Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/16/2000 RMarch 16,2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 16, 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: CHAIRMAN: Russell A. Budd Ken Abernathy Michael J. Bruet Michael Pedone Russell A. Priddy Joyceanna J. Rautio Sam Saadeh Karen Urbanik Gary Wrage ALSO PRESENT: Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager, Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page I AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2000 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 WRIITEN 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, WRI EN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITtED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A ~ 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 ENSUR~ 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 MINLrFES: 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BD-99-30, Turfell and Associates, Inc., representing Sandy Fiske, of Aqua Circle, Inc., requesting a boat dock extension for a communal facility comprising 22 slips, with 12 slips protruding a total of 75' and 10 slips protruding a total of 22' into the waterways, for property located at the south end of Goodland West Drive, further described as Block "Y", Tract 1.9, Goodland Isles, in Section 19, Township 52 South, Range 27 East. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) 1 V-2000-01, Mastercraft Homes, Inc., requesting an after-the-fact variance of 0.6-foot from the required 7.5-foot side yard setback to 6.9 feet for property located at 3871 15th Avenue SW, further described as Tract 142, Golden Gate Estates Unit 27, in Section 14, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischi) V-2000-02, James H. Siesky of Siesky, Pilon & Wood, representing Albert Hubschman, requesting a fence height variance of 6 feet from the required 6-foot maximum to 12 feet (7-foot fence atop of 5-foot berm) for proper~ located in Golden Gate E~tes Unit 35, Tract 115, in SecUon 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:. Fred Reischl) V-2000-04, Faith Cagran, representing Faith Fuel Corporation, requesting an 8-foot variance to 42 feet for new fuel pumps and a 46-foot variance to 4 feet to replace an existing canopy, from the required SO-foot setback for service stations, for property located at 2068 Davis Boulevard, further described Lots 16-18, Triangle Lake, in Section I 1, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) V-2000-05, Michael Saadeh of Vineyards Development Corporation requesting a variance to a rear setback requirement of ten (10) feet to zero (0) feet for an accessory structure for property located at 434 Terracina Court, further described as Lot 45, Tract L-22, Unit 3A, Vineyards PUD, in Section 5, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ron Nino) V-2000-06, Montalvo, Inc., and R. H. Enterprises of Collier County, Inc., requesting a variance of 2.5 feet from the required fifteen (15) feet applicable to each side of a lot line to be established by platting in conjunction with the fee simple separation of a Checker's Restaurant and Valvoline Oil Change previously developed under a unified plan located at the north side of Pine Ridge Road at the Home Depot project site. (Coordinator. Ron Nino) PUD-99-29, Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., and D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., representing Raymond James Smela, requesting a rezone from "MH" and "RSF-I" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Champion Lakes RV Resort PUD for a maximum of 300 recreational vehicle sites and related facilities for proper~ located on the north side of Championship Drive in Sections 11, 14 and 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 101+ acres. (Coordinator:. Chahram Badamtchian) R-99-13, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development Inc., representing Caruso Corporation and Angelo Pulieo and Laura Pulieo, requesting a rezone from RSF-3 to C-3 for property located on the northeast comer of lmmokaiee Road and Piper Boulevard at the terminus of Airport-Pulling Road North, in Section 24, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, Consisting of 7.62+ acres. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 3/16/00 AGEND/RN/im March 16,2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we're going to call this meeting of the Planning Commission to order. We'll start with the roll call. Commissioner Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Urbanik? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Budd is here. Commissioner Wrage? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Bruet? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Saadeh? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any addenda to the agenda? MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, I have a request that you move Item E up to the top of the agenda. That petitioner has a very important engagement that he -- in view of the large crowd that's here -- that he probably would have to miss if he didn't. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a motion to move up Item E? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Second? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Discussion? All those in favor, say aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN BUDD'- Motion approved. Any other amendments to today's agenda? There being none, I don't think we had any minutes in our package, so we have no minutes to approve. Any planned absences? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. Page 2 March 16,2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do we have an explanation why we have no minutes? And haven't had -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do you think maybe we could find out? Because it seems that it's been a long time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, historically over the past seven years, I know that they don't come every week. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, okay. Could we get an answer? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Does the court reporter, Ron, anybody have -- MR. NINO: I'll try to get you one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any planned absences in our future? There being none, Ron, do you have a Board of County Commissioners' report? MR. NINO: Nothing to report. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have no chairman's report. We'll move into our agenda, starting with Item E. Are there any disclosures by Planning Commissioners on this item? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a disclosure. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Oh, never mind. Not this one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, the petitioner is my brother, and I'm going to abstain from voting. I checked with Marjorie Student, and she advised me to do so. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, very good. Any other disclosures? Anyone that wishes to testify on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino. The petition that you have before you is a petition for a variance to Page 3 March 16,2000 the rear yard requirement for a screened-in pool area, which apparently requires a 10-foot rear yard separation. And the petitioner is requesting a zero lot relationship with the rear yard. You'll note from the screen that it's in the opinion of staff there are special circumstances. You think about the application of yards. They're there to protect separation between buildings and to allow for circulation, light and air. Oftentimes a rule of general application doesn't make any sense as it is applied to a particular lot. I think this is a good example of where that condition exists. The rear yard of this lot fronts on an expansive open space area created by lakes and golf courses, as represented by that visual, and that visual there. You'll see that that is the view, the unencumbered view. And in view of those special circumstances, staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff? Can we hear from the petitioner, please? MR. SAADEH: Well, basically, commissioners-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: State your name for the record. MR. SAADEH: My name is Michael Saadeh. I'm with Vineyards Development. As Mr. Nino appropriately stated, that the relationship in the back of the lot, if the variance was to be granted, it would bear no hardship to any neighbor or any person. And plus the back of the property, as exhibited by the picture -- and probably the site plan might show it a little bit better -- backs into a lake and a golf course. The only one note I would like to make is if this PUD was not in '88, it was in the late Nineties, PUD. There is requirements now that the county does allow zero setbacks on current PUD's for any situation similar to this. If you back into a golf course or if you back into a lake, any kind of massive open space, the county today allows in any current PUD zero setback on the back. So the fact that that PUD dates back to 1988 is the only reason we're here today. It's not creatin9 any precedent. There's many, many situations that the staff can cite that this Page 4 March 16,2000 situation is allowed. And I'll just highlight the pictures a little bit. The house under construction and the two homes around it are also under construction. One is owned by the development and one is owned by a customer of ours. We share it with the customer. And as the pictures iljustrate, the variance will have no impact whatsoever with any of the neighbors. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, Mr. Saadeh. Any of the Planning Commissioners have any issue with this, that we're looking for more detailed explanation? And there was no one else from the public that indicated that they wished to speak? MR. SAADEH: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So in order not to snatch victory from the jaws -- MR. SAADEH: I'm done, unless you have questions for me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There you go. The other way around, defeat from the jaws of victory. If that will conclude your presentation, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll make a motion that we approve Petition V-2000-05. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. MR. SAADEH: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Michael, Sam told me he was going to vote no against it. MR. SAADEH: What? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Sam said had he been allowed to vote, he was going to vote no. MR. SAADEH: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, back on to our agenda, Item A. That's BD-99-30. Turrell & Associates and the Goodland Page 5 March 16,2000 property. All those wishing to address the Planning Commission on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. MR. NINO: All those people registered to speak need to stand. CHAIRMAN BUDD: This is the Fiske property on Goodland. If you wish to make any presentation, be sure to stand and be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, Ross. Are there any disclosures on this item? I need to make one, that the petitioner's attorney and Mr. Scofield spoke with me regarding this item. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I did the same, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I spoke with Mr. Scofield. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I spoke with Mr. Scofield also. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I spoke briefly with the petitioner. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Scofield. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I only spoke with Mr. S¢ofield. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And I spoke with Mr. Scofield and Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, all disclosures have been made. Ross? MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a boat dock extension for a communal facility comprising 22 slips, with 12 slips protruding 75 feet and 10 slips protruding 22 feet into the waterways. The property is Block I, Tract A, Goodland Isle subdivision, which is the greater part of a small peninsula containing 980 feet of water frontage. The facility will serve the proposed residential development of Goodland's Dolphin Cove, and will be constructed in accordance with site development plan SDP-98-40. Page 6 March 16,2000 The project consists of finger docks with 12 slips protruding 75 feet into a 300-foot wide waterway, and a marginal dock with 10 slips protruding 20 feet into a canal about 100 feet wide. A stipulation is included in the resolution to the effect that the construction of the docks would be contingent on the construction of at least one principal residential structure on the property in accordance with the approved site development plan. We received a petition with 16 signatures from local affected property owners objecting to this petition, but there was no specific objection to the project. The project does meet all criteria, and staff therefore is recommend -- excuse me, staff therefore recommends approval. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for Mr. Gochenaur? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: What's their objection? MR. GOCHENAUR: Their objection was to the project. There was no specific aspect of the project that they objected to, it simply says they object to it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? MR. GOCHENAUR: This is not something that as far as I'm concerned we can use to alter the staff's decision to recommend approval. It does meet all criteria. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: If the Goodland overlay was in place, just as an example, would that affect this at all? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, ma'am, not at all. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you know which side of the street of Palm Avenue backs onto the canal and which is across the street from it? Odd numbers or even numbers? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, I don't. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Any other questions? If we could hear from petitioner, please. MR. YOVANOVICH-' Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Rich Yovanovich with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, and I represent the petitioner, Page 7 March 16,2000 along with Rocky Scofield. Since this body has the final authority to grant the boat dock extension, I do need to take care of one preliminary matter. And since you have heard from Mr. Scofield on many occasions, and are familiar with his credentials, as well as you're familiar with staff's credentials, I would request that you qualify both your staff and Mr. Scofield as experts in boating and boat docking matters. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So moved. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Second. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Also, as a preliminary matter, and Mr. Gochenaur got into it a little bit, today's proceeding is not a reconsideration of the site plan that is already approved for the uplands. It's merely to get a boat dock extension. And you're to look at the criteria only of -- you know, the boat dock extension criteria, which your staff had an opportunity to review and has in their expert opinion opined that we are consistent with the criteria and this board should go ahead and approve our request. Also, there is no Goodland overlay at this point. It's in the very preliminary stages of discussion, and there is no final decision that there will even be a Goodland overlay on Goodland, so it really does not have any impact on today's proceedings. As you -- you've had an opportunity to review our petition and review staff's report. You can see that all the evidence before you -- and Mr. Scofield will go into greater detail -- indicates our full compliance with all the criteria for the boat dock extension. The docks are the minimum necessary to achieve adequate water depth. There is no doubt of safe navigation in both the canal and, you know, Blue Hill Creek. I'm sure you will be convinced at the end of our presentation that we are entitled to the boat dock extension before you. And I Page 8 March 16,2000 would like to reserve any time I may have to respond to any public comments. And at this time I would ask that Mr. Scofield go through the details of our petition, unless you have any questions of me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for Mr. Yovanovich? We will hear from Mr. Scofield. MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you. Good morning. Miles Scofield for-- representing the petitioner. What I have right now on the screen, I handed you out two handouts. That is the aerial, the aerial photograph, with an overlay on it of the dock system. It's a little bit difficult to see in the canal part, which is right up in here, because of the mangrove overhang of the shoreline. It's pretty dense mangroves in that area. What you can see, this part right -- excuse me, right here, this is Goodland, this is Goodland Bay Marina. And you can see the docks and existing boats outlying the shoreline there. This is our project site here. This area right here is the only place on the Blue Hill Creek side where we can put docks. There are -- there's 12 -- there's 12 slips going in here, and the rest of the slips are on the canal side back here. Originally when we designed this project, we would have preferred -- obviously you can see by this aerial -- to put everything out here. It would have made much more sense. Unfortunately Goodland's an aquatic preserve, and we're heavily regulated by the state as to what we can do and how many slips we can put and where we can put them. So this entire shoreline, those slips you see right there, that's the maximum amount we can put on that shoreline. You're only allowed 10 square feet for every lineal foot of shoreline to place docks in an aquatic preserve. No more than that. You can't go over that amount. So therefore, the remainder of the slips we had to put in the canal, which are back here. I'm going to go to the other handout you have, it's shows it a little clearer. Okay, on this -- there's the dock layout, as you can see. The area on the shoreline, if you can see this -- a question was -- I Page 9 March 16,2000 attended the Goodland Civic Association meeting and answered a lot of questions there. And one of them was how can we be assured that no more docks are going to be put in here when you want to come back next year or the year after when people want more docks? Well, the answer to that is that no more docks can be built on this project. This has taken a long time to permit through the state and the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Again, I say it's a very regulated aquatic preserve. This entire shoreline you see along here, the heavy green band, that is a conservation easement. That's one of the many, many mitigation factors we had to deal with in this project. And then usually in an aquatic preserve, and a lot of projects, they always require conservation easement. That means no more docks can be built on this project. Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Miles, do you indicate that those other agencies have already approved this? MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. We do not have the final approval from the DEP and the Corps. Because we're right there. But the DEP will not issue until the county has approved it. And the Corps of Engineers won't approve until the DEP has approved. But we've gone through a several year process, and we are -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Fish and Wildlife or whoever else there is -- MR. SCOFIELD: Fish and Wildlife is part of the Corps of Engineers sign-off. And they -- you know, I've got -- if anybody cares to read it, I've got a 20-page biological opinion from the Fish & Wildlife Service, who has approved the project. The Corps of Engineers is -- everything's completed. They're ready to sign off~ give us a permit, but they can't do it until DEP issues. And a lot of times we get the DEP permit, but on bigger -- on larger scale projects, they stick pretty much to -- they require county or local approval. A lot of times we just get a letter from the environmental department on that, stating that it is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the -- excuse me, the Comprehensive Plan, Page 10 March 16,2000 the LDC and it's okay. But then they put in there, but we cannot approve it yet because it hasn't been heard from the Planning Commission. Well, the state took that -- they take that on certain cases and they run with it. They say okay, it's not approved, we're going to wait until you get it approved. So if it passes here, the state and the Corps will issue their permits in a matter of weeks. Okay. The docks out here, you can see there's -- you know, in this entire project, in our estimation, there's no navigational problems. Obviously there are none along here. The waterway at the starting of the docks is 300 feet wide across here. As you move down, you move down about three slips, and it widens over 350 feet. And then of course here there's -- excuse me, and down near the end, you know, you have unlimited access. Now, there are docks that stick out about 70 feet with boats on them total length over on this part, but there's over half the waterway left open. And as you get out here, it's much more than half the waterway. Inside the canal, this canal narrows as it goes back towards the street in this area. We did two things in designing these docks in here: Number one, we stayed away from this corner because -- so there's no congestion on this corner. There's no docks. Because there are a couple of boats over on this side of the canal that protrude out far. And that's the reason we stayed away from anything in this area right here. We came down, and the furthest we can go down is this last dock you see here. The waterway -- i went out last week with a tape measure and a boat and stretched across the canal from high water line to high water line, and it's 75 feet. It says 74 on here. That was a digit -- when we digitized off the aerials. But I went out in the field and checked these measurements, and they are correct to within a foot here. So what we have to do in this area, it's a big mangrove fringe. We're going to cut the mangroves -- excuse me, trim them. We're allowed to trim them back where the dock -- where the Page 11 March 16,2000 footprint of the dock goes. So all the mangroves that are vertically -- I mean, it's a pretty big shoreline -- they stay. But we're allowed to trim mangroves where the dock goes. That dock has to be -- we have to move the dock back in almost against the roots of the mangroves. And the water's fairly deep in this canal here. So it's a five-foot wide walkway along here. The mangroves laying over the water are going to be trimmed back so we can move the dock back in. And all the boats will be parked parallel in this area, The last slip you see here, that's a dedicated slip to the Fish & Wildlife Service. That was our mitigation factor we had to give them so they have a patrol boat place to dock it. And that's there. I just quickly wanted to run over some of the aerials. I know Ross showed you one in the beginning. That's a picture of the site. Is that glare on there? Not much I can do about that. This is the project. You can -- this area -- there's an area right in here that's cut out. Excuse me, yeah, that's where the docks start. And it's an area where the mangroves protrude -- and there's no mangroves, and it's a washout in there that starts back in. And that's where the walkway is going where we had to locate the docks on the outside. As you can see, I've got another picture along back here. These are all the existing homes and the canal with the docks and boats parked in them there. And I know you'll hear from some of the people in Goodland that it's going to be a congestion problem by putting docks across the canal. But we are within our boundaries to put the docks in. And we don't have any room to put boat lifts in or anything else because that canal -- a lot of people on the other -- a lot of places on the other side have boat lifts and stuff, but we're very restricted to what we can do in this area. That's a picture down the canal. This is up at the street, this end here, looking down. This is the marina back here, okay? This is our site, right over here. This is where our docks -- these Page 12 March 16,2000 mangroves will be cut back a little bit to the shore -- to the roots -- I mean, to the prop root line that comes in the water. And then the dock will be laid back in here. This is the other side. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Scofield? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: In that area, how many docks are on the other side? How many -- did you count? MR. SCOFIELD: On every lot. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Every lot has a dock. MR. SCOFIELD: As far as I know. I may be corrected on that. But as far as I can see, there's a dock -- or a place on almost every lot. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Some sort of slip. Okay, thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. This is a picture looking down. This is our project right here, on this side where our dock's going to go along the mangroves. This is the other side of the canal looking down. Back over here is the marina. So this is looking down the canal from the marina side. That's another shot of the same thing. I just moved up a little bit further. And it shows you all the boats and boat lifts. It's pretty much wall-to-wall there. I think there's one on every lot. Again, this is our project over here. And then this is just another aerial we took of the project. Another reason -- you see, this is the marina. These boats sticking out here? This is a very narrow area right through here. That's why we stayed away, we put the docks down here, and we started the docks back here to here. This area -- this area is an area, I can see, of congestion. Our docks will not interfere with that at all. The boat traffic, there's boat traffic going in and out any -- all the time. Our docks certainly won't hinder anything in this area. And this is the -- all the houses on the other side of the canal here. And that's all I've got for right now, unless you have any Page13 March 16,2000 questions. And I'd like to reserve some time later, if I have to readdress anything. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Just a clarification. So really all that is is a boardwalk to tie boats to. In other words, there's no MR. SCOFIELD: That's what, yeah, we reference to as a marginal dock. Marginal means it goes along the margin of the shoreline. It's just a -- we've got it in as far as we can get it, and the boats just have to tie up. And the distances you see out on these drawings, that's the distance to the outside of the boat, not the dock. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Okay. MR. SCOFIELD: A lot of times when boat dock extensions are -- I mean, a lot of docks are built and then boats are placed outside that. But in the extension, you know, it has to include the boat, too. So those distances you see do include the boats. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Scofield, you said you attended the civic association meeting or met with the neighbors. What was the general feel of the neighbors? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, the big -- I mean, there was a -- there was some misunderstandings. On the printout that I gave you, when we design usually marinas -- I don't really consider this a marina. This is a multi-family, just a docking facility. But we use this little box here. It's called a slip mix. And that was one of the areas of misunderstanding that I saw at the Goodland meeting. And in the middle box it has lengths, 30, 27 feet. They mistook that to mean that the boats were going to stick out 27 feet perpendicular to the shoreline in this canal. And I addressed that problem and several other problems that we had around here: There can be no more docks built in this area, the distances are right, and that was mainly it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I want to clarify, Rocky, that the -- MR. SCOFIELD.' Excuse me, J.A. One thing, Russell, the other thing was that -- the biggest objection I got was it's going to cause a hazard and that people should not be allowed to have boats over here because of the Page 14 March 16,2000 hazard it's going to cause to everybody concerned. I'm not quite sure, you know, why, I just -- my opinion is they -- some of the residents down there just don't want to see anything going in over here. Yes, it is going to be a little crowded. It is a narrow canal in this way. But certainly, people who can operate a boat halfway decently -- now, we can't regulate that. You know, there's always going to be people that don't know how to run boats. But certainly if you know how to run a boat a little bit, you can operate in here safely and get in and out. And that was one of the big things that they just shouldn't be allowed to have docks over here because it's going to cause a lot of problems for everybody over here. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So if docks had been built on your project first, then we shouldn't build them on the other side? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, that's kind of the feeling I got, yeah. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Any other questions for Mr. Scofield? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I did want to clarify for sure the procedure here. You're saying that you need county approval before DEP and the Corps will give you permits? That's the only thing that's really holding you up on their permits? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And that happens here today, right? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I have a question. MR. YOVANOVICH: We've complied with all their technical requirements. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Technically. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's just a step in the process that before they can actually give it, they need to know that we can actually build it under the county code. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commission Urbanik? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I have a question. Is it -- is there a no wake zone posted in that area? MR. GOCHENAUR: Could I interrupt and address Ms. Rautio Page 15 March 16,2000 for one minute here? They cannot legally build the dock until they've received all necessary state and federal permits. That's a typical stipulation on a boat dock extension. So regardless of how the circle works here, who has to do what first, the building permits can't be issued until they've gotten their state and federal permits. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood that. Thank you. MR. NINO: May I just throw a comment to that? And of course -- Ron Nino. And of course they can't get any permits until they start building something -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Rocky, could you -- MR. NINO: -- for docks. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Rocky, could you address the slow speed, no wake zone for Commissioner Urbanik? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. There's an idle speed zone pretty much around the entire island of Goodland. It's an aquatic preserve. And the entire area is an idle speed zone. This is right around the corner from our project, back -- this is the Goodland -- right over here is the Goodland Bay Marina. These are the signs there. And of course under all the heavy, heavy mitigation that we have to do, I mean, there's a million other things to deal with. The manatees issues. Again, Fish & Wildlife has issued their opinion that it's not going to affect it based upon such things as idle speed zones. We have signage we have to put up everywhere on both docks; the manatee warning -- area sign. He have educational signs upland. We have manatee packets I can show you that we're required to give all the people who own -- who have a dock space. And they have to go through a training seminar once a year for manatees. And so there's -- I mean, I can go on and on. We had to do quite a lot of things there, and donate money to the Rookery Bay Sanctuary for monitoring stations. And I can give you the whole list. But there's quite a bit. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Page 16 March 16,2000 MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I -- Rocky, can you just clarify on the map, when you say we protrude 75 feet into the waterway, that's measured from the mean high water line, which is well back onto the property. So we actually start our docks just about at the mangrove line. So that 75 feet could be a little confusing. We're not 75 feet into the water. MR. SCOFIELD: Let me show you real quickly what he's talking about here. You see the white stake there? That's approximately the mean high water line. That's where our walkway starts going to our docks. So when we say 75 feet out, it's not like it's a seawall and then all of a sudden we're out 75 feet. We're just -- the back of our docks is just barely out past the mangroves; maybe five to eight feet past the mangrove line to get into deep enough water to put the docks in. Of course we have plenty of width there. But this is the situation. When you go to mean high water lines, a lot of times -- this area was kind of eroded back into the bank, and that's the shoreline where it has to stay. And that's where the measurement starts from when you go to a boat dock extension. It starts from the most restrictive point. And that's the mean high water line. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner? We'll hear from the public. Ron, do we have some registered speakers? MR. NINO: Yes. Matt Finn, Ed Fullmer? You want to line up at the podium? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Doesn't matter. MR. NINO.' James Graham, Anne Hess, Vivian Holland. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If you would state your name for the record and then make your presentation. MR. YOVANOVICH: And while they're coming forward, we're going to put everything that Mr. Scofield showed you into the record so the court reporter will have all that information. MR. FINN: Matt Finn. I received a Ph.D. in mangrove ecology from Georgetown University in '96, so I'd ask you to accept me as an expert on mangroves. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Page 17 March 16,2000 MR. FINN: One of the main objections I have to this whole marina that they want to put in is it's going to seriously affect the mangroves. You've seen how they've talked about putting them up against the roots of the mangroves. This entire walkway that's all the way around the mangroves fences them in. Mangroves, as you probably know, can grow out from the shoreline. And as Goodland's aquatic preserve, as you've heard, that's an important part of the whole ecosystem, that these mangroves are allowed to, you know, have their roots in the water and it attracts fish and so forth; it's part of the whole ecosystem. Now, they're going to put a dock closely around all these mangroves and it fences them in. And it will seriously affect the mangroves. Okay, on one end you have the land, then there's going to be some runoff into the mangroves, they're going to whack the mangroves back, cut them back as much as they can. They'll probably have to get additional permits and things for that, too. And now the mangroves are hemmed in on one side, they're going to be hemmed in on the other side, then they're probably going to die. It might make more sense to, you know, go ahead and cut them all down, dredge it out and make a little seawall with some boat lifts there. You know, maybe that's the way to go. What's proposed, though, as I see, is not acceptable. The other thing, Commissioner Norris went to the community association one time and he guaranteed the entire community, no variances for this project. In front of everybody he said, you know, "You have my word, no variances for this project at all." Okay? So we see how that goes today. The other thing I really don't like about this project, they seem to try to buy people off. I guess you call it mitigation. Okay, let's try to buy Fish & Wildlife Service off by giving them a little boat dock down at the end here. Let's try to buy Rookery Bay and DEP off by giving them $5,000. You know, it doesn't sound right to me. You know, maybe you should try to buy Goodland Civic Association off by giving them the elevator they Page 18 March 16,2000 need for the meeting house there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question, sir. MR. FINN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You're saying that the mangroves will be damaged by the cutting and the actual installation of the dock walks. But you also suggested that perhaps the best thing to do is dredge them out? I'm missing your point. MR. FINN: I think what's going to happen here is the mangroves are going to be killed, okay, with all this work that's going to go around. It's not going to happen right away, it's probably going to take years, but the mangroves will probably die. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And you're talking about the mangroves in -- along the entire shoreline? MR. FINN: The entire shoreline. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: All the places -- MR. FINN: With their conservation easement. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: With? MR. FINN: With their conservation easement. I'm not sure of all the particulars of the particular conservation easement, whether they're allowed to prune the mangroves are not. I haven't seen that. But they're going to be seriously affected, no matter which way it goes. You know, I'm not sure what's the best way to go about it, but that whole promenade around the whole place is going to affect the mangroves and probably kill them. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And just to help me, what would that do then if we lost all these mangroves? What would be the results? MR. FINN: There could be shoreline erosion. The other adverse effects on the ecosystem are for juvenile fish, things that would normally be there seeking shelter within the mangroves. You know, it's such a narrow fringe, though, you know, maybe it's not that important to the whole ecosystem. It probably means almost nothing. But as you look, everything's being pushed to the edge, you know. Everybody's being cut Page 19 March 16,2000 down and filled and dredged. There's very few mangroves left around like that. So it may be an important thing to try to maintain. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Really, in all due respect, this method of designing and construction of boat docks and trimming back mangroves has done -- has been done throughout the State of Florida for years, been very, very successful, it's done here in Collier County regularly in all the communities that have water frontage. I'm really missing your point here. MR. FINN: The point is that these mangroves are probably going to die, the way that they're being -- going to be treated. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Well, I beg to differ. I have seen them healthy and hearty, been involved in development exactly as I described. The mangroves are trimmed back once or twice a year. They become more healthy, more viable, and create a better ecosystem than what you're describing. MR. FINN: That's not true. That's completely false. One very important thing about mangroves is they can stick their roots out into the water, okay, and they can grow and build land. And what's going to happen when you put this thing around them? They can't. It cuts them off. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I have another question, just -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: The walkway, because it is on the ground, is the problem? If it were elevated, would it help the situation? MR. FINN: It is going to be elevated above the water, you know, enough for people to walk around. But I'm not sure what the best answer is. But from my opinion, with knowing mangroves pretty darn well, it's going to hurt him. CHAIRMAN BUDD: MR. YOVANOVICH: CHAIRMAN BUDD: MR. YOVANOVICH: MR. FINN: Okay. May I ask him one question, please? Yes, go ahead. What type of mangroves are out there? The three species of mangroves are there. Page 20 March 16,2000 MR. YOVANOVICH: And what are they? MR. FINN: Red, black and white. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for Mr. Finn? Thank you, sir. If you would state your name, sir, for the record. MR. FULLMER: My name's Edward J. Fullmer, and I'm here as a private citizen of Goodland. I've studied the docks down there, and my personal opinion, I was in an accident in 1978 in Marcus Hook, New Jersey when I seen 26 people killed from a fuel dock explosion at Marcus Hook at BP Refinery. We have a fuel dock directly across from this property. My main concern is that I've seen accidents, I've seen people killed. The safety there, even though it is an idle speed, no wake zone, with Goodland Bay Marina directly across from this property, he has rental boats there, 15 rental boats, with people just come down and rent them. Most people that rent boats are not very good at boating, and there could be an accident. That's my only concern about this. As far as the -- along Palm, the 325-foot dock that they are proposing, it will make it very congested for the people that are already there. But whatever is decided by this Planning Board is what we're going to have to live with in Goodland for the rest of our lives, so I'd like you to take the safety factor under consideration and the congestion down there. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. Excuse me, sir. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Sir? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Fullmer. please. MR. FULLMER: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: up on this? Do you own a lot? MR. FULLMER: Coconut. Question? Question. We have one question, Does your property actually back No, I do not own a lot there. I live on Page 21 March 16,2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Coconut. MR. FULLMER: But as a citizen there, I do frequent the marina. And I used to keep my boat there. And where it was pointed out that there's 75-foot boats across from there, I had a 42-footer there. So the 70-footers are down at the corner where they chose not to put the docks. That's where the 70-foot boats are, not out where Rocky said they were, so -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Fullmer. Next speaker, please. MR. GRAHAM: My name is Jim Graham, and I live in Goodland. And I think I live at 656 Palm. I'm an abutter, and I'm here to speak for hopefully myself and my neighbors I talk to for property rights. And I also realize that these people have property rights, too. I'm not against the codes of how far a dock can come out, whatever, but I do realize that the pictures we saw today are self-explanatory. You know, pictures tell many stories. It's a very small area where that 325 feet long walkway or dock goes in, with 27-foot boats that they designed it for are going to go on the end. 27-foot boats, usually they ain't going to be that size in there. They'll probably be 16 by 20. So we're talking more than 10 boats. My opinion. Across the way there's about 12 boats -- actually, I think there's 10. I think there's 12 abutters, and there's a little bit more further down where they're not going to put the dock. The original one before this, they had a dock going all the way around. Today they moved this 325 feet further into this canal that is like a bottleneck. If you gentlemen and ladies go on a field trip and see this for your own eyes, you'll understand why we're upset. I am anyways, I can't speak for others. I got a phone call and talking to -- well, actually not a phone call, but I was talking to some neighbors the other day. "Jim, Jim, come out and see the manatees." Because they come up in there. They're very vival (sic), full of lot of life. A lot of fish jumping. A lot of fishermen come up in there to -- hey, I don't want to go into that. Page 22 March 16,2000 I have another issue. It really concerns me very dearly. I understand about paper trails and how when you put things on the paper it gets passed on to one paper onto the next paper. It's actually a lie or a misrepresentation. And that eventually enough people agree on a lie, it becomes the truth. We all know that, that's history. But I want to point out, there is a concrete -- on this thing I have here it says there is a concrete boat ramp, and it says it's existed. There's mangroves there. This does not exist. It's been passed on from print to print to print. And I talked to this fine gentleman the other day down at the Goodland Association, where he expressed over to you people that we're not getting along down there. But you can ask some people here that the man was down there doing an overlay last night got a nice applause from everybody in the room there, because this thing's going very well. But anyways, that's -- I just got off the point here. That boat ramp is a fabrication. I don't know if you have the papers up there, but it doesn't exist. Down the road, if you approve these things, this gets approved, too. Another mis -- you know, it's a lie. My opinion. You know, I could be wrong, but I think it's a lie. But -- so it's -- I am not against the code, you know, how far they can come out in a code as far as the size of anything goes. But I'm certainly opposed to anything above and beyond what they can do. Because it's not good for the community, it's not good for the pro -- I think there's just on that street alone that's on that canal it's -- don't quote me on this. Plus or minus, but there's 24 lots, 25, something like that. And then around the corner there's a little -- another thing there. An awful lot of people are affected by this. If you have any -- take a field trip down there. You know, you're never aware of how dense this area is. It's incredible. Yes, we're concerned about safety. You know, I can go on and on and on. The bottom line is I oppose -- I don't oppose the rights of my neighbor, because I want to be a good neighbor, but I oppose when they want to stretch and encroach on other Page 23 March 16,2000 people's rights. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD'- Thank you. Mr. Nino, as I read this petition, I see boat dock extension, but I don't see anything about a boat ramp. Is there any provision in here that would allow a boat ramp to be added? MR. NINO: No, there's -- Ross? I don't believe so. MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, the boat dock extension doesn't address boat ramps as such. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So just to allay your concerns somewhat, Mr. Graham, the petition that's before us is for a boat dock extension. It's not for building permit, not for condos, residences, boat ramps or anything else not stated. Solely for a boat dock extension. MR. GRAHAM: Sir, my concern is I talked to the gentleman two weeks ago, I believe it was, and he says I copied that off another print. It's getting passed on from print to print to print. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand, but that would be a future permitting issue, not the issue before us today. MR. GRAHAM: But I want to get this on record. CHAIRMAN BUDD: MR. YOVANOVICH: asking for a boat ramp. That was an -- Okay, you -- And I will say for the record, we are not We don't claim we have a boat ramp. MR. GRAHAM.' They told us before they weren't asking for a lot of things, they went for variances and everything. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Graham. MR. GRAHAM: Thank you very much. I oppose this. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I guess it's to staff. We're not talking about variances here, are we? I just want that cleared up. Because I'm really new to this board and I'm new to aquatic preserves and boat docks and all. I understand a lot of things, but I just want to make sure I'm following the criteria here correctly. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am, you are correct. This is not a variance. A boat dock extension is not at variance. It's not Page 24 March 16,2000 heard by the Board of County Commissioners, among other things. And there does not have to be a hardship involved. The code recognizes that under certain circumstances, a longer boat dock that is typically allowed is permissible with the approval of this commission. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Yes, ma'am, if you'd state your name for the record. MS. HESS: Good morning. I'm Anne Wright Hess, and I live on Palm Avenue, across from the proposed marginal docks. I live there and I know it pretty well. And I want to tell you that I'm glad that Collier County is a firewall for the environment. I do believe that it's very important what you do today, and what you decide. Based on law, but also based on the rights of all the people. Not just Goodland, but Collier County. We're getting overgrown rapidly. Little by little, the environment is leaving us. And I want to tell you that this small canal that is under 100 feet will probably have docks on it used by transient people. Not homeowners, not people who live there and know boating and love the area, but probably by people who are renting and renting boats and will not be safety or environmentally conscious. That's my fear. It's your responsibility to take this information and make the best decision. And I hope you do that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please? MS. HOLLAND: My name is Vivian Holland. I'm a resident of Palm Avenue. I didn't prepare anything to say today, but I would like to respond to a couple of things that Mr. Scofield has said. First, as you can see by the pictures, this is a very small canal. My question is, what -- my feelings are there must be a reason for this immense amount of mitigation that they have to do in order to get what they've gotten so far. There's got to be a reason why they had to make all these concessions. This is an environmentally sensitive area. I've lived there for 11 years. I am a boater. I have 30 years boating experience. I can tell you that this canal is used already Page 25 March 16,2000 by many, many inexperienced boaters. Mr. Scofield said in his estimation it doesn't present a navigational hazard. Well, in my estimation, being a 30-year boater and living on that canal and knowing the canal and knowing the boaters that come in that canal, yes, it will present a safety hazard to our property. Goodland Bay Marina has a rental fleet. Marco Marina has a rental fleet. There's constant traffic coming up in that small canal. People come into the marina. They either don't know that that canal is a dead end, or for some reason they want to go down to the end of that canal. And they come down there. They're rental boaters. They may navigate a boat one day a year when they come down on vacation. They come down into that canal. We -- all the time. We as boat owners and property owners there see that these people are not capable of handling a boat properly. We've seen it many times. I've stood on the end of my dock many times. I'm right at the point where the entranceway comes in. I'm right on the point. And I stand there to protect my boat from inexperienced boaters coming in and out of that canal. Like I said, as you can see, this is a very, very small canal. This canal is used by manatees, mother manatees. We had sent pictures to the DEP, to the wildlife associations, to the Army Corps of Engineers. Many pictures. This canal is used by manatees and their babies. They come up into the end of that canal to feed. Again I say, there must be a reason for all this mitigation that they had to do in order to get as far as they can. The only thing I'm asking you is the consideration that you give to the developers. And the person who owns this property, I ask that you give the residents on Palm Avenue the same consideration. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Ron, do we have any other registered speakers this morning? MR. NINO: No, that's all the speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to make a presentation? Page 26 March t6,2000 Ross? MR. GOCHENAUR: Mr. Chairman, if I could make a statement here. I've heard some comments about the canal and the fact that it's narrow, safety hazards and so forth. If you can kind of imagine this as a typical residential canal anywhere else, with residential lots to the same density on the other side of the canal, each with a legal boat dock, you'll see that we have basically the same situation everywhere in Collier County. Our criterions dictate that we maintain 50 percent of the canal width for navigability, and that petition has met this criterion, so I can find no fault with this petition. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Mr. Scofield? MR. SCOFIELD: Excuse me, just briefly. I'd just like to clear up a few of the points here. First of all, the gentleman that was talking about the mangroves and his education with the mangroves, on the shoreline, the shoreline is where the red mangroves grow. A little further up are the whites, then the blacks. The reds are the ones that are on the shoreline that have the prop roots that go into the water, prop themselves up. And the optimum growing elevation -- and the gentleman should know that -- for red mangroves is plus 1.3 feet NGVD. The prop roots can go out to about minus two. Usually they don't go past minus two feet of water, mean Iow water, which is about -- you know, can be four feet at high tide. Rarely. That's why on all the bays and everything you see, there's a mangrove shoreline. The mangroves don't come out any further. They set right there. They grow to their depth, and that's all the further they grow out. Unless, you know, lands accrete and the lands come up and they're shallow water. So, therefore, these mangroves aren't going to be hemmed in, they're not going to be cut off. The only thing it is, is when mangroves grow out long and leggy and they hang down, they're over the water, we're allowed by -- state and the DEP and the Corps of Engineers are the authorities on mangroves, the Corps of Engineers, especially. They have -- you know, and this is the permitting that we go through. Page 27 March 16,2000 So getting back against the prop roots, we're not into the roots, we're just outside of them. That's as far as these roots go out. This property has been there for gosh knows how many years. They haven't grown all the way across the canal. So that argument just doesn't hold much water. Also, that's a manmade canal. That canal's not in the aquatic preserve. The rest -- the shoreline outside is in the aquatic preserve. The manmade canals in Goodland are not part of the aquatic preserves, okay? One other thing the gentleman said about I said there were 70-foot boats in this area? What I said, if he was listening correctly, they protrude out, the docks and the boats together. The docks are 10 to 15 feet offset from the shore. They're floating docks in that area. They protrude out another 25 to 30 feet, and you have 40-foot boats in there, usually, and smaller. So it's the total protrusion out. The number of slips he also said on the inside, he said the 27-foot boats? We are permitted a number of slips. Whether a person wants to put a rowboat, 10-foot rowboat, or a 27-foot boat in that area, if he can get it in -- of course they're not going to be able to get boats that big in there, but we have to allow spaces for people to be able to get in and out without hitting the other boats. The boat ramp that was referred to was on an old survey. It was picked up and it was -- and it stayed on the computer. And we took it off recently. When I met with the gentleman down there, I said, you know, I'm sorry, that thing slipped by me. It was on an old survey. We digitize these things. It's on the computer, it's off now. It has no bearing on the project. With relation to the mitigation, if you're in this business, there's always mitigation. The state, they exact their pound of flesh, and the feds, from everything you do. And if it's going to be harmful to the environment, a lot of times you do have to -- they're not going to permit it, you know, the way you want it. They're going to -- we're going to go round and round about it. But there's always heavy mitigation, especially in aquatic preserves. And that goes for almost all projects. Page 28 March t 6,2000 And the last thing was is that if this project were to go away today and these were all single-family lots around this whole projects, then there'd be a dock every 60 -- there'd be -- you know, if they were 60-foot lots, I think that's what they are in Goodland, or average, then there'd be a dock and it would be wall-to-wall, just like the rest of the island around there. So the argument that it's way too many slips for this area, you can see that most of the shoreline is vacant. So those are the comments. If there are any questions, I'll -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I have a question for Mr. Scofield. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Going back to that boat ramp, is there a boat ramp on the property, or just showed on old surveys? MR. SCOFIELD.' It was an old, old survey. I don't know, it may have been from -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So it's only on paper -- MR. SCOFIELD.' -- 40 years ago. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- not on the property. MR. SCOFIELD: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER SAADEH.' It's only on paper, it's not on the property. MR. SCOFIELD.' That's correct. The gentleman's correct. There's no boat ramp on the property there. It showed up on an old survey. It just got left on, and it was -- it shouldn't be on there. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Is there any other testimony? Sir, you can come forward if you have new additional testimony. It is not going to be a dialogue between the petitioner and other people. It's testimony to us. If you have new information, we'd be glad to hear it. And if you do have testimony, come forward to the podium. Please state your name again. MR. FINN: Dr. Matt Finn. One of the last things you just mentioned, you know, how if Page 29 March 16,2000 this was single-family homes, you know, there would be -- it would be wall-to-wall, just like across the canal. That's probably not true, because we've recognized the importance of leaving mangroves and not ruining them. You know, those things were built a long time ago, really before we knew how important these mangroves are, okay? Things are different now. That's all. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. If there's any additional new testimony, please come forward, state your name for the record. I again remind you, we're not entering into a dialogue, this needs to be new testimony to this board. MS. HESS: Yeah. I wanted to mention to you -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: State your name, please. MS. HESS: Anne Hess. I wanted to mention that these docks, the numbers of docks, will be used by a very large number of people in the multi-family building being proposed, and that you should put into context with the request for the docks. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am, thank you. Anyone else? We will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, based on the staff report, I move that we approve BD-99-30. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' We have a motion by Commissioner Priddy, second by Commissioner Bruet. Any discussion? There being none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Motion carries. Our next agenda item is V-2000-01. Mastercraft Homes variance. Do we have any disclosures on this item? There being none, anyone that wishes to testify before the board on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) Page 30 March 16,2000 MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services department. This is a request for a side yard setback variance in Golden Gate Estates. You can see on the visualizer County Road 951, Collier Boulevard. This is a side street off 39th Street, 15th Avenue Southwest. And can you see the 75-foot lot highlighted in green, just for reference. This is Golden Gate City in this area. This property that's subject to the variance, the house has been unfinished for several months. And staff's original recommendation -- well, let me show you two more pictures first. You see the house back here and the neighbor? And again, the subject house and the neighbor. As I said, staff's recommendation is for denial, because it appears that the house was too big for the lot. However, within the last few days, the petitioner has supplied us with a more detailed survey, which you have presented to you this morning. And with -- not with corrected information, but with more detailed information, particularly the setbacks in the rear, that demonstrated to staff that the house was not too big for the lot, that if it was situated correctly on the lot, there could have been seven and a half foot side yard setbacks on each side. It appears to be a construction error. The petitioner has stated that because the neighbor's fence line is set off the property line, that the builders used that as an incorrect point of reference. I don't know that as firsthand information. That's what the petitioner has told me. We did receive two objections. And those objections were basically that this has been an attractive nuisance for months that has remained unfinished. Staff believes that whichever course of action the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners takes, it will remedy the situation. Approval or denial will help that situation and help the neighbors concerns. Because there is no land related hardship, it does appear to be in error, we still can't recommend approval but more of a soft denial that it was an error and it doesn't appear that they tried to put too much house on the lot. Page 31 March 16,2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to say thank you for clarifying that. Because that seemed to be one of the principal reasons you were talking about denial, that the house was too big for the lot. This makes a lot more sense now, that it appears to be a construction error or a measurement error that somehow got involved with the fence. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If we could hear from the petitioner, please. MR. MORRIS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, board members. I have with me Mr. Mike diamond from Mastercraft homes. My name is Mike Morris. I'm representing the applicant. I'd like to show you a couple of additional exhibits, which I believe you have in your package. You may have just received them this morning. The first exhibit is from the permit drawings. It's the site plan, and it shows a lot that is slightly wider than 75 feet. The next exhibit is also from the permit drawings, if you can see that, and it shows a building that is 60 feet in width. The two exhibits taken together clearly demonstrate the applicant's intention to build a properly sized building on the lot in hand. The next exhibit is a portion of the boundary survey. I don't know how much you can see of that. But the boundary survey -- or foundation survey, that is, shows that the right side of the building is in fact encroaching into the side setback easement. This is clearly a construction error problem. It was created -- we don't know the exact circumstances. Mr. Diamond may be able to shed some more light on it, if you desire. But we believe that it was created because the superintendent was not in the area when the home was being laid out. Normally Mastercraft uses a surveyor, licensed surveyor to set the building corners, so this type of error doesn't normally happen. But in this particular case, the house was improperly laid out. It amounted to an encroachment of approximately seven inches at its maximum place. And as far as we can tell, that's the extent of the problem. Page 32 March 16,2000 The staff has pointed out that there is a fence that is approximately two feet to the right of the side property line so that the appearance of the problem is that even though there is an encroachment, there's still approximately nine feet of separation from the house to the fence that is in existence. And also, Mastercraft has attempted to correct the problem by acquiring a strip of property from the adjoining parcel, but it's not been successful in doing that. I can address the cost to demolish the structure and rebuild, and also the time frame that would be involved. It's my understanding that that's approximately $25,000 to demolish and would add about 60 to 90 days additional time over and above normal construction time to finish the project. But Mr. Diamond's here to clarify that, if you'd like it in more detail in that regard. Again, just in summary, I'm asking for help in correcting a clear construction error. We believe that the request that we've got is going to result in -- of course is going to result in at least cost to Mastercraft, but it's also going to result in the least amount of time to correct. We believe that it has no perceivable adverse impact on the neighbors or Collier County as a whole. And I would just also like to point out that Mastercraft doesn't have a record of this type of problem. This is a problem that has happened once in many homes that they've built in Collier County. Mr. Diamond, would you like to add anything to that? MR. DIAMOND: Thank you. Good morning. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, Mr. Diamond, before you start. Any questions for Mr. Morris? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a quick question. This says it's the Silverton. Is this a model that you build on a regular basis in Collier County? MR. MORRIS: Mr. Diamond can answer that. I'm sure that it is. MR. DIAMOND: It's one of our more popular homes we build. About 100 a year. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: About 100 a year. Page 33 March 16,2000 MR. DIAMOND: In both counties. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for Mr. Morris? Mr. Diamond, if we could hear from you, please. MR. DIAMOND: Yes. I would just like to add what Mr. Morris said, we did make attempt to contact the neighbor unsuccessfully. A certified letter was sent, numerous phone calls were placed. And I can understand the neighbor's reluctance to cooperate. Perhaps they're upset that the home is sitting there for some time. But we have made attempts to cure it that way, and were unsuccessful. So this is our next option, certainly. It was a sub error. Our concrete subcontractor did make an error. It was not caught by our people in the field. There was no excuse for that. It was an error. We have recourse with them, but that's an internal matter, certainly. Nothing to do with today's proceedings. One more point I'd like to make, if I may, is that in Golden Gate Estates, in 75-foot wide lots, as you may know, there is a 7.5 foot side setback that each resident must maintain. Therefore, there's 15 feet separation between the homes ideally on those lots out in the Estates. In this particular case, the abutter's homesite -- or home, excuse me -- is substantially farther away from the property at 7.5 feet. So it would not create a -- you know, an inconsistency, if you will. There will be in excess of 15 feet. I don't have the exact numbers, but -- MR. MORRIS: Approximately 20 feet. MR. DIAMOND: So this is additional footage there. So this is not a hardship created on the neighbor, in our opinion. And in addition, there is a fence that the abutter has placed 2.2 feet from the property line. So again, he will not be impacted. To the eye he would not feel the difference between 7 and 7.5 feet. Because to his knowledge, his property line was 2.25 inside of where it actually is, if in fact he knew that when he placed the fence. So I guess I wanted to make those two comments. And I again would concur with Mr. Morris's estimate of the cost to Page 34 March 16,2000 rebuild the structure and the time delay. $25,000 would be the minimum it would cost us to go ahead and demolish that structure and rebuild it to the current state. It could be as much as 35,000. But certainly 25,000 would be the minimum. And the time delay would be approximately 60 to 90 days. That's all I have. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Would you clarify why there is no work on here? Is there a stop work order? Why has work not occurred on this -- MR. DIAMOND: Because we failed the spot survey, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You failed the spot survey, so that's why you stopped. MR. DIAMOND: We can't go ahead and get our tie beam poured because we can't get the spot survey. So we are -- we're in a hold pattern by the building department. Although our permit was renewed. In other words, we have a building permit active. That building permit expired, due to the time. We have gone ahead and resubmitted the permit, which we'll get, and we have. So in other words, we have the ability to build, but we can't go forward until we cure this problem right now. I hope I've made myself clear. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: With reference to the attractive nuisance, should this go through the process and it gets approved, how quickly will this house be completed? MR. DIAMOND: 75 days. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: 75 days. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SAADEH.' Just a quick one, clarification. Is it my understanding that the walls are up -- MR. DIAMOND: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- you're ready for tie beam? So the walls are up? MR. DIAMOND: That's correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Is there anyone else from the public to address this issue? MR. NINO: James Siesky, Rodriguez. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Please come forward and state your Page 35 March 16,2000 name for the record and present your testimony. MR. SIESKY: My name is James Siesky, and I wrote down the wrong number. I'm on the next item. Sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: An excellent presentation. Any other speakers? Sir, if you'd state your name for the record, please. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. My name is Rafael Rodriguez, and I live to the left of this white elephant. And from the very beginning, I believe Mastercraft has been in the wrong here. When they did a -- their survey, Mastercraft supervisor came to my house and told me that my property was on their land. In other words, they were going to build a big house, and they thought they had a 150-foot lot. I went into my house and got my survey and showed them, you better get somebody that knows what they're doing, because that survey is wrong. This is a Band Aid. This is a 75-foot lot. I gave them a copy, and about a month later they called me back and they said Mr. Rodriguez, you were right, the survey was wrong. That is a 75-foot lot. At which time they started construction there. I believe this house is too big for this lot, regardless of what they say. I've been in construction now 11 years. The work that I do is mostly in Bonita Bay and Grey Oaks, the big homes. I've never been on one of my projects that have been red flagged. And I believe Mastercraft has been red flagged quite a few times. This project has been an eyesore to my house, even though on my side of the property they're within code. I'm on the left side. But the house is so high and so close that right now my sprinklers are gone on that side. When it started raining -- when they started this project, the house is so high that I've had my sprinkler company come out there a couple of times already to correct my sprinklers. My grass is gone on that side. Every time it rains, and that's what I'm hoping that you people take into consideration, that roof, when it rains, is going to come right on my property. This house is right on the borderline on my property. And on Mr. Jolly's property is in -- within six feet, I think, six or seven Page 36 March t6,2000 feet within the -- supposed to be 7.5. I spoke to Mr. Done Jolly, and you probably know about him. He was approached to buy a foot, and he denied them, because they were offering the wrong amount of money. Mr. Jolly's also against this. Mr. Don Jolly already put up a fence because this thing is so ugly and it's been there for so long. I don't believe it's taken a builder this long to build this. And I know why it's taken them so long. Because I believe in my opinion that they're doing this, and they have no idea who the heck they're sending out there, because they should have got this thing corrected before the walls went up. Then if the walls weren't up, they could have corrected the problem by cutting the slab or doing something else and not costing them 25,000. I believe that you represent Collier County. And if they continue to make mistakes and you're going to bail them out, somewhere along the line we've got to draw, you know, and say that enough is enough. I'm against this. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: To the petition -- to the gentleman there. You said that on your side they do meet the setbacks. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, they do. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: But you're saying that if it rains, all the water runoff is on your lot, straight from the roof? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Right now on that side, according to the print, I went to the county, they're going to build a four-foot slab which the AC unit is going to be on. So that's going to be even worse. Right now I'm getting -- when it rains in July, all that mud is coming already on my property. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Okay, because their property is elevated. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: It's not from the roof runoff, because it-- MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, the roof runoff, it's going to be worse. This is just a runoff right now. When the roof is up, I might as Page 37 March 16,2000 well hang it up. It's going to be really bad. This house is too big. This house is as big as my house and I've got two and three-quarters acres on my property. This house is bigger than my house, and they got it on a 75-foot lot. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: My understanding, that these are grandfathered in lots. 75 feet is the minimum lot width that you can have. Therefore -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Fred -- they cannot buy anything from the neighbor next door, even if they wanted to or the neighbor wanted to sell them, because this is a grandfathered in lot at 75 foot minimum width. Is that correct? MR. REISCHL: It -- I don't know the dimensions of the lot to the east. But if the lot to the east is greater than 150 feet in width -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: It's showing on the survey, it's 75 foot even. MR. REISCHL: Okay. Then no, they could not. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So even if they wanted to go that route, Mr. Chairman, they could not go that route, because they could not legally buy anything from the neighbor. CHAIRMAN BUDD: You can't subdivide a minimum lot. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Correct. MR. REISCHL: I think there may be some correction. And the petitioner can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that that lot and the lot next door are owned by the same homeowner. So it is larger than 75. There would have to be more complicated procedures. He would have to combine the lots -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right, you have to combine the lots before you can subdivide and split them. MR. REISCHL: It could be done, but it's more complicated than just buying one. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Two single-family homes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I don't know if they can do it, Mr. Chairman. If they combine the two lots, they're no longer Page 38 March 16,2000 grandfathered. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Correct. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Another point I need to make. Mr. Jolly and myself, we tried to buy that lot so this way he could take -- because Don Jolly, when he first started, that lot used to be 150 feet, and he went and bought 75 feet, and that's why it turned out to be a Bandaid. We wanted to buy that lot, but Mastercraft was asking an outrageous amount of money for that lot. And we felt it wasn't fair for us, you know, to pay that kind of money. Again, I'm still at your mercy, according to when it rains, on my property. How they're going to protect it. If you guys approve this, how they're going to -- you guys are going to protect me from getting flooded on my side. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Rautio. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: What's the elevation of your property, sir? The house, your house, how high? How elevated is it? MR. RODRIGUEZ: I have no idea. But I'm like about 50 or 60 feet away from the -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I guess my question maybe could be answered by the petitioner. How much difference are we talking in elevation between the gentleman's house and the way you elevated your house? MR. MORRIS: Could we come over here? MR. DIAMOND: I don't know the elevation of the -- Mr. Rodriguez's homesite. I can tell you that we met code. We have a septic tank, as you know, that needs to be installed out there. So the height of our home was certainly approved by Collier County. We did not go out there and purposely make our home higher than the neighbors to create an adverse situation. We simply complied with the code in order to build that. If I may add -- may I add something else? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Sure. MR. DIAMOND: We did not create the Golden Gate size situation in terms of the lot sizes. And we certainly respect Mr. Rodriguez's position here and understand his concerns. And I Page 39 March 16,2000 would be upset if I were him as well. But certainly it's not a subjective decision whether a home fits on that lot or not. It's objective. Either it does or it doesn't. I can agree with him that I would not want perhaps a home that large next to me. Maybe that's not what I thought would go there. But we certainly met all codes. And that 60-foot wide lot is permissible there. CHAIRMAN BUDD: You're not making a good case because of an objective measurement you didn't fit. Ms. Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, let me make sure I'm clear here. If -- we're talking about a seven-inch error in construction? MR. MORRIS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And this gentleman is saying that the house is too big and it's creating a problem. Now, just follow me for a second. If we make you tear this down because you have a construction error, you're still going to put a house relatively the same house that we're talking about. MR. MORRIS: It will be the same house -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Same house. MR. MORRIS: -- it will be seven inches closer to Mr. Rodriguez's house. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. Because I'm having a little difficulty with this. Most people know that I've been a contractor, and I don't like construction errors. My people always had to do it right. And I have some real concern about how this actually occurred. I'm really concerned about Mr. Rodriguez saying that your superintendent went out there and thought this was a 150-foot lot. Now, that to me is just impossible. How could you think that you were building on a 150-foot lot versus as 75-foot lot? MR. DIAMOND: I don't know that that was a superintendent, ma'am. He didn't identify it as a superintendent. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Excuse me, then. Representative of your company. MR. DIAMOND: I don't know who it was. He did not identify the person. Page 40 March t6,2000 MR. RODRIGUEZ: It was a Mastercraft person that approached me, came to my house and showed me their survey and said I'm in their property. And I went and got my survey and showed them no, I'm not. You guys are wrong. That's a Bandaid. Because Don Jolly bought the other 75 feet. So then they went ahead and did another survey and they came up with a Bandaid. And I guess the house is already sold for 150-foot lot, but they ended up putting it in a Bandaid. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Mr. Chairman, I wonder how long we should pursue this inquiry, since the encroachment is not on Mr. Rodriguez's side. MR. RODRIGUEZ: That is correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's a good point. And in all due respect, Mr. Rodriguez, with your concerns about how close it is, the runoff and those other things, that if they were in absolute strict compliance, it would be the same or worse. And there's nothing we can do for you in that regard. It complies with code. The issue's on the other side. MR. RODRIGUEZ: That is correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' So any other questions of the petitioner by this board? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. Talking about putting in a septic tank. How do you get -- does that go in the back or the front? How do you access doing that on this 75 -- MR. DIAMOND: Front yard. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Front yard. So the people aren't going to be able to drive a vehicle to their backyard? MR. MORRIS: No, sir. It's not intended for that. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Okay, any other questions of the petitioner? Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to give testimony on this item? There being none, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE.' Mr. Chairman, before we make a motion, I'd like to remind this board that we have talked here Page 41 March t6,2000 continually about holding contractors to a little higher standard than we hold individuals, which may give some indication on how I'm going to vote on this then. This whole thing is like a Chinese fire drill. Yeah, they can build the house there, but if they're going to do that, they need to do it right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other comments? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, it scares me a little bit, too, being in the industry and then listening to contractors talk about working off of adjacent fences. That just rubs me the wrong way and strikes very deep. Such a basic element of construction is layout. And I have a serious problem. I'm not going to support the petition. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other comments, or a motion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'd like to make the same type of comment. Having been a contractor for such a long time, I have difficulty sitting here -- even though it's even inches -- on this board and saying that I would support allowing a seven-inch variance on this. So that's where I stand, if somebody wants to make a motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's what we're looking for. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we deny petition -- or make a recommendation for denial of Petition V-2000-01. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by-- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Let me make sure I understand. We're actually approving -- no, we're -- okay, I'm clear. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Wrage, a second by Commissioner Bruet to deny this petition. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: COMMISSIONER WRAGE: COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that okay? Yes. We're clear on that? I woke up. Any further discussion? Page 42 March t6,2000 COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I just have a question. If we send this forward as is, will the correction result in anything better for the people that live there? I don't see how it would. CHAIRMAN BUDD: For Mr. Rodriguez, it's going to be a little bit closer to his lot. It's not going to be a bit better. For Mr. Jolly, it will be further off of his property line. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Seven inches further. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, maybe they'll build a different house. COMMISSIONER BRUET: That's right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any other discussions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes. I just want to say that I think we had a tennis court issue previously where I said I never liked the idea of asking forgiveness rather than permission. And this is clearly an error. And I can't support giving him seven inches. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion to deny. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion passes. Petition request is denied. MR. RODRIGUEZ: How long are they going to have this house the way it is now? CHAIRMAN BUDD: I don't know, sir, but if you'd talk to Mr. Reischl, he might be able to help you. MR. REISCHL: The Board of County Commissioners still has to consider it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: The next agenda item, V-2000-02. One Mr. Siesky is anxiously awaiting. All those that wish to testify on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.} CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any disclosures by board members on this item? There are none. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is also a request for a variance in Golden Gate Estates. Page 43 March t 6,2000 You can see Interstate 75, Sandlewood and Soil Street. The lot in question, subject lot, is the blue colored. And this request is for a fence height variance. For lots over one acre such as this one, a fence is limited to six feet. The petitioner is requesting a total of 12 feet, which would be a seven-foot fence and a five-foot berm. And you can see again the streets, 1-75 out here, and the berm would be in the green shaded area. The majority of it along the 1-75 property line. And then 100 feet of it along Sandalwood. I received a phone call yesterday from the neighbor to the south. She had no objection to it. In fact, she was wondering if the petitioner would continue the berm along her property. And staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for staff? If we could hear from the petitioner, please. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Fred, your question -- your answer to Subsection C, you indicate it's adjacent to 1-75 and the Exit 16 ramp? Does the ramp run up that far? I mean, in the interest of accuracy. It's a little north of the ramp, isn't it? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Correct. MR. SIESKY: The map I have shows it is north of the ramp, Mr. Abernathy. MR. REISCHL: It does appear to. MR. SIESKY: Jim Siesky. MR. REISCHL: Here's a photo I took from Soil Street, just to show you the closeness of the traffic on 1-75. I -- while standing there, I probably thought it was the de-cel lane, but looking at the map, you're correct, it's north of the deceleration lane. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Siesky. MR. SIESKY: I really have nothing to add to Mr. Reischl's presentation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: State your name for the record, please. MR. SIESKY: Jim Siesky. And would point out to Ms. Rautio that we are asking permission, rather than forgiveness here. So we would ask that the board approve it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions by the board of Mr. Page 44 March t6,2000 Siesky? Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to present testimony? We'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend Petition V-2000-2 to the Board of County Commissioners -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- for approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. As long as that's to the Board of Zoning Appeals. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Board of Zoning Appeals, yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Could we take a five-minute break? CHAIRMAN BUDD: We will take a five-minute break. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, if everyone would take their seats, we'll reconvene the Planning Commission. Please take your seats. We will reconvene and start with Item V-2000-04, Faith Fuel Corporation. Any disclosures on the part of Planning Commissioners? There are none. Anyone wishing to make a presentation to this Planning Commission on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. REISCHL-' Again, Fred Reischl, planning services department. This is a request for a variance from the 50-foot front yard Page 45 March 16,2000 setback for a service station. You can see on the visualizer the parcel is located along Davis Boulevard and Davis Triangle area. It's a combined property of three lots. And to refresh your memories from driving by, this is the photo of the station the way it currently exists. The site plan, to help you visualize the request that they're asking for, there is an existing canopy, which is two feet from the property line. The petitioner is requesting a replacement canopy, which is four feet from the property line. The existing pumps are 14 and a half feet from the property line. Again, it's a 50-foot setback for everything on service stations. The existing pumps are 14 and a half feet back from the property line. No changes proposed to them. They're proposed to stay. New pumps are proposed at almost 43 feet back from the property line, the maximum that they could go without being inside the building. Those are behind the existing pumps. Staff is constrained from recommending approval because there is no land related hardship. However, I'd like to point out that the canopy is a reduction by two feet from what's currently existing. The new canopy will have to meet current code, which is -- those stripes have to be a solid color with one logo. And the new pumps are behind the encroaching existing pumps, practically up against the building; therefore, we feel that the existing encroachment is not being intensified. I didn't receive any comments from any of the letters that we sent out. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So this is a soft denial, Mr. Reischl? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER BRUET: So the new canopy of course would meet the current Land Development Code, which would be a betterment over what's over there now, I would assume; is that correct? MR. REISCHL: Yeah. And also, if I may point out, that when you read the resolution, you saw the landscape strip with three trees and a hedge along the -- along this property line. This is a Page 46 March 16,2000 vacant lot next door, apparently used by-- apparently, you tell by the ruts, used by a lot of truck traffic going to a property in the back. But there would be a landscaped strip on -- MR. NINO.' Mr. Chairman? Fred, does the resolution that we've drafted provide for the project complying with the landscape provisions? MR. REISCHL: It specifically states that west property line, yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Any other questions? Can we hear from petitioner, please? MR. HUBBARD: My name is Frank Hubbard. I was going to speak on Mr. Cagran's behalf. Basically that pretty much covers it. We're -- we did a re-tank there. The tanks that were in front needed to be replaced in 2009, so we went ahead and replaced those with double walled tanks that can be monitored. We installed a monitoring system. So at the same time, we were going to go ahead and put in the extra dispensers, because Mr. Cagran has always had a traffic problem on that location. He's very busy. He pumps around 200,000 gallons a month. And having two pumps always creates a problem getting onto the property, having an efficient flow of traffic moving on and off. So we figured with two extra pumping stations, he could try to alleviate some of that problem. But basically that covers it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?. Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to make a presentation? If not, we will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend this board send its approval to the BZA of Petition V-2000-04. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Bruet, second by Commissioner Urbanik. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) Page 47 March 16,2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Our next agenda item, B-2000-06. Do we have any disclosures on the part of Planning Commissioners? There being none, all those that wish to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Do we have a petitioner? MR. NINO: Yes, we do. Mr. Montalvo. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If you'll be -- would you swear in Mr. Montalvo, please? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. NINO.' Ron Nino, for the record here. What we have here is a situation where the land was developed under a unified plan of development. And the spacing between the Checkers building and the Valvoline, under the unified plan of development, is 20 feet. However, these two property owners, Valvoline and Checkers, now wish to become owners of the land, as well as their business, and the Home Depot has agreed to plat the -- to sell them that property. And by putting a hard line, a platted lot line, we then trigger in the required separation from the property line, which when you add the two of them together is inconsistent with the space between buildings requirement. And that's going to happen on a number of occasions in the future. We have alerted ourselves to make sure that the regulations require the space between buildings be the same as if at any point in time they decided to plat the land and put a hard line down. But this is -- because of the conditions present here, staff recommends approval. Nothing changes by this variance. The buildings are there. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' So in other words, Mr. Nino, what you're attempting to do with your staff review is to eliminate the possibility that people will work the way around the land use Page 48 March 16,2000 regulations by having integrated out-parcel that they'll later split out? MR. NINO: Correct. But there's going to be a couple of them coming before you who have already -- who are already in the system. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. COMMISSIONER BRUET: But Ron~ both properties still have appropriate parking for the current use? MR. NINO: Yes, they do. They have more parking than they require. COMMISSIONER BRUET: More than they require. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for staff? Does the petitioner wish to make any presentation? You don't have to if you don't want to. Okay, anyone else wish to speak? We will close the public hearing. Do we -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll make a motion -- CHAIRMAN BUDD.' -- have a motion? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- Mr. Chairman, to approve Petition V-2000-06. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Motion by Commissioner Saadeh, second by Commissioner Wrage. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. We will move on to PUD-99-29. Do we have any disclosure on this item? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Yes. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Go ahead, Mr. Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I spoke with Mr. Arnold. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I spoke with Mr. Arnold and Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I spoke with Mr. Arnold briefly. Page 49 March 16,2000 COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I spoke with Mr. Arnold. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I spoke with Mr. Arnold. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I spoke to Mr. Arnold and Mr. Yovanovich both. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I spoke with Mr. Arnold. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I spoke with Mr. Arnold and Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That completes our disclosures. Anyone in the public who wishes to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Mr. Arnold and Mr. Yovanovich, representing Mr. Smela, are requesting a rezone from mobile home, MH, and RSF-1 residential single-family PUD for an RV resort for a travel trailer park. The property is located at approximately maybe half a mile south of U.S. 41 on 951, behind Pelican Lake and Silver Lake RV resorts. The project consists of 101.15 acres. They are requesting 2.97 units per acre, for a total of 300 units. Travel trailer parks are permitted at a density of 12 units per acre, so they are requesting one quarter of what they are entitled to. The property is surrounded by two travel trailer parks along 951, Fiddler's Creek to the south, and to the east it's zoned agricultural and it's vacant. To the north, it's a mobile home park called Quails Roost Mobile Home Park. And there's a small agricultural property there also. Growth Management Plan allows travel trailers with two conditions: One is they have to be compatible with surrounding neighbor, which in this case they are. They are adjacent to two similar uses. The other one is that the access must be from an Page 50 March 16,2000 arterial road. This language has been amended by the -- was amended by the EAR-based amendments; however, is not in effect, because there was a question about the word access, what access means. Access means a driveway or access means the property is accessible from the road? Does that mean a sidewalk is enough to create accessibility, or what it meant. As you can see on the plan, the Pelican Lake PUD, they do not have access from 951. They have it from a side road. And they -- this property they have frontage on 951 is a strip of land 72 feet wide. It's feasible to build a road there; however, there is no median opening there, and it will be unsafe, in the opinion of staff, to use that as an access point. There is a Champion Lake Drive -- Championship Lake Drive with some existing private road which doesn't lead anywhere. It goes down and dead ends. And they are proposing to use that access. And staff recommends that be the access point. I have received a petition signed by 236 people. It was handed to me this morning. They live in Silver Lakes RV Resort. And basically what they are saying is they have no problem with this rezone, but they don't really want access to be through that 72-foot strip. But because there are trailers back into that. And if you cleared that and built a road, trailers on the north side and on the south side, they are going to be on that road. That's providing a buffer for them, and they would like to keep it. They are in full compliance with our codes. Staff recommends approval. And also, staff recommends that they be allowed to use Championship Lake as a primary access point. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes. Chahram, you mentioned Champion Lake Road or whatever the name is, is a private road? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's a private road being used by Pelican Lake. There's a golf driving range to the south. And it's been also used by Fiddler's Creek as a construction entrance. COMMISSIONER BRUET: And there's no problem for the developer developing that roadway -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, they are-- Page 51 March 16,2000 COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- as access? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's what they are proposing, and that's what staff supports. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I have a question about --just in case there's children getting on and off school buses from that location, how would they do that from there? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Getting off the school bus -- COMMISSIONER URBANIK: As a school bus stop. Would there be room on this Championship Drive for a bus to go in there? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Championship Drive, it's a 24-feet paved road to a point, then it ends. They are planning to expand this -- extend it to their development. And this is not a traditional residential zoning. Travel trailer parks are not considered residential. Occupancy of those units cannot be year round. MR. NINO: Shouldn't be any children there. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically it's a resort. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Right. They do have a policy, though, I know, that they do take tourist children into the Collier schools months at a time. I was just curious how or where they would access that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: But they have to widen the road and build it to county code. And if 40-foot trailers can access through that road, a school bus should have no problem using the same road. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of staff? Can we hear from the petitioner, please? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. Again~ good morning, commissioners. For the record, Rich Yovanovich, representing the property owner on this petition. I have with me the property owner, Ray Smela; also Wayne Arnold, Tim Hall and Dean Smith. I know you're familiar with Mr. Arnold. Mr. Hall and Mr. Smith's credentials, Wayne's a professional planner, Tim's an environmental expert, and Mr. Page 52 March 16,2000 Smith is an expert in transportation engineering. So I would again request that you qualify them as experts in those fields. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So moved. COMMISSIONER URBANIK.' Second. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) MR. YOVANOVICH: This is -- as Chahram has explained to you, it's a rezone of an existing mobile home zoning and RSF-1 zoning to a TTRVC, a PUD that will allow travel trailers -- I mean RV's and some resort homes. Now, the resort home concept is a little bit different than what you're familiar with. It's basically a permanent structure that will be able to house, you know, an RV when they're there visiting. There's not too'many subdivisions around Collier County that actually allow the RV's to come into the subdivision. So this will be a little unique, but it will also be limited to only 30 percent of our permanent density. So that's a new twist to our project that's not currently being offered in Collier County. The central issue is -- and I think the one that most people are probably here to speak about, is the access to the project. The comprehensive plan requires two things: One, the site must have access to an arterial road; and two, it must be compatible. I don't think anybody questions the compatibility of this project, since we're immediately adjacent to two travel trailer parks. And had those travel trailer parks decided to acquire that property, it would become the next phase of that travel trailer park. So I don't think compatibility really is an issue. As far as direct access goes to an arterial, the historical interpretation, I think as shown by the approval for Pelican Lake, was that you don't have to actually come out onto an arterial, you just must be able to get to the arterial. Which Pelican Lake does. They have access through Championship Drive. We propose the same access. We would just extend Championship Drive. And we believe that's consistent with the comprehensive plan as currently written, and as the EAR-based amendments were written. The EAR-based amendments, as your Page 53 March 16,2000 staff report indicates, is they did not intend for the RV parks to be using a driveway or a street that goes through a residential neighborhood. That's what was intended. However, as this board knows, the Board of County Commissioners is the ultimate authority on what does the comprehensive plan mean. So in an abundance of caution, we have shown a second access point which is at -- which is this strip right here, which is the RSF-1 strip. But our PUD document clearly provides that we will not improve that access point unless the Board of County Commissioners tells us to improve that access point. So it's not our first choice. We think we are consistent with just improving Championship Drive to our property under either comprehensive plan. And I believe your staff is also of that opinion. And obviously their opinion is given great weight, as your county attorney will tell you. So those people who are speaking in favor of limiting the access to Championship Drive, I would encourage them to encourage the Board of County Commissioners to go with the staff interpretation. At this point -- you know, Chahram pointed out we could have asked for 12 units an acre. We've only asked for three units an acre. The resort homes will only have -- it won't be permanent occupancy. It will be limited to the requirements of RV's that it not be a permanent occupancy. The property is located -- the use we believe for this property as an RV park concerning hurricane evacuation is a good use. It's not permanent structures. These people will not be here during hurricane season. As far as the -- we don't anticipate that there'll be too many school children, but they will be accommodated. The transportation network will be safe for any school buses that come in there. And Wayne Arnold will give you a brief overview of our master plan, and then we'll reserve any time we have to respond to any comments from the public. Page 54 March 16,2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Mr. Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question. Rich, if you all were not changing the zoning and just went and pulled building permits and started building what you are allowed to today without coming in here, what would the access issues be? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the access issues, we would just go down Championship Drive and we would build mobile homes. I mean, that's what we're allowed to do as a matter of right today at a much higher density. And there's no question that Championship Drive will be our access point. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. So it's only the opportunity that you're changing the zoning that allows the opportunity for someone to comment on how you access the property? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. And I do want -- thank you for bringing up access. I do want to point out that, you know, Mr. Smith will tell you this, that it is not unsafe to use the transportation -- that sliver, that strip, that 72-foot wide strip for access if we have to. It's not a safety issue. And if you need for him to testify to that on the record, he'll be happy to do that. But that's not -- it's not our preferred, because there is a full median opening at Championship Drive. We would have both accesses anyway. We're not prohibited from having multiple access points. We just think it makes good sense to just have the one access point. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. Wayne Arnold, for the record. I'd like to just give you a brief orientation to our master plan. First, though, I'd like to address the density issue. And I think one of the questions was going to that under in terms of our existing zoning, what we could ask for and build today. And under the existing zoning today we would be permitted about 432 residential dwellings on this property. That would be based on a residential density for mobile homes of about 7.25 units per acre. And then additionally, part of our project is platted as part of an old Quails Roost Mobile Home Park that has a higher density that was already platted. We'd be eliminating that, and of course we're asking for a maximum of 300 RV units Page 55 March 16,2000 and 30 percent of those to be resort homes. Again, that's a difference of about 132 units that we're asking for, based on the existing zoning. And I think it's already been touched on, the comp. plan would permit us to ask for up to 12 units per acre, or 1,200 units. Of course that would put us into a DRI issue, which we prefer not to do. And frankly, to amenitize and have an RV park that's an amenitized RV park, lakes and preserve community, we think it works better to have a much lower density where that we can amenitize every single lot in the community. I'll step over to the board and describe the plan. As you can see, we've shown access on our southern boundary, which is the extension of Championship Drive, there's a 60-foot road easement that is Championship Drive that currently terminates right now just past the -- one of the five entry points of Fiddler's Creek community. That entry right now along Championship Drive serves the Marriott Club Golf Course. It also serves as a construction entrance for Fiddler's Creek development, which is to our southern boundary. The other, the strip parcel, as we've called it, that connects us out to 951 and our property ownership, is located immediately south of an FP&L easement that severs the property right along this area. It also continues to the Silver Lakes RV Resort. As you can see our project, we've shown large extensive preserve area on our eastern perimeter, as well as our southern boundary. That serves two functions: One, it allows us to retain a nice vegetative buffer. It also allows us to satisfy some of the water management requirements and also some of the Army Corps of Engineers requirements. It hasn't been mentioned, but we are within the Deltona Settlement area, which is an issue that resolved several years ago, and per the county rules, they've acknowledged that, as has the South Florida Water Management District, it requires us to basically not have any native vegetation requirement on our site. We've retained that native vegetation, and it works for two functions: Our drainage is essentially going to go east -- MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Could you speak up, please. Page 56 March 16,2000 MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. Is this not working? That's better. I needed it a little closer. Thank you. Our drainage will essentially go to our lake system, then it will bleed down. It will eventually go out to a canal that extends east into the county drainage system which flows through Fiddler's Creek. That drainage system has been improved and it's functional. We've met with the Water Management District officials locally, and that's the preferred routing for our water. You can see that we have an extensive lake system. We have a fairly large recreation parcel here that would house our -- you saw on the PUD that there's up to 15,000 square feet of recreation building which would house a small store with sundry items for the residents of the park. Road network, pedestrian path throughout the project, bridge connections through our lake system, et cetera. We think that's very compatible with surrounding properties. And I'll just briefly touch on the access issue, that in my opinion the county has, at least in two recent examples, approved projects that have frontage on their arterial road but do not use those. One of course was this project, Pelican Lake, which is our immediate neighbor to the west. Another project is one that was yet to be built, but it's adjacent to the Krehling industrial facility out on the East Trail. But I think that's two examples how our current comprehensive plan permits exactly what we're asking for. I think that as Mr. Yovanovich touched on under the existing zoning, with the mobile homes, we have an issue of permanent occupancy in an area that has coastal high hazard conditions. Under the existing comprehensive plan and under the existing land development code, to have a mobile home park, for instance, would be required to create your on-site sheltering for residents, where it would require you to pay into mitigation fund to the county to provide for evacuation of those residents to have a place to go. The RV conditions don't contain that because they're not permanent residents. Typically they're not going to be here during hurricane season. As we're proposing this, people would Page 57 March 16,2000 drive in their RV, they park for whether it's a week, two weeks, two months, they'd be buying their individual lot here, and they would be leaving. And I think as we can see probably by the end of April, the two adjacent neighbors that we have will probably have many, many fewer residents than they have today. I'd like to just maybe reserve some time at the end of this to discuss the access issue, if it comes up. I haven't seen the actual petition that I understand was signed, but it -- I wouldn't mind at least having an opportunity to look through that and come back and respond to any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other presentation by the petitioner? Any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Nino, do we have some registered speakers? MR. NINO: Yes, we do. Fred Rump, John DeChellis, Marie Smith, Stan Pagano, Mike Gosik. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If you would come forward to the podium, and when it's your turn to speak, please state your name for the record. MR. RUMP: Fred Rump, 4788 Corian Court. I live in Pelican Lakes. And it's not a trailer park, folks. We have in our place probably what is unique in the United States, a very prestigious motor coach resort, which is made up out of half a million, million dollar residents who come here, bring quite a bit of money to this county. We pay probably well over $300,000 in property taxes to the county, and really don't take anything from you for that. We come and go. Just about eight, nine days ago I received a letter from the county, which came to me via my New Jersey home. But I am now a domicile resident of New Jersey, so somehow they still got my old address. I have no idea where this came from, and none of my neighbors received such a letter. And I do not know the law about notification of property owners, but as far as I know, only a very few handful of our property owners received such an invitation. So this thing came to us as sort of as a bombshell. Because it was my intent, and I discussed with many other of the Page 58 March 16,2000 residents the purchase of the woods in our rear. This was part of something that I thought we could use as a nature preserve, to in the future build a bicycle path or walkways back there to even increase the beauty of our place that is so unique in this country. It really is a unique place. To give you an idea, some of us -- most of us spend maybe 20, $30,000 just in landscaping for our concrete lots. Just today I was handed a petition which someone else prepared in our park. All this went in a hurry. We have no legal representation, we're just here by ourselves. If we had time, we probably would have had a lawyer here, but such is not the case. I met with the principal planner last Friday, and he told me this is pretty much a pro forma issue, because it's all legal, it's all done. You have no choice but to approve it. Which is sad. Because right now, I wonder, as I try to get off 75 onto 951, what will be the situation next year. I sit there now for 15 minutes just trying to get onto the road. We will have to make our left turns onto Championship Drive with another 300 rigs coming in. I don't know how that's going to work. For sure you're going to have to have a traffic light there. It's a mess. I mean, it's difficult getting in and out of there. We have 45-foot rigs, we tote cars, we have a 60-foot train coming in there, and it's difficult making those turns both ways. Fiddler's Creek is just starting up. They're going to be using that as an entrance. You'd better get ready for Championship Drive to be a ma]or highway there. It's going to be a busy road. My major concern is obviously nature. I like -- that's why I came to Florida. And I know I'm greedy, I grabbed a piece of this beauty and others will come after us, but somewhere along the line something's got to be preserved. And I don't know how you're going to do that if everything's zoned for development. You're just going to get to the point where all of us are going to be tied up in traffic and you won't be able to go anywhere. And then we'll have all this nature, except it's gone. I have a petition I would like to read to you for the record. It is signed by 49 properties owners, or 49 properties. Very quickly again, I didn't say we were prepared for this. Page 59 March 16,2000 It says here, "We the undersigned property owners at Pelican Lake Motorcoach Resort disapprove the proposed rezoning noted above." It's about 99-29 rezone for Champion Lakes RV Resort. We think natural habitats are decreasing at an alarming rate, due to the new housing and golf course construction going on all around us. Currently, signs indicating approved sites for additional golf courses and shopping centers can be seen on 951, indicating hundreds of acres soon to be destroyed in this area. The proposed acreage adjacent to Pelican Lake Motor Coach resort, Fiddler's Creek and Silver Lakes is a natural habitat for many species of animals, plants and birds, including bald eagles, great horned owls, pileated woodpeckers and others, all of which would disappear if the property is rezoned and the woods torn down. Because of the late notice received by the below owners, many have left the area for the season so are unable to attend this meeting. However, they voice their strong disapproval by signing below. Then there are several letters that several people wrote, which we will submit to you for your records. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Sir, I have a question for you. Do you understand that this property owner could have built 400 units without even coming here today? MR. RUMP: That is the sad part about it, yes. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. So we're not talking about whether or not to let them tear the woods out. I mean, we don't have any control over that. We're talking about whether we want people living there year round and clogging the roads up year round or just part of the year. MR. RUMP: I wish the property owner would have given us an opportunity to buy that land ourselves. We could not do anything, because we were -- basically we are not yet organized. We have not taken over our park. The developer in our place is still running it, so we have no community as such that we could have made an offer to anybody. Page 60 March 16,2000 But last year there were 30 acres available there, which I thought about buying myself just to keep it as a preserve for us. CHAIRMAN BUDD: In all respect, sir, that's not an issue that we can address. It's out of our control. MR. RUMP: Yes, I know. That's -- I just wanted to let you know, it's sad for all of us that we are developing one piece of property after another without being able to, you know, drive the roads to get there. And somebody has to know what's going on here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, Mr. Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have a question. Would that property, in its original zoning -- and it's a question of property, has that been zoned the way it is right now for as long as Pelican Lakes was zoned for the way it was? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Pelican Lakes used to be agricultural. And I clearly remember it was a wooded acre. In early 1990's, they cleared the whole site to build that Pelican Lake Park. You have to understand, this was within the Deltona Settlement area. We have no control over it. They set aside over 10,000 acres of land -- MR. NINO: 15,000. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- 15,000 acres of land deeded to the state. In exchange, they are allowed to clear the site, if they wish to. And with the current zoning, as Wayne Arnold said, they can build over 400 units, and they can clear the entire site. MR. NINO: The answer is yes, Mike, it was zoned mobile home the last 12 or 13 years that I can recall. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I have a question for staff, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: The gentleman made a comment that there are red-cockaded woodpeckers and bald eagles on the property? That's not my understanding. Maybe staff can shed light on that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We had an environmental impact study done, and our environmental staff, they are satisfied with that. And the Environmental Advisory Council reviewed this and by a Page 61 March 16,2000 vote of seven to one recommended approval. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Seven to one approval? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. MR. RUMP: There's one other thing I'd like to state. At least I would like to ask the developer to consider moving this property back. I mean, he's got about 10 foot of preserve next to Pelican Lake and Silver Lakes. A little tiny strip here. And moving that back to where he has a preserve in the rear where it's agricultural land, where it doesn't bother anybody, it doesn't help anybody. If that preserve were at the front end, it would be much nicer for all of us, and we'd have some separation of our communities. And that is all I have to say. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. DeCHELLIS-' Good morning. My name is John DeChellis, and I'm a resident at Silver Lakes. And I'm kind of speaking on behalf of many of those people who signed that petition. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir, would you spell your name for the court reporter, please? MR. DeCHELLIS: Yes. D-E-C-H-E-L-L-I-S. And many of those residents are here. If they'd just hold their hand up. Maybe they're not going to speak, but they are here. If I miss a point, maybe they can pick up on it. But we're not opposed to the park as it's being proposed. Obviously we are an RV park, Pelican is an RV park. We're not going to say we're the last one that can be built in Collier County. However, the issue that we do have concern with, and that is whether or not that narrow strip is to be used as a roadway for entrance and exit to the park. My understanding is the developer really doesn't wish to use that. He wants to use access by Championship Drive, which we support wholeheartedly, in hopes that that strip of land maintains its natural environment as it is. And we feel it would be much better for all concerned. I think if that was in fact used as a roadway, it would be very difficult due to the fact there's no left turn into it from 951. You'd have to go down to Page 62 March 16,2000 Championship Drive, try and make a U-turn with a big rig, which would be very difficult. And then in order to swing into it, there's no slow down lane, you'd have to swing left, then turn right, and I can foresee a lot of accidents occurring on that road, which is a very fast traveled road. We -- like I say, those houses in Pelican, you can't see it here, but this is all developed now as well. There are RV slots all along -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, sir. THE COURT REPORTER: If you would get on the microphone right behind you? There's a microphone. MR. DeCHELLIS: This area here is in fact all developed now. And there goes the easel. This is all developed. So we've kind of thought this was a buffer, to be honest. I mean, we're ignorant as to who owns what. But we always thought this little strip of land was a buffer, that it was kind of nice between the two parks. Turns out it's not. But anyway, we hope -- you know, we support the developer, hope that he can use Championship Drive. We think it would be feasible, accommodating to everybody, and we hope that maybe the developer -- I understand he is here -- perhaps he would leave that in its natural state as a buffer between the two parks. And I think everybody could kind of get what they want. And I think that's pretty much what I have to say. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. PAGANO: My name's Stan Pagano. I'm also a resident of the Silver Lakes RV Resort. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir, could you spell your name for the court reporter, please? MR. PAGANO: P-A-G-A-N-O. I'd just like -- I agree totally with what the previous speaker said, and I'd just like to express a concern for the strip parcel, in particular. And the comment I'd like to address is for safety environmental purposes. Page 63 March 16,2000 I was there in November, and -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir, if I could just preempt some of your comments. I think that if you're speaking in favor of preserving that parcel and not having an access road? MR. PAGANO: Correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Personally I have no desire to put a roadway through there, and I don't know if there's any inclination on the part of this board to do that. So I can only tell you you have an eloquent presentation and you're making a good case that we're not going to put a road down there. MR. PAGANO: Can I make just one additional point that hasn't been mentioned? CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right, sir. MR. PAGANO: I believe if a roadway is built in there, it would have to be built on a fill. And being a narrow piece of property, as the height of the fill goes up, the cross slopes become more steep. And with larger vehicles, if they tend to go off the pavement or off a shoulder, they could turn over and you could have an environmental spill with diesel fuel. So I guess that would be the extent of my -- especially, I live just about in the mid portion of that. So the drainage, I don't know how the drainage would be handled. And that spill would be a concern. But there is free water in that area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please? MR. GOSIK: My name's Mike Gosik, and I'm a resident of Silver Lakes. That's G-O-S-I-K. I don't want to be repetitive, but I was going to address the sliver of land between the two park developments as not being a feasible access. Somebody said they thought it was compatible, and I don't really think it is. I did not take accurate measurements, but in my opinion there is not enough room for a proper deceleration lane, if you were going southbound on 951 to pull over, slow down and make that left turn into that sliver. Which then would put you in a position of going past that entrance and making a U-turn on 951 and going up north and getting over in that deceleration lane, which Mr. DeChellis said Page 64 March 16,2000 would be a safety issue, and I'd have to agree with that. But I know when I built commercial property and I had to work with the road commission about cutting driveways and whatever it was, you know. And I don't know how your government works locally, but I think anybody on the road commission that took a look at that would have to agree with me. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please? MS. MARGESON: My name's Maria Margeson, and I failed to put what project I wanted to speak. I'm from Quail Roost. I do believe you have me. M-A-R-G-E-S-O-N. Our property is right on the edge of this project. I'd like to know a couple of things. If there's going to be a buffer between us. Originally this was going to be Phase III and IV of Quail Roost. We have a water main that -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me. MS. MARGESON: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Where is Quail Roost relative to this project? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Just north of it, Mr. Chairman. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Quail Roost is right here, to the north. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MS. MARGESON: I'm not against the project, first of all, but we just have a couple of questions here. We have a water main that goes from Quail Roost into the property that they've purchased. We'd like to know what's going to be done about that, whether it will be capped off or whether it will be used. Our pump station is another concern of ours, because of it originally being Phase III and IV. Whether we will have a -- whether the property lines splitting up the two developments will be fenced. Whether this is going to be a gated community. I just have a few questions about those. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. The petitioner will make some summary comments -- MS. MARGESON: Okay. Page 65 March 16,2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- in wrapping things up and then will address some of your issues. And then also, I'd encourage you that the petitioner, these gentlemen here in the front row, some of the issues you're asking do not directly relate to this petition, but I'm sure that they will be glad to answer your questions and give you the background information. MS. MARGESON-' Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Yes, ma'am. MS. SMITH: Yes, I am Marie Smith, from Silver Lakes. And I'm sure you know how to spell Smith. I'm here -- I basically said what the others said. But I am for the developer. And my husband works in real estate, and I like to see things go forward. And I feel like that he should have the access to Championship Drive. I hate to see a developer have to spend that kind of money to put a road between Pelican and Silver Lakes when there's already a road there. And it would cost him -- I can't imagine what it would cost him to put that road. And I agree with the others, that it would be a lot safer, and so many more advantages to have the road down Champion Lake. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD-' Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address the board? Yes, sir, please come forward and state your name. Sir, were you sworn in earlier by the court reporter? MR. VAHER: No, I was not. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, well, if you could just stand by the microphone and she will swear you in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. VAHER: I have a question for the board. CHAIRMAN BUDD-' Could you state your name for the record, please? MR. VAHER: Paul Vaher. I'm at 1650 Diamond Lake Circle, in Silver Lakes development. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Paul, how do you spell your last name? MR. VAHER: Vaher. V-A-H-E-R. Page 66 March 16,2000 And my property line abuts the proposed right-of-way for that road that would dissect Silver Lakes and Pelican Lake. And I heard the testimony here of the developers, and it's my understanding that they're all for making their access off of Championship Drive. And also, I heard something that indicated that if the board does nothing, they would have the right for access off of Championship Drive and through that narrow strip of land that goes between the two parks; is that correct? CHAIRMAN BUDD: No, that -- I don't believe that's our intent. And we'll have the petitioner specifically address that in his closing comments. MR. VAHER-' But, I mean, now, if the board approves access to -- from Championship Drive, then will that negate any future access through that 72-foot strip of land that -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Chahram, can you address that? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It can be stipulated that they can only have passive use of that land; have a boardwalk and things like that, and not use it for vehicular use. CHAIRMAN BUDD-' In other words, sir, as part of our motion, we can add an additional condition that they do not access on that narrow strip of land, that they make their primary access on Championship Drive, if the board's so inclined. MR. VAHER: That's my concern, that when the final outcome is there that in the future, that that -- they do not have the option anymore to make that into a roadway. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else from the public to address this issue? Any final comments by the petitioner? I think there's a few loose ends that we'd like you to respond to. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you again. Wayne Arnold. I think there were two specific comments that were raised by Ms. Margeson, from Quail Roost. And one was a question of buffering on our northern property line. That buffer ranges anywhere from 20 to 30 feet. Right now, if you look at the Land Development Code for your buffering requirements from RV park to RV park, the LDC says there is no buffer required. Zero. So we think we're Page 67 March t 6,2000 providing certainly an adequate buffer for what otherwise would have been mobile home lots that were already platted as part of their future phase. Relative to the water main, it's been our intention to bring our utilities along Championship Drive; has not been our intent to do that (sic). I'm not sure what would be involved to make that physical connection, but we haven't really explored that option. Certainly we'd like to keep all of our utility options available, but I don't believe anything we do would be to the detriment of the Quail Roost project. I'm not sure if there was anything else. I know that there was also an issue raised relative to the endangered species on the site. Tim Hall from Turrell & Associates did do an Environmental Impact Statement, and as Chahram mentioned, the EAC reviewed that report. And I think Mr. Hall is here to let you know that there are no endangered species out on that site. If you'd like to get that as part of the record. CHAIRMAN BUDD: No, we're fine. Thank you. If there's no one else to speak from the public -- sir, please come forward. Were you sworn in, sir? MR. NESHEK: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, if you would be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. NESHEK: My name is Russ Neshek. N-E-S-H-E-K. I'm a new resident of Pelican Lake. And I'm actually right down in here, next to this nature preserve. And as Fred said, there are bald eagles. We've taken pictures of three of them in one tree at one time. Actually, they were out mating the other day. Not a big deal, but -- there are pileated woodpeckers and there are some great horned owls in there that have just mated as well. I know they're not endangered. I think I'd like to reiterate what Fred said about the boundary here, though. I know it goes from 10 to 20 feet. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Neshek, if you could get that Page 68 March 16,2000 microphone right behind you. MR. NESHEK: Okay. But if they could slide this over, if it's at all feasible, it doesn't cost too much money, I think, and I think most of you would agree, that one large natural area -- and yeah, it's behind me. But it is a quality of life issue. It's better to have something larger, I think you would agree, rather than a bunch of little remnants of property or a little -- or we're doing what's necessary, we're doing the minimum, we're doing the adequate. If you could do something larger in here, rather than having little remnants where you're not going to have a lot of those species of wildlife that we all do enjoy. I think it's a quality of life issue again, that it be a larger piece of property, and I think you'd attract more wildlife. And it would be better for you people as well in selling your lots here. Because as you know, some of these lots are going for over $200,000 a lot. And the better you can make this, the more money you're going to make as well. Again, I'm not gaining against the development either, so -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Thank you, sir. Anyone else from the public? We will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval of Petition PUD-99-29, with the stipulation that the access point be on Championship Drive and that the 72-foot strip be a passive use to the development. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- by Commissioner Priddy, a second by Commissioner Wrage. Any discussion? There being none, all those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD-- Motion is approved. (Applaud.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: As soon as the room is cleared, we will Page 69 March 16,2000 start with Petition R-99-13. Folks, if we could ask you to take your conversation out in the hall so we can finish our business today. Okay, we're down to a dull roar, and we will start with Petition R-99-13. Do we have any disclosures on the part of any of the commissioners? Folks, if you could take your conversation outside. Any disclosures by the commissioners? There are none. All those that wish to present testimony, please stand, raise your hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian, from planning services staff. Mr. Michael Fernandez of Planning Development, Incorporated, representing the owners of this property, is requesting a rezone from agricultural to C-2 convenience commercial district. The property is located on the north side of Immokalee Road, at the terminus of Airport Road. And it consists of 7.61 acres. This property in its entirety is located within the -- within an activity center. The property is surrounded on the north side by Willoughby Acres development, which is a single-family development. On the west side by Pipers Boulevard Medical Office, and Sharondale Condominiums. On the east side by a large church. And on the south side by a canal -- Pipers Boulevard Canal, Immokalee Road and Sam's Club. They are in full compliance with all the requirements of the Growth Management Plan, they are within an activity center, and they are entitled to commercial, and they are asking for C-2 as opposed to C-3, C-4 or C-5 because of existing residential properties around it. C-2 requires a 50-foot setback when adjacent to residential. Other districts require 25. And the height is limited to 35 feet. C-2 allows mostly office type uses. It also allows gas station and convenient stores. However, there is a Mobil Gas Station not far from here. Sam's Club is in the process of building a gas station. And Albertson's, Page 70 March 16,2000 which will be at the intersection of Immokalee Road and -- MR. NINO: Livingston. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- Livingston Road -- thank you -- they are planning on having an out-parcel, which the SDP has almost approved, with the convenience store and a gas station. Which people, they can drive directly on Pipers Boulevard to that gas station. So in the opinion of staff, there is no need for an additional gas station in here, and it will not happen. If it happens, since it will be within 500 feet of other gas stations, will require Board of County Commissioners approval. Staff recommends that the CCPC forwards this to the BCC with a recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Kant? MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. We've met with the applicant's representatives on several occasions to work out traffic issues. And because this is a straight rezone as opposed to a PUD, we can't ask you to put any restrictions on the site, and we're not asking for that. But we -- I just want you to know for the record that there may be some access issues with respect to the site that will be worked out in the site development stage. That has to do with whether or not the issue of a future extension of Airport Road is appropriate. It has to do with whether or not the intensity of use of this proposed site would require any upgrading to Piper Boulevard. That has to do with whether or not any other types of interconnections might be appropriate. And I, after talking, as I say, several times with the applicant's representatives, I'm not uncomfortable with representing to you that I think we can work these issues out. But because, as I say, it's a straight rezone, rather than just say yes, C-2 is fine, I think you need to recognize that this is a straight rezoning with other ramifications to the transportation network. And I don't ever like to lose an opportunity to present to you the fact that every time you do a rezone, you impact the transportation network. Thank you very much. Page 71 March 16,2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any questions for staff? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want you to clarify here for the record. The agenda says we're going from RSF-3 to C-3. And you're very clearly telling us it's two. And then on the front page it's agriculture to -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm sorry, it's going from RSF-3 to C-2. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's absolute? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's absolute. That's in the ordinance. It's zoned RSF-3 and we are going to C-2. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They were hoping to get C-3, but at the pre-application meeting, we discussed that, and since C-3 allows supermarkets and other uses, that we didn't feel comfortable with it being adjacent to residential, they decided to go with C-2. MR. NINO.' But what did we advertise it as? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We advertised it correct. MR. NINO.' As what? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: From RSF-3 to C-2. MR. NINO: All right, thank you. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So what you're saying, what we have in the report is just typos. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: A type. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: When you do rezones, most rezones, they are mostly agricultural to whatever zoning -- I made the mistake. I said -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: It's a typo. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It was a typo. I apologize. CHAIRMAN BUDD-' Any other questions for staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. It's not permissible for us to approve a rezone to C-2 and carve out certain C-2 uses that we would want to exclude? Is that permissible? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Marjorie, could you address that, please? MS. STUDENT: Yes, I can. Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney for the record. We have done that in the past, and we've taken the position Page 72 March 16,2000 that if we have the concurrence of the property owner, or the applicant, we can do it. There's some case law about the inability to do it just generally. So because of that case law, we've taken the position that if they concur, we can do it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I wonder if staff should not explore with the petitioner whether he would be amenable to excluding gas stations and other things that you think are a bit on the -- CHAIRMAN BUDD.' That's a perfect segue for a presentation by our petitioner, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, commissioners. Michael Fernandez, representing the petitioner. As represented by staff, this is a rezone from RSF-3 to C-2. It's adjacent to an existing facility called Piper Boulevard Medical Office, now labeled a/k/a as Oakes Professional Center. That's a project in a PUD that I processed a number of years ago when the land was owned by the Sharondale Condominiums. So I was their representative at that -- for that piece. That's turned out to be a very nice project, and we believe a very good neighbor. To the east of Sharondale Condominiums and our property, there's a 50-foot drainage easement that separates the two parcels of property, so that there's a significant area separating what will be our future buildings and theirs. We have a 50-foot setback in C-2. They have a minimum of 50 feet. But graphically on the aerials, we estimate 60 feet. So there's approximately a minimum of 110 feet between structures with those facilities. As part of our zoning, because this is a parcel greater than five acres, we'll have to keep 30 percent open space and 15 percent of the existing vegetation on-site. Although what's on-site, it was previously used as a farm field. But there are some nice oaks. And when we did Piper office, as it's now called, Oakes Professional Center, we were able to keep a couple of significant species trees that really helped the development. We plan on doing the same here. To the east of the project, we have a large church. And we Page 73 March 16,2000 enjoy about 660 feet of frontage on Piper Boulevard. In regard to Mr. Abernathy's suggestion that we rule out a couple of those uses, there's no intent on putting a gas station or convenient store, and we're happy to agree and make that stipulation and remove those as potential uses within the zoning. If you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?. There are none. Is there anyone from the public to address this item? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If I may. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Please come forward. Come forward to the lecturn -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I just have one -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- while Chahram is addressing us. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- thing. This morning I was handed a letter from a Sharondale Homeowners' Association president opposing this project. I forgot to say that. They were opposing it because they said they don't need commercial, mixed residential and that there are enough commercial properties along Immokalee Road. And the Pipers Boulevard is a narrow road and is congested. So I forgot to mention that. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thanks Chahram. Were you sworn in earlier? MS. DYKES: No, nobody asked me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Please state your name for the record. MS. DYKES: Yes. My name is Nancy Dykes. D-Y-K-E-S. And I'm the president of the Gates Mills Homeowners' Association. Despite what was just recently said, the property immediately to the north of the proposed rezoning site is Gates Mills. It's not Willoughby Acres, it's Gates Mills. It was approved, I believe, in 1990. It's a separate, totally separate deal. I've tried to contact Willoughby Acres Property Owners Association offices, and they were not notified of this rezoning, Page 74 March 16,2000 specifically. And many of the people in our subdivision were also not notified. Only people within 300 feet. Gates Mills is a residential area immediately north of the area, which is subject of this discussion. It is a neighborhood of single-family homes, owner occupied for the most part, where families with children live. There are a few retired families, but most of our residents are still employed in raising families. There are 20 -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Can I interrupt? Chahram, could you tell us what she is referring to? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I think she's talking about this area. That's not even part of the Willoughby Acres subdivision. But it is zoned RFS-3. And I'm sorry -- MS. DYKES: There are several errors in the letter that I received that I would like to point out. That's one of them. COMMISSIONER BRUET: We just need to know where Gates Mills is, ma'am. MS. DYKES: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER BRUET: It's not shown on our sheet. MS. DYKES: Yes, right there. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Okay. Thank you. MS. DYKES: Wickliffe Drive. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MS. DYKES: Not the entire length of Wickliffe Drive. Right there. And there are five families that are immediate abutters. There are 26 developable lots in Gates Mills, 25 of which have houses already built on them. There are two lots dedicated to the Collier County required preserve. And that's that blank area at the end of the cul-de-sac that shows those two lots. And it's immediately adjacent to the proposed site. The only exits from Gates Mills are to the east. You can only get out -- you can only get out of Gates Mills if you proceed east to Euclid Avenue. And then you have several options. You can go south on Euclid Avenue to Immokalee Road and make a right turn to go west. There is no traffic signal there. Or you can turn west onto Piper Boulevard and proceed down to the new bridge over the Airport Road extension. And -- or you can Page 75 March 16,2000 proceed further and take the Cypress Way East road. Or you can go all the way down to Palm River Boulevard. Palm River Boulevard is traffic controlled. Airport Road is traffic controlled. The rest of them, you're on your own. I'm sure that everyone at this hearing is aware of the severe lack of proper facilities for the Immokalee Road area. It just goes to say, it's in the news almost daily about the accident that occurred on -- at Livingston and Immokalee, what, two weeks ago? We had a fatal accident, someone exiting Willoughby Acres back in 1992. We have been repeatedly denied any kind of traffic control facility there, because it's too close to Airport Road. Until the new bridge at the end of Airport Road was built, it was very difficult to exit our subdivision. You just would wait forever to get out. Because it's a two-lane bridge. Euclid Avenue is a two-lane bridge, one lane in, one lane out. If the person ahead of you wanted to go east on Immokalee Road, you sat there 10, 15, 20 minutes. And the county refused to close that exit until the Airport Road was built. It's not part of your responsibility, but I have the solution to the problem on Immokalee Road. Don't let anybody make turns across all that traffic. Make them go right and do a U-ie (sic). That's legal in Florida. You would solve the problems. The county has refused requests for traffic control lights. When the bridge at the end of Airport Road was under development, I was president of the Willoughby Acres Property Owners Association at that time. And it was stated at the County Commission here, at which I testified, that the -- that the commission could not say what was going to happen to future commissions that might be elected, but it was the intent of that commissioner not to permit an extension of Airport Road. Period, end of statement. I just heard this gentleman saying it hadn't been decided. But it was decided then. And I'm sure it's in the record that it was the intention of that commission not to extend Airport Road. Where are they going to extend it to? Look up there. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ma'am, with all respect, that's not before us today. And if it comes before us -- I'm right in front Page 76 March 16,2000 of you in the center. MS. DYKES: Why does it look like you're talking behind me? CHAIRMAN BUDD: The speakers are behind you. My point is that that's a very valid concern, but not one that is relevant to our discussion today. Mr. Kant just discussed that that might come forward sometime in the future. We'll have -- if that does, then that's the day to argue about. And your point is well taken. If you could present any testimony relevant to this rezone on this property, we'd be most anxious to hear it. MS. DYKES: Our entire opposition is based on the traffic. Piper Boulevard is a very narrow road. At the intersection with Euclid, I doubt that the lanes are seven feet wide. I haven't been up and measured them, but they certainly don't look wide enough to support the traffic there. There has been a substantial increase in traffic since the Airport bridge has been -- what's that, less than six months old. It's inadequate. Northbound on the Airport Road bridge, there are two lanes, one that you can turn right and go east, one that you can turn left and go west. How are they going to have any kind of access across Piper Road into this development? There's no -- there's no lane. This bridge is less than six months old, and it's already inadequate. They're -- headed south, there are three lanes. There's a left turn lane that would go east, which is used by both Palm River and the various subdivisions that use Euclid as an exit point, there is a straight ahead to go down Airport Road, and there's another lane that used to be a right lane only. And just last week they changed it to straight ahead outright, so you can no longer use it to go right, because straight ahead blocks it. And the traffic backs up tremendously on that bridge in the morning. It's a small bridge. It will hold three cars. After there are three cars waiting at the light -- no, it's wide enough for five, but it will only hold three before it blocks people that are coming onto the bridge and want to cross over. If you're coming from Palm River, chance are you're not Page 77 March 16,2000 wanting to turn right. You want to go left. And to do that, you have to cross the people going -- that want to turn west, and you have to cross the people waiting to go straight ahead. And the traffic backs up so they can't. I know, I use that bridge several times a day. There are many other subdivisions besides Willoughby Acres and Gates Mills that use this exit. There's Willoughby Acres, there's Cape Cod Estates, there's Mentor Pines, there's Willough West, there's Kirkland Pines, there's Palmetto Ridge, there's Heritage Pines, there's Madison Meadows, there's Mirage, there's Johnnycake Cove, Anderson Place and Madison Estates, all of which use Euclid Avenue to get out. And there is another major error in the letter that I received from the county; the letter that was sent to people with -- owning property within 300 feet. The letter states, and I quote, "Requesting a rezone from RSF-3 to C-2 for property located on the northeast corner of Immokalee Road and Piper Boulevard at the terminus of the Airport-Pulling Road north." The property in question is not located on Immokalee Road. It doesn't abut Immokalee Road. It's located on Piper Boulevard, which is a residential frontage road already carrying more traffic than it was designed for. This property does not abut the new bridge over the canal. It's across Piper Boulevard from the end of Airport Road. CHAIRMAN BUDD-' Ma'am, if you could just conclude your remarks. I'm here in front of you again. If you could just conclude your remarks. I understand you're not happy with the transportation. Are there any other issues relevant to this petition? MS. DYKES: Yes. I have -- it's mostly the traffic. We've had two -- our property owners have had two meetings on this issue, and it's primarily the traffic. Some of our people were upset that they weren't notified about the meaning. There was no effort made to notify us, even through the property owners association. And our officers all lived at the other end. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am. Page 78 March 16,2000 MS. STUDENT: I need to note for the record at this juncture that if Piper were notified within 300 feet, that's what the ordinance and the law requires. The legal requirements were met. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question on that. Are we saying that -- I think the lady said that Willoughby Acres was not notified. Does Willoughby Acres touch the 300-foot area here? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Willoughby Acres -- basically the entire area is called Willoughby Acres. Within the Willoughby Acres, there are smaller subdivisions with different names. But the whole thing if referred as Willoughby Acres. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm very aware of that. In fact, I'm the person that put the water and sewer in there that then everybody extended and put all these little tiny little subdivisions, so there's lots of names. But my question is, does the platted Willoughby Acres touch this section of property? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe it doesn't, no. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think at the end of Willough -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe this Wickliffe Drive, it's -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Wickliffe. MR. NINO: Excuse me. The bottom line is that any platted lot or lot of record within 300 feet, irrespective of the name that is associated with the plat, would have been notified. So it's really irrelevant whether it's Willoughby or Gates Mills. It's really irrelevant. It's the lot owner that would have been notified and the lot, any lot within 300 feet or unplatted property within 300 feet received notice. MS. STUDENT: I'd also like to state that for purposes of the Planning Commission, the property is posted and it's advertised in the newspaper. So from the county's perspective, this is more than adequate legal notice. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. That's what I was trying to clarify. Because if nobody in Willoughby Acres Homeowners' Association responded to this lady, they may have not been living close enough. But somebody there in Willoughby Acres that are those lots on Wickliffe would have gotten a Page 79 March 16,2000 notice. MS. DYKES: No~ they -- nobody from Willoughby Acres lives close enough to have been received -- receive notification. I'm sure that even the people on Piper Boulevard, which is not part of Willoughby Acres, probably did not receive notices either. There's a large number -- well, large number -- 15, 20 houses on Piper Boulevard between Euclid and the church. And there is -- the county -- I understand the county owns inadequate right-of-way to widen that road. And it is extremely narrow. I invite you to go and look. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ma'am, are there any other issues other than -- MS. DYKES: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- notification and transportation? MS. DYKES: No. And I might point out that Mr. Fernandez doesn't have any plans. He doesn't -- he can't show you anything. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Okay. Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate your testimony. Is there anyone else from the public to make a presentation on this issue? If not, we will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend this board send its approval of Petition R-99-13 to the Board of Collier County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll second that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Mr. Bruet, there was some discussion and an agreement by the petitioner to exclude gas stations and convenient stores. Is that stipulation part of your motion? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Saadeh, you agree with -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll second that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Okay. So we have a motion by Commissioner Bruet, second by Commissioner Saadeh. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. I just wondered, are there a use that we hadn't thought of that is of a similar sort to convenience stores and gas stations? Page 80 March 16,2000 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Hardware store is another one. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, that doesn't -- maybe we ought to just stop at those two. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we stop right here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion on the floor. Any further discussion on the motion at hand? There being none, all those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. That concludes our regular agenda items. Is there any old business? Any new business? Public comment? Adjournment. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:25 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 81 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples. Florida 34104 March 20, 2000 Turrell and Associates, Inc. 3584-B Exchange Ave., Naples, Florida 34104 REFERENCE: BD-99-30, Aqua Circle, Inc. Dear Sir or Madam: On Thursday, March 16, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-99-30. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-04 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. v.ffo Ross Gochenaur Planner II g/admin/B D-99-30/RG/im Enclosure Sandy Fiske Aqua Circle, Inc. 985 Aqua Circle Naples, FL 34102 Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File Phone ( 941) 403-2400 Fax ( 941 ) 643-6968 www. co.col lier. fi.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 0t~ _ RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-99-30 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public heating after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of extensions of two communal boat docking facilities of 55 feet and 2 feet, respectively, beyond the permitted 20 feet to allow for docking facilities of 75 and 22 feet respectively in a VR 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 o: Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Turrell and Associates, Inc., representing Sandy Fiske, with respect to th, property hereinafter described as: Goodland Isles, Lot 19, Block 1, as described in Plat Book 6, Page 7, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for two communal boat docking facilities of 55 feet and 2 fe respectively beyond the permitted 20 feet to allow for docking facilities of 75 and 22 feet, respectivel in the VR 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, regardk of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size install at the outermost end on both sides. 2. In order to address the protection of manatees, one (1) "Manatee Alert" sign shall 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. This facility shall be constructed only in conjunction with an approved Site Development Plan and approved building permits for the subject property, and no Certificate of Completion for this facility shall be approved until a Certificate of Occupancy has been approved for at least one (1) principal residential structure on the subject property. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-99-30 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 fg/~ Y~... day of.. ,~~ ,2000. ATTESt: V15qCEI~ A. CAUT]~R~CP Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marni S. Scudeft Assistant County Attorney g :/admin/B D-99- 30/RG/im -2-