standards by which to do traffic -- or parking spaces and traffic counts. So we meet that criteria. We recognize though that we can have a parking problem, and that's why we're pursuing some of these other options. MR. REISCHL: They do meet county requirements for parking on the proposal. COMMISSIONER BRUET: If this weren't an environmental or conservancy group, if this were a restaurant, what would your reply be? MR. REISCHI.: Oh, this would definitely not be enough parking for a restaurant. COMMISSIONER BRUET: No, I'm just saying, if they were in the same position where, you know, they have environmental restraints and they can only -- they want to open a restaurant, but they can only put ten parking spaces on their property. You tell them, oh, gee, it needs a lot more than that, I just -- I'm just trying to see the difference here. I mean, I thought parking as part of an application had to meet all of your requirements. MR. REISCHL: Yes, and it does for the size of the facility with the boat docking facility and the amphitheater, they meet Page 33 February 3, 2000 the county requirements for parking. MR. NINO: It really wasn't necessary for Chris to put on the record that they may have from time to time a parking problem. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: In other words, if it was a restaurant and they came in today and they meet the parking requirements, Fred and planning staff would approve it even though they are trying to pursue a cross parking agreement. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: There's enough parking places for a Checkers. Drive right on through. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: A Checkers? COMMISSIONER BRUET: I understand. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Or Juicy Lucy. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Okay, fine. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? Next speaker. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: No speakers. MR. NINO: I don't have any registered speakers. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Then I'll close the public hearing. MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, just to remind you, there are two petitions that we need to -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What? COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: Two petitions, the conditional use and the S.T. In light of the silence of everyone else, Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend for approval CU-99-31. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend for approval the S.T. portion of CU-99-31. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll second that. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a second -- I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 34 February 3, 2000 Opposed? (No response}. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: None; motion carries. MR. NINO: May I remind you that Sue Filson, who is the keeper of the condition of this room, has reminded me that they would appreciate it if you'd take away all your paper. COMMISSIONER RUSSELL: Mr. Nino, may I remind staff that you-all being directly under us on the organizational chart, that I'll see that that takes place. MR. NINO: You rascal. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Is there any old business? Any new business? Any public comment? Any discussion of the agenda? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'd like to be noted on the record that although I was a little tardy, I was here for all the decision making, and I voted on every one. So, I'd like to be counted as present today. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: For full salary, right. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: For full salary. VICE CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Do I hear a motion to adjourn? (Everybody so moves}. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:47 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MICHAEL PEDONE, VICE CHAIRPERSON TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Dawn Breehne Page 35 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Febmary22,2000 Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Nelson Marine Construction, Inc. 10900 East Terry St. Bonita Springs, FL 34135 REFERENCE: BD-99-28, Alan Johnson Dear Sir or Madam: On Thursday, February 17, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-99-28. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-03 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly ./~, Ross Gochenaur Planner II g/admin/BD-99-28/RG/im Enclosure cc: Alan Johnson 1284 Miller Road Avon, Ohio 44011 Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File Phone (941) 403-2400 Fax (941) 643-6968 www. co.co!lier. fi.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 03 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-99~28 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 15 -foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 5 feet to allow for a 20-foot boat dock facility in an RSF4 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 Nelson Marine Construction, Inc., representing Alan Johnson, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Little Hickory Shores Unit 2, Lot 30, Block E, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 79, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 15-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 5 feet to allow for a 20-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. 2. In order to address the protection of manatees, one (1) "Manatee Alert" sign shall be permanently affixed to the pilings and shall be visible from the waterway. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD~99-28 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 [ ~ ~ dayof ~'~- [tP ~/'O C.4~ ~ ,2000. ATTEST: VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN 'M~ni M. Scudeft Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-99-28/RG/im -2-